i

PC Codes: 038901, 038903, 038904, 038905

DP Barcode: 315240

MEMORANDUM

DATE: April 22, 2005

SUBJECT: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment of Endothall - Revised

FROM: Michelle Rau Embry, Ph.D., Ecotoxicologist

Michael Davy, Agronomist

James Breithaupt, Agronomist

Environmental Risk Branch II

Environmental Fate and Effect Division (7507C)

THROUGH: Dana Spatz, RAPL

Tom Bailey, Ph.D., Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch II

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

TO: Mika Hunter, Chemical Review Manager

Robert McNally, Chief of Reregistration Branch II

Reregistration Division (7505C)

Endothall is used for direct application to water to control aquatic plants and as a desiccant on

cotton, hops, potatoes, and seed production alfalfa and clover. Endothall is applied as either a

dipotassium salt or an N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. 

These salts have dissimilar toxicity properties, with the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt being far more (2-3 orders of magnitude) toxic (acute and chronic) to aquatic animals

than the dipotassium salt, and subsequently the environmental risk described herein is

mainly driven by the highly-toxic endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. 

The properties and mechanism(s) responsible for these toxicity differences are unknown. 

However, the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt contains an alkyl group consisting of a

coconut-derived fatty acid (termed, coco-alkylamine cation). The exact structure is not

specified. Toxicity differences could be due to a) increased uptake of the N,N-
ii

dimethylalkylamine salt, b) direct toxicity of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, c)

direct toxicity of the coco-alkylamine cation, or d) a combination of a, b, and c. More

information is needed to address this uncertainty.

The N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is the only form used on terrestrial crops, while both the

dipotassium and amine salts are used for aquatic weed control. This report focused on assessing

and characterizing potential risks resulting from the application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt and endothall dipotassium salt directly to the aquatic environment,

as well as the terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalklamine salt to cotton, hops,

potatoes, and seed production alfalfa and clover fields. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

Aquatic use

• Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt use poses potential risks on an acute basis to

endangered and non-endangered fish (freshwater and estuarine/marine), invertebrates

(freshwater and estuarine/marine), and all aquatic plants (vascular and non-vascular). 

• Potential chronic risks may occur to freshwater fish and invertebrates. The Agency

was unable to assess the potential chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish or invertebrates

due to lack of data. 

Terrestrial use

• Terrestrial endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt use may pose risks on an acute basis

(from runoff) to endangered fish and invertebrates and algae. 

• Chronic risks may occur to freshwater invertebrates. The Agency was unable to assess

the potential chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish or invertebrates due to lack of data. 

• Chronic risks are possible for birds that feed on grasses, broadleaf plants, and small

insects in potato, hops, and seed alfalfa/clover fields where endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is applied. There is a lack of avian chronic N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt toxicity data, and chronic RQs were calculated based only on

endothall acid values. 

• Acute mammalian risk is possible based on labeled application rates of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt to potatoes, hops, and alfalfa/clover for seed production. The

endangered species LOC is also exceeded for use on cotton. 

• Chronic risk to mammals is expected from labeled use on alfalfa and clover seed

production. Only small herbivorous mammals (including endangered) may be at chronic

risk from use on potatoes and hops. 

• Non-endangered non-target vascular plants are potentially at risk from both adjacent area

runoff and wetland area runoff following application of endothall N,N-
iii

dimethylalkylamine salt to potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover seed fields. 

• Endangered non-target vascular plants are potentially at risk from adjacent area runoff,

wetland area runoff, and spray drift following application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt to potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover seed fields. 

Dipotassium salt

• Endothall dipotassium salt aquatic use poses potential risks on an acute basis to

endangered fish and invertebrates, as well as endangered and non-endangered aquatic

vascular plants. 

• Chronic risks may occur to freshwater invertebrates based on endothall acid toxicity

data. 

Data Gaps

The following ecological toxicity studies are data gaps because there were no studies

submitted to fulfill these guidelines:

• Avian Chronic Reproduction (850.2300, 71-4 ( a and b)): The avian chronic

reproduction tests (guideline 72-4) with Northern bobwhite and mallard duck using the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt are data gaps. The study is requested for the

following reasons:

a. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is 2-3 orders of magnitude more toxic to

aquatic organisms than endothall dipotassium salt. Although acute toxicity

studies deemed the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt practically non-toxic

to birds, the lack of any mammalian endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt data

(see below) in combination with the known toxicity differences between endothall

formulations warrant the need for this study.

b. Birds may be subjected to repeated or continued exposure to the pesticide or any

of its metabolites, especially preceding or during breeding season..

c. is expected to be stable in the environment to the extent that potentially toxic

amounts may persist in avian feed.

• Estuarine/Marine Fish Early Life-Stage (850.1400, 72-4 (a)): The estuarine/marine fish

early life-stage test (guideline 72-4) using endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is a

data gap. The study is requested for the following reasons:

a. The pesticide is directly applied to the aquatic environment

b. The pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be 

continuous or recurrent. 

c. FIFRA guidelines require the marine/estuarine fish life-cycle test for any

pesticide if the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 ppm. The endothall N,N-
1

dimethylalkylamine salt marine/estuarine fish LC50 for the sheepshead minnow is

0.819 ppm.

• Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Early Life-Stage (850.1350, 72-4 (b)): The

estuarine/marine invertebrate early life-stage test (guideline 72-4) using endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is a data gap. The study is requested for the following reasons:

a. The pesticide is directly applied to the aquatic environment

b. The pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be 

continuous or recurrent. 

c. FIFRA guidelines require the marine/estuarine invertebrate life-cycle test for any

pesticide if the aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 ppm. The endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt marine/estuarine invertebrate LC50 is 0.161 ppm for the

eastern oyster and 0.515 for the mysid shrimp.

• Fish Life-Cycle (850.1500, 72-5): The fish life-cycle test using the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine is a data gap. The study is requested for the following reasons:

a. The pesticide is directly applied to the aquatic environment 

b. The NOAEC for fathead minnow is 0.056 ppm. The aquatic application EECs

for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt range from 0.5 to 5 ppm, which are

greater than ten times the NOAEC (with the exception of the lowest application

rate).

Sediment Toxicity Studies

Sediment toxicity studies using the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt are necessary because

the coco-alkylamine cation has the potential to partition into the sediment, thereby exposing

sediment-dwelling organisms. The following tests are requested:

• Acute Sediment (freshwater) (850.1735)

• Acute Sediment (estuarine/marine) (850.1740)

• Chronic estuarine/marine sediment testing (EPA/600/R01/020)

• 65-day test in Chrionomus tentans (EPA/600/R-99/064)

Fate Studies

As stated above, the high toxicity of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt compared to the

endothall dipotassium salt make this particular endothall form the major component of

environmental risk associated with endothall use. The mechanism(s) and chemical properties

underlying this differential toxicity are unknown. Further studies may be neccessary to evaluate

the fate of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt and coco-alkylamine cation. These studies

may be requested dependent on the findings of the toxicity studies. 

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS SCIENCE CHAPTER
ii

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment

For

ENDOTHALL (CAS#: 145-73-3)

7-oxabicyclo[2.2.1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxlic acid

USEPA PC Code No(s).: 038901, 038903, 038904, 038905

Re-registration

Existing Uses: Direct application to water, terrestrial uses on potato, alfalfa, clover, hops, and

cotton

End Use Product(s): Aquathol K® Aquatic Herbicide, Aquathol Super K® Aquatic Herbicide,

Aquathol® Granular Aquatic Herbicide, Des-i-cate®, Desicate II®, Hydrothol 191® Aquatic

Algicide and Herbicide, Hydrothol 191® Granular Algicide and Herbicide

ERB II Team:

Michelle Embry, Ph.D., Ecotoxicologist 

James Breithaupt, Agronomist, Environmental Fate Reviewer

Michael Davy, Agronomist, Environmental Effects Reviewer

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

Secondary Review:

Dana Spatz, Risk Assessment Process Leader

Environmental Risk Branch II

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

Branch Chief:

Tom Bailey, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch II

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)
iii

Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 5

A. Predicted Environmental Exposure .................................... 5

1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Environmental Fate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

a. Aquatic Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

b. Terrestrial Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

B. Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1. Dipotassium salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

C. Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION ............................................... 9

A. Introduction ......................................................... 9

B. Stressor Source and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1. Chemical and Physical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Mode of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3. Use Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

a. Aquatic Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

b. Terrestrial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. Summary of Key Environmental Fate and Transport Properties . . . . . . 19

a. Aquatic Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

b. Terrestrial Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

C. Exposure Assessment ............................................. 19

1. Initial Considerations ........................................ 19

2. Exposure in Aquatic Systems .................................. 20

a. Aquatic Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

b. Terrestrial application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3. Exposure in Terrestrial Systems ............................... 21

D. Effects Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1. Assessment Endpoints ...................................... 22

2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3. Ecological Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4. Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

E. Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. Aquatic Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2. Terrestrial Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3. Conceptual Model Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

F. Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

G. Analysis Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

1. Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2. Planned Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
iv

a. Fate and Exposure ..................................... 37

b. Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

c. Risk Quotient and Levels of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

III. ANALYSIS .............................................................. 41

A. Exposure Characterization ............................................ 41

1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

2. Aquatic Resource Exposure Assessment ......................... 42

a. General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

b. Terrestrial Application of Endothall ....................... 42

c. Aquatic Application of Endothall ......................... 46

3. Terrestrial Organism Exposure Modeling ........................ 47

a. Spray Applications and Residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4. Non-Target Plant Exposure Modeling ........................... 49

B. Ecological Effects Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

1. Evaluation of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Studies . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2. Behavioral Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

3. Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship ....................... 53

4. Incident Data Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

IV. RISK CHARACTERIZATION ............................................ 55

A. Risk Estimation - Integration of Exposure and Effects Data ................... 55

1. Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

a. Direct Aquatic Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

b. Terrestrial Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

2. Non-target Terrestrial Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3. Non-target Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B. Risk Description - Interpretation of Direct Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

1. Risks to Aquatic Animals and Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

a. Direct Aquatic Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

b. Terrestrial Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

C. Threatened and Endangered Species Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

1. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk ........................... 85

2. Probit Slope Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

3. Critical Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4. Indirect Effect Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

D. Description of Assumptions, Uncertainties, Strengths, and Limitations . . . . . . . 93

1. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for all Taxa ....... 93

a. Aquatic Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

b. Terrestrial Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

2. Assumptions and Limitations - Terrestrial Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

a. Location of Wildlife Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

b. Routes of Exposure .................................... 95
v

c. Residue Levels Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

d. Dietary Intake - Differences Between Laboratory and Field

Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

e. Estimated Environmental Concentrations to Non-Target Plants . 97

f. Data gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

3. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Effects Assessment . . . . . . . . . 97

a. Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds ............. 97

b. Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested .................. 98

c. Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

d. Aquatic Environment Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

e. Terrestrial Toxicity Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4. Limitations of the Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

V. LITERATURE CITED ................................................ 101

VI. APPENDICES

A. Endothall Environmental Fate Assessment

B. Endothall Terrestrial Use Aquatic Exposure Assessment

C. Ecological Exposure from Direct Application to Water

D. ELLfate Models

E. TerrPlant Models

F. Ecological Toxicity Studies

G. Explanation of Probit Slope Analysis and LOC

H. Supplementary RQ Tables

I. List of Endangered and Threatened Species Where Endothall is Applied

Terrestrially

J. Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Associated with Aquatic Endothall

Use
vi

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A. Predicted Environmental Exposure

1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

Endothall is a currently-registered herbicide that is used for direct application to water (primary

use) to control exotic and invasive plants and as a desiccant on cotton, hops, potatoes, and seed

production alfalfa and clover. Endothall is applied as either a dipotassium salt or an N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt. These salts have dissimilar toxicity properties, with the amine salts

being far more toxic to aquatic animals than the dipotassium salt. The amine salt is the only

form used on terrestrial crops, while both the dipotassium and N,N-dimethylalkylamine salts are

used for aquatic weed control. This report focused on assessing and characterizing potential risks

resulting from the application of endothall dipotassium salt and endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt directly to the aquatic environment, as well as the terrestrial

application of endothall N,N-dimethylalklamine salt to cotton, hops, potatoes, and seed

production alfalfa and clover fields. Due to the extreme differences in toxicity, the endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine poses the greatest risk. This endothall form contains an alkyl group

that is derived from coconut fatty acids, termed the coco-alkylamine cation in this assessment. 

No further information on the structure or chemical properties of this constituent were provided.

2. Environmental Fate

a. Aquatic Environments

Dipotassium salt: Endothall dipotassium salt has two ionizable carboxylic acid groups which

have two separate dissociation constants (pKa’s). At most water body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three

chemical forms will be present: endothall dipotassium salt, potassium cation, and endothall acid.

Endothall acid, endothall dipotassium salt, and potassium cations will be found mainly in the

water column. Persistence of the endothall acid (active ingredient) is expected to be <10 days in

treated areas. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt has two ionizable

carboxylic acid groups which have two separate dissociation constants (pKa’s). At most water

body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three chemical forms will be present: endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt, coco-alkylamine cation, and endothall acid. The positively-charged and hydrophobic cocoalkylamine cation will sorb to the negatively-charged sediment, whereas the endothall acid will

be found mainly in the water column. Based on limited knowledge of chemical structure and

properties, it is expected that endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt will be distributed in both

the aqueous phase and sediment. Persistence of the endothall acid (active ingredient) is expected

to be <10 days in treated areas. No studies have been performed to evaluate the fate of the

coco-alkylamine cation.

b. Terrestrial Environments

Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt has two ionizable carboxylic acid groups which have

two separate dissociation constants (pKa’s). Agricultural soil pH will range from approximately
vii

6 to 7.5, with more acidic soils occurring in the East/Southeast and more alkaline soils occurring

in the West/Southwest. All endothall types (N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and

coco-amine cation) will be present in different amounts depending on pH. Based only on the

proposed chemical structure, it is expected that the positively-charged and lipophilic coco-amine

will sorb to the soil, and that the endothall acid will be highly mobile. It is likely that the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt will be distributed in both the aqueous phase and the soil,

based on limited structural knowledge. Endothall acid degrades via metabolism with half-lives of

approximately 10 days in terrestrial environments to form unextractable residues and CO2.

3. Effects 

Dipotassium salt: Endothall dipotassium salt is only applied directly to the aquatic environment. 

Due to dissociation, exposure to endothall acid and endothall dipotassium salt were considered in

this risk assessment. Toxicity data from both endothall dipotassium salt and endothall acid

(where available) were used to calculate risk quotients (RQs). 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Based on toxicity data, it is apparent that the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt poses a greater toxicological risk (both acute and chronic) than the

endothall dipotassium salt, and therefore exposure to endothall acid, endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, and the coco-alkylamine cation were considered as a result of both

direct aquatic and terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt due to the fact

that the mechanism(s) chemical constituent(s) responsible for this increased toxicity are not

known. However, RQs were only calculated for endothall acid and endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt (where data were available) because there were no data on the cocoalkylamine cation toxicity. 

B. Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms

The results of the risk assessment suggest the potential for direct effects to both endangered and

non-endangered freshwater fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants from direct application of

endothall dipotassium salt and endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to the aquatic

environment. Additionally, bird, mammal, and non-target terrestrial plant risk quotients exceed

the LOC for endangered species from terrestrial application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt. Specifically, RQ values for the following taxonomic groups exceed

levels of concern established by the Agency for the screening-level risk assessment:

1. Dipotassium salt

• Freshwater fish (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater invertebrates (acute): aquatic application at the two highest

doses (4-5 ppm)

• Estuarine/Marine fish (acute): aquatic application at the two highest doses

(4-5 ppm)

• Estuarine/Marine invertebrates (acute): aquatic application at the two
viii

highest doses (4-5 ppm)

• Aquatic vascular plants (acute): all direct aquatic applications

2. N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

• Freshwater fish (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater invertebrates (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Estuarine/Marine fish (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Estuarine/Marine invertebrates (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Aquatic vascular plants (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater fish (chronic): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater invertebrates (chronic): all direct aquatic applications

• Birds (acute): 

– alfalfa/clover seed application (grass, broadleaf plants, small

insects)

– potato and hops application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects)

• Mammals (acute): 

– potato and hops application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects)

all sizes

– cotton application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects) - all sizes

– alfalfa/clover seed application (grass, broadleaf plants, insects,

fruits, and pods) - all sizes

• Mammals (chronic): 

– potato and hops application (short grass) - all sizes

– alfalfa/clover seed application (grass, broadleaf plants, small

insects) - all sizes

• Non-target terrestrial plants (acute):

– potatoes and hops application (adjacent runoff, wetland runoff, spray drift)

– cotton application (adjacent and wetland runoff)

– alfalfa/clover seed application (adjacent wetland runoff, wetland runoff,

spray drift)

C. Uncertainties

• The extent of disassociation of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt into the

coco-alkylamine cation and endothall acid is unknown. This creates uncertainty

as to exposure of aquatic organisms to the three chemical forms (endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and coco-alkylamine cation).

• Because of a lack of fate data, fate and mobility of the coco-alkylamine cation

cannot be quantified. This represents a major source of uncertainty in the

exposure assessment. 
ix

• Aquatic modeling overestimates the EEC in the aquatic environment from labeled

aquatic weed use because the model assumes 100% of the pond being treated. 

The label warns against treating all of the pond /lake/resevoir. 

• Risk to non-target aquatic organisms from the pellet formulations may be

overestimated by the modeling. The ecotoxicity data used in this risk assessment

was derived from studies with the liquid form. However, exposure to endothall is

lower when the pelleted form is used versus the liquid form.

• Chronic risk to birds and estuarine animals, and acute and chronic risk to

mammals is uncertain due to lack of data.
x

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION

A. Introduction

Endothall, also known by the trade names Aquathol®, Aquathol K®, Aquathol Super K®,

Hydrothol 191®, Des-i-cate®, Desicate II®, and Accelerate®, is a liquid or granular herbicide that

has three salt forms, a dipotassium salt, a mono-(N,N-dimethylalkylamine) salt, and a di-(N, Ndimethylalkylamine) salt. The dipotassium formulations (Aquathol® product line) are used to

control submerged aquatic weeds, such as hydrilla and curlyleaf pondweed, in ponds and lakes in

the Southern latitudes, primarily in Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, the Great Lakes States

(Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota), and to a lesser extent in other states. The endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt formulations are used in both aquatic (Hydrothol 191®) and terrestrial

(Accelerate® and Desicate® product line) applications. Hydrothol 191® is used to control algae

and submerged aquatic vegetation in small areas, such as drainage and irrigation canals and

small pond or lake areas. Accelerate®, Des-i-cate®, and Desicate II® are used terrestrially as

defoliants on cotton (mainly in Arizona and California), potatoes, and seed-use clover and

alfalfa. Additionally, they are used to control hops sucker growth in the Pacific Northwest. 

This document includes an assessment of risks to aquatic organisms from both the aquatic and

terrestrial uses of endothall products on aquatic weeds, algae, cotton, potatoes, alfalfa, clover,

and hops. Risks to terrestrial organisms from the terrestrial use of endothall on cotton, potatoes,

alfalfa, clover, and hops are also assessed. 

Endothall acid is the active ingredient in all of the endothall-containing herbicide formulations

but is only formed as a degradation product The endothall formulations consist of one of two

endothall acid salts, either a dipotassium salt or an N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. The alkyl

substituent of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is actually a coconut alkylamine derived from

coconut oil, hereafter referred to as the coco-alkylamine cation. The dissociation constants of

both of the endothall salts indicate that at most environmental pH levels, the endothall salt,

endothall acid, and the corresponding cation (potassium or coco-alkylamine) will all be present. 

In addition, there are significant differences in toxicity to certain organisms between the

endothall dipotassium salt and the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. Therefore, this risk

assessment examines all of the potential chemical exposures from endothall application

separately. 

The potential risks of endothall dipotassium salt (Aquathol® product line) exposure will be

examined for the endothall dipotassium salt (product formulation), endothall acid, and the

potassium cation. Dipotassium endothall salt is applied only to the aquatic environment;

therefore, only risk to aquatic organisms is applicable for this chemical. 

Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (Hydrothol 191® and Accelerate® /Desicate® product

lines) is used in both aquatic and terrestrial environments, and risk to both terrestrial and aquatic

organisms will be examined in this assessment. Potential endothall exposure will be evaluated

for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (product formulation), endothall acid, and the
xi

O

O

O

O

O CH3

N+

CH3

O alkyl

HO

O

OH

O

K

+

K O +

O

O

O

O

coco-alkylamine cation. For consistency, concentrations are presented in terms of endothall acid

equivalents. 

B. Stressor Source and Distribution

1. Chemical and Physical Properties

Table 1. Endothall Chemical and Physical Properties

Acid Dipotassium N,

Ndimethylalkylamine

CAS Registry Number #145-73-3 #2164-07-0 #66330-88-9

Physical state solid liquid or solid (granular)* liquid or solid (granular)*

Water solubility 

(g/ml @25BC)

>11 >65 >50

Octanol:Water partition

coefficient (Kow@25BC)

<1 <1 <1

Dissociation Constant 

(pKa1, pKa2)

4.32, 6.22 4.16, 6.14 4.24, 6.04

pH 2.7 6.5 - 7.5* 4.4 - 4.6*

Vapor pressure

(mm Hg@24.3BC)

3.92 x 10-5 3.92 x 10-5 2.09 x 10-5

Hydrolysis NO DATA acid stable at pH 5, 7, & 9

(MRID 42289106)

acid stable at pH 5, 7, & 9

(MRID 44578401)

Direct Aqueous

Photolysis

does not absorb light

>290nm

(MRID 42289205)

does not absorb light

>290nm (MRID 42289205)

does not absorb light

>290nm (MRID

42289205)

Soil Photolysis 

(half life, days)

48.7 (irradiated)

100.4 (dark)1

(MRID 42641202)4

NO DATA NO DATA

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

(half-life, days)

NO DATA 14.5 (sandy loam)2

(MRID 44949401)

NO DATA

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism

(half-life, days)

NO DATA 9.0 (silt loam)3

(MRID 42903901)4

NO DATA
Acid Dipotassium N,

Ndimethylalkylamine

xii

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism

(half-life, days)

NO DATA 10.0 (flooded silt loam)2

(MRID 42618901)

NO DATA

Kd-ads / Kd-des (ml/g) 0.15/0.0(loamy sand)

0.80/4.3 (sandy loam)

0.56/2.57 (clay loam)

7.94/37.25 (silt loam)

(MRID 4161604)

NO DATA NO DATA

Soil Dissipation NO DATA CA: <7.0 (loam)

PA: <9.0 (silty clay loam)

(MRID 42670101)

CA: 13 (loam)

PA: 19 (silty clay loam)

(MRID 42670201)

Sediment Dissipation

(half-life, days)

NO DATA 8.9 (MRID 44093403)4

2.5-3.4 (MRID 44093402) 4

NO DATA

Aquatic Dissipation

(half-life, days)

NO DATA 0.8 (lake water)

(MRID 44093403)4

0.4 (uncontained)

5.4-8.5 (contained

(MRID 44093402)4

<24h in sediment5

Max. residues of 7.7, 5.4,

4.6, 4.0, and 3.4 ug/L; 0,

3.6, 10, 13, and 15 miles

from treatment canal in

CO.

(MRID 44820103)

Fish Accumulation (BCF) NO DATA 0.08x (edible)

0.35x (whole)

(MRID 4264001)

NO DATA

*dependent on commercial formulation

1

Non-volatile unidentifiable degradates (18% of applied)

2

Unextractable degradates and CO2 3

mono-and di- methyl ester degradates

 4 Study unacceptable

5

 endothall acid and monohydrate degradates
xiii

Table 2. Properties of Endothall Aquatic Herbicide Formulations1

Aquathol

K® Aquathol® AquatholSuper K® Hydrothol 191® Hydrothol 191®

Formulation Dipotassium

salt

Dipotassium

salt

Dipotassium

salt

Mono(N,Ndimethylalkylamine

) salt

Mono(N,Ndimethylalkylamine

) salt

Concentration of

Acid Equivalent

(ae)

28.6%

360 g ae/L

7.2% 44.7% 23.36%

240 g ae/L

5%

Concentration of

Active Ingredient

(ai)

40.3%

507 g.ai/L

10.1% 63% 53% 11.2%

Physical state Liquid Solid

(granular)

Solid

(granular)

Liquid Solid 

(granular)

Density (g/cc) 1.29 0.73 0.61 1.04 0.74

1 Washington State Department of Ecology. February 2001.

Table 3. Properties of Endothall Terrestrial Herbicide Formulations

Des-i-cate® Desicate II® Accelerate®

Active ingredient Mixed Mono- and Di-(N,Ndimethylalkylamine) salt

Mono(N,Ndimethylalkylamine) saltMixed Mono- and Di-(N,Ndimethylalkylamine) salt

Concentration of

Acid Equivalent

(ae)

5.5% 23.36% 5.5%

Concentration of

Active Ingredient

(ai)

15.9% 53% 15.9%

Physical state Liquid Liquid Liquid

Density (g/cc) 1.15 1.04 1.15

2. Mode of Action

Endothall acts mainly as a contact herbicide, although it is somewhat mobile in plant tissues

when applied at rates lower than those used for contact kill and can cause plant death through

foliage absorption. Endothall interferes with plant respiration by affecting protein and lipid

biosynthesis and disrupting plant cell membranes.
xiv

3. Use Characterization

Endothall consists of di- and mono-N,N dimethylalkylamine salts or dipotassium salt that is

formulated into several liquid and granular herbicide products. Hydrothol 191® (liquid or

granular, mono-N,N dimethylalkylamine salt) is used to control algal growth (planktonic,

filamentous, and branched) and aquatic weeds (hydrilla) in irrigation and drainage canals, lakes,

ponds, and reservoirs. Aquathol® (granular), Aquathol K® (liquid), and Aquathol Super K®

(liquid) are formulations of the endothall dipotassium salt and are all used for the control of

aquatic weeds (hydrilla, pondweed) in lakes and ponds. Both Hydrothol® and Aquathol®

formulations are contact herbicides and are used only after weeds are in active growth. 

Although the majority of endothall use is for aquatic weed control, specific formulations of this

chemical are used as desiccants on cotton, clover, alfalfa, hops, and potatoes, although this use is

minimal (40,000 lbs/year) compared to the aquatic use (500,000 lbs/year). Accelerate® (mixed

mono- and di-N,N-dimethylalkylamine salts) is used as a cotton defoliant and is often mixed

with other cotton harvest aids. Des-i-cate® and Desicate II® (mixed mono- and di-N,Ndimethylalkylamine salts) are both used as potato vine desiccants and defoliants for seed crop

clover and alfalfa. Des-i-cate® is also used to suppress hops sucker growth. Table 4 summarizes

the label use information for endothall herbicides. The N,N-dimethylalkylamine salts are used in

both aquatic and terrestrial environments, whereas the dipotassium salt is only used in aquatic

applications.

Table 4. Use Information for Endothall Herbicides - labeled application rates

Chemical Application rate No. of

Applications

Min

Intervals

(days)

Max

appl./year

Accelerate®

 cotton 0.033 - 0.0989 ae/A/appl NS NS NS

Aquathol®

 aquatic weeds 0.5 - 5.0 ppm 1-3 5-7 NS

Aquathol K®

 aquatic weeds 0.5 - 5.0 ppm 1-3 5-7 NS

Aquathol Super K®

 aquatic weeds 0.5 - 5.0 ppm 1-3 5-7 NS

Des-i-cate®

 potatoes (aerial & ground)

 alfalfa (aerial & ground)*

 clover (aerial & ground)*

 hops

0.78 - 1.04 lb.ae/A/appl

0.39 - 0.75 lb.ae/A/appl

0.39 - 0.75 lb.ae/A/appl

0.50 - 1.0 lb.ae/A/appl

1

2

2

2

NS

3

3

7-14

NS

NS

NS

2.0 lb/ae/A

Desicate II®

 potatoes (aerial & ground)

 alfalfa (aerial & ground)*

 clover (aerial & ground)*

0.75 - 1.0 lb.ae/A/appl

0.375 - 0.75 lb/ae/A/appl

0.375 - 0.75 lb/ae/A/appl

1-2

1

1-2

NS

NS

NS

2.0 lb/ae/A

1.0 lb/ae/A

2.0 lb/ae/A
Chemical Application rate No. of

Applications

Min

Intervals

(days)

Max

appl./year

xv

Hydrothol 191® (granular)

 algae

 aquatic weeds

0.05 - 1.5 ppm

0.5 - 5.0 ppm

6-8

1-3

NS

NS

NS

NS

Hydrothol 191® (liquid)

 algae

 aquatic weeds

0.05 - 1.5 ppm

0.5 - 5.0 ppm

6-8

1-3

NS

NS

NS

NS

* seed crop use only

NS = not specified

a. Aquatic Uses

Liquid formulations are applied via submersed application techniques (weighted hoses) where

the product is injected below the surface of the water, and in some cases through the use of handheld wands just above the surface of the water. These applications are made via jon-boat or

airboat and provide an even application throughout the treated water column. Granular

formulations are applied with boat-mounted cyclone-type spreaders designed to provide an even

application across the surface of the treatment area, allowing the granules to sink into the stand

of vegetation and distribute the product throughout the water column. Endothall is applied to

submerged and emerged plants, mostly in smaller areas such as boat ramps and docks, around

piers, and in enclosed areas such as bays. Figure 1 shows major endothall aquatic use states.

Aquatic Weed Control in the Northen United States: Michigan and Minnesota represent the

highest use states in terms of acreage treated and poundage applied in the North. Both states

primarily use Aquathol K® (dipotassium salt, liquid) and Hydrothol 191® (mixed mono- and diN,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, granular) formulations for Eurasian water millfoil control. 

Between 2000 and 2002, an average of 14,123 pounds of endothall acid equivalents were

permitted to be applied in Minnesota, consisting primarily of Aquathol K® (50%) and Hydrothol

191® granular (33%). Both of these formulations are also used to control submerged aquatic

vegetation in Michigan’s lakes and ponds. Contact herbicide treatments are generally restricted

to areas along developed shoreline, in water that is less than 5 feet deep, or within 300 feet from

shore. Chemical treatments in these areas target nuisance aquatic plants that interfere with

recreational activities, such as swimming and boating access to open water. 

In addition to Eurasian water millfoil, Aquathol K® and Hydrothol 191® are used to control the

invasive exotic species, such as curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispis) and broadleaf

pondweeds (P. amplifolius and P. richardsonii).

Aquatic Weed Control in the Southern United States: Historically, Aquathol® was used

primarily to control small patches of hydrilla along shorelines, infestations at boat ramps, and in

flowing water where only a few hours of exposure are possible. Typical treatments covered a

few tenths to a few tens of acres in any one treatment.
xvi

The primary target of endothall use in the Southern U.S. is hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata). 

Florida uses the highest amount of endothall in the South, mainly as granular Aquathol K® and

Super K® (60%). Hydrilla is present in 200 of the 460 public lakes and rivers, with an estimated

100,000 acres of infestation. As fluridone becomes less effective, Florida anticipates an increase

in the use of Aquathol®(K and Super K) to keep small hydrilla populations from growing out of

control and to support fluridone use on controlling large hydrilla infestations. Typical yearly use

of Aquathol® comprises application to several thousand acres among these 200 infested waters to

keep hydrilla under control, and although only a small percent of total hydrilla infestation,

Florida cannot afford to treat more than about 10,000 acres per year. This endothall use in

Florida prevents hydrilla from expanding into large populations and preserves attributes such as

flood control, diverse native plant habitat, and recreation in lakes and rivers.

Canal management goals in Florida are to keep at least 50% of the water column free of

obstruction from submersed vegetation. To achieve this goal, endothall in the form of Aquathol

K® liquid is typically applied at 3 ppm 2 or 3 times in canals using underwater pipes. Aquathol

K® accounts for 95% of canal endothall use. The first applications start in March (dry season) in

order to knock down the weeds that survived the winter, and the most successful applications are

made in quiescent waters which are present only in the dry season. The goal is to treat canal

weeds before the first of June. If quiescent applications are effective, only one wet season

application is needed to keep weeds from affecting flood water abatement. Endothall can also be

applied in July and August (wet season) to control weeds that have grown up to the water

surface. Usually, only one-quarter of a canal is treated once per week using underwater pipes. 

In the late fall, Aquathol K® is typically used to control hydrilla in quiescent water once the

water levels are stabilized.

Aquatic Weed Control in the West: In general, endothall products are used to control nuisance

levels of submersed plants and algae in lakes, reservoirs, and ponds in the western states

(excluding Texas), representing about 5 % of the total overall aquatic use of those products in

the entire US. Of this western use, most of the products are applied in the waters of only two

states, California and Washington. The submersed plants primarily targeted for treatments are

the exotic invasive species such as Eurasian watermilfoil, hydrilla, curlyleaf pondweed, and

some native pondweeds that reach nuisance levels. Endothall is not used for the control of

floating or emergent plants.

The dipotassium salt formulations of endothall are used for submersed vascular plant treatments. 

While the current label allows rates up to 5 ppm, the vast majority of treatment rates range from

0.5 to 3 ppm. Treatments are primarily partial lake (5 – 50 acres) and spot-treatment (<1 – 3

acre) applications. The products are rarely used for whole-lake treatments. The dipotassium salt

formulations are not very effective on algae, and therefore are not used for algae control.

Some of the problematic filamentous algae that occur in small water bodies (mainly ponds) are

treated with the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt formulations of endothall. Application rates range

from 0.05 to 0.3 ppm, but some applications may require the need for rates up to 1.5 ppm. In

addition to filamentous algae, some difficult-to-control vascular submersed plants may also be

treated with Hydrothol 191®, usually at rates between 2 and 3 ppm, and on a very infrequent
xvii

basis The dipotassium salt formulations above are adequate for submersed plant control and have

a higher margin of safety for fish than the N, N-dimethylalkylamine salt.

b. Terrestrial Uses

Although the main use of endothall herbicides is for aquatic weed control, this chemical is also

used in terrestrial systems as a desiccant and harvest aid. All of the terrestrial formulations

consist of the di- or mono-N,N dimethylalkylamine salts (or mixtures) and are used on potatoes,

cotton, hops, clover, and alfalfa crops in numerous states. Although the total use of endothall on

terrestrial systems is small compared to the amount used in aquatic systems, specific applications

of Accelerate®, Des-i-cate®, and Desicate II® warrant particular attention. Terrestrial endothall is

applied with both aerial and ground spray. Figure 2 shows major endothall terrestrial use states.

Most of the terrestrial endothall uses occur in the Western United States (Table 5). All of the

Des-i-cate® use in the United States is limited to hops sucker prevention in the Pacific

Northwest, specifically Washington and Oregon. Accelerate® is used as a cotton harvest aid,

mainly in Arizona and California. Desicate II®, which is used on potatoes, clover, and alfalfa, 

is also used primarily in the Western states, although some use does occur in the Midwestern

States. 

Table 5. Typical Terrestrial Endothall Use Information (USDA NASS)

State1

 crop

Year acreage treated typical # of

applications/yr

ae/application

(lbs/acre)

Typical yearly

use (lbs)

Arizona

 cotton 1999 6% 1.0 0.060 1000

California

 cotton 2000 5% 1.0 0.100 4000

Louisiana2

 cotton 1994 11% 1.2 0.070 8000

Maine

 potatoes 1999 3% 1.0 0.480 1000

Massachusetts

 potatoes 1991 6% 1.3 0.670 4000

Texas

 cotton 1997 2% 1.0 0.030 4000

Wisconsin

 potatoes 1999 9% 1.0 0.610 5000

All Program States

 cotton

 potatoes

2000

2001

NS

1%

1.0

1.1

0.060

0.410

7000

4000
State1

 crop

Year acreage treated typical # of

applications/yr

ae/application

(lbs/acre)

Typical yearly

use (lbs)

xviii

Idaho3

 hops 1997 20 NS 1.0 756

Oregon3

 hops 1997 75 NS 0.5 3133

Washington3

 hops 1997 100 NS 0.5 15930

1

States where USDA data is available

2

 Likely a tank mixture with other chemicals

3

Information from National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
xix

Figur e 1. 

Endothall: Major Aquatic Use States*

*

Potentially used nationwide

Figure 2. Endothall: Major Terrestrial Use States
xx

4. Summary of Key Environmental Fate and Transport Properties

a. Aquatic Environments

Dipotassium salt: Endothall dipotassium salt has two ionizable carboxylic acid groups which

have two separate dissociation constants (pKa’s). These pKa’s are 4.16 and 6.14, respectively.

Therefore, at most water body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three chemical forms will be present: endothall

dipotassium salt, potassium cation, and endothall acid. Endothall acid and endothall dipotassium

salt will be found mainly in the water column. Persistence of the endothall acid is expected to be

<10 days in treated areas. (Table 1)

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt has two ionizable

carboxylic acid groups which have two separate dissociation constants (pKa’s). These pKa’s are

4.24 and 6.04, respectively. Therefore, at most water body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three chemical

forms will be present: endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, coco-alkylamine cation, and

endothall acid. The positively-charged and hydrophobic coco-alkylamine cation will sorb to the

negatively-charged sediment, whereas the endothall acid will be found mainly in the water

column. Based on limited knowledge of chemical structure and properties, it is expected that

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt will be distributed in both the aqueous phase and

sediment. Persistence of the endothall acid is expected to be <10 days in treated areas. Because

of a lack of fate data, fate and mobility of the coco-alkylamine cation cannot be quantified. This

represents a major source of uncertainty in the exposure assessment. (Table 1)

b. Terrestrial Environments

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt has two ionizable

carboxylic acid groups which have two separate dissociation constants (pKa’s). These pKa’s are

4.24 and 6.04, respectively. Agricultural soil pH will range from approximately 6 to 7.5, with

more acidic soils occurring in the East/Southeast and more alkaline soils occurring in the

Southwest. All endothall types (N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and coco-amine

cation) will be present in different amounts depending on pH. Based only on the proposed

chemical structure, it is expected that the positively-charged and lipophilic coco-amine will sorb

to the soil, and that the endothall acid will be highly mobile. It is likely that the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt will be distributed in both the aqueous phase and the soil, based on

limited structural knowledge. Endothall acid degrades via metabolism with half-lives of

approximately 10 days in terrestrial environments to form unextractable residues and CO2.

(Table 1), although the half-lives of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt and the cocoamine are not provided (Table 1).

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Initial Considerations

Methods used to determine exposure concentrations of a pesticide are dependent on its

environmental fate and physicochemical properties, the application method, and the presence of

reliable monitoring data that are considered representative of the proposed use sites. Initial

factors considered for the exposure assessment are provided in Table 6 below. 
xxi

Table 6. Factors that may affect the exposure to endothall

Consideration Endothall-specific data Conclusion

Monitoring data No monitoring data are currently

available to EFED

EECs will be determined using

EFED’s exposure models

Degradation dissociation-the salts dissociate at

environmentally relevant pH levels

and all three endothall forms (salt,

acid, and cation) will be found in

the environment.

Being negatively charged, the

endothall salts and acid will repel

from the soil and sediment and be

found primarily in the water

column, whereas the cations will

bind to the sediment and soil.

half-lives - 10 days (endothall acid;

terrestrial & aquatic environments)

no half-life for the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt or the

coco-amine cation

Endothall acid is not expected to be

present for adequate time to result

in long-term exposure.

Further fate studies are needed on

these compounds.

degradates of concern none

Bioconcentration BCF values for endothall are low Bioconcentration will not be

modeled

Application method Ground or air spray; direct

application of liquid or granules to

water

Spray drift and runoff need to be

considered in this assessment;

effects of direct aquatic application

need to be considered 

2. Exposure in Aquatic Systems

a. Aquatic Application

Estimation of aquatic pesticide application EECs was performed using the Interim Rice Model. 

Several scenarios using different application rates of endothall (dipotassium or N,Ndimethylalkylamine salts; 0.5, 1.0, 2.5, 3, 4, and 5 ppm) were investigated, and each of these

scenarios includes the following assumptions:

• Endothall (dipotassium or N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt) is uniformly applied to

the EFED pond

• The pond has a surface area of 1.0 hectare and a volume of 20 million liters

• First order dissipation occurs through aerobic aquatic degradation.

• Instantaneous dilution and sorption to the top 1 cm of the sediment

Dipotassium salt: Toxicity values for endothall dipotassium salt are very similar to the endothall

acid toxicity values. Exposure to endothall dipotassium salt and endothall acid should be

examined in this assessment. The potassium cations do not play a role in the toxicity of this

chemical.

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Both acute and chronic toxicity values demonstrate that the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt poses a much greater risk than the endothall dipotassium
xxii

salt, and exposure to endothall acid, N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt and the coco-alkylamine

cation should be examined due to the fact that the mechanism(s) and chemical constituent(s)

responsible for this increased toxicity are not known.

b. Terrestrial application

OPP generally uses computer simulation models to estimate exposure of aquatic organisms, such

as plants, fish, aquatic-phase amphibians, and invertebrates, to a pesticide active ingredient. 

These models calculate estimated environmental concentrations (EECs)in surface water using

laboratory data that describe the rate at which the pesticide breaks down and how it moves into

the environment. Monitoring data, if available, may also be used to determine EECs or to

support the model’s calculations. The PRZM-EXAMS model is initially used to calculate highend estimates of surface water concentrations of pesticides in a generic pond. The User’s

Manual and PRZM-EXAMS Model Description available at the following url can be consulted

for additional information: www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm

No EECs are generated in instances where no toxicity was observed at concentrations above the

active ingredient’s water solubility or at or above the recommended limit concentration for a

particular type of study. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is the only endothall

herbicide applied to the terrestrial environment. The potential exposure of aquatic organisms to

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt via spray drift from terrestrial application must be

considered. Based on toxicity data, it is apparent that the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

poses a greater toxicological risk (both acute and chronic) than the endothall dipotassium salt,

and therefore exposure to endothall acid, endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, and the cocoalkylamine cation should be studied as a result of spray drift exposure due to the fact that the

mechanism (s) chemical constituent(s) responsible for this increased toxicity are not known.

3. Exposure in Terrestrial Systems

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals,

emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These exposures

are considered surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. For terrestrial organism

exposure, OPP primarily looks at the residues of pesticides on food items and assumes that

organisms are exposed to a single pesticide residue in a given exposure scenario. Estimation of

pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items following spray applications focuses on

quantifying possible dietary ingestion of residues on vegetative matter and insects. The residue

estimates are based on a nomogram that relates food item residues to pesticide application rate

(Fletcher et al., 1994). The first tier of the nomogram uses the maximum predicted residues. 

Subsequent refinements may consider mean residues. However, maximum residue concentration

is converted to daily oral dose based on fractions of body weight consumed daily as estimated

from mammalian allometric relationships in EPA’s Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. In all

screening-level assessments, the organisms are assumed to consume 100% of their diet as one

food type. 
xxiii

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is the only endothall

herbicide applied to the terrestrial environment. Avian acute toxicity values suggest that the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt poses a much greater risk than the endothall acid, and

therefore exposure to endothall acid and the coco-alkylamine should be examined in addition to

the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt because the mechanism (s) and chemical consitituent(s)

responsible for this difference in toxicity are not known. Although endothall acts as a pre-harvest

desiccant, terrestrial organism food items, such as seeds, insects, and other foliage may still be

available.

 

D. Effects Assessment

1. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints are defined as “explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that

is to be protected. ” Two criteria are used to select the appropriate ecological assessment

endpoints: 1) identification of the valued attributes of the environment that are considered to be

at risk, and 2) the operational definition of assessment endpoints in terms of an ecological entity

(i.e., a community of fish and aquatic invertebrates) and its attributes (i.e., survival and

reproduction). Therefore, the selection of assessment endpoints is based on valued entities (i.e.,

ecological receptors), the ecosystems potentially at risk, the migration pathways of pesticides,

and the routes by which ecological receptors are exposed to pesticide-related contamination. 

The selection of clearly defined assessment endpoints is important because they provide

direction and boundaries in the risk assessment for addressing risk management issues of

concern.

2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

Ecosystems potentially at risk are expressed in terms of the selected assessment endpoints. The

typical assessment endpoints for screening-level pesticide ecological risks are reduced survival

and reproductive and growth impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species. A set of

surrogate species is used to provide an estimation of ecological risk. Ecological relevance and

sensitivity are essential for selecting test species and assessment endpoints that are scientifically

defensible. Surrogate species include freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish

and invertebrates, and amphibians. In the absence of toxicity data on amphibians, it is assumed

that aquatic-phase amphibians are approximately as sensitive as fish to the potential effects of a

pesticide. Terrestrial animals used as test species include birds and mammals. The risk

assessment assumes that reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are approximately as sensitive

to pesticide-induced effects as are birds in the absence of toxicity data. Potential effects to

benthic organisms may also be evaluated if environmental fate data indicate that the assessed

chemical may partition to the sediment or if sediment organisms are particularly sensitive

species. Direct acute and direct chronic effects are considered for both aquatic and terrestrial

animals. Although these endpoints are measured at the individual level, they provide insight

about risks at higher levels of biological organization (i.e., populations and communities). For
xxiv

example, pesticide effects on individual survivorship have important implications for both

population-level effects as well as habitat carrying capacity. Indirect effects on critical habitat

are only considered in the risk characterization for the potential effects on endangered species,

provided that the risk quotient demonstrates probable risk.

The screening assessment endpoint for plants in terrestrial and semi-aquatic environments is the

perpetuation of populations of non-target species (both crop and non-crop species). Endpoints

assessed include seedling emergence and vegetative vigor. Although it is recognized that the 

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor endpoints may not address all plant life cycle

components, it is assumed that impacts at emergence and during active growth may impact

individual competitive ability and reproductive success. Data on the formulated product (as

opposed to the active ingredient) are used to characterize plant exposure effects. If the

maximum exposure rate results in an effect level that is less than 25% in a Tier I study, low risk

is presumed and a Tier II study is not required. However, if the effect level is less than 25% but

greater than 5% in a Tier I study, potential risk may still occur to endangered species that cannot

be quantified.

The assessment endpoint for aquatic plants is the maintenance and growth of standing crop or

biomass. Measurement endpoints focus on algal and vascular plant (i.e., hydrilla) growth rates

and biomass measurements. 

The ecological relevance of selecting the above-mentioned assessment endpoints is three-fold: 1) 

complete exposure pathways exist for the receptors; 2) the receptors are potentially sensitive to

pesticides in the affected media and from residues on plants, seeds, insects, and other food

sources; and 3) the receptors could inhabit areas where pesticides are applied or where runoff

and/or spray drift could impact sites containing available suitable habitat.

3. Ecological Effects

Each assessment endpoint requires one or more “measures of ecological effect,” which are

defined as changes in the attributes of an assessment endpoint itself or changes in a surrogate

entity or attribute in response to pesticide exposure. Ecological measurement endpoints for the

screening level risk assessment are based on a suite of registrant-submitted toxicity studies

performed on a limited number of organisms in the following broad groupings:

• Birds (mallard duck and bobwhite quail) used as surrogate species for terrestrialphase amphibians and reptiles

• Mammals (laboratory rat)

• Freshwater fish (bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout) used as a surrogate for

aquatic phase amphibians

• Freshwater invertebrates (water flea - Daphnia magna)

• Estuarine/marine fish (sheepshead minnow)

• Estuarine/marine invertebrates (Eastern oyster and mysid shrimp)

• Terrestrial plants (corn, onion, ryegrass, wheat, buckwheat, cucumber, soybean,
xxv

sunflower, tomato, and turnip)

• Algae and aquatic plants (algae, diatoms, and duckweed)

Within each of these very broad taxonomic groups, an acute and chronic endpoint is selected

from the available test data, as the data sets allow. Additional ecological effects data were

available for endothall and were incorporated into the risk characterization as other lines of

evidence. These data include:

• Acute laboratory toxicity data on the non-guideline bird, ring-necked pheasant

(Anas platyrhynchos)

• Acute laboratory toxicity data on non-guideline fish (freshwater and

estuarine/marine) species including:

• cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki)

• common mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus)

• coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

• chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

• emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)

• channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)

• golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)

• steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri)

• goldfish (Cyprinus carpo)

• Acute laboratory toxicity data on the non-guideline invertebrate (freshwater and

estuarine/marine) species including:

• grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)

• midge (Chironomus tentans)

• giant salmonfly (Pteronarcys californica)

• mussel (Mytilus edulis)

• freshwater mussel (Anodonta imbecilis)

• ostracod (Cypretta kawatai)

• fiddler crab (Uca pugilator)

• Chronic laboratory toxicity data on non-guideline species including:

• fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

• water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia)

• Acute laboratory toxicity data on Fowlers toad (Bufo woodhousii fowleri)

• Acute laboratory contact toxicity data on honeybees (Apis mellifera)

A complete discussion of all toxicity data available for this risk assessment and the resulting

measurement endpoints selected for each taxonomic group are included in Section IIIB of this

document. A summary of the assessment and measurement endpoints selected to characterize

potential ecological risk associated with endothall exposure is provided in Table 7.

Table 7. Summary of Assessment and Measurement Endpoints
xxvi

Assessment Endpoint Chemical Measurement Endpoint

1. Abundance (i.e., survival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and populations of

birds Acid

1a. Bobwhite quail, mallard duck, and ringnecked

pheasant acute oral LD50

1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck subacute dietary

LD50

1c. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck chronic

reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL (supplemental

studies)

Dipotassium

salt

1a. Mallard duck acute oral LD50

1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck subacute dietary

LD50

N,N-dimethyl

alkylamine salt

1a. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck acute oral LD50

1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck subacute dietary

LD50

2. Abundance (i.e., survival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and populations of

mammals

Acid

2a. Laboratory rat acute oral LD50

2b. Laboratory rat developmental and chronic NOAEC

& LOAEC - NO STUDIES SUBMITTED

Disodium 

salt

2a. Laboratory rat chronic NOAEC (reproductive study)

Others 

(N,Ndimethylalkylam

ine salt,

dipotassium salt)

NO STUDIES SUBMITTED

3. Survival and reproduction of

individuals and communities of

freshwater fish and invertebrates

Acid

3a. Rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish acute LC50

3b. Fathead minnow chronic NOAEC (weight & length)

3c. Water flea, mussel, ostracod, midge, and grass

shrimp acute LC50

3d. Water flea chronic NOAEC (offspring)

Dipotassium 

salt

3a. Rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish acute LC50

3b. Rainbow trout chronic NOAEC & LOAEC (early

life)

3c. Water flea acute LC50

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt

3a. Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish (and

others) acute LC50

3b. Fathead minnow chronic NOAEC (survival)

3c. Water flea , grass shrimp, (and others) acute LC50

3d. Water flea (Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia

dubia) chronic NOAEC (reproduction & offspring)

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt

(granular)

3a. Rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish, and goldfish acute

LC50

3b. Water flea, grass shrimp, and mussel acute LC50
Assessment Endpoint Chemical Measurement Endpoint

xxvii

4. Survival and reproduction of

individuals and communities of

estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates Acid

4a. Sheepshead minnow and common mummichog acute

LC50

4b. Estuarine/marine fish chronic NOAEC & LOAEC -

NO STUDIES SUBMITTED

4c. Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp, and fiddler crab acute

LC50

4d. Estuarine/marine fish chronic NOAEC & LOAEC -

NO STUDIES SUBMITTED

Dipotassium 

salt

4a. Sheepshead minnow, chinook salmon, and coho

salmon acute LC50

4b. Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp, and fiddler crab acute

LC50

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine

salt

4a. Sheepshead minnow and chinook salmon acute LC50

4b. Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp, and fiddler crab acute

LC50

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt

(granular)

4a. Common mummichog acute LC50

4b. Fiddler crab acute LC50

5. Perpetuation of individuals

and populations of non-target

terrestrial plants (crops and

non-crop plant species)

Acid NO STUDIES SUBMITTED

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt

5a. Monocot and dicot seedling emergence EC25

5b. Monocot and dicot seedling vegetative vigor EC25

Dipotassium

salt

5a. Monocot and dicot seedling emergence EC25

5b. Monocot and dicot seedling vegetative vigor EC25

6. Survival of beneficial insect

populations

Acid 6a. Honeybee acute contact LD50

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt

6a. Honeybee acute contact LD50

Dipotassium

salt

6a. Honeybee acute contact LD50
Assessment Endpoint Chemical Measurement Endpoint

xxviii

7. Maintenance and growth of

individuals and populations of

aquatic plants from standing

crop or biomass

Acid NO STUDIES SUBMITTED

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt

7a. Algae and duckweed acute EC50

7b. Algae and duckweed NOAEC/EC05

Dipotassium

salt

7a. Algae EC50 and NOAEC/EC05 - NO STUDIES

SUBMITTED

7b. Duckweed acute EC50

7c. Duckweed chronic NOAEC/EC05

LD50 = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population

NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration

LOAEC - Lowest observed adverse effect concentration

LC50 = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population

EC50/EC25 = Effect concentration to 50%/25% of the test population

4. Endangered Species

 

An evaluation of the potential for individual effects at exposure levels equivalent to the level of

concern (LOC) is made based on the median lethal dose estimate and dose-response relationship

established for the effects study corresponding to each taxonomic group for which the LOCs are

exceeded. Proximity of endangered species habitats to areas that grow target crops or contain

target weed populations are also evaluated.

E. Conceptual Model

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in

biologically significant concentrations. Exposure pathways (Figures 3 & 4) are the means by

which a contaminant moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an

ecological exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an

environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible

route of exposure. In addition, the potential mechanisms of transformation (i.e., which

degradates may form in the environment, in which media, and how much) must be known,

especially for a chemical whose metabolites/degradates are of greater toxicological concern. The

assessment of ecological exposure pathways, therefore, includes an examination of the source

and potential migration pathways for constituents, and the determination of potential exposure

routes (e.g., ingestion, inhalation, dermal absorption). 

All of these elements must be present for an exposure pathway to be complete. For incomplete

pathways, endothall-related environmental risks do not exist. The evaluation of potential

exposure pathways is necessary to focus the screening level risk assessment effort on only those

pathways that are potentially complete and which represent the major exposure routes for the

receptors of concern. The term “potentially complete” is used because the true state for any

given treated area (aquatic or terrestrial), application event, and ecological receptor is unknown. 
xxix

For example, if a field is treated but no birds visit that specific field, exposure pathways such as

direct contact with treated soil or ingestion of residues on seeds and insects are incomplete;

however, if birds do visit this treated field and ingest exposed insects, the exposure pathway is

complete. Not all potentially complete exposure pathways need to be addressed quantitatively. 

Exposure pathways for which exposure levels for an ecological receptor are expected to be

relatively minor as compared to other pathways or for which physical and chemical information

can be used to identify exposure as negligible are not addressed quantitatively. 

Ecological receptors of concern in the aquatic environment include all aquatic life (fish,

invertebrates, amphibians, plants) and those terrestrial animals that consume aquatic organisms

(birds, mammals, reptiles). Receptors in the terrestrial environment include primary producers,

represented by both upland and wetland vegetation, and secondary and tertiary consumers

represented using common ecological functional feeding groups (herbivores, insectivores,

carnivores). The ingestion route for carnivores represents food chain transfer of the chemical

and its degradates through the lower trophic levels such as consumption of herbivores and

insectivores which have been exposed. Omnivores are also potentially exposed but are not

included in the receptor list for a screening-level risk assessment because exposure

concentrations and risk levels will fall between the exclusive feeding groups. 

In the conceptual models (Figures 3 & 4), a “!” in a receptor box denotes and exposure

pathway to be addressed quantitatively in the screening risk assessment. A “"” indicates that the

pathway is possible but not quantified in the risk assessment. Some pathways, like inhalation

and dermal contact, are commonly not evaluated quantitatively in a screening risk assessment

because of lack of data or standardized methods and lower exposure. Receptor boxes that

contain “–“ indicate that the pathway is considered incomplete, not applicable, or unimportant as

far as its consequence to risk management decisions. Solid and dashed lines are used to

designate releases or migration of endothall to and between media. Dashed lines indicate that

the release or migration pathway is considered less important from a transport and risk

management perspective. 

1. Aquatic Application

For aquatic exposure, ecological receptors that may potentially be exposed to endothall include

wildlife living in semiaquatic areas (mammals, birds, and reptiles), plants in semi-aquatic and

aquatic areas, and other aquatic receptors (freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates, amphibians). Aquatic endothall exposure includes endothall dipotassium salt,

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and possibly the coco-amine cation. For

the purpose of the discussion of the conceptual model, all of the endothall chemicals listed above

will be referred to collectively as “endothall.”

a. Potentially Complete and Quantitatively Evaluated Pathways

As shown in Figure 3, quantifiable endothall exposure pathways and risks to aquatic ecological

receptors include:

• Aquatic life (plants, fish, invertebrates, amphibians) exposed through contact and
xxx

uptake of endothall in surface water from direct aquatic application

b. Potentially Complete But Not Quantitatively Evaluated

Pathways

The following pathways were not quantitatively evaluated in the screening level risk assessment

because exposure was identified as negligible and would not contribute measurably to risk or

exposure estimates:

• Aquatic life exposed through contact and uptake of endothall in groundwater

• Aquatic life exposed through contact, uptake, and ingestion of endothall due to

sediment partitioning, as well as through off-target surface water and sediment

• Terrestrial animals (birds, mammals, reptiles) that live in aquatic environments

exposed through contact, uptake, and ingestion of endothall from target surface

water, sediment, and off-target water and sediment

c. Incomplete or Not Applicable Pathways

Numerous pathways will not be evaluated in the risk assessment because they are incomplete

(exposure is not possible), and are indicated in Figure 3 by dashed arrows or dashes in exposure

receptor boxes.
xxxi

LEGEND

Potentially complete and pathway of concernPotentially complete but no pathway of concern

C Potentially complete and quantitatively evaluatedB Potentially complete but not quantitatively evaluated

! Not applicable or incomplete pathway

A

A

Sediment

Granular or Liquid Endothall Application

ApplicationMethod

Primary ReleaseMechanisms

DirectApplication

AffectedMedia

Target Surface 

Water

Emergent and 

Floating 

Macrophytes

SecondaryReleaseMechanisms

ExposureRoute

Partitioning

Affected Media 

Surface water and bed sediment flow

Off-target Surface 

Water and 

Sediment

Recharge Groundwater

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Contact/Uptake

Ingestion

Contact/Uptake

Contact/Uptake

Ingestion

Contact/Uptake

Contact/Uptake

Foliar washoff

Figure 3. Ecological Conceptual Exposure Model for Application of Granular and Liquid Endothall to a Pond, L
xxxii

2. Terrestrial Application

Applied pesticides simultaneously reach several environmental compartments when applied. In

the case of endothall, it is applied to terrestrial fields as a desiccant. As a result, much of the

applied compound may be intercepted by foliage instead of reaching soil directly. Only the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is applied terrestrially; therefore, exposure includes the

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and possible the coco-amine cation (referred to

collectively in this discussion as “endothall.”). Ecological receptors that may potentially be

exposed to endothall include wildlife living in terrestrial and semiaquatic areas (i.e., mammals,

birds, and reptiles), plants in terrestrial and semi-aquatic areas, and soil invertebrates. In

addition to terrestrial ecological receptors, aquatic receptors (e.g., freshwater and

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, amphibians) may also be exposed to potential migration

of pesticides from the site of application to various watersheds and other aquatic environments

via runoff and spray drift.

The source and mechanism of release of parent endothall are ground or aerial application to

agricultural crops (cotton, potatoes, and seed-use clover and alfalfa) and ground only for hops. 

Surface water runoff from the areas of application is assumed to follow topography. Additional

release mechanisms include spray drift, and wind erosion, which may potentially transport siterelated contaminants to the surrounding air. Potential emission of volatile compounds is not

considered as a viable release mechanism for endothall, since volatilization is not expected to be

a significant route of dissipation for this chemical. 

a. Potentially Complete and Quantitatively Evaluated Pathways

As shown in Figure 4, quantifiable endothall exposure pathways and risks to ecological

receptors from terrestrial application include:

• Herbivores and insectivores exposed through ingestion of endothall present on

target field foliage, seeds, fruit, and insects from direct application

• Wetland vegetation exposed through contact and uptake of endothall in off-target

surface water and sediment from direct application

• Aquatic life (plants, fish, invertebrates, amphibians) exposed through contact and

uptake of endothall in off-target surface water from direct application

• Upland vegetation exposed through contact and uptake of endothall in off-target

soil from direct application

• Wetland vegetation exposed via spray drift through contact and uptake of

endothall from off-target surface water and sediment, as well as direct spray drift

exposure

• Upland vegetation exposed via spray drift through contact and uptake of endothall

from off-target soil and direct spray drift exposure

• Aquatic life exposed through contact and uptake of endothall in off-target surface

water as a result of spray drift
xxxiii

b. Potentially Complete But Not Quantitatively Evaluated

Pathways

The following pathways were not quantitatively evaluated in the screening level risk assessment

because exposure was identified as negligible and would not contribute measurably to risk or

exposure estimates:

• Herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores exposed through contact or uptake of

endothall present on target field foliage, seeds, fruit, and insects from direct

application

• Carnivores exposed through ingestion of endothall present on target field foliage,

seeds, fruit, and insects from direct application

• Herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores exposed through ingestion of endothall

present on foliage, seeds, fruit, and insects as a result of uptake of the chemical by

plants and insects from target-field soil (direct application)

• Herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores exposed to endothall through contact,

uptake, and ingestion of contaminated target field soil from direct application

• Aquatic life exposed through contact or uptake of endothall from contaminated

groundwater due to infiltration/percolation from target field soil as a result of

direct application

• Terrestrial animals inhabiting aquatic environments exposed through contact,

uptake, or ingestion of contaminated off-target surface water due to storm water

runoff from target field soil as a result of direct application

• Aquatic life and terrestrial animals inhabiting aquatic environments exposed

through contact, uptake, or ingestion of sediment contaminated due to storm water

runoff from target field soil as a result of direct application

• Herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores exposed to endothall through contact,

uptake, and ingestion of contaminated off-target field soil resulting from storm

water runoff from target field soil as a result of direct application

• Terrestrial animals inhabiting aquatic environments exposed through contact,

uptake, or ingestion of contaminated off-target surface water and sediment as a

result of spray drift

• Aquatic life exposed through contact and uptake of endothall in off-target

sediment as a result of spray drift

• Herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores exposed to endothall through contact,

uptake an ingestion of contaminated off-target foliage, seeds, fruits, and insects

and off-target soil as a result of spray drift

c. Incomplete or Not Applicable Pathways

Numerous pathways will not be evaluated in the risk assessment because they are incomplete

(exposure is not possible), and are indicated in Figure 4 by dashed arrows or dashes in exposure

receptor boxes.
xxxiv

Foo

Upland

Vegetation

Wetland

Vegetation Herbivores Insectivores Carnivores (Food chain) B

Ma

!(2) ! B B B !

! ! C C B !! ! ! ! ! !! ! B B B !

!(2) ! B B B !

! ! B B B !!! ! ! ! B! ! ! ! ! !!C ! ! !C!! ! ! !!!C ! ! !B!!! ! !B

C ! B B B !

! ! B B B !! ! B B B !!C ! ! !C!! ! ! !!!C ! ! !B!! ! ! !!

C C B B B !

! ! B B B !

C ! B B B !

! ! B B B !! ! B B B !

LEGEND

CB

!

FOOTNOTES

Ecological Receptors

Aquatic Eco

Producers Consumers

Terrestrial Ecosystem(1)

Aquatic

Life

Contact/Uptake

Groundwater

Ground or Aerial EndothallSprayApplication

ApplicationMethod

Primary ReleaseMechanisms

DirectApplication

SprayDrift

AffectedMedia

Target

Field Soil

Off-target

Surface Water

Target Field

Foliage/Seeds/

Fruit/Insects

Off-target

Foliage/Seeds/

Fruits/Insects

SecondaryReleaseMechanisms

ExposureRoute

Infiltration/percolation

Affected Media (Tertiary Release Mechanisms

Air

storm waterrunoff

volatilization/wind suspension

Off-target

Surface Water

Sediment

uptake Foliage/seeds/

fruit/roots

Inhalation

(1) Detritivores are not included because they are not an ecological receptor of concern on or off the target application field. Beneficial insects (e.g., bees) are evaluated.(2) Not applicable because on-field vegetation is not an ecological receptor of concern.

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Contact/Uptake

Contact/Uptake

Ingestion

Sediment

Contact/UptakeIngestionIngestion

Contact/Uptake

Potentially complete and pathway of concernPotentially complete but not pathway of concernPotentially complete and quantitatively evaluatedPotentially complete but not quantitatively evaluated Not applicable or incomplete pathway

Off-target soil Ingestion

Ingestion

Contact/Uptake

IngestionContact/UptakeContact/Uptake

Ingestion

Contact/Uptake

Contact/Uptake

Air

Off-target

Soil Remaining exposure pathways and receptors are the same as the target soil, and 

not evaluated separately. Exposure concentrations based on target soil applicatioare conservative for these exposure pathways and receptors.

Ingestion

Off-target

Surface Water, Soil, 

Foliage, Fruits 

deposition

Contact/Uptake

Volatilization(Long Range Transport) Inhalation

Exposure pathways and ecological receptors of concern for these affected media the same as that for spray drift and are not evaluated separately. Exposure concentrations based on spray drift applications for this pesticide are conservative these exposure pathways and receptors.

Figure 4. Ecological Conceptual Exposure Model for Application of Endothall to an Agricultural Field.
xxxv

3. Conceptual Model Summary

Direct aquatic exposure to endothall evaluated in this assessment includes endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, endothall dipotassium salt, endothall acid, and the coco-amine cation. 

Aquatic life, including plants, fish, invertebrates, and amphibians, are potentially exposed to

endothall through uptake in surface water following direct application of either the endothall

dipotassium salt or N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to water bodies to control the growth of aquatic

weed species. Physical and chemical properties, such as water pH, will determine the endothall

type(s) (salt, acid, or cation) to which an aquatic species will be exposed. Such factors are not

indicated in the conceptual model diagrams but are discussed later in the assessment (Figure 3).

Terrestrial endothall exposure evaluated in this assessment includes endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and the coco-amine cation. As with aquatic exposure,

physical and chemical properties of the terrestrial environment, such as soil pH, will determine

the endothall type(s) (salt, acid, or cation) to which species will be potentially exposed. 

Additionally, exposure occurs through both direct application and spray drift. Organisms

inhabiting terrestrial and semi-aquatic environments, such as mammals, birds, reptiles, plants,

and soil invertebrates are exposed through various pathways. Herbivores and insectivores are

exposed through ingestion of endothall present on food items, such as target field foliage,

seeds, fruit, and insects. Both direct application and spray drift result in the exposure of upland

vegetation to endothall as a result of contact and uptake from off-target soils. Exposure of

wetland vegetation to endothall via direct contact and uptake from off-target surface water

and sediment also occurs from both direct application and spray drift. Lastly, aquatic

organisms, such as plants, fish, invertebrates, and amphibians are exposed to endothall via

terrestrial application (direct application and spray drift) from contact and uptake in off-target

surface waters (Figure 4). 

F. Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps

The following uncertainties and information gaps were identified as part of the problem

formulation:

• Yearly maximum use information for each endothall formulation is not indicated on the

product label and the number of allowable re-applications of the pesticide on the same

area are not clearly stated; therefore analyses were performed based on communication

with state and federal officials, who are experts in aquatic weed control and typical

application rates. EFED believes that while endothall may normally be used at these

typical rates and number of applications, some uses may be higher. 

• There are substantial (2-3 orders of magnitude) differences in toxicity to fish and

invertebrates between the endothall dipotassium salt and the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt. It is unclear from the submitted data what may be the cause of

this difference, and the actual structure of the coco-alkyamine cation is not provided. It
xxxvi

is known that this group is derived from coconut oil fatty acids as described on the

product label, but more accurate information is necessary to adequately assess chemical

fate and toxicity. There are no fate studies on the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

specifically. The performed studies only examined endothall acid as the detected endproduct, making exposure estimates difficult due to the absence of specific endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt or coco-alkylamine cation data.

• Minimal mammalian studies were submitted by the registrant; therefore, all mammalian

values were calculated using acute data for endothall acid exposure and chronic

reproductive data from an endothall disodium salt study. No useful studies were

submitted on endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. Differences in the toxicity of the

different endothall forms (ie. endothall acid versus endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt/coco-alkylamine cation) to mammalian species could not be properly assessed. 

Additionally, disodium endothall salt toxicity was used as a mammalian endpoint despite

the fact that this endothall form is no longer used.

• Chronic data for estuarine/marine fish were not submitted by the registrant for any of the

endothall salts; therefore, an attempt to estimate measurement endpoints based on the

acute-to-chronic NOAEC ratio for freshwater fish was made. However, due to

insufficient toxicity data for the same endothall form on similar species, this estimation

was not possible.

• Chronic data for estuarine/marine invertebrates were not submitted by the registrant for

any of the endothall chemicals; therefore, an attempt to estimate measurement endpoints

based on the acute-to-chronic NOAEC ratio for freshwater invertebrates was made;

however, due to insufficient toxicity data for the same endothall formulation on similar

species, this estimation was not possible.

• No aquatic plant studies were performed using endothall acid, and no algae studies were

performed using the dipotassium salt. The assessment was performed using only

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt toxicity data for plants in the absence of data

from the other endothall forms. The acid phytotoxicity data will be used to assess the

toxicity to aquatic plants from runoff scenarios, although further studies are needed for

the other endothall forms.

• There are no data on the dissolution rate of granular and slow-release pellet forms of

endothall dipotassium salt.

• The acute and chronic toxicity of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is 2-3 orders of

magnitude more toxic to aquatic animals than the dipotassium salt. This difference could

be due to a) increased uptake of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, b) direct toxicity of the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, c) direct toxicity of the coco-alkylamine cation,

or d) a combination of a, b, and c. More information is needed to address this

uncertainty.
xxxvii

G. Analysis Plan

Ecological risk assessment is a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological

effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors (US EPA,

1992). This risk assessment examines the ecological risk of endothall herbicide use, and attempts

to determine at what level endothall herbicides can be used to minimize deleterious effects on the

environment. These negative effects include structural and/or functional characteristics or

components of ecosystems. In order to estimate the ecological risk associated with endothall use,

use information, chemical and physical properties, fate/transport data, and toxicity data were

examined for all of the endothall forms, application methods, and chemical formulations.

1. Specific Considerations

a. Endothall herbicides have numerous forms and application

methods which include:

• Direct application of liquid, granular, and slow release pellet

endothall to aquatic environments to control aquatic weeds

• Application of liquid to terrestrial environments as a desiccant

b. Several forms of endothall must be considered in this

assessment. 

Aquatic Application

The endothall salts (N,N-dimethylalkylamine and dipotassium) may

dissociate, depending on environmental pH to form endothall acid and its

corresponding cation (potassium or coco-alkylamine cations) in aquatic

environments. Toxicity and fate/transport must be evaluated on all of the

following:

• Endothall acid

• Endothall dipotassium salt

• Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salts

• Coco-alkylamine cation (from the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt)

Terrestrial Application

As with the aquatic environment, the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salts may dissociate, depending on environmental pH, to work endothall

acid and the coco-alkylamine cation in terrestrial environments. Toxicity

and fate/transport must be evaluated on all of the following:

• Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

• Endothall acid

• Coco-alkylamine cation. 
xxxviii

c. Each of these endothall forms is applied at different rates and in

different settings. Endothall dipotassium salt is only applied

directly to the aquatic environment, and N,Ndimethylalkylamine salts are applied to both terrestrial and

aquatic environments. The majority of endothall use is to

control aquatic weeds; therefore, direct application of the

dipotassium and N,N-dimethylalkylamine salts to lakes, ponds,

canals, and irrigation ditches was of particular concern.

d. Endothall application methods differ and must be considered in

this assessment. Aquatic endothall use consists of both aerial

and boat applications. Liquid, granular, and slow release

pellets are used in aquatic environments. Terrestrial endothall

use consists of the liquid form that has both ground and aerial

application methods.

e. Although used in many states, specific areas of the United

States that currently demonstrate particularly high endothall

usage were the focus of the risk assessment:

• Aquatic application to control aquatic weeds in Florida,

Michigan, and Minnesota

• Terrestrial application to hops in Washington and Oregon

• Terrestrial application to cotton in Louisiana, Arizona,

Texas, and California

f. Considerations for endangered species focus on every state and

all water bodies for aquatic endothall use, and terrestrial use

considerations focus on all counties that grow cotton, potatoes,

hops, and clover/alfalfa for seed. 

2. Planned Analyses

a. Fate and Exposure

Dipotassium salt: At most water body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three chemical forms will be present:

endothall dipotassium salt, potassium cation, and endothall acid. The positively-charged

potassium cations are highly soluable, whereas the endothall acid and endothall dipotassium salt

will be found mainly in the water column. Endothall dipotassium salt is only applied directly to

the aquatic environment, and EFED will assess risk to aquatic organisms from direct aquatic

applications of endothall dipotassium salt, examining both endothall dipotassium salt and

endothall acid where data is available.

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt:

Aquatic application: At most water body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three chemical forms will be present:

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, coco-alkylamine cation, and endothall acid. The
xxxix

positively-charged and hydrophobic coco-alkylamine cation will sorb to the negatively-charged

sediment, whereas the endothall acid will be found mainly in the water column. Based on limited

knowledge of chemical structure and properties, it is expected that endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt will be distributed in both the aqueous phase and sediment. EFED will

assess risk to aquatic organisms from direct aquatic applications of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, examining endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and

the coco-alkylamine cation where data is available.

Terrestrial application: All endothall types (N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and

coco-amine cation) will be present in the environment in different amounts depending on pH. 

Based only on the proposed chemical structure, it is expected that the positively-charged and

lipophilic coco-amine will sorb to the soil, and that the endothall acid will be highly mobile. It is

likely that the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt will be distributed in both the aqueous

phase and the soil, based on limited structural knowledge. EFED will assess risk to terrestrial

organisms due to direct terrestrial application and spray drift of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt application, examining endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall

acid, and the coco-alkylamine cation where data is available. Additionally, EFED will assess risk

to aquatic organisms due to runoff and spray drift from terrestrial applications of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, examining endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and

the coco-alkylamine cation where data is available. 

b. Toxicity

Aquatic and terrestrial non-target toxicity endpoints (animals and plants) are provided by the

acute and, where appropriate, chronic toxicity data. These toxicity endpoints are compared with

the environmental concentrations of endothall, based on fate properties, chemical type, exposure

method, etc. For this assessment, the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for each surrogate taxa (ie.

freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic plants,

terrestrial plants, birds, and mammals) will be used in Risk Quotient (RQ) calculation with

various exposure values (see above). 

Endangered species analysis will be performed using the EFED LOCATES Endangered Species

Database to determine presence of endangered or threatened species in counties where specific

crops are grown (cotton, potatoes, hops, seed alfalfa and seed clover). Additionally, due to the

nation-wide use of endothall to control aquatic weeds, this assessment assumes probable exposure

of all aquatic endangered or threatened species in the United States to endothall. A species

profile analysis will be performed to determine whether there are any potential risk scenarios to

endangered species in those identified areas.

c. Risk Quotient and Levels of Concern

Risk characterization integrates exposure and ecotoxicity data to evaluate the likelihood of

adverse effects. For ecological effects, the Agency accomplishes this integration using the

quotient risk method. Risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by

acute and chronic ecotoxicity values. 
xl

RQ = EXPOSURE / TOXICITY

RQs are then compared to the Office of Pesticide Program’s levels of concern (LOCs) to assess

potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. Calculation of

an RQ that exceeds the LOC indicates that a particular pesticide use poses a presumed risk to

non-target organisms. LOCs currently address the following categories of presumed risk:

• acute - potential for acute risk is high and regulatory action beyond

restricted use classification may be warranted

• acute restricted - the potential for acute risk is high, but may be mitigated

through restricted use classification

• acute endangered species - threatened and endangered species may be

adversely affected

• chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is high and regulatory action

may be warranted. 

The ecotoxicity values used in the acute and chronic risk quotients are endpoints derived from

required laboratory toxicity studies. Ecotoxicity endpoints derived from short-term laboratory

studies that assess acute effects are:

• LC50 - fish and birds

• LD50 - birds and mammals

• EC50 - aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates

• EC25 - terrestrial plants

The NOAEC (No Observable Adverse Effect Concentration) is the endpoint used to assess

chronic effects. Table 8 gives formulas for calculating RQs and LOCs for various risk

presumptions. 
xli

Table 8. Formulas for RQ calculations and LOC used for risk assessment of endothall

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Birds and Wild Mammals

Acute Risk EEC1/LC50 or LD50/ft2* or LD50/day2 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC50 or LD50/ft2 or LD50/day (or LD50<50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC50 or LD50/ft2 or LD50/day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1.0

Aquatic Animals

Acute Risk EEC3

/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/NOAEC 1.0

Terrestrial and Plants Inhabiting Semi-Aquatic Areas

Acute Risk EEC4

/EC25 1.0

Acute Endangered Use EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1.0

Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC3

/EC50 1.0

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC05 or NOAEC 1.0

* mg/ft2

1

Abbreviation for Estimate Environmental Concentration (ppm) on avian/mammalian food items

2

 mg of toxicant consumed/day

3

 EEC = ppm or ppb in water

4

 EEC = lbs ai/A
xlii

III. ANALYSIS

A. Exposure Characterization 

1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Endothall acid degrades via metabolism with half-lives of approximately 10 days both in

terrestrial and aquatic environments. The mobility of the compound is highly sensitive to pH. In

batch equilibrium studies (MRID 41616404) on endothall acid, Freundlich Kads values were 0.15,

0.80, 0.56, and 7.94 on loamy sand, sandy loam, clay loam, and silt loam, respectively. These

mobility values are inversely related to soil pH, as evidenced by soils with a pH of >6.1-6.2

demonstrating low sorption (0.15-0.80). Soil with a pH of 6.1-6.2 will lead to more sorption of

endothall. 

Submitted studies suggest that endothall residues degrade only via biotic processes such as

aerobic metabolism, and not as the result of abiotic processes such as hydrolysis and photolysis. 

For example, laboratory studies indicate that the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (MRID 44578401)

and dipotassium salt (MRID 42289106) forms of endothall are stable to hydrolysis at pH 5, 7 and

9. The endothall acid was also found to be stable to aqueous photolysis in a laboratory study

(MRID 42289205, 42641201). By contrast, the dipotassium salt of endothall, at a nominal initial

soil concentration of 3.3 ppm, degraded with a half-life of 14.5 days in Huntington sandy loam

soil (MRID 44949401). Six unidentified minor (<4%) degradates were present. Nonextractable

residues were 2.8% on the day of application, and increased to 28.8% by 209 days post-treatment. 

Evolved CO2 increased from 4.1% at 3 days post-treatment to 72.1% at 209 days post-treatment. 

In anaerobic silt loam sediment, the half-life of endothall was nine days, with CO2 as the primary

degradate. In aerobic lake water over flooded silt loam sediment, endothall di-potassium salt

degraded with a half-life of 10 days (MRID 42618901). Primary degradates were unextractable

residues and CO2.

Endothall has two ionizable carboxylic acid groups and two dissociation constants (pKa’s). 

These pKa’s are 4.1-4.3 and 6.1-6.2, respectively. The tested soil with a pH of approximately 5.0

had an adsorption coefficient of 7.94 ml/g, while those tested soils with a pH of >6.1-6.2 had

adsorption coefficients of 0.15-0.80 ml/g. 

In terrestrial field dissipation studies, residues of endothall were not persistent. Dipotassium

endothall applied to sugar beet fields in California and Pennsylvania (loam and silty clay loam

soils, respectively) dissipated from the upper 4 inches of soil with half-lives of <7 days and 9

days, respectively (MRID 42670101). Similarly, endothall (N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt)

applied to potato fields in California and Pennsylvania (loam and silty clay loam soils,

respectively) dissipated from the upper 4 inches of soil with half-lives of 12.6 and 19.2 days,

respectively.

Numerous aquatic dissipation studies ranging from laboratory, greenhouse, ponds (partial and

whole treatment), lakes, and reservoirs demonstrate half-lives of 0.5 to 30 days. The persistence
xliii

of endothall in the aquatic environment is consistent regardless of the type of study. In laboratory

studies, the median half-life of endothall acid was 8.5 days (4.1-30 days). Median half-lives in

ponds and lakes were 4.1 days (0.5-20 days) and 1.2 days (0.24-8.5 days), respectively. In lakes

and reservoirs, the median disappearance time for endothall acid in water was seven days. 

However, bacteria capable of using endothall acid as their sole carbon source in an area that has

never been treated may take several weeks to leave the lag phase and actively degrade. Table 1

(page 7) summarizes the chemical properties and environmental fate data of the various endothall

forms. Detailed information regarding the environmental fate studies cited in this report can be

found in Appendix A.

2. Aquatic Resource Exposure Assessment

a. General Approach

Endothall is formulated as an N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (liquid or granular) and a

dipotassium salt (liquid or granular). Terrestrial uses as a desiccant include cotton, clover, alfalfa,

hops, and potatoes. According to the registrant, terrestrial application represents a small portion

of the total use of endothall. However, 100% of the hops grown in Oregon are treated using the

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. There are no USGS monitoring data for endothall to enable

comparison between modeled and monitored concentrations. 

Exposure concentrations for drinking water and aquatic ecosystems assessments were estimated

based on EFED’s aquatic models listed below in Table 9. The input parameters used in this

assessment were selected from the environmental fate data submitted by the registrant and in

accordance with US EPA-OPP EFED water model parameter selection guidelines, Guidance for

Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, 

Version II, February 28, 2002. A detailed aquatic resource exposure assessment is attached in

Appendix A.

Table 9. Models Used to Estimate Exposure Concentrations for Aquatic Ecosystem Assessments

Exposure Estimates Models

Aquatic ecosystems

Surface water (Tier II)

PRZM 3.12 (dated May 7, 1998), named PRZM3.12.EXE 

EXAMS 2.98.04 (dated July 18, 2002), named EXAMS.EXE, Pond

scenario

PE4VO1.pl, dated 8/8/03

b. Terrestrial Application of Endothall

Aquatic Organism Exposure Modeling: Tier II Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs)

for endothall were estimated using EFED’s aquatic models PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model)

and EXAMS (EXposure Analysis Modeling System). PRZM is used to simulate pesticide

transport as a result of runoff and erosion from an 10-ha agricultural field, and EXAMS considers

environmental fate and transport of pesticides in surface water and predicts EECs in a standard

pond (10,000-m2 pond, 2-m deep), with the assumption that the small field is cropped at 100%. 
xliv

Calculations are carried out with the linkage program shell - PE4VO1.pl - which incorporates the

standard scenarios developed by EFED. Additional information on these models can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

The terrestrial crops for which endothall is registered include cotton, hops, potatoes, and seed-use

alfalfa and clover. To simulate these uses, standard scenarios associated with states of the highest

US planted acreage (based on the data provided in USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service,

“2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 2: U.S. State Level Data” at

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/index2.htm) and the highest exposure and

average exposure (driven in part by the vulnerability of the soils, the climate, and the agricultural

practices) were chosen for the selected crops. Maximum and typical application rates were

selected to model environmental concentrations for this screening-level deterministic (risk

quotient-based) assessment. Application dates were based on the timing of the use of endothall as

a desiccant near harvest. Results are tabulated in Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10. Surface water EECs for endothall applied aerially to terrestrial crops (maximum and

typical application rates)

EECs (ppb)

Scenario

(application) 

Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

Long-term

mean

ID potato 

(1.17 kg/ha) - MAX

8.0 7.8 7.3 6.4 6.0 2.4 1.6

ID Potato 

(0.46 kg/ha) - TYP

3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.3 1.0 0.6

ME Potato 

(1.17 kg/ha) - MAX

17.6 17.2 16.0 14.1 13.0 6.4 3.9

ME Potato 

(0.46 kg/ha) - TYP

6.9 6.8 6.3 5.5 5.1 2.5 1.5

CA Cotton 

(0.11 kg/ha) - MAX

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

CA Cotton 

(0.07 kg/ha) - TYP

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

MS Cotton 

(0.11 kg/ha) - MAX

3.0 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.7 0.6 0.3

MS Cotton 

(0.07 kg/ha) - TYP

2.7 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 0.6 0.3

TX Cotton

(0.15 kg/ha) - MAX

3.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.3
EECs (ppb)

Scenario

(application) 

Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

Long-term

mean

xlv

TX Cotton

(0.07 kg/ha) - TYP

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.2

NC alfalfa & clover

(2x 0.84 kg/ha) -

MAX

38.7 37.5 34.0 26.8 22.9 9.6 5.3

NC alfalfa & clover

(1x 0.84 kg.ha)

28.4 27.5 24.1 18.5 15.7 6.0 2.7

PA alfalfa & clover

(2x 0.84 kg/ha) -

MAX

17.4 16.9 16.1 13.7 12.2 4.8 3.4

PA alfalfa & clover

(1x 0.84 kg/ha) -

8.6 8.4 7.9 6.8 6.0 2.4 1.7

CA alfalfa & clover 

(2x 1.12 kg/ha) -

MAX

7.8 7.7 7.0 5.8 5.1 2.7 1.8

CA alfalfa & clover 

(1x 1.12 kg/ha) -

3.9 3.8 3.4 2.8 2.5 1.3 0.9

Table 11. Surface water EECs for endothall ground application to terrestrial crops (maximum

and typical application rates).

EECs (ppb)

Scenario

(application) 

Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

Long-term

mean

ID potato

(1.17 kg/ha) - MAX

6.1 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 1.6 0.8

ID Potato 

(0.46 kg/ha) - TYP

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.6 0.3

ME Potato 

(1.17 kg/ha) - MAX

16.2 15.8 14.8 13.0 12.1 5.6 3.0

ME Potato 

 (0.46 kg/ha) - TYP

6.4 6.2 5.8 5.1 4.7 2.2 1.2

CA Cotton 

(0.11 kg/ha) - MAX

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

CA Cotton 

(0.07 kg/ha) - TYP

0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.04

MS Cotton 

(0.11 kg/ha) - MAX

4.2 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.5 0.9 0.4

MS Cotton 

(0.07 kg/ha) - TYP

2.7 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.6 0.5 0.2
EECs (ppb)

Scenario

(application) 

Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

Long-term

mean

xlvi

TX Cotton

(0.15 kg/ha) - MAX

3.9 3.7 3.2 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.3

TX Cotton

(0.07 kg/ha) -TYP

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.1

NC alfalfa & clover

(2x 0.84 kg/ha) -

MAX

37.1 36.1 32.6 25.7 22.0 9.0 4.7

NC alfalfa & clover

(1x 0.84 kg/ha) -

28.0 27.1 23.7 18.3 15.5 5.9 2.5

PA alfalfa & clover

(2x 0.84 kg/ha) -

MAX

15.6 15.1 14.5 12.6 11.3 4.1 2.7

PA alfalfa & clover

(1x 0.84 kg/ha) -

7.9 7.7 7.3 6.2 5.6 2.0 1.3

CA alfalfa & clover 

(2x 1.12 kg/ha) -

MAX

7.5 7.3 6.5 5.1 4.5 2.0 1.1

CA alfalfa & clover 

(1x 1.12 kg/ha) -

3.7 3.6 3.2 2.5 2.2 1.0 0.6

CA alfalfa & clover 

(2x 0.73 kg/ha) -

MAX

4.9 4.8 4.3 3.3 2.9 1.3 0.7

OR hops 

(2x 1.12 kg/ha) -

MAX

6.5 6.4 6.0 5.3 4.9 2.2 1.1
xlvii

c. Aquatic Application of Endothall

Aquatic Organism Exposure Modeling: EFED also provides estimates of surface water

concentrations from aquatic use of endothall for the ecological assessment. Table 12 provides

the surface water concentration estimates for endothall using the Interim Rice Model. The inputs,

assumptions, and outputs for the Interim Rice modeling are included in Appendix B. Depending

on the application rate used in modeling (500 to 5000 ug/L), the predicted EECs ranged from 500

to 5000 μg/L (the application rate) for acute values and 49 to 486 μg/L for annual mean values. 

To assess potential aquatic herbicide exposures, a first approximation of an EEC was modeled

assuming direct application to the EFED pond. EFED developed an approach using a simple

spreadsheet model that incorporates degradation based on an acceptable aerobic aquatic

metabolism study and flow through the pond. EFED has evaluated several possible scenarios for

this approach to model direct application of endothall to aquatic water bodies. This modeling

approach has not been incorporated into an official EFED policy to date for modeling direct

application to water, and has not been through a rigorous peer review. 

Each of the scenarios evaluated includes that assumption that endothall is uniformly applied to

the EFED pond with a surface area of 1.0 hectares and a volume of 20 million liters. In this

model, the peak 4d, 21d, 60d, 90d, and 365d average and annual mean concentrations were

calculated assuming first-order dissipation from aerobic aquatic degradation.

 An integrated equation of first order decay model was used to estimate average concentrations. 

The equation is Co / [-k(1-e-kt ) / t] where Co = initial concentration, k = first-order degradation

rate (hr-1), and t = time. The first scenario evaluated with the simple spreadsheet model approach

relied on an interpretation of the label for aquatic weed control requiring a target rate for

endothall use based on target concentration and not application rate. In order to account for this

interpretation it was assumed that endothall would be applied at a rate to meet the target

concentration of 5000 μg/l endothall acid. This assumption is applicable across all water bodies

since the application rate is independent of water body geometry/volume. This scenario included

the assumption of uniform application across the entire water body without any setbacks from

drinking water intakes. The results of the direct application modeling under these assumptions

are presented in Table 12 for a variety of rates ranging from 500 to 5000 μg/L. The range of rates

was chosen based on the maximum labeled application rate of 5000 ppb and typical application

rate of 2500 ppb. Appendix B contains the detailed writeup as stated below, and the tables from

an EXCEL spreadsheet. 

The assumption of 100% treated area is conservative and inconsistent with the labeling, which

calls for a 600-ft setback from an intake. However, this approach has been used in the past for

herbicides with similar use patterns and labeling. 
xlviii

Table 12. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EEC) from Direct Application of Endothall

to Water.

EECs (ppb)

Application rate

(ppb)

Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

500 500 472 376 240 181 49

1500 1500 1417 1504 960 723 195

25001 2500 2362 1880 1200 904 243

3000 3000 2834 2256 1440 1084 292

4000 4000 3779 3007 1919 1446 389

5000 5000 4724 3759 2399 1807 486

1 Typical rate used in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the South Florida Water Management District.

3. Terrestrial Organism Exposure Modeling

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals,

emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These exposures

are considered surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians as well as reptiles. Pesticide residues

on food items are estimated based on the assumption that terrestrial organisms (such as birds and

small mammals) are exposed to a single pesticide residue in a given exposure scenario. 

Application methods for endothall include ground spray and aerial application of the liquid

(granular endothall is not applied terrestrially).

a. Spray Applications and Residues

Estimation of pesticide concentrations in wildlife food items from endothall aerial spray focuses

on quantifying possible dietary ingestion of residues on vegetative matter and insects. The

residue estimates are based on a nomogram that relates food item residues to pesticide application

rate. The estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) are generated from a spreadsheet-based

model (ELL-FATE) that calculates the decay of a chemical applied to foliar surfaces for single or

multiple applications. Further explanation and the results of the model are presented in

Appendix B. 

The terrestrial exposure assessment was based on the methods of Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) as

modified by Fletcher et al. (1994). Terrestrial EECs for liquid formulations (Table 13) were

derived for major crops (potatoes, hops, alfalfa, clover, and cotton) using current application rates

and intervals between applications. 

The EECs on food items may be compared directly with dietary toxicity data or converted to an
xlix

oral dose, as is the case for small mammals. The endothall screening-level risk assessment uses

upper bound predicted residues as the measure of exposure. The predicted maximum, mean, and

typical (maximum and average) residues of endothall that may be expected to occur on selected

avian or mammalian food items immediately following application for potatoes, cotton, hops, and

seed-use clover and alfalfa are presented in Table 13. Residue concentration is converted to daily

oral dose based on the fraction of body weight consumed daily as estimated through mammalian

allometric relationships. Maximum and average EECs were based on label use data, and typical

rates were based on data provided in the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, “2002

Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 2: US State Level Data” at

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/us/index2.htm.

Table 13. Estimated environmental concentrations on avian and mammalian food items

following various terrestrial application rates of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

Crop Appl. 

Rate (lbs

ae/acre)

Appl. 

Interval

(days)

Max 

appl/

year

Food Items Max1

EEC

(ppm)

Mean2

EEC

(ppm)

Typ3

max

EEC

(ppm)

Typ 4

Mean

EEC

(ppm)

Potatoes

&

Hops

1.04

(max/ave)

0.41

(typical)

One-time 1

Short grass 249.60 88.40 98.40 34.85

Tall grass 114.40 37.44 45.10 14.76

Broadleaf plants/small

insects

140.40 46.80 55.35 18.45

Fruits, pods, seeds, lg

insects

15.60 7.28 6.15 2.87

Cotton

0.098

(max/ave)

0.06

(typical)

One-time 1

Short grass 23.52 8.33 14.40 5.10

Tall grass 10.78 3.53 6.60 2.16

Broadleaf plants/small

insects

13.23 4.41 8.10 2.70

Fruits, pods, seeds, lg

insects

1.47 0.69 0.90 0.42

Alfalfa

& 

Clover

0.75

(max/ave) 3 2

Short grass 341.34 120.89 N/A N/A

Tall grass 156.45 51.20 N/A N/A

Broadleaf plants/small

insects

192.00 64.00 N/A N/A

Fruits, pods, seeds, lg

insects

21.33 9.96 N/A N/A

N/A: No typical use information available for alfalfa and cotton

1

Maximum Kenaga residue value (maximum application rate)

2

Mean Kenaga residue value (maximum application rate)

3

Maximum Kenaga residue value (typical application rate)

4

Mean Kenaga residue value (typical application rate)
l

4. Non-Target Plant Exposure Modeling

Terrestrial and plant exposure characterization employs runoff and spray drift scenarios contained

in OPP’s Terrplant model. The TerrPlant model is described in further detail in Appendix E. 

Exposure calculations are based on a pesticide’s water solubility and the amount of pesticide

present on the surface soil within the first inch of depth. For adjacent areas, the loading of a

pesticide active ingredient from runoff to an adjacent non-target area is assumed to occur from

one acre of treatment to one acre of non-target area; for semi-aquatic (wetland) areas, runoff is

considered to occur from a larger source area with active ingredient loading originating from 10

acres of treated area to a single acre of non-target wetland. Default spray drift assumptions are

1% for ground applications and 5% for aerial applications. The 60% efficiency factor employed

in past EEC calculations for runoff EEC from aerial application is no longer a part of this model

since it was deemed to be inaccurate based on the AgDrift model data. Terrestrial plant EECs for

non-granular formulations are summarized in Table 14.

Table 14. Endothall terrestrial use EECs using labeled application rates.

Crop/ scenario Application

Adjacent

Area 

Runoff

Wetland

Area 

Runoff

Spray Drift

EEC (ppb) EEC (ppb) EEC (ppb)

Potatoes & Hops 

(1.0 lb ae/A)

1 x per season

Ground 0.06 0.51 0.01

Aerial 0.1 0.55 0.05

Alfalfa & Clover

(0.75 lb ae/A)

2 x per season, 3d interval

Ground 0.05 0.38 0.008

Aerial 0.08 0.41 0.04

Alfalfa & Clover

(1.0 lb ae/A - state label)

2 x per season, 3d interval

Ground 0.6 0.51 0.01

Aerial 1.0 0.55 0.05

Cotton

(0.989 lb ae/A)

1 x per season

Ground 0.06 0.05 0.001

Aerial 0.10 0.05 0.005

Cotton

(0.1319 lb ae/A - TX label)

1 x per season

Ground 0.008 0.07 0.001

Aerial 0.013 0.07 0.007

B. Ecological Effects Characterization

1. Evaluation of Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicity Studies

In screening-level ecological risk assessments, effects characterization describes the types of

effects a pesticide can produce in an organism or plant. This characterization is based on
li

registrant-submitted studies that describe acute and chronic toxicity information for various

aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. In addition, other sources of information, including

reviews of the open literature and the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), are

conducted to further refine the characterization of potential ecological effects. 

Appendix F summarizes the results of the registrant-submitted toxicity studies used to

characterize effects for this risk assessment. Toxicity testing reported in this section does not

represent all species of birds, mammals, or aquatic organisms. Only a few surrogate species for

both freshwater fish and birds are used to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+)

species in the United States. Mammalian acute studies are usually limited to Norway or New

Zealand rat or the house mouse. Estuarine/marine testing is usually limited to a crustacean, a

mollusk, and a fish. Also, neither reptiles nor amphibians are tested. The risk assessment

assumes that avian and reptilian toxicities are similar. The same assumption is used for fish and

amphibians.

a. Toxicity Category For Endothall Acid, N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt, and Dipotassium Salt 

Endothall acid ranges from moderately to slightly toxic for avian species on an acute oral basis

and practically non-toxic to avian species on a subacute dietary basis; is practically non-toxic to

honeybees; is slightly toxic to freshwater fish; ranges from slightly toxic to practically non-toxic

to aquatic freshwater invertebrates; is practically non-toxic to estuarine/marine fish; and ranges

from slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates

Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is moderately toxic for avian species on an acute oral

basis and practically non-toxic on a subacute dietary basis; ranges from very highly toxic to

highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute toxicity basis, ranges from moderately toxic to highly

toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute basis; and ranges from moderately toxic to very highly

toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates.

Endothall Dipotassium is moderately toxic on an acute oral basis and practically non-toxic on a

subacute dietary basis to avian species; dipotassium salt of endothall ranges from slightly to

practically non-toxic to freshwater fish; is slightly toxic to estuarine/marine fish; ranges from

moderately toxic to practically non-toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates.

Tables 15 - 18 summarize the most sensitive ecological toxicity endpoints for aquatic organisms,

terrestrial organisms, and aquatic and terrestrial plants, respectively. Discussions of the effects of

endothall and its formulated products on aquatic and terrestrial taxonomic groups are presented

below.
lii

Toxicity to Aquatic Animals:

Table 15. Summary of Endothall Acute and Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Data

Species

Chemical

Form

Acute Toxicity 

(mg ae/L)

Chronic Toxicity (mg ae/L)

LC50 MRID NOAEC MRID Affected

Endpoints

Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Acid 49.0 42327702 -- -- –

Dipotassium 9.152 40098001 1.79 00095812 % egg hatch

sac fry survival

Cutthroat trout 

Oncorhynchus clarki

Mono-amine 0.042 40094602 – – --

Fathead minnow

Pimephales promelas

Mono-amine -- -- 0.056 43276501 survival

Acid -- -- 1.3 43295401 Wet weight and

length

Water flea

Daphnia magna

Mono-amine 0.084 00035242 0.0159 43437901 reproduction

Acid 92.0 42359702 < 2.2 43007801 Length and number

of offspring

Dipotassium 63.8 42695403 -- -- –

Water flea

Ceriodaphnia dubia

Mono-amine -- -- 0.0023 (1) Survival and number

of broods

Grass shrimp

Palaemonetes pugio

Mono-amine 0.012 40098001 -- -- –

Sheepshead minnow

Cyprinodon

variegatus

Mono-amine 0.819 43196903 -- -- --

Acid 110 42914102 -- -- --

Dipotassium 72 42695405 -- -- --

Eastern oyster

Crassostrea virginica

Mono-amine 0.161 43550201 -- -- --

Acid 43 42895201 -- -- --

Dipotassium 117 42695404 -- -- –

Mysid shrimp

Americamysis bahia

Mono-amine 0.515 43210001 -- -- --

Acid 39 42914101 -- -- --

Dipotassium 79 42695406 -- -- --

(1) Keller, A. E., Dutton, R. J., Bitton, G., and Crisman, T. L. 1988. Chronic Toxicity of Hydrothol-191 to Ceriodaphnia dubia at 25 and 15

Degrees C. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 41[2], 233-240.
liii

Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals:

Table 16. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Organisms Exposed to

Endothall

Species Acid or

Salt

Acute Toxicity 

 (ppm ae)

Chronic Toxicity (reproductive study)

 (ppm ae)

LD50 MRID NOAEC MRID Affected

Endpoints

Mallard duck

Anas

platyrhynchos

Acid -- -- 50 1 42507301 early embryonic

mortality

Laboratory rat

Rattus

norvegicus

Acid 44.4 mg

ae/kg body

wt

422892

01

death within one day

of treatment

Laboratory rat

Rattus

norvegicus

Disodium

salt

150 ppm ae 

(9.4

mg/kg/day) 

43152101 

43629301

decreased pup body

weight

1 Adult birds maintained at 15 oC and 82%humidity; EPA recommends 21oC and 55% humidity. Eggs were incubated at 37.6 oC and 57%

humidity; EPA recommends 39 o

C and 70% humidity. High incident of midterm eggs, high number of eggs cracked, and malfunction of an entire

hatch due to incubator malfunction can be indicative of atypical population and masked effects during study.

Toxicity to Plants:

Table 17. Summary of Aquatic Plant Toxicity Data for Endothall

Species EC50

(ppb ae)

NOAEC/EC05

(ppb ae)

MRID

N,N dimethylalkylamine salt

Green algae (Kirchneria subcapitata, formerly

Selenastrum capricorntum) 

2.3 0.54 44949203

Duckweed

Lemna gibba

740 150 44949402

Dipotassium Salt

Duckweed

Lemna gibba

610 4.6 42396406

Phytotoxicity data from the aquatic plant studies suggest that algae are more sensitive to the

Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt than to the dipotassium salt or the endothall acid. 

Phytotoxicity data from the aquatic plant studies also suggest that duckweed is more sensitive to

the endothall dipotassium salt than the algae. However, aquatic plants are more sensitive to the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt than to the dipotassium salt. The absence of phytotoxicity

data for endothall acid creates an uncertainty about the risk of this form in the aquatic

environment.
liv

Table 18. Summary of Terrestrial Plant Toxicity Data for Endothall

Species (crop) Vegetative Vigor (lb ae/A) Seedling Emergence (lb ae/A)

MRID

EC25 NOAEC/

EC05

Affected 

Endpoint

EC25 NOAEC/

EC05

Affected 

Endpoint

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

Lettuce — — — 0.020 0.004 shoot height 43870401

Turnip 0.055 0.034 root weight --- --- --- 43870401

Dipotassium salt

Lettuce 0.016 0.0089 shoot

weight

0.026 0.018 shoot height 42396405

Phytotoxicity to terrestrial plants may be similar for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine and

dipotassium salts of endothall. The data from the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor

studies suggest that there are few if any significant differences among the monocot and dicot

plants. 

2. Behavioral Studies

Two studies tested mayfly nymph, red shiner, and sunfish behavioral reaction to the application of

endothall acid directly to the aquatic environment. (Folmar 1978, Bettoli 1992). The avoidance

response of the fish to endothall acid in both studies was inconclusive.

Studies by Liguori (1983) and Bouck (1979) tested the adaptability of salmon to move to

seawater from freshwater. Coho salmon and Chinook salmon were initially placed into

freshwater containing various endothall acid concentrations and then moved to saltwater (30%0). 

One hundred percent mortality resulted at the 5ppm dose (one hour in freshwater) and 3ppm dose

(10 days in water). Minimal mortalities were seen in the controls and the lowest dose (1.5 ppm).

3. Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide

Information on the Endangered Species Levels of Concern

The Agency uses the probit dose response relationship as a tool for providing additional

information on the listed animal species acute levels of concern (LOC). The acute listed species

LOCs of 0.1 and 0.05 are used for terrestrial and aquatic animals, respectively. As part of the risk

characterization, an interpretation of acute LOCs for listed species is discussed. This

interpretation is presented in terms of the chance of an individual event (i.e., mortality or

immobilization) should exposure at the estimated environmental concentration actually occur for

a species with sensitivity to endothall chemicals on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected

for RQ calculation. To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose

response relationship available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity
lv

measurement endpoints for each taxonomic group. The individual effects probability associated

with the LOCs is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose

response relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean,

upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in

the slope. The upper and lower bounds of the effects probability are based on available

information on the 95% confidence interval of the slope. A statement regarding the confidence in

the applicability of the assumed probit dose response relationship for predicting individual event

probabilities is also included. Studies with good probit fit characteristics (i.e., statistically

appropriate for the data set) are associated with a high degree of confidence. Conversely, a low

degree of confidence is associated with data from studies that do not statistically support a probit

dose response relationship. In addition, confidence in the data set may be reduced by high

variance in the slope (i.e., large 95% confidence intervals), despite good probit fit characteristics.

Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1

(Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by Ed Odenkirchen of the U.S. EPA,

OPP, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such

calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that

estimate) as the slope parameter for the spreadsheet. In addition, the LOC (0.1 for terrestrial

animals and 0.05 for aquatic animals) is entered as the desired threshold. 

4. Incident Data Review

There have been 4 incidents related to endothall reported to the Environmental Incident

Information System (EIIS) database (reported to the Agency from 1991 to 2003. These incidents

occurred in Nevada, Washington, California, and Minnesota. Accidental misuse of EVAC

Biocide® (endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt) in a Minnesota power plant cooling chambers

resulted in the deaths of thousands of green sunfish, catfish, and shiners due to the high water

temperature (92oC) at application. Washington reported damage to alfalfa crops following aerial

spraying of endothall and diquat on nearby potato fields. This incident was attributed to drift

from both chemicals. Spillage of a 5-gallon can of Hydrothol 191® (endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt) into a drain in California resulted in the deaths of over 1000 carp.

Lastly, one egret and one pelican were found dead following treatment of a 200 acre pond with

Hydrothol 191® (endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt) in Nevada. The true cause of the deaths

is uncertain.

Currently, no systematic or reliable mechanism exists for the accurate monitoring and reporting of

wildlife kill incidents to the Agency. Moreover, before a pesticide incident can be reported or

investigated, the dead animals must be found. In the absence of monitoring following pesticide

applications, kills are not likely to be noticed in agro-environments, which are generally away

from human activity. Even if onlookers are present, dead wildlife species, particularly small song

birds and mammals, are easily overlooked, even by experienced and highly motivated observers. 

IV. RISK CHARACTERIZATION
lvi

Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and effects characterization to determine the

ecological risk from the use of endothall chemicals and the likelihood of effects on aquatic life,

wildlife, and plants based on varying pesticide-use scenarios. The risk characterization provides

an estimation and a description of the risk; articulates risk assessment assumptions, limitations,

and uncertainties; synthesizes an overall conclusion; and provides the risk managers with

information to make regulatory decisions.

A. Risk Estimation - Integration of Exposure and Effects Data

Results of the exposure and toxicity effects data are used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse

ecological effects on non-target species. For the assessment of endothall risks, the risk quotient

(RQ) method is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values. Estimated

environmental concentrations (EECs) are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values. The RQs

are compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are the Agency’s

interpretive policy and are used to analyze potential risk to non-target organisms and assess the

need to consider regulatory action. These criteria are used to indicate when a pesticide’s directed

label use has the potential to cause adverse effects on non-target organisms. Appendix G of this

document summarizes the LOCs used in this risk assessment. Appendix H provides detailed

spreadsheets of all derived RQs for non-target species not presented in this document.

Table 19. Explanation of data used for RQ calculations

Application method RQ measurement Toxicity endpoint used

direct aquatic fish & aquatic invertebrates

acute

acute N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

acute dipotassium salt

direct aquatic fish & aquatic invertebrates

chronic

chronic endothall acid

chronic dipotassium salt (fish only)

chronic N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

direct aquatic aquatic plants

acute

acute N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

acute dipotassium salt

terrestrial avian acute acute N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (no acid

data)

terrestrial avian chronic chronic endothall acid

terrestrial mammalian acute acute endothall acid (no amine data)

terrestrial mammalian chronic chronic disodium salt (no acid data)

terrestrial fish & aquatic invertebrates

acute (runoff)

acute endothall acid

terrestrial fish & aquatic invertebrates

chronic (runoff)

chronic endothall acid
Application method RQ measurement Toxicity endpoint used

lvii

terrestrial aquatic plants

acute (runoff)

acute N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

(no acid data)

terrestrial fish & aquatic invertebrates

acute (spray drift)

acute N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

1. Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants

a. Direct Aquatic Application

Dipotassium salt: Endothall dipotassium salt is applied directly to the aquatic environment. 

EFED used the acute toxicity values for endothall dipotassium salt to calculate risk to fish and

aquatic invertebrates. Chronic risk was calculated for aquatic animals using endothall acid and

endothall dipotassium salt toxicity data due to the potential dissociation of the salt. Surface water

concentrations resulting from direct application of endothall dipotassium salt to water were

predicted using a modified Interim Rice Model. Endothall is applied directly to water at a

concentration of 500 to 5000 ppb to control algae and aquatic macrophytes. The peak EECs

derived from the modified Interim Rice Model were then compared to acute toxicity values for

endothall dipotassium salt to derive acute RQs for aquatic animals. Acute RQs for freshwater and

estuarine/marine organisms exposed to endothall dipotassium salt are summarized in Table 20. 

The 60-day EECs were compared to chronic toxicity endpoints (NOAEC values) for endothall

acid and endothall dipotassium salt to derive chronic RQs for freshwater fish, and 21-day EECs

were compared to endothall acid chronic toxicity endpoints for freshwater aquatic invertebrates. 

Chronic RQs for freshwater organisms exposed to endothall dipotassium salt are summarized in

Tables 22-24. There were no chronic data for any estuarine/marine species (fish or

invertebrates); therefore, no chronic RQs could be calculated for these organisms. Additionally,

no chronic freshwater invertebrate RQs were calculated with endothall dipotassium salt because

there were no data submitted. Peak EECs for aquatic plants (vascular and algae) were compared

to endothall dipotassium salt acute EC50 and NOAEC toxicity endpoints to derive non-endangered

and endangered species RQs, respectively. Acute non-endangered and endangered species RQs

for aquatic plants are summarized in Table 21. 

Acute endangered species LOCs are exceeded for freshwater fish for the application of endothall

dipotassium salt at all application rates (0.5 - 5 ppm). These acute RQ values range from 0.05 to

0.55 and are shown in Table 20. Endangered species acute LOCs are also exceeded for

freshwater invertebrates, and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates at the highest endothall

dipotassium salt application rates (4 and 5 ppm). These acute RQ values are 0.06 and 0.08 for

freshwater invertebrates, 0.05 and 0.06 for estuarine/marine fish, and 0.06 and 0.07 for

estuarine/marine invertebrates. Acute LOCs for aquatic plants were exceeded for algae and both

non-endangered and endangered vascular plants at all doses (0.5 - 5 ppm) of endothall

dipotassium salt. RQ values are summarized in Table 21. 
lviii

No chronic endangered species LOCs are exceeded for fish species (freshwater and

estuarine/marine) with application of endothall dipotassium salt. However, endothall acid chronic

LOCs are exceeded for freshwater fish at the 5 ppm application rate (RQ = 1.0) and for freshwater

invertebrates at the 4 and 5 ppm doses (RQ = 1.1 and 1.4, respectively). There were no chronic

invertebrate data available for endothall dipotassium exposure and therefore RQ values could not

be calculated.

Table 20. Endothall dipotassium salt acute risk quotients for aquatic organisms (freshwater and

marine/estuarine) – maximum application.

ENDOTHALL DIPOTASSIUM SALT - Direct Aquatic Application

Application

rate

(ppb)

Peak EEC 

in ppb ae

Acute RQ

Freshwater

Fish 1

Acute RQ

Aquatic

Invertebrate 2 

Acute RQ

Estuarine

Fish 3

Acute RQ

Estuarine

Invertebrate 4

LOC

Exceeded 5

 

5000 5000 0.55 0.08 0.06 0.07 ES, RU, AR

4000 4000 0.44 0.06 0.05 0.06 ES, RU

3000 3000 0.33 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 ES, RU

2500 6 2500 0.27 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 ES, RU

1500 1500 0.16 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 ES, RU

500 500 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 ES

1

 Rainbow trout LC50 = 9,152 ppb ae 2

Daphnia LC50= 63,800 ppb ae 3

 Sheepshead minnow LC50 = 72,000 ppb ae 4

 Mysid shrimp LC50 = 79,000 ppb ae 5

 AR= Acute risk (LOC 0.5); RU = Restricted Use (LOC 0.1); ES = Endangered Species (LOC 0.05) 6 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.
lix

Table 21. Endothall dipotassium salt acute risk quotients for aquatic plants - maximum

application

ENDOTHALL DIPOTASSIUM SALT - Direct Aquatic Application

Application rate

(ppb)

Max EEC 

(ppb ae)

Algae RQ Non-endangered

vascular plant

RQ1

Endangered

vascular plant

RQ2

5000 5000 NO DATA 8 1,087.0

4000 4000 NO DATA 7 870.0

3000 3000 NO DATA 5 652.0

2500 3 2500 NO DATA 4 543.0

1500 1500 NO DATA 2.5 362.0

500 500 NO DATA 0.80 181.0

1

Duckweed EC50 = 610 ppb ae 2 Duckweed NOAEC = 4.6 ppb ae

3

 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

AR= Acute risk (LOC 0.5); RU = Restricted Use (LOC 0.1); ES = Endangered Species (LOC 0.05)

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.

Table 22. Endothall dipotassium salt chronic risk quotients for aquatic freshwater and

marine/estuarine fish – maximum application

ENDOTHALL DIPOTASSIUM SALT - Direct Aquatic Application

Application rate

(ppb)

60-day EEC 

(ppb ae)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Fish1

Chronic RQ

Estuarine Fish

LOC Exceeded 2

5000 1244 0.7 NO DATA NONE

4000 995 0.6 NO DATA NONE

3000 746 0.4 NO DATA NONE

2500 3 622 0.4 NO DATA NONE

1500 373 0.2 NO DATA NONE

500 125 0.1 NO DATA NONE

1

 Rainbow trout NOAEL = 1790 ppb ae 2 Chronic risk LOC = 1.0
lx

Table 23. Endothall acid chronic risk quotients for aquatic freshwater and marine/estuarine fish

– maximum application

ENDOTHALL ACID - Dissociation Following Direct Aquatic Application

Application rate

(ppb)

60-day EEC 

(ppb ae)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Fish1

Chronic RQ

Estuarine Fish

LOC Exceeded 2

5000 1244 1.0 NO DATA NONE

4000 995 0.8 NO DATA NONE

3000 746 0.6 NO DATA NONE

2500 3 622 0.5 NO DATA NONE

1500 373 0.3 NO DATA NONE

500 125 0.1 NO DATA NONE

1

 Fathead minnow NOAEL = 1300 ppb ae for acid 2 Chronic risk LOC = 1.0

Table 24. Endothall acid chronic risk quotients for aquatic freshwater and marine/estuarine

invertebrates – maximum application

ENDOTHALL ACID - Dissociation Following Direct Aquatic Application

Application rate

(ppb)

21-day EEC 

(ppb ae)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Invertebrates1

Chronic RQ

Estuarine

Invertebrates

LOC Exceeded 2

5000 3062 1.4 NO DATA Chronic

4000 2450 1.1 NO DATA Chronic

3000 1837 0.8 NO DATA Chronic

2500 3 1531 0.7 NO DATA Chronic

1500 919 0.4 NO DATA Chronic

500 306 0.14 NO DATA Chronic

1 Daphnia magna NOAEL <2200 ppb ae for acid 2 Chronic risk LOC = 1.0

3 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.
lxi

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is applied directly to the

aquatic environment. EFED used the acute toxicity values for endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt to calculate risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Chronic risk was

calculated for aquatic animals using endothall acid and endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

toxicity data due to the potential dissociation of the salt. Surface water concentrations resulting

from direct application of endothall dipotassium salt to water were predicted using a modified

Interim Rice Model. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is applied directly to water at a

concentration of 500 to 5000 ppb to control algae and aquatic macrophytes. The peak EECs

derived from the modified Interim Rice Model were then compared to acute toxicity values for

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to derive acute RQs for aquatic animals. Acute RQs for

freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms exposed to endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt are

summarized in Table 25. The 60-day EECs were compared to chronic toxicity endpoints

(NOAEC values) for endothall acid and endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to derive chronic

RQs for freshwater fish, and 21-day EECs were compared to endothall acid chronic toxicity

endpoints for freshwater aquatic invertebrates. Chronic RQs for freshwater organisms exposed

to endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt are summarized in Tables 26-27. There were no

chronic data for any estuarine/marine species (fish or invertebrates); therefore, no chronic RQs

could be calculated for these organisms. Chronic RQs for endothall acid are the same for both

dipotassium and N,N-dimethylalkylamine salts and are summarized in Tables 23-24. Peak EECs

for aquatic plants (vascular and algae) were compared to endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

acute EC50 and NOAEC toxicity endpoints to derive non-endangered and endangered species

RQs, respectively. Acute non-endangered and endangered species RQs for aquatic plants are

summarized in Table 28. 

Acute risk, restricted use, and endangered species LOCs are exceeded for all fish and

invertebrates at all current aquatic application rates of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (0.5

- 5 ppm). These acute RQ values range from 12 to 199 for freshwater fish, 6 to 417 for

freshwater invertebrates, 0.6 to 6.10 for estuarine/marine fish, and 3.1 to 31.1 for estuarine/marine

invertebrates. The acute freshwater invertebrate RQ values are listed as a range, using the LC50

values from both grass shrimp and Daphnia. Values are summarized in Table 25. Acute LOCs

for aquatic plants are exceeded for algae and both non-endangered and endangered vascular

plants at all endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine doses (0.5 to 5 ppm). Plant RQ values are

summarized in Table 26. 

Chronic acute risk, restricted use, and endangered species LOCs are exceeded for freshwater fish 

(RQ = 2.2 - 22.2) and freshwater invertebrates (RQ = 133 - 1333.1) at all endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt application rates (0.5 to 5 ppm). Chronic RQs for estuarine/marine fish

and invertebrates could not be calculated because not studies were submitted. Chronic RQ values

for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt are summarized in Tables 27-28.
lxii

Table 25. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt acute risk quotients for aquatic organisms

(freshwater and marine/estuarine) – maximum application

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Direct Aquatic Application

Application

rate 

(ppb)

Peak EEC 

(ppb ae)

Acute RQ

Freshwater

Fish1

Acute RQ

Aquatic

Invertebrate2

Acute RQ

Estuarine

Fish3

Acute RQ

Estuarine

Invertebrate4

LOC

Exceeded 5

5000 5000 119 417 - 60 6.10 31.10 AR, RU, ES

4000 4000 95 333 - 48 4.90 24.80 AR, RU, ES

3000 3000 71 250 - 36 3.70 18.60 AR, RU, ES

2500 6 2500 60 208 - 30 3.10 15.50 AR, RU, ES

1500 1500 36 125 - 18 1.90 9.30 AR, RU, ES

500 500 12 42 - 6 0.60 3.10 AR, RU, ES

1

 Cutthroat trout LC50 = 42 ppb ae 2 Grass shrimp LC50 = 12 ppb ae; Daphnia LC50 = 84 ppb ae (range from two endpoints) 3

 Sheepshead minnow LC50 = 819 ppb ae 4

 Eastern Oyster LC50= 161 ppb ae 5

 AR= Acute risk (LOC 0.5); RU = Restricted Use (LOC 0.1); ES = Endangered Species (LOC 0.05) 6 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.

Table 26. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt acute risk quotients for aquatic plants -

maximum application

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT

Application rate

(ppb)

Max EEC 

(ppb ae)

Algae RQ1 Non-endangered

vascular plant

RQ2

Endangered

vascular plant

RQ3

5000 5000 2174 7 33

4000 4000 1739 5 27

3000 3000 1304 4 20

2500 3 2500 1087 3 17

1500 1500 652 2 10

500 500 217 0.60 3

1

 Green algae LC50 = 2.3 ppb ae 2 Duckweed EC50 = 740 ppb ae 3 Duckweed NOAEC = 150 ppb ae

4

 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

AR= Acute risk (LOC 0.5); RU = Restricted Use (LOC 0.1); ES = Endangered Species (LOC 0.05)

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.
lxiii

Table 27. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine chronic risk quotients for aquatic freshwater and

marine/estuarine fish – maximum application

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Direct Aquatic Application

Application rate 

(ppb)

60-day EEC 

(ppb ae)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Fish1

Chronic RQ

Estuarine Fish

LOC Exceeded 2

5000 1244 22.2 NO DATA AR, RU, ES

4000 995 17.8 NO DATA AR, RU, ES

3000 746 13.3 NO DATA AR, RU, ES

2500 3 622 11.1 NO DATA AR, RU, ES

1500 373 6.7 NO DATA AR, RU, ES

500 125 2.2 NO DATA AR, RU, ES

1

Chronic NOAEC for fathead minnow = 56 ppb

2 Chronic risk LOC = 1.0

3 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.

Table 28. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine chronic risk quotients for aquatic freshwater and

marine/estuarine invertebrates – maximum application

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Direct Aquatic Application

Application rate

(ppb)

21-day EEC 

(ppb ae)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Invertebrates1

Chronic RQ

Estuarine

Invertebrates

LOC Exceeded 2

5000 3062 1331.3 NO DATA Chronic

4000 2450 1065.2 NO DATA Chronic

3000 1837 798.7 NO DATA Chronic

2500 3 1531 665.7 NO DATA Chronic

1500 919 399.6 NO DATA Chronic

500 306 133.0 NO DATA Chronic

1 Daphnia magna NOAEC 2.3 ppb ae for N,N-dimethylalkylamine 2 Chronic risk LOC = 1.0

3 Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD.

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances.
lxiv

b. Terrestrial Application

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is the only endothall

chemical applied terrestrially. Surface water concentrations resulting from endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine application to selected crops were predicted with the Tier II models PRZMEXAMS. Seven scenarios were simulated: potatoes in Idaho and Maine, cotton in California,

Mississippi, and Texas, hops in Oregon, and alfalfa/clover in California.

Aquatic animals: Endothall acid, formed through dissociation of the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, is expected to be the predominant stressor present in runoff from

terrestrial application due to its repulsion from the soil, high mobility, and the presumed soil and

organic matter sorption of the coco-alkylamine cation following dissociation, although the N,Ndimethylalkylamine will likely also be present to some extent in the runoff. Therefore, both the

acid and N,N-dimethylalkylamine acute toxicity endpoints were used to calculate RQs for fish

and invertebrates that are exposed to terrestrially-applied endothall via runoff. Application occurs

in late summer or early fall when there is an abundance of plant material to capture the positively

charged cations during runoff events. The coco-alkylamine cations that leave the field will be

mostly associated with suspended sediment instead of the runoff water. Due to the fact that no

acid toxicity data were available for aquatic plants, only N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt endpoints

were used to assess risk to these species.

Peak EECs were compared to acute toxicity endpoints for endothall acid and N,Ndimethylalkylamine to derive acute RQs. The 60-day EECs were compared to chronic toxicity

data endpoints (NOAEC values) to derive chronic RQs for freshwater fish, but lack of data

disallowed calculation of chronic RQs for the other aquatic organisms (marine/estuarine fish and

invertebrates and freshwater invertebrates). 

None of the acute or chronic aquatic animal RQs calculated for endothall acid terrestrial

runoff exceeded any LOC values (endangered species LOC = 0.05). RQ values for endothall

acid are summarized in Appendix H Tables. Additionally, chronic RQs for freshwater fish

did not exceed any LOC values for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (LOC = 1.0) (Table

30). 

Acute RQs based on endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine runoff following application to Idaho and

Maine potatoes, Mississippi cotton, Oregon hops, and California, Pennsylvania, and North

Carolina alfalfa/clover exceeded the endangered species LOC for freshwater fish based on several

application rates and methods. All LOC were exceeded for Idaho and Maine potatoes for all

applications (aerial and ground; maximum and typical), with RQ values ranging from 0.06 to

0.42. Clover and alfalfa LOC were exceeded for the maximum use rates (aerial and ground; no

typical data was available) in California, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, with RQs ranging

from 0.12 to 0.92. Mississippi cotton LOC were exceeded for all use rates, with RQs ranging

from 0.06 to 0.10. Lastly, Oregon hops acute endangered species LOC was exceeded for the

maximum ground application rate (RQ = 0.13) (Table 28).
lxv

Acute estuarine/marine fish RQs calculated for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine terrestrial

runoff exceeded LOC values (endangered species LOC = 0.05) for application to alfalfa/clover in

North Carolina (RQ = 0.05) (ground and aerial, maximum application)(Table 28). 

Freshwater invertebrate acute RQs calculated for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine terrestrial

runoff were calculated using both grass shrimp and daphnia LC50 values, and the RQs are

presented as a range based on these two values. Freshwater invertebrate acute RQs exceeded

LOC values (endangered species LOC = 0.05) for application to Idaho and Maine potatoes,

Mississippi and Texas cotton, Oregon hops, and California, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina

alfalfa/clover. LOC were exceeded for Maine potatoes at all applications (aerial and ground;

maximum and typical), with RQ values ranging from 0.08 to 1.47, and for Idaho potatoes at the

all application rates (RQ = 0.07 - 0.67). Cotton LOC were exceeded for all use rates in

Mississippi and Texas, with RQ values ranging from 0.05 - 0.35 and 0.05 - 0.33, respectively). 

Clover and alfalfa LOC were exceeded for the maximum use rates (aerial and ground; no typical

data was available) in California, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, with RQs ranging from 0.05

to 3.23. Lastly, Oregon hops acute endangered species LOC was exceeded for the maximum

ground application rate (RQ = 0.06 - 0.44) (Table 29). 

Estuarine/marine invertebrate acute RQs calculated for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

terrestrial runoff exceeded LOC values (endangered species LOC = 0.05) for application to Idaho

potatoes at the maximum aerial application rate (RQ = 0.05) and Maine potatoes for both the

aerial and ground maximum applications (RQ = 0.11 and 0.10). There are also exceedances for

maximum ground and aerial application to alfalfa/clover in North Carolina and Pennsylvania,

with RQ values ranging from 0.10 - 0.24) (Table 29).

Lastly, chronic freshwater invertebrate RQs calculated for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

terrestrial runoff exceeded the LOC value (endangered species LOC = 1.0) for application to

potatoes in Idaho and Maine, cotton in Mississippi and Texas, hops in Oregon, and alfalfa and

clover in California, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. LOC were exceeded for Maine and Idaho

potatoes at all applications (except for Idaho typical ground), with RQ values ranging from 1.3 to

6.7. Mississippi and Texas cotton exceedances occurred at the aerial and ground maximum

application rates (RQ = 1.1 - 1.6). Clover and alfalfa LOC were exceeded for the all application

rates in California, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, with RQs ranging from 1.4 to 14.8. Lastly,

Oregon hops acute endangered species LOC was exceeded for the maximum ground application

rate (RQ = 2.6). RQ values are summarized in Table 31.
lxvi

Table 29. Endothall N, N-dimethylalkylamine salt terrestrial use acute risk quotients for

aquatic animals (runoff) for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop

scenario

Application EEC

(ppb)

Acute RQ

Freshwater

Fish

Acute RQ 

Estuarine/

Marine Fish

Acute RQ

Freshwater

Invertebrates

Acute RQ

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates

ID Potato Aerial Max 8 0.19 <0.05 0.10 - 0.67 0.05

Aerial Typical 3.1 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.26 <0.05

Ground Max 6.1 0.15 <0.05 0.07 - 0.51 <0.05

Ground Typical 2.4 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.2 <0.05

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 0.42 <0.05 0.21 - 1.47 0.11

Aerial Typical 6.9 0.16 <0.05 0.08 - 0.58 <0.05

Ground Max 16.2 0.39 <0.05 0.19 - 1.35 0.10

Ground Typical 6.4 0.15 <0.05 0.08 - 0.53 <0.05

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3 0.07 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.25 <0.05

Aerial Typical 2.7 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.23 <0.05

Ground Max 4.2 0.10 <0.05 0.05 - 0.35 <0.05

Ground Typical 2.7 0.06 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.23 <0.05

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.9 0.09 <0.05 0.05 - 0.33 <0.05

Aerial Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.15 <0.05

Ground Max 3.9 0.09 <0.05 0.05 - 0.33 <0.05

Ground Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - 0.15 <0.05

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 5.3 0.13 <0.05 0.06 - 0.44 <0.05

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop

scenario

Application EEC

(ppb)

Acute RQ

Freshwater

Fish

Acute RQ 

Estuarine/

Marine Fish

Acute RQ

Freshwater

Invertebrates

Acute RQ

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates

lxvii

CA Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial Max 5.1 0.12 <0.05 0.06 - 0.43 <0.05

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 4.9 0.12 <0.05 0.06 - 0.41 <0.05

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 0.41 <0.05 0.21 - 1.45 0.11

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 0.37 <0.05 0.19 - 1.3 0.10

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 0.92 0.05 0.46 - 3.23 0.24

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 37.1 0.88 0.05 0.44 - 3.09 0.23

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cutthroat trout LC50 = 42 ppb ae

Sheepshead minnow LC50 = 819 ppb ae

Grass shrimp LC50 = 12 ppb ae; Daphnia LC50 = 84 ppb ae (range from two endpoints)

Eastern Oyster LC50 = 161 ppb ae

Exceedances are indicated in bold
lxviii

Table 30: Endothall N, N-dimethylalkylamine salt terrestrial use chronic risk quotients for fish

(runoff) for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop

scenario

Application 60-day

EEC (ppb)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater Fish1

Chronic RQ 

Estuarine/

Marine Fish2

ID Potato Aerial Max 6.4 <1.0 N/A

Aerial Typical 2.5 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 5.1 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical 2.0 <1.0 N/A

ME Potato Aerial Max 14.1 <1.0 N/A

Aerial Typical 5.5 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 13.0 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical 5.1 <1.0 N/A

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.3 <1.0 N/A

Aerial Typical 0.2 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 0.3 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical 0.2 <1.0 N/A

MS Cotton Aerial Max 2.1 <1.0 N/A

Aerial Typical 1.8 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 2.9 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical 1.8 <1.0 N/A

TX Cotton Aerial Max 2.4 <1.0 N/A

Aerial Typical 1.1 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 2.4 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical 1.1 <1.0 N/A

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 5.3 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A
ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop

scenario

Application 60-day

EEC (ppb)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater Fish1

Chronic RQ 

Estuarine/

Marine Fish2

lxix

CA Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial: 2 applications 5.8 <1.0 N/A

Aerial: 1 application 2.8 N/A N/A

Ground: 2 applications 3.3 <1.0 N/A

Ground: 1 application 2.5 N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial: 2 applications 26.8 <1.0 N/A

Aerial: 1 application 18.5 <1.0 N/A

Ground: 2 applications 25.7 <1.0 N/A

Ground: 1 application 18.3 <1.0 N/A

PA Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial: 2 applications 13.7 <1.0 N/A

Aerial: 1 application 6.8 <1.0 N/A

Ground: 2 applications 12.6 <1.0 N/A

Ground: 1 application 6.2 <1.0 N/A

1

Fathead minnow NOAEC = 56 ppb ae

2

No data available
lxx

Table 31: Endothall N, N-dimethylalkylamine salt terrestrial use chronic risk quotients for

invertebrates (runoff) for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop

scenario

Application 21-day

EEC (ppb)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Invertebrates1

Chronic RQ 

Estuarine/

Marine Invertebrates2

ID Potato Aerial Max 7.3 3.2 N/A

Aerial Typical 2.9 1.3 N/A

Ground Max 5.6 2.4 N/A

Ground Typical 2.2 <1.0 N/A

ME Potato Aerial Max 16.0 6.7 N/A

Aerial Typical 6.3 2.7 N/A

Ground Max 14.8 6.4 N/A

Ground Typical 5.8 2.5 N/A

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.4 <1.0 N/A

Aerial Typical 0.2 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 0.3 <1.0 N/A

Ground Typical 0.2 <1.0 N/A

MS Cotton Aerial Max 2.6 1.1 N/A

Aerial Typical 2.2 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 3.6 1.6 N/A

Ground Typical 2.3 1.0 N/A

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.1 1.4 N/A

Aerial Typical 1.5 <1.0 N/A

Ground Max 3.2 1.4 N/A

Ground Typical 1.5 <1.0 N/A

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 6.0 2.6 N/A

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A
ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop

scenario

Application 21-day

EEC (ppb)

Chronic RQ

Freshwater

Invertebrates1

Chronic RQ 

Estuarine/

Marine Invertebrates2

lxxi

CA Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial: 2 applications 7.0 3.0 N/A

Aerial: 1 application 3.4 1.5 N/A

Ground: 2 applications 6.5 2.8 N/A

Ground: 1 application 3.2 1.4 N/A

NC Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial: 2 applications 34.0 14.8 N/A

Aerial: 1 application 24.1 10.5 N/A

Ground: 2 applications 32.6 14.2 N/A

Ground: 1 application 23.7 10.3 N/A

PA Alfalfa

& Clover

Aerial: 2 applications 16.1 7.0 N/A

Aerial: 1 application 7.9 3.4 N/A

Ground: 2 applications 14.5 6.3 N/A

Ground: 1 application 7.3 3.2 N/A

1

Daphnia NOAEC = 2.3 ppb ae

2

No data available

Aquatic Plants: Peak EECs were compared to acute EC50 and NOAEC toxicity endpoints to

derive acute non-endangered and endangered species RQs, respectively. The RQs for aquatic

plants should also be calculated using both endothall acid toxicity values and endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt; however, there are no toxicity values for aquatic plants using endothall

acid. Therefore, only the N,N-dimethylalkylamine toxicity values were used. 

Acute aquatic algae LOCs were exceeded for Idaho and Maine potato for all application scenarios

(aerial and ground, maximum and typical rates). RQ values range from 1.04 to 7.65. LOCs were

also exceeded for Mississippi cotton (all application scenarios) with RQ values ranging from 1.17

to 1.83. The Texas cotton scenario led to LOC exceedances at the maximum aerial and ground

applications (RQ = 1.7 for both). Additionally, maximum application of endothall to Oregon

hops led to an LOC exceedance (RQ = 2.3) as did applications to California alfalfa and clover

(RQ values = 2.22 and 2.13, respectively). Table 31 summarizes acute RQs for green algae.

None of the acute vascular plant RQs calculated for endothall terrestrial runoff (endothall

acid or N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt) exceeded and LOC values (endangered and nonendangered LOC = 1.0). Tables with calculated RQ values are presented in Appendix H. 
lxxii

Table 32. Endothall terrestrial use acute risk quotients for green algae (runoff) for typical and

maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

Crop scenario Application EEC (ppb) Acute RQ

ID Potato Aerial Max 8 3.5

Aerial Typical 3.1 1.4

Ground Max 6.1 2.7

Ground Typical 2.4 1.0

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 7.7

Aerial Typical 6.9 3.0

Ground Max 16.2 7.0

Ground Typical 6.4 2.8

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 0.22

Aerial Typical 0.3 0.13

Ground Max 0.4 0.17

Ground Typical 0.3 0.13

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3 1.3

Aerial Typical 2.7 1.2

Ground Max 4.2 1.8

Ground Typical 2.7 1.2

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.9 1.7

Aerial Typical 1.8 0.78

Ground Max 3.9 1.7

Ground Typical 1.8 0.78

OR Hops Aerial Max1 N/A N/A

Aerial Typical1 N/A N/A

Ground Max 5.3 2.3

Ground Typical N/A N/A
ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application

lxxiii

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 5.1 2.2

Aerial Typical N/A N/A

Ground Max 4.9 2.1

Ground Typical N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 7.6

Aerial Typical N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 6.8

Ground Typical N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 16.8

Aerial Typical N/A N/A

Ground Max 37.1 16.1

Ground Typical N/A N/A

Green Algae EC50 = 2.3 ppb ae

N/A: data not available or not applicable

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances

2. Non-target Terrestrial Animals

The EEC values for terrestrial exposure were derived from the Kenaga nomograph, as modified

by Fletcher et al., (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. Risk quotients

are calculated using the most sensitive LC50 and NOAEC for birds, LD50 for mammals (based on

laboratory rat studies) and appropriate EEC values. Only the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt is used in terrestrial applications. Therefore, risk to terrestrial animals from food items was

assessed using the N,N-dimethylalkylamine acute toxicity endpoints. Chronic risk was calculated

using endothall acid and endothall disodium salt toxicity values because no data was available for

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine.

Birds: No acute RQs were calculated for birds because avian acute studies found endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine to be practically non-toxic with no or very little mortality at the highest

dose of >5000 and 10,000 ppm.

Chronic LOCs are exceeded for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt application to potato and

hops for birds that feed on grass (short and tall), broadleaf plants, and small insects. Exceedances

occur for all four food items at the maximum use/maximum application rate, for short grass,

broadleaf plants, and small insects at the typical use/maximum application rate, and for short

grass only at the maximum use/mean application rate. Chronic avian exceedances also occur for

endothall application to alfalfa and clover seed crops at the maximum use for birds that feed on

grass (short and tall), broadleaf plants, and small insects. Chronic RQs for birds are summarized
lxxiv

in Table 33. 

Table 33. Avian chronic risk quotients for selected terrestrial uses based on endothall acid

toxicity values

Crop Appl. 

Rate (lbs

ae/acre)

Appl.

Frequenc

y

Max 

appl/

year

Food Items Chronic

Max

RQ

Chronic

Ave 

RQ

Chronic

Typ max

RQ

Chronic

Typ 

Ave

RQ

Potatoes

&

Hops

1.04

(max/ave)

0.41

(typical)

One-time 1

Short grass 4.99 1.77 1.97 0.70

Tall grass 2.29 0.75 0.90 0.30

Broadleaf

plants/small insects

2.81 0.94 1.11 0.37

Fruits, pods, seeds,

lg insects

0.31 0.15 0.12 0.06

Cotton

0.0989

(max/ave)

0.06

(typical)

One-time 1

Short grass 0.47 0.17 0.29 0.10

Tall grass 0.22 0.07 0.13 0.04

Broadleaf

plants/small insects

0.27 0.09 0.16 0.05

Fruits, pods, seeds,

lg insects

0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01

TX

Cotton 0.1319 One-time 1

Short grass 0.63 0.22 N/A N/A

Tall grass 0.29 0.09 N/A N/A

Broadleaf

plants/small insects

0.36 0.12 N/A N/A

Fruits, pods, seeds,

lg insects

0.04 0.02 N/A N/A

Alfalfa

& 

Clover

0.75

(max/ave) 3 2

Short grass 6.83 2.42 N/A N/A

Tall grass 3.13 1.02 N/A N/A

Broadleaf

plants/small insects

3.84 1.28 N/A N/A

Fruits, pods, seeds,

lg insects

0.43 0.20 N/A N/A

Alfalfa

&

Clover

(specific

states)

1.0 3 2

Short grass 9.10 3.22 N/A N/A

Tall grass 4.17 1.37 N/A N/A

Broadleaf

plants/small insects

5.12 1.71 N/A N/A
Crop Appl. 

Rate (lbs

ae/acre)

Appl.

Frequenc

y

Max 

appl/

year

Food Items Chronic

Max

RQ

Chronic

Ave 

RQ

Chronic

Typ max

RQ

Chronic

Typ 

Ave

RQ

lxxv

Fruits, pods, seeds,

lg insects

0.57 0.27 N/A N/A

1

Mallard duck NOAEC = 50 ppm ae

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances

Mammals: Acute RQ values for mammals were calculated based only on rat toxicity data for

endothall acid because there were no available N,N-dimethylalkylamine toxicity data. Therefore

the acute risk may be underestimated.

Acute RQs for the application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (based on endothall acid

toxicity values) to potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover seed fields, exceed the LOC for 15, 35, and

1000g mammals that feed on grass (short and tall), broadleaf plants, fruits, pods, and insects

(large and small). RQ values range from 0.12 to 5.34 (potato and hops) and 0.23 to 7.3

(alfalfa/clover). Application of endothall to cotton fields leads to LOC exceedances for 15 and

35g mammals that feed on grass (short and tall), broadleaf plants, and insects. RQ values range

from 0.1 to 0.51 for cotton. For a more detailed description of acute mammalian RQ values at

specific application rates, see Table 34 . 

Chronic mammalian RQ values were calculated based on the endothall disodium salt due to the

lack of any other chronic endothall data. Chronic LOC exceedances occur for endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt (based on endothall disodium toxicity data) application to potato and

hops (maximum) for mammals that feed on short grass (RQ = 1.66). Exceedances for

alfalfa/clover (maximum and specific state maximum) endothall application occur for mammals

that feed on grass (short and tall), broadleaf plants, and small insects (1.28 to 3.03 RQ range). 

Additionally there is an exceedance at the mean specific state application level to alfalfa/clover

for mammals that consume short grass (RQ = 1.07). Chronic mammalian RQ values are

summarized in Table 35. 
lxxvi

Table 34. Acute risk quotients for small (15g), intermediate (35g), and large (1000g) mammals

feeding on short or tall grass, broadleaf plants/small insects, fruits/pods/large insects and seeds

exposed to endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt based on endothall acid acute toxicity

values.

Crop

(appl. level)

Appl. 

Rate (lbs

ae/acre)

Body

weight

(g)

Mammalian Acute Risk Quotients1

Short

grass

Tall

grass

Broadleaf

Plants/Small

Insects

Fruits/pods

large

insects

Seed

Potatoes

&

Hops

(max)

1.04

15 5.34 2.45 3.00 0.33 0.07

35 3.71 1.70 2.09 0.23 0.05

1000 0.84 0.39 0.47 0.05 0.01

Potatoes

&

Hops

(ave)

1.04

15 1.89 0.80 1.00 0.16 0.03

35 1.31 0.56 0.70 0.11 0.02

1000 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.02 0.00

Potatoes

&

Hops

(max typical)

0.41

15 2.11 0.96 1.18 0.13 0.03

35 1.46 0.67 0.82 0.09 0.02

1000 0.33 0.15 0.19 0.02 0.00

Potatoes

&

Hops

(ave typical)

0.41

15 0.75 0.32 0.39 0.06 0.01

35 0.52 0.22 0.27 0.04 0.01

1000 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.00

Cotton

(max)

0.0989

15 0.51 0.23 0.29 0.03 0.01

35 0.35 0.16 0.20 0.02 0.01

1000 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00

Cotton

(ave)

0.0989

15 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.00

35 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00

1000 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00

Cotton

(max typical)

0.06

15 0.31 0.14 0.17 0.02 0.00

35 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.00

1000 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00
Crop

(appl. level)

Appl. 

Rate (lbs

ae/acre)

Body

weight

(g)

Mammalian Acute Risk Quotients1

Short

grass

Tall

grass

Broadleaf

Plants/Small

Insects

Fruits/pods

large

insects

Seed

lxxvii

Cotton

(ave typical)

0.06

15 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.00

35 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00

1000 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Cotton

(TX max)

0.1319

15 0.68 0.31 0.38 0.04 0.01

35 0.47 0.22 0.26 0.03 0.01

1000 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.00

Cotton

(TX ave)

0.1319

15 0.24 0.10 0.13 0.02 0.00

35 0.17 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.00

1000 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00

Alfalfa

& 

Clover

(max)

0.75

15 7.30 3.35 4.11 0.46 0.10

35 5.07 2.33 2.85 0.32 0.07

1000 1.15 0.53 0.65 0.07 0.01

Alfalfa

& 

Clover

(ave)

0.75

15 2.59 1.10 1.37 0.21 0.05

35 1.80 0.76 0.95 0.15 0.03

1000 0.41 0.17 0.22 0.03 0.01

Alfalfa

&

Clover

(specific

states max)

1.0

15 9.74 4.46 5.48 0.61 0.13

35 6.77 3.10 3.81 0.42 0.10

1000 1.54 0.70 0.86 0.10 0.02

Alfalfa

&

Clover

(specific

states ave)

1.0

15 3.45 1.46 1.83 0.28 0.06

35 2.40 1.01 1.27 0.20 0.04

1000 0.54 0.23 0.29 0.04 0.01

1

Rat LD50 = 44.4 mg/kg (endothall acid)

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances
lxxviii

Table 35. Chronic risk quotients for mammals feeding on short grass, tall grass, broadleaf

plants/insects, and seeds exposed to endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt based on endothall

disodium salt toxicity values.

Crop

(appl. level)

Appl. 

Rate

(lbs

ae/acre)

Mammalian Chronic Risk Quotients1

Short

grass

Tall

grass

Broadleaf

Plants/SmallInsects

Fruits/pods

large insects

Potatoes & Hops (max) 1.04 1.66 0.76 0.94 0.10

Potatoes & Hops (ave) 1.04 0.59 0.25 0.31 0.05

Potatoes & Hops (max typical) 0.41 0.66 0.30 0.37 0.04

Potatoes & Hops (ave typical) 0.41 0.23 0.10 0.12 0.02

Cotton (max) 0.0989 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.01

Cotton (ave) 0.0989 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.00

Cotton (max typical) 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.01

Cotton (ave typical) 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00

TX Cotton (max) 0.1319 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01

TX Cotton (ave) 0.1319 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.01

Alfalfa & Clover (max) 0.75 2.28 1.04 1.28 0.14

Alfalfa & Clover (ave) 0.75 0.81 0.34 0.43 0.07

Alfalfa & Clover (specific state max) 1.0 3.03 1.39 1.71 0.19

Alfalfa & Clover (specific state ave) 1.0 1.07 0.46 0.57 0.09

1

Rat NOAEC = 9.4 mg/kg/day (endothall disodium salt)

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances

3. Non-target Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants

EECs were derived for dry and wetland areas adjacent to the terrestrial application sites. Acute

RQs for terrestrial plants are calculated by dividing the EEC by the from seedling emergence and

vegetative vigor toxicity test EC25. Acute RQs for endangered plant species are also calculated by

dividing the EEC by the NOAEC value. 

Acute non-endangered non-target vascular plant LOCs were exceeded for ground and aerial

endothall application to potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover fields due to adjacent area runoff and

wetland area runoff. RQ values range from 2.3 to 27.5. Exceedances also occur for wetland area

runoff from aerial and ground application of endothall to cotton fields, with RQ values ranging

from 2.5 to 3.6. Acute non-endangered terrestrial plant RQs are summarized in Table 36. 
lxxix

Acute endangered non-target vascular plant LOCs were exceeded for ground and aerial endothall

application to potato, hops, alfalfa/clover, and cotton fields due to adjacent area runoff and

wetland area runoff. RQ values range from 1.5 to 137.5. Exceedances also occur from spray drift

resulting from endothall aerial application to potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover fields (RQ values 1.1

- 1.5). Acute endangered terrestrial plant RQs are summarized in Table 37. 

Table 36. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt terrestrial use acute risk quotients for nonendangered non-target vascular plants using labeled application rates.

Crop/ scenario Application

Adjacent Area 

Runoff

Wetland Area 

Runoff

Spray Drift

EEC (ppb) RQ1 EEC (ppb) RQ1 EEC (ppb) RQ1

Potatoes & Hops 

(1.0 lb ae/A)

1 x per season

Ground 0.06 3.0 0.51 25.5 0.01 <1.0

Aerial 0.1 5.0 0.55 27.5 0.05 <1.0

Alfalfa & Clover

(0.75 lb ae/A)

2 x per season, 3d interval

Ground 0.05 2.3 0.38 19.1 0.008 <1.0

Aerial 0.08 3.8 0.41 20.6 0.04 <1.0

Alfalfa & Clover

(1.0 lb ae/A - state label)

2 x per season, 3d interval

Ground 0.6 3.0 0.51 25.5 0.01 <1.0

Aerial 1.0 5.0 0.55 27.5 0.05 <1.0

Cotton

(0.989 lb ae/A)

1 x per season

Ground 0.06 <1.0 0.05 2.5 0.001 <1.0

Aerial 0.10 <1.0 0.05 2.7 0.005 <1.0

Cotton

(0.1319 lb ae/A - TX label)

1 x per season

Ground 0.008 <1.0 0.07 3.4 0.001 <1.0

Aerial 0.013 <1.0 0.07 3.6 0.007 <1.0

1

Vegetative vigor EC25 = 0.055 lb ae/A (turnip); seedling emergence EC25 = 0.020 lb ae/A (lettuce) 

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances
lxxx

Table 37. Endothall terrestrial use acute risk quotients for endangered non-target vascular

plants using labeled application rates of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt.

Crop/ scenario Application Adjacent Area 

Runoff

Wetland Area 

Runoff

Spray Drift

EEC (ppb) RQ1 EEC (ppb) RQ1 EEC (ppb) RQ1

Potatoes & Hops 

(1.0 lb ae/A)

1 x per season

Ground 0.06 15.0 0.51 127.5 0.01 <1.0

Aerial 0.1 25.0 0.55 137.5 0.05 1.5

Alfalfa & Clover

(0.75 lb ae/A)

2 x per season, 3d interval

Ground 0.05 11.3 0.38 95.6 0.008 <1.0

Aerial 0.08 18.8 0.41 103.1 0.04 1.1

Alfalfa & Clover

(1.0 lb ae/A - state label)

2 x per season, 3d interval

Ground 0.6 15.0 0.51 127.5 0.01 <1.0

Aerial 1.0 25.0 0.55 137.5 0.05 1.5

Cotton

(0.989 lb ae/A)

1 x per season

Ground 0.06 1.5 0.05 12.6 0.001 <1.0

Aerial 0.10 2.5 0.05 13.6 0.005 <1.0

Cotton

(0.1319 lb ae/A - TX label)

1 x per season

Ground 0.008 2.0 0.07 16.8 0.001 <1.0

Aerial 0.013 3.3 0.07 18.1 0.007 <1.0

1

Vegetative vigor NOAEC = 0.034 lb ae/A (turnip); seedling emergence NOAEC = 0.004 lb ae/A (lettuce)

Bold numbers in table signify exceedances

B. Risk Description - Interpretation of Direct Effects

1. Risks to Aquatic Animals and Plants

a. Direct Aquatic Application

Summary of Major Conclusions

Dipotassium salt: 

• Acute endangered species LOCs were exceeded for freshwater fish at all endothall

dipotassium salt application levels. 

• Endangered species acute LOCs were exceeded for freshwater invertebrates,

estuarine/marine fish, and estuarine/marine invertebrates at the highest endothall

dipotassium salt application levels (4 and 5 ppm). 

• Acute LOCs for aquatic plants were exceeded for algae and both endangered and

non-endangered vascular plants at all doses of endothall dipotassium salt

• No chronic endangered species LOCs were exceeded for freshwater fish
lxxxi

• There are no chronic toxicity data for any estuarine/marine animals. Because of

this data gap, and the results of our assessment of chronic risk to freshwater

aquatic animals, we cannot make a no effect determination for estuarine/marine

species.

• Risk to sediment dwelling organisms could not be assessed due to lack of sediment

organism toxicity data. Sediment organism toxicity data remains a critical data

gap.

• The models used in this assessment assume 100% application of the herbicide to

water bodies. In reality, endothall dipotassium salt is applied only to limited areas

based on the level of aquatic weed growth. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt:

• The restricted use and endangered species acute LOC was exceeded for all aquatic

animals at all endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt aquatic application rates.

• The chronic LOC was exceeded for all freshwater aquatic animals at all endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt aquatic application rates.

• The restricted use and endangered species LOC was exceeded for all aquatic plants

(vascular and non-vascular) at all endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt aquatic

application rates. 

• There are no chronic toxicity data for any estuarine/marine animals. Because of

this data gap, and the results of our assessment of chronic risk to freshwater

aquatic animals, we cannot make a no effect determination for estuarine/marine

species.

• Risk to sediment dwelling organisms could not be assessed due to lack of sediment

organism toxicity data. Sediment organism toxicity data remains a critical data

gap.

• The acute toxicity of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is 2-3 orders of magnitude

more toxic to aquatic animals than the dipotassium salt. This difference could be

due to a) increased uptake of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, b) direct toxicity of

the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, c) direct toxicity of the cocoalkylamine cation, or d) a combination of a, b, and c. More information is needed

to address this uncertainty.

The models used in this assessment assume 100% application of the herbicide to water bodies. In

reality, endothall is applied only to limited areas based on the level of aquatic weed growth. 
lxxxii

Discussion

Based on the aforementioned LOC exceedances for aquatic organisms, endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt use poses the highest risk to aquatic organisms when applied directly to

the aquatic environment, and this discussion will focus primarily on the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt.

Aquatic animal chronic risk quotients were calculated for both the endothall acid and the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine formulation. Due to the lack of fate data on the N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, it is difficult to accurately estimate the chronic risk to aquatic animals. 

Endangered species LOCs are exceeded at all application rates with the N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt, whereas the endothall acid leads to exceedances at only the highest application rates. The

true chronic risk quotients most likely fall in a range from the endothall acid values to the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt values. As previously stated, it is assumed that all forms

(endothall acid, N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, and coco-alkylamine cation) are present at

environmentally relevant pH values and therefore all may contribute to chronic toxicity. 

Additionally, there is a lack of any N,N-dimethylalkylamine toxicity data for estuarine animals;

therefore, studies are needed for both the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt and the cocoalkylamine cation.

The use labels for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt indicate that the alkyl group is

derived from coconut oil. No further information on the structure of this chemical is provided by

the registrant. Coconut-derived alkyl groups may have a chemical formula of C14H31N, with a

varying number of carbons. Although the Kow for this endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is

reported as <1, it is highly probable that the true Kow is higher given the nature of the long-chain

amine. Clarification is necessary in order to assure that the reported value is for the endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt and not solely the endothall acid. Additionally, a BCF value for the

individual coco-alkylamine cation is needed based on the long-chain amine which may

significantly increase bioconcentration. Chemicals similar to the coco-alkylamine cation are

used as surfactants, which may play a role in the technical mixture efficacy as well as toxicity to

non-target organisms. The role of this cation in the chemical formulation needs to be explained.

Due to the increased toxicity of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, further fate studies are

necessary in order to properly estimate exposure. Limited fate data are available for the N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt, and further studies examining the endothall acid as well as the cocoalkylamine cation following Hydrothol 191® application are needed, including anaerobic and

aerobic aquatic metabolism and adsorption/desorption constants. 

Freshwater invertebrate toxicity data for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt indicate that

this form is highly toxic. The positively-charged nature of the dissociated coco-alkylamine cation

indicates that it will bind to sediment, thereby exposing benthic invertebrates. To characterize

this risk, fate information (see above) and sediment invertebrate toxicity data for the cocoalkylamine cation are necessary.
lxxxiii

The models used in this assessment assume application of the herbicide to 100% of the water

body. In reality, endothall (both dipotassium salt and N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt) is applied

only to limited areas based on the level of aquatic weed growth. Fish avoidance behavior could

lessen the actual exposure to the chemical, thereby decreasing the risk; however, in several fish

avoidance studies the responses were inconclusive. Therefore, this risk assessment assumes that

the 100% treatment model is acceptable and that risk is not mitigated by fish avoidance. 

Despite large differences in toxicity between endothall dipotassium salt and endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt to aquatic animals, no such difference exists for vascular aquatic plants,

based on duckweed data. Although there are still LOC exceedances for vascular aquatic plants at

all dose levels, further studies could be performed on other vascular plant species to examine

differences in toxicity between the two endothall salts.

Based on the information in this assessment, a reduction in application rate would not result in

risk quotients that are less than the LOC for freshwater aquatic animals and vascular plants. 

PRZM/EXAMS modeling results suggest that a reduction rate of several orders of magnitude

would be needed to reduce risk quotients below the LOC.

b. Terrestrial Application 

(much of the direct aquatic application risk description also applies to

aquatic organism risk from terrestrial application)

Summary of Major Conclusions

• Based on endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt toxicity data, the restricted use and

endangered species acute LOC was exceeded for freshwater fish and invertebrates for

application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to potatoes, cotton, hops, and

alfalfa/clover. Exceedances also occurred for estuarine/marine invertebrates at higher

application rates on potato and alfalfa/clover fields, and for estuarine/marine fish at higher

application rates on alfalfa/clover fields.

• There are no acute LOC exceedances for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates due to runoff from terrestrial application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt based on endothall acid toxicity data. 

• There are no chronic LOC exceedances for freshwater fish and invertebrates due to runoff

from terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt based on endothall

acid toxicity data.

• The restricted use and endangered species acute LOC was exceeded in several terrestrial

use runoff scenarios for freshwater and marine/estuarine invertebrates and freshwater fish

for terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt at various aerial and

ground application rates
lxxxiv

• The chronic LOC was exceeded for freshwater invertebrates in several terrestrial use

runoff scenarios for endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt terrestrial aerial and ground

application rates.

• There are no chronic toxicity data for any estuarine/marine animals. Because of this data

gap, and the results of our assessment of chronic risk to freshwater aquatic animals, we

cannot make a no effect determination for estuarine/marine species.

• The acute toxicity of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is 2-3 orders of magnitude more

toxic to aquatic animals than the dipotassium salt. This difference could be due to a)

increased uptake of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt b) direct toxicity of the cocoalkylamine cation, or c) a combination of uptake and direct toxicity. More information is

needed to address this uncertainty.

• There are no data on soil photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, and adsorption/desorption

for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. Further studies are necessary.

Discussion

Based on the aforementioned LOC exceedances for aquatic organisms, endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt use poses calculated risk to aquatic organisms from terrestrial application

runoff. 

Data gaps in fate studies on the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt mentioned in the aquatic

application section also apply to the terrestrial runoff scenario. Due to the fact that the endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is much more toxic to aquatic organisms than the endothall

dipotassium salt, further information on the speciation of the salt is needed to properly assess risk. 

In terrestrial scenarios, the presence of the endothall acid, endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt,

and the coco-alkylamine cation, will be largely driven by soil and water pH as well as sorption to

soil and plant matter. There are no data on soil photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, and

adsorption/desorption for the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt and further studies are

necessary.

Use scenarios that lead to the highest acute LOC exceedances for endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt application include Maine potato, North Carolina alfalfa and clover, and

Pennsylvania alfalfa and clover. It is most likely that a combination of application rate and

climate (rainfall) at these sites contributes to the higher EECs, but other factors, such as soil type

and soil pH play a role.

EECs used to calculate risk quotients were based on both maximum and typical application rates. 

In some instances, exceedances occur for the maximum, but not typical rates. In these scenarios,

maximum application rates are 1.5 to 2.5 times the reported typical use rates. Although these

typical application levels were available for most scenarios, the Oregon hops and California,

North Carolina, and Pennsylvania alfalfa/clover scenarios were not run using typical use data
lxxxv

because these rates were not available. Therefore, it is possible that LOC exceedances for these

scenarios will not occur with typical endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt use rates.

2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms

a. Birds

Summary of Major Conclusions

• Low acute risk to endangered and non-endangered birds is presumed due to the low

toxicity of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. RQ values were not calculated

(LC50 = >5000 or 10,000 ppm) based on these values and use information.

• The chronic LOC was exceeded for birds that feed on grasses, broadleaf plants, and small

insects in potato, hops, and seed alfalfa/clover fields where endothall is applied. There is

a lack of avian chronic N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt toxicity data, and chronic RQs were

calculated based only on endothall acid values. 

• For most application scenarios, LOC exceedances occur only for maximum application

rates, and there are no exceedances for the average typical application.

• No reproductive toxicity studies in birds are available for either the endothall acid or the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. This represents a substantial data gap. 

Unlike aquatic animal toxicity studies, it does not appear that differences exist in toxicity between

the endothall acid and the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt based on acute toxicity data. 

However, there are no chronic toxicity data for the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, and despite the

fact that no differences exist in the acute toxicity between this salt and endothall acid, further

studies are necessary to accurately assess chronic risk to birds following application of the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt.

b. Mammals

Summary of Major Conclusions

• Acute mammalian LOCs were exceeded based on labeled application rates of endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to potatoes, hops, and alfalfa/clover for seed production. 

The endangered species LOC is also exceeded for use on cotton. 

• Chronic risk to mammals is expected from labeled use on alfalfa and clover seed

production. Only small herbivorous mammals (including endangered) may be at chronic

risk from use on potatoes and hops. Chronic risk to mammals (including endangered) is

not expected from the use on cotton.
lxxxvi

Mammalian acute toxicity studies (rat) were performed with the endothall acid but not for the

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. Possible differences in the toxicity of these two chemicals

necessitate further acute toxicity studies with the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt in order to

adequately assess risk. Chronic toxicity studies were performed using endothall disodium salt, a

formulation that is no longer in use. Although these studies have been deemed sufficient by

HED, questions arising from the significant toxicity differences between endothall forms in other

animals (aquatics) pose the need for chronic toxicity studies using both the endothall acid and the

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt.

c. Vascular plants

Summary of Major Conclusions

• Non-endangered non-target vascular plants are at risk from both adjacent area runoff and

wetland area runoff following application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to

potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover seed fields. LOC exceedances also occur from wetland

area runoff on cotton fields. 

• Endangered non-target vascular plants are at risk from adjacent area runoff, wetland area

runoff, and spray drift following application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to

potato, hops, and alfalfa/clover seed fields. LOC exceedances also occur from adjacent

and wetland area runoff on cotton fields.

LOC exceedances for non-target vascular plants occur for both ground and aerial applications at

various state label rates. Endangered plant wetland area runoff RQs are the highest, ranging from

12.6 (cotton) to 137.5 for potatoes, hops, and seed clover/alfalfa crops. All of the toxicity studies

were conducted using the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, and further data is needed on the toxicity

of the endothall acid

C. Threatened and Endangered Species Concerns

1. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

The Agency’s levels of concern for endangered and threatened freshwater fish and invertebrates,

estuarine/marine invertebrates, aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants, birds, mammals, and

non-target terrestrial plants are exceeded for the use of endothall. Appendix I provides a list of

endangered and threatened species for each crop where endothall is used terrestrially. Endothall

has the potential for aquatic weed application in all fifty states. Therefore, due to acute RQ

endangered species exceedances for fish and invertebrates (freshwater and marine/estuarine) and

aquatic plants, all aquatic species in all states are potentially at risk. A full list of the

threatened or endangered aquatic species is in Appendix J. The LOCATES database does not

delineate between aquatic and terrestrial plants; therefore they are not present in the list, and

further refinement is necessary to include the aquatic plant species. The Agency also recognizes

that there are no Federally listed estuarine/marine invertebrates or mollusks.

The registrant must provide information on the proximity of Federally listed endangered species
lxxxvii

to the endothall usage sites. This requirement may be satisfied in one of three ways: 1) having

membership in the FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force (Pesticide Registration Notice 2000-

2); 2) citing FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force data; or 3) independently producing these

data, provided the information is of sufficient quality to meet FIFRA requirements. The

information will be used by the OPP Endangered Species Protection Program to develop

recommendations to avoid adverse effects to listed species. 

Dipotassium salt

The preliminary risk assessment for endangered species indicates that endothall dipotassium salt

exceeds the endangered species LOCs for the following combinations of analyzed uses and

species:

• Freshwater fish (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater invertebrates (acute): aquatic application at the two highest doses (4-5 ppm)

• Estuarine/Marine fish (acute): aquatic application at the two highest doses (4-5 ppm)

• Estuarine/Marine invertebrates (acute): aquatic application at the two highest doses (4-5

ppm)

• Aquatic vascular plants (acute): all direct aquatic applications

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

The preliminary risk assessment for endangered species indicates that endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt exceeds the endangered species LOCs for the following combinations of

analyzed uses and species:

• Freshwater fish (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater invertebrates (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Estuarine/Marine fish (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Estuarine/Marine invertebrates (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Aquatic vascular plants (acute): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater fish (chronic): all direct aquatic applications

• Freshwater invertebrates (chronic): all direct aquatic applications

• Birds (acute): 

– alfalfa/clover seed application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects)
lxxxviii

– potato and hops application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects)

• Mammals (acute): 

– potato and hops application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects) - all sizes

– cotton application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects) - all sizes

– alfalfa/clover seed application (grass, broadleaf plants, insects, fruits, and pods) - 

all sizes

• Mammals (chronic): 

– potato and hops application (short grass) - all sizes

– alfalfa/clover seed application (grass, broadleaf plants, small insects) - all sizes

• Non-target terrestrial plants (acute):

– potatoes and hops application (adjacent runoff, wetland runoff, spray drift)

– cotton application (adjacent and wetland runoff)

– alfalfa/clover seed application (adjacent wetland runoff, wetland runoff, spray

drift)

 There are over 320 endangered aquatic species (excluding plants) in the United States, all of

which are potentially at risk from direct application of endothall to aquatic systems for weed

control.

Terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt poses risk to terrestrial species:

Amphibians

Seventeen endangered or threatened amphibian species occur in 10 states that grow potatoes,

cotton, and alfalfa/clover for seed use. All of these species occur in Western (AZ, CA, NM, TX)

or Southern (AL, FL, GA, SC, VA, WV) states that grow potatoes and/or cotton, and most are

salamander species that are specific to particular states. Two amphibian species inhabit areas

where seed alfalfa and clover are grown.

Terrestrial Invertebrates

34 terrestrial endangered or threatened invertebrates live in seventeen states where potatoes,

cotton, and alfalfa/clover for seed are grown. 

Birds

There are 35 endangered or threatened bird species in 48 states that grow potatoes, cotton, hops,

and alfalfa/clover for seed use. Several species, such as the bald eagle and piping plover, occur in

most of the states. Only two endangered species inhabit areas where hops are grown.

Reptiles

There are 24 endangered or threatened reptile species in 16 states that grow potatoes, cotton, and
lxxxix

alfalfa/clover for seed use. These species occur mainly in Western (AZ, CA, NM, TX) and

Southern (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA) states, and most occur in potato and

cotton-growing states.

Mammals

Fifty endangered or threatened mammal species occur in 45 states that grow potatoes, cotton, and

alfalfa/clover for seed use. The majority occur in the Western (AZ, CA, NM, OR, TX, WA) and

Southern (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV) states. 

Plants

There are 272 endangered or threatened plant species in 43 states that grow potatoes, cotton,

alfalfa/clover for seed, and hops. These species are largely state-specific, with California

containing the most endangered plant species. 

2. Probit Slope Analysis

The probit slope response relationship is evaluated to calculate the chance of an individual event

corresponding to the listed species acute LOCs. If information is unavailable to estimate a slope

for a particular study, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used as per original Agency

assumptions of typical slope cited in Urban and Cook (1986).

Freshwater Fish

Dipotassium salt: Raw data is not provided in the rainbow trout study by Mayer et al. (1986) to

calculate a slope. Therefore, the event probability was calculated for freshwater fish LOC based

on a default slope of 4.5. Based on an assumption of a probit dose response relationship with a

mean estimated slope of 4.5 and the corresponding estimated chance of individual mortality

associated with the listed species LOC of 0.05 is 1 in 4.2x108

. RQ exceedances occur for

freshwater fish species at all application rates, and the individual mortality associated with the

range of calculated RQ values (0.05 - 0.55) result in an estimated chance of individual mortality

between of 1 in 4.2 x 108

 and 1 in 8 (13%), respectively. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Raw data is not provided in the cutthroat trout study by Johnson et

al. (1980) to calculate a slope. Therefore, the event probability was calculated for freshwater fish

LOC based on a default slope of 4.5. Based on an assumption of a probit dose response

relationship with a mean estimated slope of 4.5, the corresponding estimated chance of individual

mortality associated with the listed species LOC of 0.05 is 1 in 4.2x108

. However, individual

mortality associated with the calculated RQ value (12) for freshwater fish exposed to the lowest

(500 ppb) aquatic application of endothall amine salt is 100%. 

It is recognized that extrapolation of very low probability events is associated with considerable

uncertainty in the resulting estimates. To explore possible bounds to such estimates, the upper

and lower values for the mean slope estimate can be used to calculate upper and lower estimates

of the effects probability associated with the listed species LOC. However, since slope is based
xc

on a default assumption of 4.5, the 95 percent confidence intervals for the slopes are unavailable. 

Freshwater Invertebrates

Dipotassium salt: Analysis of raw data from the Daphnia magna endothall dipotassium salt acute

toxicity study (MRID 42695403) estimate a slope of 4.9 (95% C.I. -2.6 - 12.5). Based on this

slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality of freshwater invertebrates

following direct aquatic endothall dipotassium application is 1 in 10,000,000,000. To explore

possible bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower values for the mean slope estimate (-2.6 -

12.5) can be used to calculate upper and lower estimates of the effects probability associated with

the listed species LOC. These values are 1 in 1 (100%) and 1 in 1x1016. RQ exceedances only

occur for freshwater invertebrate species at the highest applications (4000 and 5000 ppb), and the

individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ values (0.06 and 0.08) result in an

estimated chance of individual mortality of 1 in 9.3x108 and 1 in 2.6x107, respectively. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Analysis of raw data from the Daphnia magna endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt acute toxicity study (MRID 00035242) estimate a slope of 2.2 (95% C.I.

1.35 - 3.04). Based on this slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality of

freshwater invertebrates following direct aquatic endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine application is

1 in 475. To explore possible bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower values for the mean

slope estimate (1.35 - 3.04) can be used to calculate upper and lower estimates of the effects

probability associated with the listed species LOC. These values are 1 in 25.3 and 1 in 26,100. 

However, individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ value (42) for freshwater

invertebrates exposed to the lowest (500 ppb) aquatic application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is 100%. 

Marine/Estuarine fish

Dipotassium salt: Analysis of raw data from the sheepshead minnow endothall dipotassium salt

acute toxicity study (MRID 42695405) estimate a slope of 5.6 (95% C.I. 3.7 - 7.4). Based on this

slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality of estuarine/marine fish

following direct aquatic endothall dipotassium application is 1 in 6.2x1012. To explore possible

bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower values for the mean slope estimate (3.7 - 7.4) can

be used to calculate upper and lower estimates of the effects probability associated with the listed

species LOC. These values are 1 in 1,400,000 and 1 in 1x1016. RQ exceedances only occur for

estuarine/marine fish species at the highest applications (4000 and 5000 ppb), and the individual

mortality associated with the calculated RQ values (0.06 and 0.07) result in an estimated chance

of individual mortality of 1 in 2.6x1011 and 1 in 2x1010, respectively. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Analysis of raw data from the sheepshead minnow endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt acute toxicity study (MRID 43196903) estimate a slope of 9.9 (95% C.I.

5.6 - 14.2). Based on this slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality of

estuarine/marine fish following direct aquatic endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine amine

application is 1 in 1x1016. To explore possible bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower
xci

values for the mean slope estimate (5.6 - 14.2) can be used to calculate upper and lower estimates

of the effects probability associated with the listed species LOC. These values are 1 in 6.2x1012

and 1 in 1x1016. However, individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ value (0.6) for

estuarine/marine fish exposed to the lowest (500 ppb) aquatic application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is 1 in 71.2.

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Dipotassium salt: Analysis of raw data from the mysid shrimp endothall dipotassium salt acute

toxicity study (MRID 42695406) estimate a slope of 7.4 (95% C.I. 4.5 - 10.3). Based on this

slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality of estuarine/marine

invertebrates following direct aquatic endothall dipotassium application is 1 in 1x1016. To

explore possible bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower values for the mean slope estimate

(4.5 - 10.3) can be used to calculate upper and lower estimates of the effects probability

associated with the listed species LOC. These values are 1 in 420,000,000 and 1 in 1x1016. RQ

exceedances only occur for estuarine/marine invertebrate species at the highest applications (4000

and 5000 ppb).

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Analysis of raw data from the Eastern oyster endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt acute toxicity study (MRID 43550201) estimate a slope of 2.2 (95% C.I.

1.8 - 2.6). Based on this slope, the corresponding estimate chance of individual mortality of

estuarine/marine invertebrates following direct aquatic endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt

application is 1 in 475. To explore possible bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower values

for the mean slope estimate (1.8 - 2.6) can be used to calculate upper and lower estimates of the

effects probability associated with the listed species LOC. These values are 1 in 104 and 1 in

2,790. However, individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ value (3.1) for

estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to the lowest (500 ppb) aquatic application of endothall

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is 1 in 1.2 (close to 100%).

Mammals

Analysis of raw data from a rat endothall acid acute oral toxicity study (MRID 42289201)

estimate a slope of 5.7 (95% C.I. -1.1 - 11.4) for males. Based on this slope, the corresponding

estimate chance of individual mortality of terrestrial mammals following terrestrial endothall

application is 1 in 1.7 x 108

. For female animals, there was insufficient data to perform a probit

slope analysis (there are less than 2 concentrations at which the % mortality is between 0 and

100). The acute RQ values for terrestrial mammals range from 0.1 to 9.74. At the endangered

species LOC of 0.1, individual mortality, as stated above is 1 in 1.7 x 108. However, at RQ values

between 1.0 and 9.74, individual mortality is 100%. 

3. Critical Habitats

In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the

physical and biological features (constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the U.S

Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services as essential to the conservation of a

listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The
xcii

evaluation of impacts for a screening level pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological

features that are constituent elements and is accomplished using the screening-level taxonomic

analysis (risk quotients, RQs) and listed species levels of concern (LOCs) that are used to

evaluate direct and indirect effects to listed organisms.

The screening-level risk assessment has identified potential concerns for indirect effects on listed

species for those organisms dependant upon aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and

estuarine/marine), fish, birds, mammals, and aquatic plants. In light of the potential for indirect

effects, the next step for EPA and the Service(s) is to identify which listed species and critical

habitat are potentially implicated. Analytically, the identification of such species and critical

habitat can occur in either of two ways. First, the agencies could determine whether the action

area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range of any listed species. If so, EPA would

examine whether the pesticide's potential impacts on non-endangered species would affect the

listed species indirectly or directly affect a constituent element of the critical habitat. 

Alternatively, the agencies could determine which listed species depend on biological resources,

or have constiuent elements that fall into, the taxa that may be directly or indirectly impacted by

the pesticide. Then EPA would determine whether use of the pesticide overlaps the critical

habitat or the occupied range of those listed species. At present, the information reviewed by

EPA does not permit use of either analytical approach to make a definitive identification of

species that are potentially impacted indirectly or critical habitats that is potentially impacted

directly by the use of the pesticide. EPA and the Service(s) are working together to conduct the

necessary analysis.

This screening-level risk assessment for critical habitat provides a listing of potential biological

features that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical habitats, would be of

potential concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern for

indirect effects and include aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine/marine), fish, birds,

mammals, and aquatic plants. This list should serve as an initial step in problem formulation for

further assessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, should additional work be necessary

4. Indirect Effect Analyses

The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effects upon the

listed organisms by, for example, perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of

nesting habitat, creating gaps in the food chain, etc.

In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for each taxonomic group are used

to make inferences concerning the potential for indirect effects upon listed species that rely upon

non-endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as resources critical to their life cycle.

Because screening-level acute RQs for freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine

invertebrates, birds, and mammals exceed the endangered species acute LOCs, the Agency uses

the dose response relationship from the toxicity study used for calculating the RQ to estimate the

probability of acute effects associated with an exposure equivalent to the EEC. This information
xciii

serves as a guide to establish the need for and extent of additional analysis that may be performed

using Services-provided “species profiles” as well as evaluations of the geographical and

temporal nature of the exposure to ascertain if a “not likely to adversely affect” determination can

be made. The degree to which additional analyses are performed is commensurate with the

predicted probability of adverse effects from the comparison of the dose response information

with the EECs. The greater the probability that exposures will produce effects on a taxa, the

greater the concern for potential indirect effects for listed species dependent upon that taxa, and

therefore, the more intensive the analysis on the potential listed species of concern, their locations

relative to the use site, and information regarding the use scenario (e.g., timing, frequency, and

geographical extent of pesticide application).

Screening-level chronic RQs for mammals exceed the endangered LOC; therefore, there may be a

potential concern for indirect effects. Chronic risk could not be determined for the other

taxonomic groups of potential concern (based on acute concerns) due to lack of data. Therefore,

the nature of the chronic toxicological endpoint can not be considered to determine if a rationale

for a “not likely to adversely effect” determination is possible. As such, Services-provided

“species profiles”, and further evaluation of the geographical and temporal nature of the exposure

are all that can be considered to determine if a rationale for a “not likely to adversely effect”

determination is possible.

Screening-level acute RQs for aquatic invertebrates, aquatic and terrestrial plants, birds,

mammals and fish are above the non-endangered species LOCs. The Agency considers this to be

indicative of a potential for adverse effects to those listed species that rely either on a specific

plant species (plant species obligate) or multiple plant species (plant dependent) for some

important aspect of their life cycle. The Agency may determine if listed organisms for which

plants are a critical component of their resource needs are within the pesticide use area. This is

accomplished through a comparison of Service-provided “species profiles” and listed species

location data. If no listed organisms that are either plant species obligates or plant dependent

reside within the pesticide use area, a no effect determination on listed species is made. If plant

species obligate or dependent organism may reside within the pesticide use area, the Agency may

consider temporal and geographical nature of exposure, and the scope of the effects data, to

determine if any potential effects can be determined to not likely adversely affect a plant species

obligate or dependent listed organism.

Indirect effects to aquatic animals may result from 1)sensitive plants that serve as food items for

some species of aquatic organisms are reduced and 2) sensitive aquatic emergent plants that

provide shade in the water are knocked down from the herbicide exposure and thus alter the

temperature of the water where sensitive organisms inhabit, or 3) aquatic invertebrate population

may be reduced from direct or chronic effects, thus limiting the amount of food items for larger

aquatic animals.

Indirect effects to terrestrial animals may result from reduced food items to animals, behavior

modifications from reduced or a modified habitat, and from alterations of habitats. Alterations of

habitats can affect the reproductive capacity of some terrestrial animals.
xciv

D. Description of Assumptions, Uncertainties, Strengths, and Limitations

1. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for all Taxa

Endothall acid (the active ingredient) is expected to persist in treated terrestrial and aquatic areas

for about 10 days with no major degradates observed. The only observed degradates were bound

residues and CO2. At environmentally relevant pH values, the endothall acid, endothall salt

(dipotassium or N,N-dimethylalkylamine) and the corresponding cation (potassium or cocoalkylamine) will all be present to some degree. Aquatic species can be exposed from both

terrestrial and aquatic application of endothall. 

a. Aquatic Use

Aquatic use of endothall can be either large or small-scale and can include either the dipotassium

salt (liquid and granular) or the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. 

Dipotassium salt: At most water body pH levels, three chemical forms of the dipotassium

endothall will be present: endothall dipotassium salt, potassium cation, and endothall acid. The

positively-charged potassium cations are highly soluable, and the endothall acid and endothall

dipotassium salt will also be uniformly-distributed in the water column. These assumptions may

be true for a liquid formulation, but granules and pellets may release more slowly and settle to the

bottom where they will dissolve. 

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: As with endothall dipotassium salt, at most water body pH levels,

three chemicals forms (endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt, endothall acid, and cocoalkylamine cation) will be present. Endothall acid and the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt will be evenly dispersed in the water column, whereas the positively-charged cocoalkylamine cation will mainly sorb to the sediment. 

Although the aforementioned assumptions of uniform distribution of the various endothall forms

in the water column may be true for a liquid formulation, granules and pellets may release more

slowly and settle to the bottom where they slowly dissolve. Endothall dipotassium salt and

endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt are used in both liquid and solid (granular or pellet)

forms. 

EFED also recognizes that the treated area, weed(s) to be controlled, and plant density all play a

role in determining the correct application rate. Generally speaking, a higher use rate will be used

with a smaller area and visa versa, because diffusion, dilution, and dispersion will aid in the

dissipation of endothall from an applied area. The exposure to a given aquatic species will

depend on its location relative to the treated area, among other factors. An aquatic invertebrate

or fish in the treated area may or may not move from the treated area. Dispersion, dilution, and

diffusion will reduce exposure in the treated area, and will likely result in some exposure in nontreated areas. However, this exposure is likely to be diluted to concentrations below a given level

of concern.
xcv

As previously stated, studies on fish avoidance behavior upon exposure to endothall are largely

inconclusive and cannot be used to accurately examine risk to these organisms.

An aquatic herbicide will likely be applied at a higher rate for some weeds and for higher weed

densities, certain weeds require a higher dose for a longer period of time than others, and high

densities will absorb and intercept more herbicide. 

The aquatic exposure modeling assumes a pond that is 100% treated and has no outflow. Labels

indicate that only portions of the lake or pond should be treated. Therefore, the modeled

estimates for a pond are likely to be higher than those for a flowing water body or one that is only

partially treated. EEC are considered to be conservative since they assume 100% of the pond is

treated.

In summary, expected concentrations from direct application to water will be highly location

dependent and modeled EECs are likely to be conservative.

b. Terrestrial Use

Exposure resulting from terrestrial endothall N,N-dimethylalkyamine salt application can occur

from both spray drift and runoff. While spray drift is likely to occur from both ground and aerial

application, runoff of the endothall acid anion is the primary route of exposure. Therefore, both

acute and chronic exposures from terrestrial applications are assumed to be from the acid anion as

well as the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt. The coco-alkylamine cation is positively charged, and

will likely be associated with soil or suspended sediment that leaves the field. Therefore, it will

likely be unavailable to aquatic organisms.

Aquatic exposure from terrestrial applications was modeled using the PRZM-EXAMS model and

represents an upper bound of expected concentrations. There were no monitoring data for

comparison, although modeling data are usually higher than monitoring. 

2. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Terrestrial

Species

a. Location of Wildlife Species

For screening terrestrial risk assessments for listed species, a generic bird or mammal is assumed

to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving pesticide at a rate commensurate with

the treatment rate on the field. Spray drift model predictions suggest that this assumption leads to

an overestimation of exposure to species that do not occupy the treated filed. For screening risk

assessment purposes, the actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species are not

considered, and it assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the treated area

being modeled. This assumption leads to a maximum level of exposure in the risk

characterization.
xcvi

Terrestrial EEC are based on peak value of the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher. The

residues from the Kenaga nomogram are measured immediately after application. The peak

maximum value is the upper limit value and may be conservative. The endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is applied to plants prior to harvest late in the season when large amounts

of foliage are present. The LOC for avian reproductive impairment is exceeded for endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt application, and based on this timing information, it is apparent that

wildlife will be present in the fields during the period of application. . 

A variety of avian populations are nested in cotton, potato, alfalfa, hops, and clover fields. 

However, the application of endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is expected to be outside of

the reproductive period of time. Therefore, exposure during the reproductive period may be

minimal. 

Small mammals also inhabit cotton, potato, alfalfa, hops, and clover fields. Mammals may be

exposed to endothall through food items in heavily vegetated fields as well as around transitional

areas around the fields that may receive endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt from spray drift. 

There are several small mammals such as mice that breed throughout the summer. These

mammals will also be exposed to endothall contaminated food items during their breeding and

gestation period. Despite the fact that endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is a dessicant,

species may still feed on food items present in treated fields.

b. Routes of Exposure

Screening-level risk assessments for spray applications of pesticides consider dietary exposure

alone. Other routes of exposure, not considered in this assessment, are discussed below:

 • Incidental soil ingestion exposure - This risk assessment does not consider

incidental soil ingestion. Available data suggests that up to 15% of the diet can

consist of incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy

(Beyer et al., 1994). 

 • Inhalation exposure - The screening risk assessment does not consider inhalation

exposure. Such exposure may occur through three potential sources: (1) spray

material in droplet form at the time of application (2) vapor phase pesticide

volatilizing from treated surfaces, and (3) airborne particulate (soil, vegetative

material, and pesticide dusts).

• Dermal Exposure - The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure,

except as it is indirectly included in calculations of RQs based on lethal doses per

unit of pesticide treated area. Dermal exposure may occur through three potential

sources: (1) direct application of spray to terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or

within the drift footprint, (2) incidental contact with contaminated vegetation, or

(3) contact with contaminated water or soil.
xcvii

• Drinking Water Exposure - Drinking water exposure to a pesticide active

ingredient may be the result of consumption of surface water or consumption of

the pesticide in dew or other water on the surfaces of treated vegetation. For

pesticide active ingredients with a potential to dissolve in runoff, puddles on the

treated field may contain the chemical. 

c. Residue Levels Selection

As discussed earlier in the exposure section of this document, the Agency relies on the work of

Fletcher et al. (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues in wildlife dietary items. The

Agency believes that these residue assumptions 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.

d. Dietary Intake - Differences Between Laboratory and Field

Conditions

The acute and chronic characterization of risk rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary residues

with LC50 or NOAEC values expressed in concentrations of pesticides in laboratory feed. These

comparisons assume 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 and assimilative efficiency differences between wildlife food items and

laboratory feed.

On gross energy content alone, direct comparison of a laboratory dietary concentration- based

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. Only for

seeds would the direct comparison of dietary threshold to residue estimate lead to an overestimate

of exposure.

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.
xcviii

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.

e. Estimated Environmental Concentrations to Non-Target Plants

Currently the model for predicting the exposure to non-target plants adjacent to application sites

and also to low-lying wetlands are based on the application rate, method of application (aerial or

ground), and the solubility of the pesticide. Several transport factors are not incorporated into the

model. The exposure prediction may be underestimated or overestimated. 

The model also assumes 5% spray drift when aerially applied. AgDrift usually predicts about

10% and up to 15% spray drift at the edge of the field. The aerial application EEC in this risk

assessment may be underestimated.

f. Data gaps

Chemical properties, fate, and transport information is needed for the coco-alkylamine cation,

depending on future toxicity characterization. The structure of the coco-alkylamine group is not

specified and it is important to the risk assessment to have the information due to the large

differences in toxicity between the endothall salts.

3. Assumptions and Limitations Related to Effects Assessment

a. Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds

It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant impact on the observed

sensitivity to a toxicant. The screening risk assessment acute toxicity data for fish are collected

on juvenile fish between 0.1 and 5 grams. Aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed on

recommended immature age classes (e.g., first instar for daphnids, second instar for amphipods,

stoneflies and mayflies, and third instar for midges). Similarly, acute dietary testing with birds is

also performed on juveniles, with mallard being 5-10 days old and quail 10-14 days old.

Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity at older age classes for pesticidal active

ingredients, such as endothall, that act directly because younger age classes may not have the

enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xenobiotics. The screening risk assessment has no

current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts for this uncertainty. In so far as

the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information with respect to age class,

the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage information as the conservative screening

endpoint.

b. Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested
xcix

Although the screening risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most

sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoints reflect

sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of

the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the

overall variability among species to a particular chemical. In the case of listed species, there is

uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species’ sensitivity and the most sensitive

species tested.

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk

assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non-standard test species

when available.

c. Data Gaps

The following data gaps were identified with respect to the submitted ecotoxicity effects data:

• Estimated chronic effects for estuarine/marine invertebrates or fish are uncertain

because no chronic data were submitted by the registrant. EFED was unable to do

an acute to chronic ratio due to a lack of data. Therefore, no chronic risk

assessment was provided for estuarine animals. The uncertainties associated with

predicted risks to estuarine/marine animals could be reduced if chronic toxicity

data on endothall were provided to the Agency. 

• Estimated chronic effects for mammals is uncertain since the only data used for the

rat reproductive study is based on the disodium salt of endothall which is no longer

registered. 

• Estimated acute effects to mammals from exposure to the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt on cotton, potato, alfalfa, hops, and clover fields are

uncertain. The acute toxicity values for mammals are based on experiments with

the endothall acid. Acute mammalian toxicity data using the N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt would lessen the uncertainty.

• Estimated effects to terrestrial non-target plants and aquatic plants from runoff are

uncertain. The provided N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt toxicity data may not be

sufficient due to the fact that endothall acid may play a large role in terrestrial and

aquatic plant runoff risk. EFED expects much of the coco-alkylamine cation

portion of the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt to dissociate upon contact with water,

and during transport, the amine portion may be partly bound in the soil or with the

plant tissues, whereas the endothall acid will partition into the runoff water. 

• Estimated effects on avian reproductive capacity are uncertain. The submitted

avian reproductive studies do not follow the EPA guidelines (humidity and

temperature) for such studies. Additionally, lack of consistency in controls and
c

abnormal housing conditions provide uncertainty as to the true effect of endothall

exposure. Data from additional avian reproductive studies (preferably the mallard

duck) are needed to decrease the uncertainty in reproductive effects from exposure

to endothall acid.

• No studies were submitted on the possible toxicity of the coco-alkylamine cation

formed from endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt dissociation. Endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is much more toxic than the endothall dipotassium salt,

however no explanation or data describing this phenomenon were provided. Due

to the dissociation of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine (to form endothall

acid plus the coco-alkylamine cation), it is necessary to examine the potential toxic

effects of the coco-alkylamine cation. Preliminary analysis may be performed

using QSAR with further toxicity characterization, depending on results.

d. Aquatic Environment Effects

Granular formulations, slow release pellets, and liquid formulations are all used for aquatic

applications. The rate of endothall dispersal into the water column differs among these

formulations. Aquatic toxicity data suggest that the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt solid

pellet formulation (Hydout®) is less toxic than ground Hydout® pellets (MRID 00071148). 

Submitted Hydout® studies were performed using ground pellets, which, although more toxic

than the solid pellet, are less toxic than the liquid N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (Hydrothol 191®). 

There are no data to indicate the rate of endothall release from the pellets, and therefore toxicity

of slow release pellets, such as Hydout®, to aquatic organisms may be overestimated.

Acute toxicity values for aquatic organisms exposed to the dipotassium salt of endothall or

endothall acid are 2-3 orders of magnitude less toxic than the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine

salt. The reasons for this difference are unclear; however, there are two possibilities:

• The endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is made up of the endothall acid plus a

coco-alkylamine cation. The long-chain fatty acid present on the endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt makes this chemical highly lipophilic and would therefore

greatly increase uptake into organisms, leading to higher levels of toxicity. 

• It is also possible that the coco-alkylamine cation is itself toxic and contributes to

the higher toxicity of the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt.

Chronic toxicity values for aquatic organisms exposed to endothall dipotassium salt and endothall

acid are approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude less toxic than the endothall N,Ndimethyalkylamine salt. This difference could also be explained by the aforementioned scenarios,

or possibly a combination of the two. Further studies are needed on the toxicity of the cocoalkylamine cation itself.

The use of endothall may affect the migration of salmon and other anadromous fish species. Two
ci

studies (Ligouri, 1983 and Bouck, 1979) suggest that salmon inhabiting water with endothall

concentrations above 1500 ppb may not survive migration from freshwater to seawater. There is

uncertainty in these studies since not all of the replicates showed a large mortality to seawater

from freshwater. 

When aquatic plants die, they dissolved oxygen is used in the degradation of the plant tissues. 

The dissolved oxygen is also essential for fish. Large portions of the lake or pond will not usually

be treated, thereby fish can go to other portions of the lake or pond that have adequate dissolved

oxygen. Liquid endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt application to aquatic plants, depending

on the rate of application, will kill the plants very quickly, thereby hastening the depletion of

dissolved oxygen at the treated site. It is uncertain whether there will be fish mortality even when

a portion of the lake or pond is treated. 

e. Terrestrial Toxicity Effects

There is some uncertainty regarding acute effects to birds. During the oral dose studies, the

mallard duck exhibited emesis (vomiting) at all treatment levels, hence, the LD50 is not known. 

Some mammals may be very sensitive to endothall from eye contact. This risk assessment does

not examine risk from dermal or eye contact.

4. Limitations of the Risk Assessment

EFED focused on high use states such as Florida, Minnesota, and Michigan, although information

was provided for Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, and California/Washington. 

The intent was to estimate an upper bound of exposure and risk given the typical and maximum

application rates for the high use states, predominant weeds to be controlled, and the

formulation(s) used. There is much uncertainty in assessing risk on a national basis with data

that may pertain to a more regional or local level.

V. LITERATURE CITED

Berry, C. R. J. 1984. Toxicity of the Herbicides Diquat and Endothall to Goldfish.

Environ.Pollut.Ser.A Ecol.Biol. 34[3], 251-258. 

Bettoli, P. W. and Clark, P. W. 1992. Behavior of Sunfish Exposed to Herbicides: A Field Study.

Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 11[10], 1461-1467. 

Blouck, G. R. and Johnson, D. A. 1979. Medication Inhibits Tolerance to Seawater in Coho

Salmon Smolts. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:63-66, 1979.

Brown, J. J. 1987. Toxicity of Herbicides Thiobencarb and Endothall when Fed to

Laboratory-Reared Trichoplusia ni (Lepidoptora: Noctuidae). Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 27[1],

97-100. 
cii

Crosby, D. G. and Tucker, R. K. 1966. Toxicity of Aquatic Herbicides to Daphnia magna. Science

154, 289-291

Eller, L. L. 1969. Pathology in Redear Sunfish Exposed to Hydrothol 191. Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 

98[1], 52-59.

Finlayson, B.J. 1980. Acute toxicities of the herbicides Komeen and Hydrothol 191 to golden

shiner, (Notemigonus crysoleucas). Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 25:676 - 681.

Fletcher, J.S., Nellessen, J.E., and Pfleeger, T.G. 1994. Literature Review and Evaluation of the

EPA Food-Chain (Kenaga) Nomogram, and Instrument for Estimating Pesticide Residues on

Plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 1383-1391.

Folmar, L. C. 1976. Overt Avoidance Reaction of Rainbow Trout Fry to Nine Herbicides.

Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 15[5], 509-514. 

Folmar, L. C. 1978. Avoidance Chamber Responses of Mayfly Nymphs Exposed to Eight

Herbicides. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 19[3], 312-318 (Author Communication Used). 

Hansen, C. R. J. and Kawatski, J. A. 1976. Application of 24-Hour Postexposure Observation to

Acute Toxicity Studies with Invertebrates. J.Fish.Res.Board Can. 33(5), 1198-1201. 

Hoerger, F. and Kenaga, E.E. 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.

Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology and Technology. Georg

Thieme publishers, Stuttgart, West Germany. pp. 9-28. 

Holmberg, D. J. and Lee, G. F. 1976. Effects and Persistence of Endothall in the Aquatic

Environment. J.Water Pollut.Control Fed. 48[23], 2738-2746.

Keller, A. E., Dutton, R. J., and Crisman, T. L. 1988. Effect of Temperature on the Chronic

Toxicity of Hydrothol-191 to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas). Bull. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 41[5], 770-775. 

Keller, A. E., Dutton, R. J., Bitton, G., and Crisman, T. L. 1988. Chronic Toxicity of

Hydrothol-191 to Ceriodaphnia dubia at 25 and 15 Degrees C. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 

41[2], 233-240.

Keller, A. E. 1993. Acute Toxicity of Several Pesticides, Organic Compounds, and a Wastewater

Effluent to the Freshwater Mussel, Anodonta imbecilis, Ceriodaphnia dubia.

Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51(5), 696-702. 

Liguori, V. M., Zakour, H. R., Landolt, M. L., and Felton, S. P. 1983. Toxicity of the Herbicide

Endothall to Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: W.E.Bishop,
ciii

R.D.Cardwell, and B.B.Heidolph (Eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, 6th

Symposium, ASTM STP 802.

Mudge, J. E., Northstrom, T. E., and Stables, T. B. 1986. Acute Toxicity of Hydrothol 191 to

Phytoplankton and Rainbow Trout. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 37[3], 350-354.

Ruzycki 1998

Sanders, H. O. 1970. Pesticide Toxicities to Tadpoles of the Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris

triseriata and Fowler's Toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri. Copeia 2: 246-251 (Author

Communication Used) (Publ in Part As 6797). 

Sanders, H. O. 1969. Toxicity of Pesticides to the Crustacean Gammarus lacustris.

Tech.Pap.No.25, Bur.Sports Fish.Wildl., Fish Wildl.Serv., U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. 18 p.

(Author Communication Used)(Used with Reference 732) (Publ in Part As 6797). 

Serns, S. L. 1977. Effects of Dipotassium Endothall on Rooted Aquatics and Adult and First

Generation Bluegills. Water Resour.Bull. 13[1], 71-80. 

Takle, J. C. C., Beitinger, T. L., and Dickson, K. L. 1983. Effect of the Aquatic Herbicide

Endothal on the Critical Thermal Maximum of Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis.

Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 31[5], 512-517.

Urban, D.J. and N.J. Cook. 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division, Standard Evaluation Procedure,

Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C.

Walsh, G. E. 1972. Effects of Herbicides on Photosynthesis and Growth of Marine Unicellular

Algae. Hyacinth Control J., 10:45-48 (1972).
Appendix A-i

Appendix A 

Endothall Environmental Fate Assessment
Appendix A-ii

Table A-1: Summary of Environmental Fate Properties of Endothall

Study Chemical Type Half-lives, Days Degradates MRID # Study Status

Dissociation Acid immediate dissociation none 42668008

Dipotassium immediate dissociation none 43551501

Amine immediate dissociation none 43081301

Hydrolysis Acid NO DATA N/A1 N/A N/A

Dipotassium acid stable at pH 5,7, & 9 none 42289106 Acceptable

Amine acid stable at pH 5,7, & 9 none 44578401 Acceptable

Direct Aqueous

Photolysis

All forms does not absorb light

>290nm

(requirement waived)

N/A 42289205

42641201

Acceptable

Soil Photolysis Acid 48.7 (irradiated); 100.4

(dark)

non-volatile

unidentifiable

(18% of

applied)

42641202 Acceptable

Dipotassium NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Amine NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism

Acid NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Dipotassium 14.5 (sandy loam) unextractable

and CO2

44949401 Acceptable

Amine NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Anaerobic

Aquatic

Metabolism

Acid NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Dipotassium 9.0 (silt loam) mono- and

di-methyl

esters

42903901 Acceptable

Amine NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Aerobic

Aquatic

Metabolism

Acid NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Dipotassium 10.0 (flooded silt loam) unextractable

and CO2

42618901 Acceptable

Amine NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Kd-ads / Kd-des

(mL/g)

Acid Mobility constants

0.15/0.0(loamy sand),

0.80/4.3(sandy loam),

0.56/2.57 (clay loam),

7.94/37.25 (silt loam)

N/A 41616404 Acceptable

Dipotassium NO DATA N/A N/A N/A
Study Chemical Type Half-lives, Days Degradates MRID # Study Status

Appendix A-iii

Amine NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Soil Dissipation Acid NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Dipotassium CA: <7.0 (loam)

PA: <7.0 (silty clay loam)

N/A 42670101 Upgradeable2

Amine CA: 13 (loam)

PA: 19 (silty clay loam)

N/A 42670201

Sediment

Dissipation

Dipotassium 8.9

2.5-3.4

N/A

N/A

44093403

44093402

Acceptable

Aquatic

Dissipation

Acid NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Dipotassium 0.8 (lake water)

0.4 (uncontained); 

5.4-8.5 (contained)

0.25-5 

N/A

N/A

Not available

44093403

44093402

Washington

state3

44828802

44828801

44820101

Acceptable

Amine 5.9

Concentrations of 3.4

ppm at 15 miles

downstream in treated

canal

N/A

None

Washington

state3

44820103

Upgradeable4
Study Chemical Type Half-lives, Days Degradates MRID # Study Status

Appendix A-iv

Fish

Accumulation

Acid NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

Dipotassium BCFs: 0.08x (edible)6

 0.67x (non-edible)

 0.35x (whole)

No detectable

residues in

analyzed

fractions

42644001 Acceptable

Amine NO DATA N/A N/A N/A

1

 Not available, N/A.

2

 Storage stability data needed and confirmation of application rate in PA study

3

 Washington State University. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management: Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix D, Vol. 2: Endothall Environmental Fate, Vol. 2, Sect. 3, pp. 22-26). 

This reference contains some guideline studies and some literature studies.

4 Additional data needed for fate and transport of endothall dimethylalklyamine salt, and the fate of amine moiety. 5

 Mobility constants refers to guideline 163-1 only. 

6

 BCF values refer to guideline 165-4 only.
Appendix A-v

Endothall degrades via metabolism with half-lives of approximately 10 days both in terrestrial

and aquatic environments. The mobility of the compound is highly sensitive to pH. In batch

equilibrium studies (MRID 41616404) on endothall acid, Freundlich Kads values were 0.15, 0.80,

0.56, and 7.94 on loamy sand, sandy loam, clay loam, and silt loam respectively. These mobility

values are inversely related to soil pH, as evidenced by soils with a pH of >6.1-6.2 demonstrating

low sorption (0.15-0.80). A soil with a pH of 6.1-6.2 or less will be more tightly sorbed to the

soil.

Submitted studies suggest that endothall residues degrade only via biotic processes such as

aerobic metabolism, and not as the result of abiotic processes such as hydrolysis and photolysis. 

For example, laboratory studies indicate that the amine salt (MRID 44578401) and di-potassium

salt (MRID 42289106) forms of endothall are stable to hydrolysis at pH 5, 7 and 9. The acid

form of endothall was also found to be stable to aqueous photolysis in a laboratory study (MRID

42289205, 42641201). By contrast, the di-potassium salt of endothall, at a nominal initial soil

concentration of 3.3 ppm, degraded with a half-life of 14.5 days in Huntington sandy loam soil

(MRID 44949401). Six unidentified minor (<4%) degradates were present. Nonextractable

residues were 2.8% on the day of application, and increased to 28.8% by 209 days posttreatment. 

Evolved CO2 increased from 4.1% at 3 days posttreatment to 72.1% at 209 days posttreatment. In

aerobic lake water over flooded silt loam sediment, endothall di-potassium salt degraded with a

half-life of 10 days (MRID 42618901). Primary degradates were again unextractable residues

and CO2.

Endothall has two ionizable carboxylic acid groups and two dissociation constants (pKa’s). 

These pKa’s are 4.1-4.3 and 6.1-6.2, respectively. The tested soil with a pH of approximately 5.0

had an adsorption coefficient of 7.94 ml/g, while those tested soils with a pH of >6.1-6.2 had

adsorption coefficients of 0.15-0.80 ml/g. 

In terrestrial field dissipation studies residues of endothall were not persistent. Di-potassium

endothall applied to sugar beet fields in California and Pennsylvania (loam and silty clay loam

soils, respectively) dissipated from the upper 4 inches of soil with half-lives of <7 days and 9

days, respectively (MRID 42670101). Similarly, endothall (N,N-dimethyl alkyl amine salt)

applied to potato fields in California and Pennsylvania (loam and silty clay loam soils,

respectively) dissipated from the upper 4 inches of soil with half-lives of 12.6 and 19.2 days,

respectively.

Numerous aquatic dissipation studies ranging from laboratory, greenhouse, ponds (partial and

whole treatment), lakes, and reservoirs demonstrate half-lives of 0.5 to 30 days. The persistence

of endothall in the aquatic environment is consistent regardless of the type of study. For

laboratory studies, the median half-life of endothall was 8.5 days (4.1-30 days). For ponds and

lakes, the median half-lives were 4.1 days (0.5-20 days) and 1.2 days (0.24-8.5 days),

respectively. However, bacteria capable of using endothall as their sole carbon source in an area

that has never been treated may take several weeks to leave the lag phase and actively degrade 

Aquathol or Hydrothol. 

Guideline Summaries
Appendix A-vi

Hydrolysis (161-1)

Endothall amine salt, at 5 mg/L, was stable at pH 5, 7, and 9 buffer solutions that were incubated

in darkness at 24.9-25.4 oC for 30 days. (44578401)

Photodegradation in Water (161-2)

Endothall acid did not absorb light above 290 nm in length. Therefore, the data requirement was

waived. (ACC 259367), 

Photodegradation on soil (161-3)

Endothall did not photodegrade on soil. (MRID 42641202)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Endothall dipotassium salt was applied at 3.3 ppm to Huntington sandy loam soil at 75 % of soil

moisture content and in darkness at 25.3 + 0.15 oC for up to 209 days. The calculated half-life

was 14.5 days (r2

=0.97, F=376, p=2e-10). Six unidentified non-volatile metabolites were detected

at <3.8 % of applied. The primary degradate, CO2, reached 72 % of applied by 209 days (end of

study). Unextractable residues reached 22.9-28.8 % by 59-209 days. (44949401)

Aerobic aquatic metabolism (162-4)

Endothall dipotassium salt [(7-oxabicyclo [2.2.1]heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid) dipotassium salt]

degraded with a half-life of 10 days in flooded silt loam sediment that was incubated at 25 C in

the dark for up to 30 days. The major degradation products were unextractable residues and

evolved CO2; 14CO2 totaled 36.34% of the applied radioactivity at 30 days posttreatment.

Leaching-Adsorption-Desorption (163-1)

Based on batch equilibrium experiments, endothall was very mobile in three tested soils and only

moderately mobile in one tested soil. The Freundlich Kads values ranged from0.15 to 7.94 ml/g,

and sorption increased with increasing hydrogen ion concentration (r2=0.99) and slightly

dependent on clay content (r2=0.50). However, the clay correlation could be associated with pH

effects. The Koc values for adsorption ranged from 74 to 684 ml/g, with 1/n values ranging from

0.65 to 0.85. The desorption values ranged from 0 to 37.3 ml/g, with Koc and 1/n values ranging

from 0 to 3211 ml/g and 0.77 to 1.3. The soil with the highest Kads values had a pH of 5.2, while

the other soils had a pH of 6.6 to 6.8. These results are consistent with the pKa2 of the

compound, which occurs at pH values of 6.1 to 6.2. (41616404)

Terrestrial Field Dissipation (164-1)

The N,N-dimethylamine salt formulation of endothall dissipated with calculated half-lives of 13

days in loam soil in California and 19 days in silty clay loam soil in Pennsylvania. Endothall was

applied with onto mature potato vines as a harvest dessicant. Endothall leached into the 4-8 inch

soil depth at the California site and into the 8-12 inch soil depth at the Pennsylvania site. 

(42670201)

The dipotassium salt formulation of endothall dissipated with calculated half-lives of <7 days in

California and 9 days in Pennsylvania. Endothall was applied to mature sugar beets as a foliage
Appendix A-vii

dessicant. No leaching of endothall was observed in the study. (42670101) 

Aquatic Field Dissipation (164-2)

EFED has received numerous studies (guideline and literature) regarding the aquatic persistence

of endothsall. These were laboratory, greenhouse, ponds (partial and whole treatment), lakes, and

reservoirs. The ranges of half-lives (0.5 to 30 days) follow in Table XXX below. Some of these

studies were in public literature, and some were guideline studies submitted by the registrant

(MRIDs 448288-01, -02, 448201-01, -02, -03, 440934-02, -03). The Washington State

Department of Ecology has summarized these studies, which are also addressed by the registrant. 

The aquatic field dissipation data requirement is satisfied.

Table A-2. Laboratory and Field Aquatic Half-Lives for Endothall.1

Type of Study DT50 (days) Comments

Laboratory 8.5 Median of 8.5 days. (N=9)

Range of 4.1 to 30 days. 

Mostly di-k salt formulations, with some acid being tested. 

Thirty day half-life was from Wisconsin mesocosm. 

Range of 0.03 to 10 ppm concentrations. 

Some half-lives were for total system, and some were for water and

sediment separately.

DT50 values of 4.1, 5, 6, 8.5, 8.5, 9, 9, 16, and 30 days

Ponds 4.1 days Median DT50 (n=15)

Di-K salts and Di-Na salts

Ranges used as inputs for calculations

Partial and whole pond treatments

Range of 0.3 to 5 ppm

Pond with 100 applications over 30 years had half-lives of 0.5 to 2

days.

DT50 values of 0.5, 0.8, 1, 1.2, 2, 4, 4.1, 4.1, 7, 7.3, 8, 8, 13, 20

days

Area treated ranged from 0.25 to 6 acres, 2 to 8 feet of depth, pH

range of 7.2 to 9.1

Lakes DT50 Comments

Lake Sylvia,

Washington State

5.9 Hydrothol 191

5 acres of 11-12 A lake treated

Average depth of 4 ft

Heavy macrophyte growth

0.3 ppm application rate

Lake Jane,

Washington State

5 Aquathol K liquid

1/4 acre of shoreline in 20 A treated

Averge depth 6 ft

100 % macrophyte growth in treated area

5 ppm target rate
Type of Study DT50 (days) Comments

Appendix A-viii

Pat Mayse Lake

Texas

1.1-1.2 System half-life

Lake margin partial treatment

Lake Parker

Florida

5.4-8.5 Slow initial degradation, and faster degradation later because of

microbial adaptation

Aquathol K

5 ppm application rate

Lake Parker

Florida

0.4

2.4

Water

Sediment

5 ppm application rate

Lake Parker

Florida

0.75

<3

Water

Sand Sediment

2.75 of 2,200 A treated

Hydrilla infestation

Surface DO 11.2 ppm (day 1), 2.5 ppm (day 2), 6.4-9.8 (after day

2)

Bottom DO variable (1.7-7.6 ppm)

Aquathol K

Guntersville

Reservoir on

Tennessee River

Tennessee

<0.25 30 A in 68,000 A lake treated

Water depth <3 ft

Endothall decline probably due to flow dispersion

Aquathol K

1

Washington State University. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management: Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix D, Vol. 2: Endothall Environmental Fate, Vol. 2, Sect. 3, pp. 22-26). 

This reference contains some guideline studies and some literature studies.

Dissolved Oxygen

The key factor to survival and maintenance of the aquatic environment is adequate dissolved

oxygen. Ideally, the oxygen content of the water should be as close to saturation as possible. For

warm water environments (15 to 25 o

C), the oxygen saturation amounts are 10 mg/L and 8.2

mg/L, respectively. For cold water environments (5 to 15 o

C), oxygen saturation amounts are

12.2 and 10 mg/L, respectively. In general, warm water fish like sunfish, bass, catfish, carp, and

shiners can survive and reproduce at oxygen concentrations of about 5 mg/L. Cold water fish

need much higher oxygen contents, about 9 mg/L (Washington State University. Herbicide Risk

Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement. Appendix D, Vol. 2: Endothall Vol. 2, Sect. 4, p.29). 

Treatment with endothall products usually does not produce adverse changes in nutrient levels

and in pH. However, dissolved oxygen levels can decrease dramatically from saturation (10

mg/L) to about 6 mg/L and last for several days to several weeks. This phenomenon has been

observed with endothall from 16 to 27 days after treatment. While warm water fish can live and

breed at this oxygen level, oxygen slumps would prevent most salmonids from breeding

successfully (Washington State University. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant
Appendix A-ix

Management: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix D, Vol. 2:

Endothall Vol. 2, Sect. 4, p.29). 

The degradation rate of applied endothall partially depends on whether the use site has previously

received treatment with endothall. Bacteria capable of using endothall as their sole carbon source

in an area that has never been treated may take several weeks to leave the lag phase and actively

degrade Aquathol or Hydrothol. (Washington State University. Herbicide Risk Assessment for

the Aquatic Plant Management: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix

D, Vol. 2: Endothall Vol. 2, Sect. 4, p.21). 

Drinking Water Exposure

Endothall was applied at 3 ppm at a site in Pinopolis Cove in South Carolina. Only 0.02 to 0.03

mg/L was detected in raw, untreated water at the Santee Cooper water treatment plant (one mile

downstream from treated site) 2 to 4 days after treatment. By seven days after treatment,

concentrations in raw, untreated water at the plant was <0.01 mg/L (Washington State University. 

Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant Management: Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix D, Vol. 2: Endothall Vol. 2, Sect. 4, p.34). 

Gravelly Lake in Washington State near Tacoma was treated with 3-4 ppm at one end of the lake. 

The concentration at the center of the lake was 0.04 mg/L after eight days. Through 16 days of

the experiment, no endothall was detected at the bottom of the water column in thecenter of the

lake (Washington State University. Herbicide Risk Assessment for the Aquatic Plant

Management: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix D, Vol. 2:

Endothall Vol. 2, Sect. 4, p.35). 

Bioconcentration in Fish (165-4)

Endothall residues did not significantly accumulate in bluegill sunfish exposed to endothall

dipotassium salt at 1.3 ppm for 28 days. Maximum mean bioconcentration factors were 0.08X in

edible tissues, 0.67X in non-edible tissues, and 0.35X in whole fish. Residues accumulated by

day 28 of the exposure period were not eliminated from the fish tissues during a 14-day

depuration period. (42644001)

Spray Drift (201-1, 202-1)

The study (MRID 42427601; GLN 201-1) submitted by Elf Atochem North America Inc. to

support both the mono (N,N-dimethylcocoamine) salt of endothall (PC 038905) and the

dipotassium salt of endothall (PC 038904) has been superseded by newer studies submitted by the

Spray Drift Task Force (of which Elf Atochem North America Inc. is a member). This study is

therefore is no longer needed to fulfill the guideline and so does not need to be reviewed. 

Reference

MRID 42427601. Baugher, D.G., and S.B. Meikle. 1992. Field spray drift evaluation of

endothall (Accelerate® herbicide) - Results of wind tunnel testing of aerial and airblast

application nozzles. Unpublished study submitted by Elf Atochem North America Inc.,

Philadelphia, PA.
Appendix A-x
Appendix B-i

Appendix B 

Endothall Terrestrial Use Aquatic Exposure

Assessment
Appendix B-ii

Table B-1. Surface Water Exposure Inputs for Drinking Water Exposure for Terrestrial Uses of

Endothall.

MODEL INPUT VARIABLE1 INPUT

VALUE COMMENTS

Application Rate (kg/ha)

Potato

Potato

Cotton (California)

Cotton (California)

Texas cotton

Texas cotton

Mississippi cotton

Mississippi cotton

Clover and alfalfa (for seed)

Clover and alfalfa (for seed)

Hops (Northwest)

1.17

0.46

0.11

0.07

0.15

0.07

0.11

0.07

0.84

1.12

1.12

Label

Desicate Label, Reg. No. 4581-206

Typical rate

Accelerate Label, Reg. No. 4581-284

Typical rate

SLN label

Typical rate

Accelerate Label, Reg. No. 4581-284

Typical rate

Desicate Label, Reg. No. 4581-206, PA, NC

California SLN

Desicate Label, Reg. No. 4581-206

Maximum No. of Applications

All uses except clover, alfalfa,

and hops

Clover and Alfalfa

Hops

1

2

2

Desicate Label, Reg. No. 4581-206

Accelerate Label, Reg. No. 4581-284

Clover and alfalfa, Desicate Label, Reg. No. 4581-206

Desicate Label, Reg. No. 4581-206

Interval between applications

(days)

3

7 

Clover and alfalfa (for seed)

Hops

Application Date(s)

Potato

Cotton

Clover and Alfalfa (for seed)

Hops

9/15

9/7

8/25

8/15

9/1

Steve Johnson of Maine Extension Service

Arizona

California and Texas

CA, AZ, MN, WI, NY

Method of application

Aerial

Ground

Aerial

Ground

All uses except Hops

Hops

Molecular Weight 186.2 g/Mol

Vapor pressure 2.2e-10 Torr at 24.3 o

C

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/ghindex.html

Application Efficiency (Drinking

Water)

All uses except hops

Hops

0.95

0.99

Per 2/8/02 Input Parameter Guidance

Aerial

Ground

CAM = 2 results in linear applications to foliage based

on crop canopy.
MODEL INPUT VARIABLE1 INPUT

VALUE COMMENTS

Appendix B-iii

Spray Drift (Drinking Water)

All uses except hops

Hops

0.05

0.01

Per 2/8/02 Input Parameter Guidance

Aerial

Ground

Kd (ml/g) 2.4 Average of values in MRID 41616404

Aerobic Soil Metabolic Half-life

(days)

parent

43.5 3X 14.5 day half-life based on extractable residues in

MRID 44949401

Incorporation depth (for ground

application only)

All outdoor uses

0 Broadcast application

Solubility (mg/L) 100,000 http://extoxnet.orst.edu/ghindex.html

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolic Halflife (days)30 3X 10 day half-life based on extractable residues in

MRID 42618901

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

half-life (days)

27 3X 9 day half-life based on extractable residues in MRID

42903901

Photolysis Half-life (days, ppm) 0 (stable) MRIDs 42289205, 42641201 

1

 Input parameters based on 2/8/02 Input Parameter Guidance

Table B-2. Ecological Effects EECs using PRZM-EXAMS for Endothall applied aerially to

Terrestrial Crops.

EECs (ppb)

Scenario Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

Long-term

mean

Idaho Potato

(application of

1.17 kg/ha)

8.0 7.8 7.3 6.4 6.0 2.4 1.6

Idaho Potato 

(application of

0.46 kg/ha)

3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.3 1.0 0.6

Maine Potato

(application of

1.17 kg/ha)

17.6 17.2 16.0 14.1 13.0 6.4 3.9

Maine Potato

(application of

0.46 kg/ha)

6.9 6.8 6.3 5.5 5.1 2.5 1.5
EECs (ppb)

Appendix B-iv

California

Cotton

(application of

0.11 kg/ha)

0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

California

Cotton

(application of

0.07 kg/ha

0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Mississippi

Cotton

(application of

0.11 kg/ha)

3.0 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.7 0.6 0.3

Mississippi

cotton

(application of

0.07 kg/ha

2.7 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 0.6 0.3

Texas cotton

(application of

0.15 kg/ha)

3.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.3

Texas cotton

(application of

0.07 kg/ha)

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.2

California

alfalfa and

clover for seed 

(2 applications

of 1.12 kg/ha)

7.8 7.7 7.0 5.8 5.1 2.7 1.8

North Carolina

alfalfa for seed

(2 application of

0.84 kg/ha)

38.7 37.5 34.0 26.8 22.9 9.6 5.3

Pennsylvania

alfalfa for seed 

(2 application of

0.84 kg/ha)

17.4 16.9 16.1 13.7 12.2 4.8 3.4
Appendix B-v

Table B-3. Ecological Effects EECs using PRZM-EXAMS for Endothall applied using ground

equipment to Terrestrial Crops.

EECs (ppb)

Scenario Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Annual

Mean

Long-term

mean

Idaho Potato

(application of

1.17 kg/ha)

6.1 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 1.6 0.8

Idaho Potato 

(application of

0.46 kg/ha)

2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.6 0.3

Maine Potato

(application of

1.17 kg/ha)

16.2 15.8 14.8 13.0 12.1 5.6 3.0

Maine Potato

(application of

0.46 kg/ha)

6.4 6.2 5.8 5.1 4.7 2.2 1.2

California

Cotton

(application of

0.11 kg/ha)

0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1

California

Cotton

(application of

0.07 kg/ha

0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.04

Mississippi

Cotton

(application of

0.11 kg/ha)

4.2 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.5 0.9 0.4

Mississippi

cotton

(application of

0.07 kg/ha

2.7 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.6 0.5 0.2

Texas cotton

(application of

0.15 kg/ha)

3.9 3.7 3.2 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.3

Texas cotton

(application of

0.07 kg/ha)

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.1
Appendix B-vi

California

alfalfa and

clover for seed 

(Application of

0.73 kg/ha)

4.9 4.8 4.3 3.3 2.9 1.3 0.7

California

alfalfa and

clover for seed 

(2 applications

of 1.12 kg/ha)

7.5 7.3 6.5 5.1 4.5 2.0 1.1

North Carolina

alfalfa for seed

(2 application of

0.84 kg/ha)

37.1 36.1 32.6 25.7 22.0 9.0 4.7

Pennsylvania

alfalfa for seed 

(2 application of

0.84 kg/ha)

15.6 15.1 14.5 12.6 11.3 4.1 2.7

Hops (2

applications of 

1.12 kg/ha) 

6.5 6.4 6.0 5.3 4.9 2.2 1.1

Aerial Application Model Runs

Idaho Potato (1 application of 1.17 kg ai/ha)

stored as idpotpd.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: IDpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:00:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w24156.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:38

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 8.189 8.019 7.381 6.975 6.639 1.881

1962 5.198 5.152 4.963 4.570 4.299 2.445

1963 3.078 2.985 2.640 2.209 2.096 1.289

1964 3.058 2.984 2.702 2.291 2.106 1.197

1965 3.118 3.057 2.816 2.389 2.191 1.364

1966 3.030 2.945 2.628 2.233 2.035 1.118

1967 3.030 2.945 2.643 2.408 2.223 1.128

1968 3.065 2.994 2.725 2.349 2.157 1.175

1969 3.034 2.947 2.625 2.328 2.328 1.217

1970 3.072 3.006 2.754 2.385 2.184 1.341

1971 7.385 7.279 6.923 6.333 5.957 2.178
Appendix B-vii

1972 4.830 4.788 4.612 4.246 3.966 2.347

1973 3.421 3.362 3.128 2.843 2.694 1.376

1974 3.066 2.988 2.694 2.462 2.399 1.404

1975 4.147 4.077 3.864 3.524 3.213 1.623

1976 8.030 7.898 7.376 6.462 5.971 2.648

1977 4.640 4.599 4.431 4.078 3.827 2.184

1978 3.037 2.964 2.684 2.244 2.123 1.108

1979 3.089 3.001 2.671 2.224 2.025 1.205

1980 9.239 9.097 8.536 7.657 6.674 2.449

1981 6.007 5.953 5.733 5.274 4.934 2.806

1982 6.422 6.268 5.910 5.125 4.718 2.029

1983 4.674 4.593 4.341 3.809 3.544 2.198

1984 3.140 3.063 2.772 2.383 2.239 1.582

1985 3.038 2.974 2.724 2.339 2.147 1.148

1986 3.087 3.022 2.844 2.536 2.339 1.397

1987 3.035 2.952 2.640 2.204 1.999 1.121

1988 3.005 2.930 2.643 2.324 2.291 1.167

1989 3.085 3.005 2.701 2.291 2.117 1.402

1990 3.042 2.945 2.588 2.151 1.946 1.131

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 9.239 9.097 8.536 7.657 6.674 2.806

0.065 8.189 8.019 7.381 6.975 6.639 2.648

0.097 8.030 7.898 7.376 6.462 5.971 2.449

0.129 7.385 7.279 6.923 6.333 5.957 2.445

0.161 6.422 6.268 5.910 5.274 4.934 2.347

0.194 6.007 5.953 5.733 5.125 4.718 2.198

0.226 5.198 5.152 4.963 4.570 4.299 2.184

0.258 4.830 4.788 4.612 4.246 3.966 2.178

0.290 4.674 4.599 4.431 4.078 3.827 2.029

0.323 4.640 4.593 4.341 3.809 3.544 1.881

0.355 4.147 4.077 3.864 3.524 3.213 1.623

0.387 3.421 3.362 3.128 2.843 2.694 1.582

0.419 3.140 3.063 2.844 2.536 2.399 1.404

0.452 3.118 3.057 2.816 2.462 2.339 1.402

0.484 3.089 3.022 2.772 2.408 2.328 1.397

0.516 3.087 3.006 2.754 2.389 2.291 1.376

0.548 3.085 3.005 2.725 2.385 2.239 1.364

0.581 3.078 3.001 2.724 2.383 2.223 1.341

0.613 3.072 2.994 2.702 2.349 2.191 1.289

0.645 3.066 2.988 2.701 2.339 2.184 1.217

0.677 3.065 2.985 2.694 2.328 2.157 1.205

0.710 3.058 2.984 2.684 2.324 2.147 1.197

0.742 3.042 2.974 2.671 2.291 2.123 1.175

0.774 3.038 2.964 2.643 2.291 2.117 1.167

0.806 3.037 2.952 2.643 2.244 2.106 1.148

0.839 3.035 2.947 2.640 2.233 2.096 1.131

0.871 3.034 2.945 2.640 2.224 2.035 1.128

0.903 3.030 2.945 2.628 2.209 2.025 1.121
Appendix B-viii

0.935 3.030 2.945 2.625 2.204 1.999 1.118

0.968 3.005 2.930 2.588 2.151 1.946 1.108

0.1 8.0 7.8 7.3 6.4 6.0 2.4

Average

of yearly

averages:

1.6

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: idpotpd

Metfile: w24156.d

vf

PRZM scenario: IDpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.17 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-ix
Appendix B-x

Idaho Potato (1 application of 0.46 kg ai/ha, typical rate)

stored as idpottpg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: IDpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:00:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w24156.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:38

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 3.216 3.149 2.898 2.739 2.607 0.739

1962 2.041 2.023 1.949 1.795 1.688 0.961

1963 1.210 1.174 1.038 0.868 0.824 0.507

1964 1.202 1.173 1.062 0.901 0.828 0.471

1965 1.226 1.202 1.107 0.939 0.861 0.536

1966 1.191 1.158 1.033 0.878 0.800 0.439

1967 1.191 1.158 1.039 0.947 0.874 0.444

1968 1.205 1.177 1.071 0.923 0.848 0.462

1969 1.193 1.159 1.032 0.915 0.915 0.478

1970 1.208 1.182 1.083 0.938 0.859 0.527

1971 2.904 2.862 2.722 2.490 2.342 0.857

1972 1.899 1.882 1.813 1.669 1.559 0.923

1973 1.345 1.322 1.230 1.118 1.059 0.541

1974 1.205 1.175 1.059 0.968 0.943 0.552

1975 1.631 1.603 1.519 1.386 1.263 0.638

1976 3.156 3.104 2.899 2.540 2.347 1.041

1977 1.824 1.808 1.741 1.603 1.504 0.858

1978 1.194 1.165 1.055 0.882 0.835 0.436

1979 1.214 1.180 1.050 0.874 0.796 0.474

1980 3.633 3.577 3.356 3.011 2.624 0.963

1981 2.362 2.341 2.254 2.074 1.940 1.103

1982 2.525 2.464 2.324 2.015 1.855 0.798

1983 1.838 1.806 1.707 1.498 1.394 0.864

1984 1.235 1.204 1.090 0.937 0.880 0.622

1985 1.195 1.169 1.071 0.920 0.844 0.451

1986 1.214 1.188 1.118 0.997 0.920 0.549

1987 1.193 1.161 1.038 0.867 0.786 0.441

1988 1.181 1.152 1.039 0.914 0.901 0.459

1989 1.213 1.181 1.062 0.901 0.832 0.551

1990 1.196 1.158 1.017 0.846 0.765 0.445

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 3.633 3.577 3.356 3.011 2.624 1.103

0.065 3.216 3.149 2.899 2.739 2.607 1.041

0.097 3.156 3.104 2.898 2.540 2.347 0.963

0.129 2.904 2.862 2.722 2.490 2.342 0.961

0.161 2.525 2.464 2.324 2.074 1.940 0.923
Appendix B-xi

0.194 2.362 2.341 2.254 2.015 1.855 0.864

0.226 2.041 2.023 1.949 1.795 1.688 0.858

0.258 1.899 1.882 1.813 1.669 1.559 0.857

0.290 1.838 1.808 1.741 1.603 1.504 0.798

0.323 1.824 1.806 1.707 1.498 1.394 0.739

0.355 1.631 1.603 1.519 1.386 1.263 0.638

0.387 1.345 1.322 1.230 1.118 1.059 0.622

0.419 1.235 1.204 1.118 0.997 0.943 0.552

0.452 1.226 1.202 1.107 0.968 0.920 0.551

0.484 1.214 1.188 1.090 0.947 0.915 0.549

0.516 1.214 1.182 1.083 0.939 0.901 0.541

0.548 1.213 1.181 1.071 0.938 0.880 0.536

0.581 1.210 1.180 1.071 0.937 0.874 0.527

0.613 1.208 1.177 1.062 0.923 0.861 0.507

0.645 1.205 1.175 1.062 0.920 0.859 0.478

0.677 1.205 1.174 1.059 0.915 0.848 0.474

0.710 1.202 1.173 1.055 0.914 0.844 0.471

0.742 1.196 1.169 1.050 0.901 0.835 0.462

0.774 1.195 1.165 1.039 0.901 0.832 0.459

0.806 1.194 1.161 1.039 0.882 0.828 0.451

0.839 1.193 1.159 1.038 0.878 0.824 0.445

0.871 1.193 1.158 1.038 0.874 0.800 0.444

0.903 1.191 1.158 1.033 0.868 0.796 0.441

0.935 1.191 1.158 1.032 0.867 0.786 0.439

0.968 1.181 1.152 1.017 0.846 0.765 0.436

0.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.3 1.0

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.6

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: idpottpg

Metfile: w24156.d

vf

PRZM scenario: IDpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife
Appendix B-xii

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.46 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Maine Potato (1 application of 1.17 kg ai/ha)

stored as mepotpd.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MEpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:03:32

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w14607.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:36

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 17.860 17.410 16.180 14.200 13.140 3.721

1962 15.740 15.440 14.320 12.900 12.180 7.161

1963 9.390 9.308 8.973 8.267 7.778 5.067

1964 8.300 8.187 7.847 7.233 6.218 3.455

1965 6.025 5.971 5.750 5.289 4.971 3.516

1966 7.336 7.234 6.934 6.408 6.224 2.983

1967 20.840 20.380 19.100 16.910 15.720 6.232

1968 11.920 11.810 11.390 10.490 9.865 6.229

1969 6.595 6.536 6.295 5.791 5.443 3.672

1970 24.960 24.540 22.930 20.190 18.900 6.388

1971 14.720 14.590 14.050 12.940 12.170 6.931

1972 6.790 6.706 6.461 6.058 5.623 3.144
Appendix B-xiii

1973 7.672 7.520 7.135 6.688 6.283 3.516

1974 4.877 4.835 4.660 4.292 4.037 2.921

1975 3.373 3.302 3.113 2.884 2.716 1.887

1976 11.570 11.420 11.190 10.440 9.649 3.327

1977 8.212 8.139 7.840 7.215 6.782 4.832

1978 5.328 5.281 5.089 4.686 4.407 2.941

1979 3.492 3.453 3.298 3.006 2.882 1.966

1980 6.276 6.193 5.962 5.550 5.221 2.450

1981 6.831 6.743 6.528 6.254 5.935 3.141

1982 10.780 10.620 10.070 9.278 8.838 4.244

1983 10.770 10.520 10.080 9.374 8.833 5.072

1984 6.900 6.840 6.591 6.071 5.710 3.626

1985 3.898 3.811 3.596 3.389 3.283 2.004

1986 7.110 6.999 6.616 6.021 5.650 2.596

1987 9.325 9.130 8.642 7.705 7.178 3.605

1988 5.447 5.400 5.204 4.794 4.510 2.992

1989 3.766 3.684 3.537 3.259 3.090 1.895

1990 15.480 15.150 14.220 12.850 11.970 4.145

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 24.960 24.540 22.930 20.190 18.900 7.161

0.065 20.840 20.380 19.100 16.910 15.720 6.931

0.097 17.860 17.410 16.180 14.200 13.140 6.388

0.129 15.740 15.440 14.320 12.940 12.180 6.232

0.161 15.480 15.150 14.220 12.900 12.170 6.229

0.194 14.720 14.590 14.050 12.850 11.970 5.072

0.226 11.920 11.810 11.390 10.490 9.865 5.067

0.258 11.570 11.420 11.190 10.440 9.649 4.832

0.290 10.780 10.620 10.080 9.374 8.838 4.244

0.323 10.770 10.520 10.070 9.278 8.833 4.145

0.355 9.390 9.308 8.973 8.267 7.778 3.721

0.387 9.325 9.130 8.642 7.705 7.178 3.672

0.419 8.300 8.187 7.847 7.233 6.782 3.626

0.452 8.212 8.139 7.840 7.215 6.283 3.605

0.484 7.672 7.520 7.135 6.688 6.224 3.516

0.516 7.336 7.234 6.934 6.408 6.218 3.516

0.548 7.110 6.999 6.616 6.254 5.935 3.455

0.581 6.900 6.840 6.591 6.071 5.710 3.327

0.613 6.831 6.743 6.528 6.058 5.650 3.144

0.645 6.790 6.706 6.461 6.021 5.623 3.141

0.677 6.595 6.536 6.295 5.791 5.443 2.992

0.710 6.276 6.193 5.962 5.550 5.221 2.983

0.742 6.025 5.971 5.750 5.289 4.971 2.941

0.774 5.447 5.400 5.204 4.794 4.510 2.921

0.806 5.328 5.281 5.089 4.686 4.407 2.596

0.839 4.877 4.835 4.660 4.292 4.037 2.450

0.871 3.898 3.811 3.596 3.389 3.283 2.004

0.903 3.766 3.684 3.537 3.259 3.090 1.966

0.935 3.492 3.453 3.298 3.006 2.882 1.895
Appendix B-xiv

0.968 3.373 3.302 3.113 2.884 2.716 1.887

0.1 17.6 17.2 16.0 14.1 13.0 6.4

Average

of yearly

averages:

3.9

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: mepotpd

Metfile: w14607.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MEpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.17 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-xv

Maine Potatoes (1 application of 0.46 kg ai/ha, typical rate)

stored as mepottpg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MEpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:03:32

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w14607.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:36

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 7.021 6.845 6.361 5.581 5.165 1.463

1962 6.189 6.071 5.631 5.072 4.788 2.816

1963 3.692 3.659 3.528 3.250 3.058 1.992

1964 3.264 3.220 3.086 2.844 2.445 1.359

1965 2.369 2.348 2.261 2.080 1.955 1.383

1966 2.884 2.844 2.726 2.519 2.447 1.173

1967 8.193 8.011 7.507 6.649 6.180 2.450

1968 4.685 4.644 4.476 4.123 3.878 2.449

1969 2.593 2.570 2.475 2.277 2.140 1.444

1970 9.810 9.648 9.015 7.936 7.431 2.511

1971 5.785 5.734 5.524 5.086 4.784 2.725

1972 2.670 2.637 2.540 2.382 2.211 1.236

1973 3.016 2.957 2.805 2.629 2.470 1.382

1974 1.918 1.901 1.832 1.687 1.587 1.148

1975 1.326 1.298 1.224 1.134 1.068 0.742

1976 4.549 4.491 4.400 4.104 3.794 1.308

1977 3.229 3.200 3.083 2.837 2.667 1.900

1978 2.095 2.076 2.001 1.842 1.733 1.156

1979 1.373 1.358 1.297 1.182 1.133 0.773

1980 2.467 2.435 2.344 2.182 2.053 0.963

1981 2.686 2.651 2.567 2.459 2.333 1.235

1982 4.237 4.175 3.959 3.648 3.475 1.669

1983 4.235 4.136 3.962 3.685 3.473 1.994

1984 2.713 2.689 2.591 2.387 2.245 1.425

1985 1.533 1.498 1.414 1.332 1.291 0.788

1986 2.795 2.752 2.601 2.367 2.221 1.021

1987 3.666 3.590 3.398 3.029 2.822 1.417

1988 2.142 2.123 2.046 1.885 1.773 1.177

1989 1.481 1.449 1.390 1.281 1.215 0.745

1990 6.085 5.957 5.588 5.053 4.707 1.629

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 9.810 9.648 9.015 7.936 7.431 2.816

0.065 8.193 8.011 7.507 6.649 6.180 2.725

0.097 7.021 6.845 6.361 5.581 5.165 2.511

0.129 6.189 6.071 5.631 5.086 4.788 2.450

0.161 6.085 5.957 5.588 5.072 4.784 2.449
Appendix B-xvi

0.194 5.785 5.734 5.524 5.053 4.707 1.994

0.226 4.685 4.644 4.476 4.123 3.878 1.992

0.258 4.549 4.491 4.400 4.104 3.794 1.900

0.290 4.237 4.175 3.962 3.685 3.475 1.669

0.323 4.235 4.136 3.959 3.648 3.473 1.629

0.355 3.692 3.659 3.528 3.250 3.058 1.463

0.387 3.666 3.590 3.398 3.029 2.822 1.444

0.419 3.264 3.220 3.086 2.844 2.667 1.425

0.452 3.229 3.200 3.083 2.837 2.470 1.417

0.484 3.016 2.957 2.805 2.629 2.447 1.383

0.516 2.884 2.844 2.726 2.519 2.445 1.382

0.548 2.795 2.752 2.601 2.459 2.333 1.359

0.581 2.713 2.689 2.591 2.387 2.245 1.308

0.613 2.686 2.651 2.567 2.382 2.221 1.236

0.645 2.670 2.637 2.540 2.367 2.211 1.235

0.677 2.593 2.570 2.475 2.277 2.140 1.177

0.710 2.467 2.435 2.344 2.182 2.053 1.173

0.742 2.369 2.348 2.261 2.080 1.955 1.156

0.774 2.142 2.123 2.046 1.885 1.773 1.148

0.806 2.095 2.076 2.001 1.842 1.733 1.021

0.839 1.918 1.901 1.832 1.687 1.587 0.963

0.871 1.533 1.498 1.414 1.332 1.291 0.788

0.903 1.481 1.449 1.390 1.281 1.215 0.773

0.935 1.373 1.358 1.297 1.182 1.133 0.745

0.968 1.326 1.298 1.224 1.134 1.068 0.742

0.1 6.9 6.8 6.3 5.5 5.1 2.5

Average

of yearly

averages:

1.5

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: mepottpg

Metfile: w14607.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MEpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife
Appendix B-xvii

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.46 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

California Cotton (1 application of 0.11 kg ai/ha)

stored as cactnmax.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: CAcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

16:34:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.369 0.364 0.342 0.235 0.190 0.066

1962 0.298 0.294 0.281 0.258 0.237 0.124

1963 0.283 0.269 0.222 0.163 0.148 0.102

1964 0.293 0.284 0.273 0.240 0.198 0.096

1965 0.280 0.266 0.223 0.165 0.145 0.098

1966 0.315 0.310 0.291 0.171 0.146 0.088

1967 0.281 0.264 0.239 0.212 0.191 0.109

1968 0.342 0.335 0.314 0.279 0.254 0.106

1969 0.281 0.267 0.220 0.195 0.176 0.103

1970 0.427 0.420 0.396 0.252 0.202 0.131

1971 0.387 0.382 0.359 0.313 0.280 0.141

1972 0.360 0.356 0.331 0.272 0.215 0.108

1973 0.280 0.266 0.240 0.208 0.186 0.116
Appendix B-xviii

1974 0.297 0.288 0.263 0.233 0.191 0.095

1975 0.281 0.268 0.222 0.159 0.145 0.098

1976 0.451 0.437 0.387 0.307 0.280 0.147

1977 0.352 0.345 0.238 0.152 0.127 0.091

1978 0.477 0.457 0.386 0.291 0.245 0.157

1979 0.277 0.263 0.212 0.142 0.116 0.067

1980 0.277 0.262 0.214 0.150 0.122 0.059

1981 0.279 0.263 0.245 0.208 0.181 0.099

1982 0.381 0.366 0.318 0.267 0.248 0.116

1983 0.279 0.263 0.211 0.155 0.132 0.087

1984 0.276 0.260 0.205 0.138 0.114 0.057

1985 0.276 0.261 0.223 0.166 0.159 0.078

1986 0.532 0.524 0.313 0.152 0.131 0.079

1987 0.536 0.531 0.501 0.435 0.385 0.165

1988 0.276 0.261 0.212 0.146 0.123 0.057

1989 0.279 0.264 0.218 0.180 0.153 0.096

1990 0.277 0.262 0.214 0.148 0.121 0.066

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 0.536 0.531 0.501 0.435 0.385 0.165

0.065 0.532 0.524 0.396 0.313 0.280 0.157

0.097 0.477 0.457 0.387 0.307 0.280 0.147

0.129 0.451 0.437 0.386 0.291 0.254 0.141

0.161 0.427 0.420 0.359 0.279 0.248 0.131

0.194 0.387 0.382 0.342 0.272 0.245 0.124

0.226 0.381 0.366 0.331 0.267 0.237 0.116

0.258 0.369 0.364 0.318 0.258 0.215 0.116

0.290 0.360 0.356 0.314 0.252 0.202 0.109

0.323 0.352 0.345 0.313 0.240 0.198 0.108

0.355 0.342 0.335 0.291 0.235 0.191 0.106

0.387 0.315 0.310 0.281 0.233 0.191 0.103

0.419 0.298 0.294 0.273 0.212 0.190 0.102

0.452 0.297 0.288 0.263 0.208 0.186 0.099

0.484 0.293 0.284 0.245 0.208 0.181 0.098

0.516 0.283 0.269 0.240 0.195 0.176 0.098

0.548 0.281 0.268 0.239 0.180 0.159 0.096

0.581 0.281 0.267 0.238 0.171 0.153 0.096

0.613 0.281 0.266 0.223 0.166 0.148 0.095

0.645 0.280 0.266 0.223 0.165 0.146 0.091

0.677 0.280 0.264 0.222 0.163 0.145 0.088

0.710 0.279 0.264 0.222 0.159 0.145 0.087

0.742 0.279 0.263 0.220 0.155 0.132 0.079

0.774 0.279 0.263 0.218 0.152 0.131 0.078

0.806 0.277 0.263 0.214 0.152 0.127 0.067

0.839 0.277 0.262 0.214 0.150 0.123 0.066

0.871 0.277 0.262 0.212 0.148 0.122 0.066

0.903 0.276 0.261 0.212 0.146 0.121 0.059

0.935 0.276 0.261 0.211 0.142 0.116 0.057

0.968 0.276 0.260 0.205 0.138 0.114 0.057
Appendix B-xix

0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.1

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: cactnmax

Metfile: w93193.d

vf

PRZM scenario: CAcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.11 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-xx

California Cotton (1 application of 0.07 kg ai/ha, typical rate)

stored as cactntyp.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: CAcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

16:34:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.235 0.231 0.218 0.150 0.121 0.042

1962 0.190 0.187 0.179 0.164 0.151 0.079

1963 0.180 0.171 0.141 0.104 0.094 0.065

1964 0.187 0.181 0.174 0.153 0.126 0.061

1965 0.178 0.169 0.142 0.105 0.092 0.062

1966 0.201 0.197 0.185 0.109 0.093 0.056

1967 0.179 0.168 0.152 0.135 0.121 0.069

1968 0.217 0.213 0.200 0.178 0.162 0.067

1969 0.179 0.170 0.140 0.124 0.112 0.066

1970 0.272 0.267 0.252 0.161 0.128 0.083

1971 0.247 0.243 0.228 0.199 0.178 0.090

1972 0.229 0.226 0.211 0.173 0.137 0.069

1973 0.178 0.169 0.153 0.133 0.118 0.074

1974 0.189 0.183 0.167 0.148 0.121 0.060

1975 0.179 0.171 0.141 0.101 0.093 0.062

1976 0.287 0.278 0.246 0.196 0.178 0.093

1977 0.224 0.220 0.151 0.097 0.081 0.058

1978 0.303 0.291 0.246 0.185 0.156 0.100

1979 0.177 0.167 0.135 0.090 0.074 0.043

1980 0.176 0.167 0.136 0.095 0.077 0.038

1981 0.178 0.168 0.156 0.132 0.115 0.063

1982 0.243 0.233 0.202 0.170 0.158 0.074

1983 0.178 0.167 0.134 0.099 0.084 0.056

1984 0.176 0.165 0.131 0.088 0.072 0.036

1985 0.176 0.166 0.142 0.106 0.101 0.050

1986 0.339 0.333 0.199 0.097 0.084 0.050

1987 0.341 0.338 0.319 0.277 0.245 0.105

1988 0.176 0.166 0.135 0.093 0.078 0.037

1989 0.177 0.168 0.139 0.115 0.097 0.061

1990 0.177 0.167 0.136 0.094 0.077 0.042

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 0.341 0.338 0.319 0.277 0.245 0.105

0.065 0.339 0.333 0.252 0.199 0.178 0.100

0.097 0.303 0.291 0.246 0.196 0.178 0.093

0.129 0.287 0.278 0.246 0.185 0.162 0.090

0.161 0.272 0.267 0.228 0.178 0.158 0.083
Appendix B-xxi

0.194 0.247 0.243 0.218 0.173 0.156 0.079

0.226 0.243 0.233 0.211 0.170 0.151 0.074

0.258 0.235 0.231 0.202 0.164 0.137 0.074

0.290 0.229 0.226 0.200 0.161 0.128 0.069

0.323 0.224 0.220 0.199 0.153 0.126 0.069

0.355 0.217 0.213 0.185 0.150 0.121 0.067

0.387 0.201 0.197 0.179 0.148 0.121 0.066

0.419 0.190 0.187 0.174 0.135 0.121 0.065

0.452 0.189 0.183 0.167 0.133 0.118 0.063

0.484 0.187 0.181 0.156 0.132 0.115 0.062

0.516 0.180 0.171 0.153 0.124 0.112 0.062

0.548 0.179 0.171 0.152 0.115 0.101 0.061

0.581 0.179 0.170 0.151 0.109 0.097 0.061

0.613 0.179 0.169 0.142 0.106 0.094 0.060

0.645 0.178 0.169 0.142 0.105 0.093 0.058

0.677 0.178 0.168 0.141 0.104 0.093 0.056

0.710 0.178 0.168 0.141 0.101 0.092 0.056

0.742 0.178 0.168 0.140 0.099 0.084 0.050

0.774 0.177 0.167 0.139 0.097 0.084 0.050

0.806 0.177 0.167 0.136 0.097 0.081 0.043

0.839 0.177 0.167 0.136 0.095 0.078 0.042

0.871 0.176 0.167 0.135 0.094 0.077 0.042

0.903 0.176 0.166 0.135 0.093 0.077 0.038

0.935 0.176 0.166 0.134 0.090 0.074 0.037

0.968 0.176 0.165 0.131 0.088 0.072 0.036

0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.1

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: cactntyp

Metfile: w93193.d

vf

PRZM scenario: CAcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife
Appendix B-xxii

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Mississippi Cotton (1 application of 0.11 kg ai/ha)

stored as MSctnar.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MScottonC.txt modified Wedday, 22 January 2003 at

11:52:38

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:46

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.710 1.637 1.441 1.077 0.967 0.307

1962 0.589 0.581 0.551 0.475 0.419 0.218

1963 0.277 0.262 0.214 0.149 0.121 0.069

1964 2.058 2.002 1.786 1.426 1.264 0.383

1965 3.414 3.265 2.738 2.071 1.749 0.685

1966 0.785 0.776 0.739 0.658 0.592 0.284

1967 2.666 2.592 2.394 1.976 1.737 0.559

1968 0.800 0.790 0.749 0.668 0.607 0.270

1969 0.277 0.263 0.217 0.154 0.131 0.066

1970 3.055 2.903 2.582 2.349 2.102 0.629

1971 1.813 1.729 1.431 1.042 0.881 0.527

1972 0.487 0.460 0.369 0.307 0.271 0.160

1973 1.348 1.287 1.184 0.894 0.748 0.242
Appendix B-xxiii

1974 0.765 0.730 0.638 0.488 0.414 0.186

1975 0.875 0.842 0.719 0.604 0.545 0.204

1976 2.807 2.697 2.507 1.909 1.642 0.563

1977 0.882 0.841 0.723 0.646 0.574 0.325

1978 0.495 0.472 0.438 0.349 0.308 0.152

1979 4.193 4.027 3.452 2.744 2.505 0.838

1980 1.420 1.399 1.313 1.147 1.030 0.406

1981 0.606 0.582 0.504 0.377 0.324 0.119

1982 1.836 1.781 1.606 1.285 1.106 0.330

1983 0.707 0.698 0.660 0.580 0.520 0.254

1984 0.344 0.330 0.282 0.227 0.220 0.101

1985 0.921 0.884 0.774 0.717 0.628 0.217

1986 0.517 0.492 0.401 0.324 0.289 0.162

1987 0.278 0.262 0.215 0.154 0.135 0.081

1988 1.178 1.147 1.037 0.860 0.782 0.266

1989 0.558 0.537 0.476 0.431 0.383 0.226

1990 0.495 0.472 0.429 0.325 0.286 0.135

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 4.193 4.027 3.452 2.744 2.505 0.838

0.065 3.414 3.265 2.738 2.349 2.102 0.685

0.097 3.055 2.903 2.582 2.071 1.749 0.629

0.129 2.807 2.697 2.507 1.976 1.737 0.563

0.161 2.666 2.592 2.394 1.909 1.642 0.559

0.194 2.058 2.002 1.786 1.426 1.264 0.527

0.226 1.836 1.781 1.606 1.285 1.106 0.406

0.258 1.813 1.729 1.441 1.147 1.030 0.383

0.290 1.710 1.637 1.431 1.077 0.967 0.330

0.323 1.420 1.399 1.313 1.042 0.881 0.325

0.355 1.348 1.287 1.184 0.894 0.782 0.307

0.387 1.178 1.147 1.037 0.860 0.748 0.284

0.419 0.921 0.884 0.774 0.717 0.628 0.270

0.452 0.882 0.842 0.749 0.668 0.607 0.266

0.484 0.875 0.841 0.739 0.658 0.592 0.254

0.516 0.800 0.790 0.723 0.646 0.574 0.242

0.548 0.785 0.776 0.719 0.604 0.545 0.226

0.581 0.765 0.730 0.660 0.580 0.520 0.218

0.613 0.707 0.698 0.638 0.488 0.419 0.217

0.645 0.606 0.582 0.551 0.475 0.414 0.204

0.677 0.589 0.581 0.504 0.431 0.383 0.186

0.710 0.558 0.537 0.476 0.377 0.324 0.162

0.742 0.517 0.492 0.438 0.349 0.308 0.160

0.774 0.495 0.472 0.429 0.325 0.289 0.152

0.806 0.495 0.472 0.401 0.324 0.286 0.135

0.839 0.487 0.460 0.369 0.307 0.271 0.119

0.871 0.344 0.330 0.282 0.227 0.220 0.101

0.903 0.278 0.263 0.217 0.154 0.135 0.081

0.935 0.277 0.262 0.215 0.154 0.131 0.069

0.968 0.277 0.262 0.214 0.149 0.121 0.066
Appendix B-xxiv

0.1 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.1 1.7 0.6

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.3

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: MSctnar

Metfile: w03940.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MScottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 2 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.11 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Mississippi Cotton (1 application of 0.07 kg ai/ha, typical rate)
Appendix B-xxv

stored as msartyp.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MScottonC.txt modified Wedday, 22 January 2003 at

11:52:38

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:46

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.080 1.034 0.904 0.685 0.647 0.216

1962 0.491 0.484 0.458 0.395 0.348 0.180

1963 0.182 0.178 0.169 0.111 0.093 0.060

1964 2.132 2.074 1.850 1.478 1.294 0.397

1965 3.069 2.936 2.461 1.862 1.573 0.640

1966 0.706 0.698 0.665 0.592 0.533 0.248

1967 1.777 1.729 1.555 1.308 1.163 0.382

1968 0.557 0.550 0.521 0.465 0.423 0.192

1969 0.177 0.168 0.138 0.099 0.087 0.053

1970 2.711 2.576 2.292 2.073 1.859 0.557

1971 1.815 1.731 1.433 1.044 0.883 0.492

1972 0.398 0.391 0.363 0.309 0.272 0.143

1973 1.122 1.073 0.988 0.755 0.636 0.204

1974 0.618 0.590 0.518 0.404 0.343 0.158

1975 0.636 0.612 0.523 0.465 0.433 0.165

1976 1.910 1.832 1.714 1.307 1.126 0.399

1977 0.735 0.700 0.586 0.448 0.397 0.245

1978 0.470 0.448 0.421 0.336 0.291 0.135

1979 3.256 3.126 2.679 2.106 1.879 0.640

1980 1.109 1.092 1.025 0.896 0.804 0.320

1981 0.526 0.505 0.441 0.333 0.282 0.106

1982 2.086 2.025 1.824 1.461 1.255 0.354

1983 0.809 0.798 0.754 0.663 0.595 0.262

1984 0.346 0.336 0.294 0.241 0.205 0.093

1985 0.749 0.726 0.653 0.573 0.518 0.194

1986 0.450 0.428 0.350 0.295 0.259 0.145

1987 0.181 0.177 0.163 0.124 0.103 0.072

1988 1.179 1.149 1.040 0.874 0.765 0.256

1989 0.475 0.466 0.431 0.367 0.325 0.200

1990 0.457 0.436 0.395 0.302 0.257 0.117

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 3.256 3.126 2.679 2.106 1.879 0.640

0.065 3.069 2.936 2.461 2.073 1.859 0.640

0.097 2.711 2.576 2.292 1.862 1.573 0.557

0.129 2.132 2.074 1.850 1.478 1.294 0.492

0.161 2.086 2.025 1.824 1.461 1.255 0.399

0.194 1.910 1.832 1.714 1.308 1.163 0.397

0.226 1.815 1.731 1.555 1.307 1.126 0.382
Appendix B-xxvi

0.258 1.777 1.729 1.433 1.044 0.883 0.354

0.290 1.179 1.149 1.040 0.896 0.804 0.320

0.323 1.122 1.092 1.025 0.874 0.765 0.262

0.355 1.109 1.073 0.988 0.755 0.647 0.256

0.387 1.080 1.034 0.904 0.685 0.636 0.248

0.419 0.809 0.798 0.754 0.663 0.595 0.245

0.452 0.749 0.726 0.665 0.592 0.533 0.216

0.484 0.735 0.700 0.653 0.573 0.518 0.204

0.516 0.706 0.698 0.586 0.465 0.433 0.200

0.548 0.636 0.612 0.523 0.465 0.423 0.194

0.581 0.618 0.590 0.521 0.448 0.397 0.192

0.613 0.557 0.550 0.518 0.404 0.348 0.180

0.645 0.526 0.505 0.458 0.395 0.343 0.165

0.677 0.491 0.484 0.441 0.367 0.325 0.158

0.710 0.475 0.466 0.431 0.336 0.291 0.145

0.742 0.470 0.448 0.421 0.333 0.282 0.143

0.774 0.457 0.436 0.395 0.309 0.272 0.135

0.806 0.450 0.428 0.363 0.302 0.259 0.117

0.839 0.398 0.391 0.350 0.295 0.257 0.106

0.871 0.346 0.336 0.294 0.241 0.205 0.093

0.903 0.182 0.178 0.169 0.124 0.103 0.072

0.935 0.181 0.177 0.163 0.111 0.093 0.060

0.968 0.177 0.168 0.138 0.099 0.087 0.053

0.1 2.7 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.5 0.6

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.3

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: msartyp

Metfile: w03940.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MScottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife
Appendix B-xxvii

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Texas Cotton (1 application of 0.15 kg ai/ha)

stored as txctnmx.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: TXcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:29:08

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.60 2.48 2.03 1.46 1.23 0.35

1962 6.76 6.31 5.08 3.48 2.77 0.90

1963 0.77 0.76 0.72 0.63 0.56 0.26

1964 2.30 2.18 1.94 1.64 1.42 0.43

1965 4.00 3.79 3.20 2.45 2.06 0.72

1966 1.08 1.03 0.90 0.79 0.70 0.39

1967 1.26 1.21 1.05 0.83 0.71 0.25

1968 1.29 1.23 1.07 0.76 0.63 0.25

1969 2.67 2.58 2.10 1.43 1.16 0.39

1970 0.94 0.90 0.75 0.57 0.49 0.23

1971 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.11

1972 0.71 0.68 0.60 0.51 0.44 0.16

1973 4.41 4.19 3.70 2.80 2.34 0.70

1974 1.99 1.89 1.64 1.20 0.98 0.53

1975 1.23 1.16 0.97 0.88 0.78 0.31

1976 1.79 1.71 1.41 1.08 0.93 0.35

1977 1.22 1.16 0.99 0.73 0.61 0.28
Appendix B-xxviii

1978 0.89 0.85 0.71 0.52 0.46 0.20

1979 0.42 0.40 0.33 0.29 0.25 0.12

1980 0.88 0.84 0.73 0.64 0.55 0.20

1981 1.93 1.83 1.50 1.23 1.06 0.36

1982 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.33 0.29 0.16

1983 1.02 0.97 0.81 0.69 0.59 0.20

1984 1.13 1.10 0.98 0.79 0.67 0.26

1985 1.02 0.97 0.86 0.79 0.69 0.30

1986 2.32 2.20 1.78 1.29 1.09 0.39

1987 3.35 3.19 2.64 1.88 1.56 0.54

1988 0.62 0.61 0.57 0.50 0.44 0.22

1989 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.12

1990 0.81 0.78 0.69 0.59 0.52 0.21

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 6.760 6.314 5.081 3.481 2.771 0.905

0.065 4.408 4.190 3.696 2.795 2.339 0.722

0.097 3.998 3.793 3.200 2.449 2.059 0.705

0.129 3.354 3.190 2.639 1.877 1.555 0.540

0.161 2.665 2.575 2.099 1.636 1.416 0.534

0.194 2.600 2.475 2.031 1.461 1.232 0.428

0.226 2.324 2.202 1.944 1.427 1.155 0.392

0.258 2.295 2.181 1.781 1.293 1.088 0.386

0.290 1.989 1.892 1.643 1.233 1.059 0.385

0.323 1.927 1.831 1.496 1.197 0.984 0.364

0.355 1.790 1.706 1.405 1.082 0.932 0.355

0.387 1.290 1.233 1.067 0.884 0.783 0.351

0.419 1.262 1.208 1.048 0.830 0.705 0.311

0.452 1.231 1.164 0.987 0.788 0.699 0.297

0.484 1.224 1.156 0.983 0.788 0.687 0.282

0.516 1.128 1.100 0.965 0.786 0.669 0.265

0.548 1.082 1.032 0.901 0.761 0.626 0.260

0.581 1.022 0.972 0.855 0.732 0.611 0.253

0.613 1.016 0.968 0.813 0.691 0.591 0.251

0.645 0.944 0.898 0.747 0.636 0.556 0.229

0.677 0.890 0.850 0.726 0.634 0.548 0.222

0.710 0.880 0.840 0.724 0.589 0.516 0.215

0.742 0.808 0.780 0.710 0.571 0.490 0.202

0.774 0.773 0.763 0.687 0.524 0.457 0.202

0.806 0.710 0.684 0.604 0.508 0.441 0.198

0.839 0.622 0.612 0.575 0.496 0.435 0.157

0.871 0.446 0.430 0.390 0.340 0.290 0.155

0.903 0.428 0.420 0.382 0.332 0.284 0.125

0.935 0.418 0.399 0.332 0.287 0.246 0.125

0.968 0.377 0.357 0.298 0.258 0.225 0.106

0.1 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 2.0 0.7

Average of

yearly

0.3
Appendix B-xxix

averages:

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: txctnmx

Metfile: w13958.dv

f

PRZM scenario: TXcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.15 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Texas cotton (1 application of 0.07 kg ai/ha, typical rate)

stored as txctntyp.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: TXcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:29:08

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30
Appendix B-xxx

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.213 1.155 0.948 0.682 0.575 0.165

1962 3.154 2.946 2.371 1.624 1.293 0.422

1963 0.361 0.356 0.338 0.296 0.260 0.121

1964 1.071 1.018 0.907 0.764 0.661 0.200

1965 1.865 1.770 1.493 1.143 0.961 0.337

1966 0.505 0.481 0.420 0.368 0.326 0.180

1967 0.589 0.564 0.489 0.387 0.329 0.117

1968 0.602 0.575 0.498 0.355 0.292 0.118

1969 1.244 1.202 0.980 0.666 0.539 0.180

1970 0.441 0.419 0.349 0.267 0.229 0.107

1971 0.176 0.167 0.139 0.120 0.105 0.049

1972 0.331 0.319 0.282 0.237 0.206 0.073

1973 2.057 1.956 1.725 1.305 1.092 0.329

1974 0.928 0.883 0.767 0.559 0.459 0.249

1975 0.575 0.543 0.450 0.413 0.365 0.145

1976 0.835 0.796 0.656 0.505 0.435 0.164

1977 0.571 0.539 0.461 0.342 0.285 0.132

1978 0.415 0.397 0.332 0.244 0.213 0.094

1979 0.195 0.186 0.155 0.134 0.115 0.058

1980 0.411 0.392 0.339 0.297 0.256 0.094

1981 0.900 0.855 0.698 0.576 0.495 0.170

1982 0.200 0.196 0.182 0.155 0.135 0.073

1983 0.474 0.452 0.379 0.322 0.276 0.092

1984 0.526 0.514 0.459 0.368 0.312 0.124

1985 0.477 0.453 0.399 0.367 0.320 0.139

1986 1.084 1.027 0.831 0.604 0.508 0.183

1987 1.565 1.489 1.231 0.876 0.726 0.252

1988 0.290 0.286 0.268 0.231 0.203 0.103

1989 0.208 0.201 0.179 0.159 0.133 0.058

1990 0.377 0.364 0.321 0.275 0.241 0.100

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 3.154 2.946 2.371 1.624 1.293 0.422

0.065 2.057 1.956 1.725 1.305 1.092 0.337

0.097 1.865 1.770 1.493 1.143 0.961 0.329

0.129 1.565 1.489 1.231 0.876 0.726 0.252

0.161 1.244 1.202 0.980 0.764 0.661 0.249

0.194 1.213 1.155 0.948 0.682 0.575 0.200

0.226 1.084 1.027 0.907 0.666 0.539 0.183

0.258 1.071 1.018 0.831 0.604 0.508 0.180

0.290 0.928 0.883 0.767 0.576 0.495 0.180

0.323 0.900 0.855 0.698 0.559 0.459 0.170

0.355 0.835 0.796 0.656 0.505 0.435 0.165

0.387 0.602 0.575 0.498 0.413 0.365 0.164

0.419 0.589 0.564 0.489 0.387 0.329 0.145
Appendix B-xxxi

0.452 0.575 0.543 0.461 0.368 0.326 0.139

0.484 0.571 0.539 0.459 0.368 0.320 0.132

0.516 0.526 0.514 0.450 0.367 0.312 0.124

0.548 0.505 0.481 0.420 0.355 0.292 0.121

0.581 0.477 0.453 0.399 0.342 0.285 0.118

0.613 0.474 0.452 0.379 0.322 0.276 0.117

0.645 0.441 0.419 0.349 0.297 0.260 0.107

0.677 0.415 0.397 0.339 0.296 0.256 0.103

0.710 0.411 0.392 0.338 0.275 0.241 0.100

0.742 0.377 0.364 0.332 0.267 0.229 0.094

0.774 0.361 0.356 0.321 0.244 0.213 0.094

0.806 0.331 0.319 0.282 0.237 0.206 0.092

0.839 0.290 0.286 0.268 0.231 0.203 0.073

0.871 0.208 0.201 0.182 0.159 0.135 0.073

0.903 0.200 0.196 0.179 0.155 0.133 0.058

0.935 0.195 0.186 0.155 0.134 0.115 0.058

0.968 0.176 0.167 0.139 0.120 0.105 0.049

0.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.3

Average of

yearly

averages:

0.2

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: txctntyp

Metfile: w13958.dv

f

PRZM scenario: TXcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kg/ha
Appendix B-xxxii

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

California alfalfa and clover for seed (2 applications of 1.12 kg ai/ha)

stored as caalfpd.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: CAalfalfaC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

16:27:56

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 9.026 8.896 8.373 5.698 4.322 1.488

1962 7.285 7.196 6.841 6.107 5.520 2.734

1963 5.515 5.246 4.292 3.046 2.713 1.627

1964 5.445 5.169 4.653 4.121 3.374 1.734

1965 5.488 5.209 4.255 3.140 2.604 1.729

1966 5.417 5.118 4.742 2.924 2.410 1.513

1967 5.467 5.146 4.061 3.395 3.033 1.936

1968 6.898 6.768 6.312 5.766 5.118 2.248

1969 5.523 5.241 4.258 3.680 3.308 1.999

1970 7.395 7.279 6.968 4.527 3.562 2.146

1971 6.655 6.557 6.165 5.372 4.806 2.502

1972 5.925 5.846 5.445 4.486 3.541 1.878

1973 5.490 5.215 4.258 3.406 3.082 2.080

1974 5.437 5.157 4.466 4.005 3.266 1.747

1975 5.528 5.274 4.360 3.085 2.750 1.859

1976 6.390 6.203 5.488 4.418 4.328 2.354

1977 6.476 6.354 4.372 2.915 2.364 1.524

1978 7.768 7.453 6.296 5.104 4.486 2.867

1979 5.424 5.138 4.133 2.801 2.233 1.220

1980 5.415 5.125 4.125 2.888 2.329 1.069

1981 5.432 5.119 4.057 2.875 2.507 1.611

1982 6.843 6.573 5.706 4.852 4.466 2.090

1983 5.443 5.134 4.072 2.941 2.500 1.602
Appendix B-xxxiii

1984 5.372 5.054 3.967 2.646 2.175 1.034

1985 5.396 5.105 4.156 3.033 2.711 1.306

1986 7.813 7.684 4.732 2.823 2.300 1.333

1987 8.339 8.242 7.776 6.745 5.969 2.697

1988 5.392 5.096 4.081 2.831 2.273 1.065

1989 5.444 5.163 4.188 3.585 3.139 1.689

1990 5.419 5.127 4.118 2.871 2.313 1.217

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 9.026 8.896 8.373 6.745 5.969 2.867

0.065 8.339 8.242 7.776 6.107 5.520 2.734

0.097 7.813 7.684 6.968 5.766 5.118 2.697

0.129 7.768 7.453 6.841 5.698 4.806 2.502

0.161 7.395 7.279 6.312 5.372 4.486 2.354

0.194 7.285 7.196 6.296 5.104 4.466 2.248

0.226 6.898 6.768 6.165 4.852 4.328 2.146

0.258 6.843 6.573 5.706 4.527 4.322 2.090

0.290 6.655 6.557 5.488 4.486 3.562 2.080

0.323 6.476 6.354 5.445 4.418 3.541 1.999

0.355 6.390 6.203 4.742 4.121 3.374 1.936

0.387 5.925 5.846 4.732 4.005 3.308 1.878

0.419 5.528 5.274 4.653 3.680 3.266 1.859

0.452 5.523 5.246 4.466 3.585 3.139 1.747

0.484 5.515 5.241 4.372 3.406 3.082 1.734

0.516 5.490 5.215 4.360 3.395 3.033 1.729

0.548 5.488 5.209 4.292 3.140 2.750 1.689

0.581 5.467 5.169 4.258 3.085 2.713 1.627

0.613 5.445 5.163 4.258 3.046 2.711 1.611

0.645 5.444 5.157 4.255 3.033 2.604 1.602

0.677 5.443 5.146 4.188 2.941 2.507 1.524

0.710 5.437 5.138 4.156 2.924 2.500 1.513

0.742 5.432 5.134 4.133 2.915 2.410 1.488

0.774 5.424 5.127 4.125 2.888 2.364 1.333

0.806 5.419 5.125 4.118 2.875 2.329 1.306

0.839 5.417 5.119 4.081 2.871 2.313 1.220

0.871 5.415 5.118 4.072 2.831 2.300 1.217

0.903 5.396 5.105 4.061 2.823 2.273 1.069

0.935 5.392 5.096 4.057 2.801 2.233 1.065

0.968 5.372 5.054 3.967 2.646 2.175 1.034

0.1 7.8 7.7 7.0 5.8 5.1 2.7

Average

of yearly

averages:

1.8

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: caalfpd
Appendix B-xxxiv

Metfile: w93193.d

vf

PRZM scenario: CAalfalfaC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

North Carolina alfalfa for seed (2 applications of 0.84 kg ai/ha)

stored as ncalfpd.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: NCalfalfaC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:08:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w03812.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:50
Appendix B-xxxv

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1965 9.031 8.706 7.712 6.795 6.120 1.994

1966 16.760 16.310 15.330 13.010 11.700 4.709

1967 67.380 65.550 58.510 47.140 41.250 15.230

1968 20.430 20.240 19.480 17.910 16.640 8.551

1969 17.740 17.090 14.850 11.650 10.090 4.354

1970 4.832 4.790 4.619 4.227 3.899 2.625

1971 7.296 7.051 6.386 5.515 4.952 2.482

1972 11.890 11.640 11.070 9.511 8.576 3.469

1973 5.768 5.709 5.467 4.962 4.542 3.047

1974 5.780 5.607 5.239 4.565 4.223 2.038

1975 8.021 7.787 7.110 6.642 6.146 2.709

1976 11.070 10.850 9.735 8.735 8.271 3.837

1977 24.180 23.580 22.140 18.510 16.370 6.535

1978 23.530 22.710 19.670 15.790 14.040 7.162

1979 10.520 10.240 9.299 7.706 6.984 4.789

1980 7.875 7.552 6.418 5.712 5.310 2.733

1981 5.743 5.571 4.970 4.401 4.378 2.498

1982 4.313 4.152 3.790 3.321 3.224 2.248

1983 16.120 15.610 14.610 11.840 10.380 3.935

1984 12.020 11.580 10.140 7.945 7.430 4.281

1985 31.550 30.450 28.290 22.800 19.480 7.334

1986 26.970 26.100 23.110 20.490 17.980 8.055

1987 28.690 27.810 25.850 21.230 18.880 8.251

1988 10.760 10.660 10.280 9.428 8.712 5.666

1989 31.280 30.130 26.930 21.010 18.100 6.945

1990 55.630 53.980 47.260 36.160 30.830 11.910

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.037 67.380 65.550 58.510 47.140 41.250 15.230

0.074 55.630 53.980 47.260 36.160 30.830 11.910

0.111 31.550 30.450 28.290 22.800 19.480 8.551

0.148 31.280 30.130 26.930 21.230 18.880 8.251

0.185 28.690 27.810 25.850 21.010 18.100 8.055

0.222 26.970 26.100 23.110 20.490 17.980 7.334

0.259 24.180 23.580 22.140 18.510 16.640 7.162

0.296 23.530 22.710 19.670 17.910 16.370 6.945

0.333 20.430 20.240 19.480 15.790 14.040 6.535

0.370 17.740 17.090 15.330 13.010 11.700 5.666

0.407 16.760 16.310 14.850 11.840 10.380 4.789

0.444 16.120 15.610 14.610 11.650 10.090 4.709

0.481 12.020 11.640 11.070 9.511 8.712 4.354

0.519 11.890 11.580 10.280 9.428 8.576 4.281

0.556 11.070 10.850 10.140 8.735 8.271 3.935

0.593 10.760 10.660 9.735 7.945 7.430 3.837

0.630 10.520 10.240 9.299 7.706 6.984 3.469

0.667 9.031 8.706 7.712 6.795 6.146 3.047
Appendix B-xxxvi

0.704 8.021 7.787 7.110 6.642 6.120 2.733

0.741 7.875 7.552 6.418 5.712 5.310 2.709

0.778 7.296 7.051 6.386 5.515 4.952 2.625

0.815 5.780 5.709 5.467 4.962 4.542 2.498

0.852 5.768 5.607 5.239 4.565 4.378 2.482

0.889 5.743 5.571 4.970 4.401 4.223 2.248

0.926 4.832 4.790 4.619 4.227 3.899 2.038

0.963 4.313 4.152 3.790 3.321 3.224 1.994

0.1 38.8 37.5 34.0 26.8 22.9 9.6

Average

of yearly

averages:

5.3

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: ncalfpd

Metfile: w03812.d

vf

PRZM scenario: NCalfalfaC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND
Appendix B-xxxvii

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-xxxviii

Pennsylvania alfalfa for seed (2 applications of 0.84 kg ai/ha)

stored as paalfpd.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: PAalfalfaC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:24:04

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w14737.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:12

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 4.203 4.101 3.675 2.760 2.355 0.757

1962 8.199 7.895 7.499 6.262 5.629 2.243

1963 17.510 17.050 16.230 13.740 12.290 4.804

1964 7.805 7.737 7.457 6.868 6.426 3.967

1965 12.930 12.440 11.230 9.188 8.130 3.701

1966 9.456 9.198 8.775 7.926 7.459 3.973

1967 11.150 10.830 9.575 7.636 6.869 3.819

1968 5.115 4.956 4.541 3.914 3.576 2.560

1969 4.638 4.491 4.143 3.783 3.398 1.803

1970 6.963 6.680 5.729 4.858 4.575 2.177

1971 29.750 28.630 25.250 19.810 17.080 6.253

1972 9.190 8.844 8.294 7.645 7.171 4.825

1973 13.590 13.170 11.700 9.495 8.436 3.886

1974 17.930 17.230 16.760 14.490 12.860 5.853

1975 7.401 7.205 6.557 5.843 5.475 3.941

1976 15.350 14.900 13.560 11.890 10.900 4.369

1977 12.070 11.580 9.885 7.889 6.949 4.644

1978 6.435 6.214 5.650 4.716 4.220 2.571

1979 16.390 15.880 14.570 13.100 11.760 4.387

1980 7.080 7.019 6.766 6.234 5.837 3.210

1981 5.915 5.747 5.140 4.423 4.037 2.053

1982 6.497 6.272 5.487 4.495 4.088 2.315

1983 4.233 4.048 3.392 3.027 2.952 1.885

1984 4.250 4.070 3.651 2.987 2.937 1.844

1985 11.670 11.290 10.250 8.566 7.911 3.352

1986 6.433 6.244 5.520 4.908 4.506 3.192

1987 10.840 10.510 9.376 7.656 6.831 3.014

1988 11.760 11.430 10.260 8.553 7.745 3.886

1989 12.440 12.100 10.820 8.999 8.092 4.086

1990 5.478 5.421 5.189 4.711 4.360 2.967

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 29.750 28.630 25.250 19.810 17.080 6.253

0.065 17.930 17.230 16.760 14.490 12.860 5.853

0.097 17.510 17.050 16.230 13.740 12.290 4.825

0.129 16.390 15.880 14.570 13.100 11.760 4.804

0.161 15.350 14.900 13.560 11.890 10.900 4.644

0.194 13.590 13.170 11.700 9.495 8.436 4.387
Appendix B-xxxix

0.226 12.930 12.440 11.230 9.188 8.130 4.369

0.258 12.440 12.100 10.820 8.999 8.092 4.086

0.290 12.070 11.580 10.260 8.566 7.911 3.973

0.323 11.760 11.430 10.250 8.553 7.745 3.967

0.355 11.670 11.290 9.885 7.926 7.459 3.941

0.387 11.150 10.830 9.575 7.889 7.171 3.886

0.419 10.840 10.510 9.376 7.656 6.949 3.886

0.452 9.456 9.198 8.775 7.645 6.869 3.819

0.484 9.190 8.844 8.294 7.636 6.831 3.701

0.516 8.199 7.895 7.499 6.868 6.426 3.352

0.548 7.805 7.737 7.457 6.262 5.837 3.210

0.581 7.401 7.205 6.766 6.234 5.629 3.192

0.613 7.080 7.019 6.557 5.843 5.475 3.014

0.645 6.963 6.680 5.729 4.908 4.575 2.967

0.677 6.497 6.272 5.650 4.858 4.506 2.571

0.710 6.435 6.244 5.520 4.716 4.360 2.560

0.742 6.433 6.214 5.487 4.711 4.220 2.315

0.774 5.915 5.747 5.189 4.495 4.088 2.243

0.806 5.478 5.421 5.140 4.423 4.037 2.177

0.839 5.115 4.956 4.541 3.914 3.576 2.053

0.871 4.638 4.491 4.143 3.783 3.398 1.885

0.903 4.250 4.101 3.675 3.027 2.952 1.844

0.935 4.233 4.070 3.651 2.987 2.937 1.803

0.968 4.203 4.048 3.392 2.760 2.355 0.757

0.1 17.4 16.9 16.1 13.7 12.2 4.8

Average of

yearly

averages:

3.4

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: paalfpd

Metfile: w14737.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAalfalfaC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.ex

v

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atmm^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife
Appendix B-xl

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or ddmmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Ground Application Modeling Runs

Idaho Potato (application of 1.17 kg/ha)

stored as idpotmxg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: IDpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:00:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w24156.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:38

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 6.157 6.029 5.656 5.412 5.210 1.467

1962 4.187 4.150 3.997 3.681 3.462 1.647

1963 0.961 0.949 0.903 0.812 0.750 0.508

1964 1.027 1.021 0.778 0.539 0.509 0.385

1965 0.987 0.978 0.939 0.859 0.805 0.491

1966 0.615 0.597 0.533 0.453 0.413 0.267

1967 0.825 0.811 0.756 0.664 0.621 0.281

1968 0.631 0.616 0.561 0.496 0.459 0.308

1969 1.138 1.126 1.075 0.938 0.769 0.339

1970 0.867 0.859 0.824 0.804 0.762 0.462

1971 5.526 5.446 5.197 4.800 4.533 1.294
Appendix B-xli

1972 3.711 3.678 3.543 3.261 3.045 1.489

1973 1.580 1.552 1.442 1.267 1.150 0.516

1974 1.165 1.147 1.091 0.987 0.832 0.565

1975 2.652 2.606 2.467 2.248 1.833 0.780

1976 6.331 6.226 5.812 5.088 4.700 1.855

1977 3.647 3.615 3.482 3.205 3.007 1.403

1978 0.677 0.670 0.643 0.540 0.504 0.287

1979 0.650 0.631 0.577 0.529 0.524 0.361

1980 7.746 7.626 7.151 6.408 5.386 1.647

1981 5.017 4.972 4.787 4.403 4.118 2.008

1982 4.132 4.060 3.894 3.399 3.133 1.190

1983 2.794 2.745 2.554 2.266 2.112 1.361

1984 1.645 1.631 1.571 1.446 1.359 0.727

1985 0.616 0.603 0.553 0.474 0.436 0.256

1986 1.020 1.009 0.969 0.881 0.822 0.526

1987 0.619 0.602 0.538 0.450 0.413 0.283

1988 1.579 1.561 1.493 1.157 0.909 0.372

1989 1.298 1.285 1.236 1.138 1.086 0.603

1990 0.631 0.611 0.537 0.460 0.432 0.319

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 7.746 7.626 7.151 6.408 5.386 2.008

0.065 6.331 6.226 5.812 5.412 5.210 1.855

0.097 6.157 6.029 5.656 5.088 4.700 1.647

0.129 5.526 5.446 5.197 4.800 4.533 1.647

0.161 5.017 4.972 4.787 4.403 4.118 1.489

0.194 4.187 4.150 3.997 3.681 3.462 1.467

0.226 4.132 4.060 3.894 3.399 3.133 1.403

0.258 3.711 3.678 3.543 3.261 3.045 1.361

0.290 3.647 3.615 3.482 3.205 3.007 1.294

0.323 2.794 2.745 2.554 2.266 2.112 1.190

0.355 2.652 2.606 2.467 2.248 1.833 0.780

0.387 1.645 1.631 1.571 1.446 1.359 0.727

0.419 1.580 1.561 1.493 1.267 1.150 0.603

0.452 1.579 1.552 1.442 1.157 1.086 0.565

0.484 1.298 1.285 1.236 1.138 0.909 0.526

0.516 1.165 1.147 1.091 0.987 0.832 0.516

0.548 1.138 1.126 1.075 0.938 0.822 0.508

0.581 1.027 1.021 0.969 0.881 0.805 0.491

0.613 1.020 1.009 0.939 0.859 0.769 0.462

0.645 0.987 0.978 0.903 0.812 0.762 0.385

0.677 0.961 0.949 0.824 0.804 0.750 0.372

0.710 0.867 0.859 0.778 0.664 0.621 0.361

0.742 0.825 0.811 0.756 0.540 0.524 0.339

0.774 0.677 0.670 0.643 0.539 0.509 0.319

0.806 0.650 0.631 0.577 0.529 0.504 0.308

0.839 0.631 0.616 0.561 0.496 0.459 0.287

0.871 0.631 0.611 0.553 0.474 0.436 0.283

0.903 0.619 0.603 0.538 0.460 0.432 0.281
Appendix B-xlii

0.935 0.616 0.602 0.537 0.453 0.413 0.267

0.968 0.615 0.597 0.533 0.450 0.413 0.256

0.1 6.1 6.0 5.6 5.1 4.7 1.6

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.8

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: idpotmxg

Metfile: w24156.d

vf

PRZM scenario: IDpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.17 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-xliii

Idaho Potato (application of 0.46 kg/ha, typical rate)

stored as idpottyg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: IDpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:00:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w24156.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:38

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.422 2.357 2.213 2.116 2.037 0.574

1962 1.638 1.624 1.564 1.441 1.355 0.645

1963 0.378 0.373 0.355 0.319 0.295 0.200

1964 0.404 0.401 0.306 0.212 0.200 0.151

1965 0.388 0.384 0.369 0.338 0.317 0.193

1966 0.242 0.235 0.210 0.178 0.162 0.105

1967 0.324 0.319 0.297 0.261 0.244 0.110

1968 0.248 0.242 0.221 0.195 0.180 0.121

1969 0.448 0.443 0.423 0.369 0.302 0.133

1970 0.341 0.338 0.324 0.316 0.300 0.181

1971 2.173 2.141 2.043 1.887 1.782 0.509

1972 1.459 1.446 1.393 1.282 1.197 0.585

1973 0.621 0.610 0.567 0.498 0.452 0.203

1974 0.458 0.451 0.429 0.388 0.327 0.222

1975 1.042 1.024 0.970 0.884 0.721 0.306

1976 2.489 2.448 2.285 2.001 1.848 0.729

1977 1.434 1.421 1.369 1.260 1.182 0.552

1978 0.266 0.264 0.253 0.212 0.198 0.113

1979 0.256 0.248 0.227 0.208 0.206 0.142

1980 3.045 2.998 2.811 2.519 2.117 0.647

1981 1.972 1.954 1.882 1.731 1.619 0.790

1982 1.625 1.596 1.531 1.336 1.232 0.468

1983 1.098 1.079 1.004 0.891 0.830 0.535

1984 0.647 0.641 0.618 0.569 0.534 0.286

1985 0.242 0.237 0.217 0.187 0.171 0.101

1986 0.401 0.397 0.381 0.347 0.323 0.207

1987 0.243 0.237 0.212 0.177 0.162 0.111

1988 0.621 0.614 0.587 0.455 0.357 0.146

1989 0.510 0.505 0.486 0.448 0.427 0.237

1990 0.248 0.240 0.211 0.181 0.170 0.126

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 3.045 2.998 2.811 2.519 2.117 0.790

0.065 2.489 2.448 2.285 2.116 2.037 0.729

0.097 2.422 2.357 2.213 2.001 1.848 0.647
Appendix B-xliv

0.129 2.173 2.141 2.043 1.887 1.782 0.645

0.161 1.972 1.954 1.882 1.731 1.619 0.585

0.194 1.638 1.624 1.564 1.441 1.355 0.574

0.226 1.625 1.596 1.531 1.336 1.232 0.552

0.258 1.459 1.446 1.393 1.282 1.197 0.535

0.290 1.434 1.421 1.369 1.260 1.182 0.509

0.323 1.098 1.079 1.004 0.891 0.830 0.468

0.355 1.042 1.024 0.970 0.884 0.721 0.306

0.387 0.647 0.641 0.618 0.569 0.534 0.286

0.419 0.621 0.614 0.587 0.498 0.452 0.237

0.452 0.621 0.610 0.567 0.455 0.427 0.222

0.484 0.510 0.505 0.486 0.448 0.357 0.207

0.516 0.458 0.451 0.429 0.388 0.327 0.203

0.548 0.448 0.443 0.423 0.369 0.323 0.200

0.581 0.404 0.401 0.381 0.347 0.317 0.193

0.613 0.401 0.397 0.369 0.338 0.302 0.181

0.645 0.388 0.384 0.355 0.319 0.300 0.151

0.677 0.378 0.373 0.324 0.316 0.295 0.146

0.710 0.341 0.338 0.306 0.261 0.244 0.142

0.742 0.324 0.319 0.297 0.212 0.206 0.133

0.774 0.266 0.264 0.253 0.212 0.200 0.126

0.806 0.256 0.248 0.227 0.208 0.198 0.121

0.839 0.248 0.242 0.221 0.195 0.180 0.113

0.871 0.248 0.240 0.217 0.187 0.171 0.111

0.903 0.243 0.237 0.212 0.181 0.170 0.110

0.935 0.242 0.237 0.211 0.178 0.162 0.105

0.968 0.242 0.235 0.210 0.177 0.162 0.101

0.1 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.8 0.6

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.3

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: idpottyg

Metfile: w24156.d

vf

PRZM scenario: IDpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Appendix B-xlv

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.46 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Maine Potato (application of 1.17 kg/ha)

stored as mepotmxg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MEpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:03:32

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w14607.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:36

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 16.470 16.060 14.930 13.110 12.130 3.402

1962 13.870 13.610 12.630 11.430 10.830 6.485

1963 8.420 8.347 8.046 7.414 6.975 4.251

1964 6.692 6.600 6.340 5.859 4.755 2.577

1965 4.897 4.853 4.672 4.296 4.037 2.642

1966 5.740 5.659 5.447 5.036 4.734 2.149

1967 19.360 18.930 17.770 15.740 14.630 5.483

1968 11.110 11.010 10.610 9.773 9.193 5.508

1969 5.628 5.577 5.370 4.939 4.642 2.828

1970 23.860 23.460 21.920 19.280 18.000 5.653

1971 14.060 13.940 13.430 12.370 11.630 6.237
Appendix B-xlvi

1972 4.962 4.899 4.748 4.516 4.144 2.264

1973 5.721 5.639 5.311 4.984 4.715 2.630

1974 3.746 3.713 3.579 3.296 3.101 2.003

1975 1.788 1.772 1.708 1.573 1.481 0.933

1976 10.030 9.907 9.679 9.081 8.322 2.437

1977 7.165 7.102 6.840 6.294 5.916 3.986

1978 4.195 4.158 4.007 3.690 3.470 2.027

1979 1.938 1.916 1.828 1.660 1.545 1.038

1980 4.356 4.299 4.110 3.788 3.589 1.546

1981 5.000 4.936 4.776 4.524 4.336 2.236

1982 9.029 8.895 8.391 7.814 7.458 3.393

1983 8.835 8.702 8.354 7.886 7.462 4.285

1984 5.887 5.836 5.624 5.179 4.872 2.771

1985 1.903 1.887 1.834 1.714 1.692 1.071

1986 5.131 5.051 4.775 4.295 4.048 1.674

1987 7.268 7.116 6.792 6.091 5.687 2.722

1988 4.344 4.306 4.150 3.823 3.597 2.099

1989 1.687 1.661 1.589 1.484 1.417 0.960

1990 13.750 13.460 12.650 11.500 10.730 3.317

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 23.860 23.460 21.920 19.280 18.000 6.485

0.065 19.360 18.930 17.770 15.740 14.630 6.237

0.097 16.470 16.060 14.930 13.110 12.130 5.653

0.129 14.060 13.940 13.430 12.370 11.630 5.508

0.161 13.870 13.610 12.650 11.500 10.830 5.483

0.194 13.750 13.460 12.630 11.430 10.730 4.285

0.226 11.110 11.010 10.610 9.773 9.193 4.251

0.258 10.030 9.907 9.679 9.081 8.322 3.986

0.290 9.029 8.895 8.391 7.886 7.462 3.402

0.323 8.835 8.702 8.354 7.814 7.458 3.393

0.355 8.420 8.347 8.046 7.414 6.975 3.317

0.387 7.268 7.116 6.840 6.294 5.916 2.828

0.419 7.165 7.102 6.792 6.091 5.687 2.771

0.452 6.692 6.600 6.340 5.859 4.872 2.722

0.484 5.887 5.836 5.624 5.179 4.755 2.642

0.516 5.740 5.659 5.447 5.036 4.734 2.630

0.548 5.721 5.639 5.370 4.984 4.715 2.577

0.581 5.628 5.577 5.311 4.939 4.642 2.437

0.613 5.131 5.051 4.776 4.524 4.336 2.264

0.645 5.000 4.936 4.775 4.516 4.144 2.236

0.677 4.962 4.899 4.748 4.296 4.048 2.149

0.710 4.897 4.853 4.672 4.295 4.037 2.099

0.742 4.356 4.306 4.150 3.823 3.597 2.027

0.774 4.344 4.299 4.110 3.788 3.589 2.003

0.806 4.195 4.158 4.007 3.690 3.470 1.674

0.839 3.746 3.713 3.579 3.296 3.101 1.546

0.871 1.938 1.916 1.834 1.714 1.692 1.071

0.903 1.903 1.887 1.828 1.660 1.545 1.038
Appendix B-xlvii

0.935 1.788 1.772 1.708 1.573 1.481 0.960

0.968 1.687 1.661 1.589 1.484 1.417 0.933

0.1 16.2 15.8 14.8 13.0 12.1 5.6

Average

of yearly

averages:

3.0

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: mepotmxg

Metfile: w14607.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MEpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.17 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-xlviii

Maine Potato (application of 0.46 kg/ha, typical application rate)

stored as mepottyg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MEpotatoC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:03:32

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w14607.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:36

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 6.477 6.314 5.872 5.149 4.763 1.335

1962 5.452 5.348 4.964 4.493 4.256 2.546

1963 3.310 3.281 3.163 2.914 2.742 1.671

1964 2.630 2.594 2.492 2.303 1.869 1.013

1965 1.925 1.907 1.836 1.689 1.587 1.039

1966 2.257 2.225 2.142 1.980 1.861 0.845

1967 7.614 7.445 6.987 6.189 5.754 2.156

1968 4.367 4.329 4.172 3.843 3.615 2.166

1969 2.213 2.193 2.112 1.942 1.825 1.112

1970 9.379 9.224 8.618 7.579 7.078 2.223

1971 5.529 5.480 5.280 4.861 4.572 2.452

1972 1.951 1.926 1.867 1.776 1.629 0.890

1973 2.249 2.217 2.088 1.960 1.854 1.034

1974 1.473 1.460 1.407 1.296 1.219 0.788

1975 0.703 0.697 0.671 0.618 0.582 0.367

1976 3.944 3.895 3.805 3.570 3.272 0.958

1977 2.817 2.792 2.689 2.475 2.326 1.567

1978 1.650 1.635 1.576 1.451 1.364 0.797

1979 0.762 0.753 0.719 0.653 0.607 0.408

1980 1.713 1.690 1.616 1.489 1.411 0.608

1981 1.966 1.941 1.878 1.779 1.705 0.879

1982 3.550 3.497 3.299 3.072 2.932 1.334

1983 3.473 3.421 3.284 3.100 2.933 1.684

1984 2.314 2.294 2.211 2.036 1.915 1.089

1985 0.748 0.742 0.721 0.674 0.665 0.421

1986 2.017 1.986 1.877 1.689 1.592 0.658

1987 2.858 2.798 2.670 2.395 2.236 1.070

1988 1.708 1.693 1.632 1.503 1.414 0.825

1989 0.663 0.653 0.625 0.583 0.557 0.377

1990 5.403 5.290 4.973 4.522 4.216 1.304

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 9.379 9.224 8.618 7.579 7.078 2.546

0.065 7.614 7.445 6.987 6.189 5.754 2.452

0.097 6.477 6.314 5.872 5.149 4.763 2.223
Appendix B-xlix

0.129 5.529 5.480 5.280 4.861 4.572 2.166

0.161 5.452 5.348 4.973 4.522 4.256 2.156

0.194 5.403 5.290 4.964 4.493 4.216 1.684

0.226 4.367 4.329 4.172 3.843 3.615 1.671

0.258 3.944 3.895 3.805 3.570 3.272 1.567

0.290 3.550 3.497 3.299 3.100 2.933 1.335

0.323 3.473 3.421 3.284 3.072 2.932 1.334

0.355 3.310 3.281 3.163 2.914 2.742 1.304

0.387 2.858 2.798 2.689 2.475 2.326 1.112

0.419 2.817 2.792 2.670 2.395 2.236 1.089

0.452 2.630 2.594 2.492 2.303 1.915 1.070

0.484 2.314 2.294 2.211 2.036 1.869 1.039

0.516 2.257 2.225 2.142 1.980 1.861 1.034

0.548 2.249 2.217 2.112 1.960 1.854 1.013

0.581 2.213 2.193 2.088 1.942 1.825 0.958

0.613 2.017 1.986 1.878 1.779 1.705 0.890

0.645 1.966 1.941 1.877 1.776 1.629 0.879

0.677 1.951 1.926 1.867 1.689 1.592 0.845

0.710 1.925 1.907 1.836 1.689 1.587 0.825

0.742 1.713 1.693 1.632 1.503 1.414 0.797

0.774 1.708 1.690 1.616 1.489 1.411 0.788

0.806 1.650 1.635 1.576 1.451 1.364 0.658

0.839 1.473 1.460 1.407 1.296 1.219 0.608

0.871 0.762 0.753 0.721 0.674 0.665 0.421

0.903 0.748 0.742 0.719 0.653 0.607 0.408

0.935 0.703 0.697 0.671 0.618 0.582 0.377

0.968 0.663 0.653 0.625 0.583 0.557 0.367

0.1 6.4 6.2 5.8 5.1 4.7 2.2

Average

of yearly

averages:

1.2

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: mepottyg

Metfile: w14607.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MEpotatoC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Appendix B-l

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.46 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-9 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

California Cotton (application of 0.11 kg/ha)

stored as cactnmxg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: CAcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

16:34:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.333 0.327 0.307 0.192 0.134 0.037

1962 0.267 0.264 0.251 0.233 0.214 0.087

1963 0.182 0.178 0.168 0.145 0.130 0.065

1964 0.237 0.233 0.223 0.198 0.145 0.058

1965 0.158 0.155 0.146 0.126 0.113 0.058

1966 0.282 0.278 0.260 0.129 0.093 0.049

1967 0.231 0.227 0.213 0.190 0.171 0.075

1968 0.288 0.282 0.266 0.235 0.201 0.069

1969 0.200 0.198 0.189 0.169 0.152 0.065

1970 0.400 0.393 0.370 0.211 0.156 0.094

1971 0.363 0.358 0.336 0.293 0.262 0.104
Appendix B-li

1972 0.313 0.309 0.288 0.229 0.159 0.069

1973 0.224 0.220 0.208 0.181 0.161 0.078

1974 0.247 0.240 0.219 0.196 0.145 0.059

1975 0.162 0.160 0.154 0.136 0.122 0.061

1976 0.358 0.348 0.307 0.244 0.215 0.108

1977 0.330 0.324 0.210 0.113 0.101 0.054

1978 0.318 0.309 0.296 0.257 0.226 0.125

1979 0.096 0.094 0.091 0.082 0.073 0.034

1980 0.069 0.068 0.063 0.056 0.050 0.025

1981 0.247 0.243 0.229 0.195 0.170 0.066

1982 0.279 0.268 0.232 0.201 0.191 0.080

1983 0.150 0.148 0.139 0.122 0.108 0.054

1984 0.078 0.077 0.070 0.050 0.040 0.025

1985 0.115 0.112 0.107 0.097 0.081 0.042

1986 0.516 0.507 0.287 0.109 0.079 0.043

1987 0.524 0.519 0.488 0.424 0.376 0.134

1988 0.187 0.184 0.141 0.072 0.054 0.023

1989 0.176 0.174 0.167 0.147 0.131 0.061

1990 0.092 0.091 0.086 0.075 0.066 0.030

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 0.524 0.519 0.488 0.424 0.376 0.134

0.065 0.516 0.507 0.370 0.293 0.262 0.125

0.097 0.400 0.393 0.336 0.257 0.226 0.108

0.129 0.363 0.358 0.307 0.244 0.215 0.104

0.161 0.358 0.348 0.307 0.235 0.214 0.094

0.194 0.333 0.327 0.296 0.233 0.201 0.087

0.226 0.330 0.324 0.288 0.229 0.191 0.080

0.258 0.318 0.309 0.287 0.211 0.171 0.078

0.290 0.313 0.309 0.266 0.201 0.170 0.075

0.323 0.288 0.282 0.260 0.198 0.161 0.069

0.355 0.282 0.278 0.251 0.196 0.159 0.069

0.387 0.279 0.268 0.232 0.195 0.156 0.066

0.419 0.267 0.264 0.229 0.192 0.152 0.065

0.452 0.247 0.243 0.223 0.190 0.145 0.065

0.484 0.247 0.240 0.219 0.181 0.145 0.061

0.516 0.237 0.233 0.213 0.169 0.134 0.061

0.548 0.231 0.227 0.210 0.147 0.131 0.059

0.581 0.224 0.220 0.208 0.145 0.130 0.058

0.613 0.200 0.198 0.189 0.136 0.122 0.058

0.645 0.187 0.184 0.168 0.129 0.113 0.054

0.677 0.182 0.178 0.167 0.126 0.108 0.054

0.710 0.176 0.174 0.154 0.122 0.101 0.049

0.742 0.162 0.160 0.146 0.113 0.093 0.043

0.774 0.158 0.155 0.141 0.109 0.081 0.042

0.806 0.150 0.148 0.139 0.097 0.079 0.037

0.839 0.115 0.112 0.107 0.082 0.073 0.034

0.871 0.096 0.094 0.091 0.075 0.066 0.030

0.903 0.092 0.091 0.086 0.072 0.054 0.025
Appendix B-lii

0.935 0.078 0.077 0.070 0.056 0.050 0.025

0.968 0.069 0.068 0.063 0.050 0.040 0.023

0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.1

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: cactnmxg

Metfile: w93193.d

vf

PRZM scenario: CAcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.11 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-liii

California Cotton (application of 0.07 kg ai/ha)

stored as cactntyg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: CAcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

16:34:02

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.212 0.209 0.196 0.122 0.086 0.024

1962 0.171 0.169 0.161 0.149 0.137 0.055

1963 0.116 0.113 0.107 0.093 0.083 0.042

1964 0.151 0.148 0.142 0.126 0.093 0.037

1965 0.100 0.099 0.093 0.080 0.072 0.037

1966 0.180 0.177 0.166 0.082 0.059 0.031

1967 0.147 0.145 0.136 0.121 0.109 0.048

1968 0.183 0.180 0.169 0.150 0.128 0.044

1969 0.128 0.126 0.121 0.107 0.097 0.041

1970 0.254 0.250 0.235 0.134 0.099 0.060

1971 0.231 0.228 0.214 0.186 0.167 0.066

1972 0.199 0.197 0.183 0.145 0.101 0.044

1973 0.142 0.140 0.132 0.115 0.103 0.049

1974 0.158 0.153 0.139 0.125 0.092 0.038

1975 0.103 0.102 0.098 0.086 0.078 0.039

1976 0.228 0.221 0.196 0.155 0.137 0.069

1977 0.210 0.206 0.134 0.072 0.064 0.034

1978 0.202 0.197 0.188 0.164 0.144 0.080

1979 0.061 0.060 0.058 0.052 0.047 0.021

1980 0.044 0.043 0.040 0.036 0.032 0.016

1981 0.157 0.154 0.146 0.124 0.108 0.042

1982 0.178 0.171 0.148 0.128 0.122 0.051

1983 0.095 0.094 0.089 0.077 0.068 0.034

1984 0.050 0.049 0.044 0.032 0.026 0.016

1985 0.073 0.072 0.068 0.062 0.052 0.027

1986 0.328 0.322 0.182 0.069 0.050 0.027

1987 0.333 0.330 0.311 0.270 0.239 0.085

1988 0.119 0.117 0.090 0.046 0.034 0.014

1989 0.112 0.110 0.107 0.094 0.084 0.039

1990 0.059 0.058 0.054 0.048 0.042 0.019

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 0.333 0.330 0.311 0.270 0.239 0.085

0.065 0.328 0.322 0.235 0.186 0.167 0.080

0.097 0.254 0.250 0.214 0.164 0.144 0.069
Appendix B-liv

0.129 0.231 0.228 0.196 0.155 0.137 0.066

0.161 0.228 0.221 0.196 0.150 0.137 0.060

0.194 0.212 0.209 0.188 0.149 0.128 0.055

0.226 0.210 0.206 0.183 0.145 0.122 0.051

0.258 0.202 0.197 0.182 0.134 0.109 0.049

0.290 0.199 0.197 0.169 0.128 0.108 0.048

0.323 0.183 0.180 0.166 0.126 0.103 0.044

0.355 0.180 0.177 0.161 0.125 0.101 0.044

0.387 0.178 0.171 0.148 0.124 0.099 0.042

0.419 0.171 0.169 0.146 0.122 0.097 0.042

0.452 0.158 0.154 0.142 0.121 0.093 0.041

0.484 0.157 0.153 0.139 0.115 0.092 0.039

0.516 0.151 0.148 0.136 0.107 0.086 0.039

0.548 0.147 0.145 0.134 0.094 0.084 0.038

0.581 0.142 0.140 0.132 0.093 0.083 0.037

0.613 0.128 0.126 0.121 0.086 0.078 0.037

0.645 0.119 0.117 0.107 0.082 0.072 0.034

0.677 0.116 0.113 0.107 0.080 0.068 0.034

0.710 0.112 0.110 0.098 0.077 0.064 0.031

0.742 0.103 0.102 0.093 0.072 0.059 0.027

0.774 0.100 0.099 0.090 0.069 0.052 0.027

0.806 0.095 0.094 0.089 0.062 0.050 0.024

0.839 0.073 0.072 0.068 0.052 0.047 0.021

0.871 0.061 0.060 0.058 0.048 0.042 0.019

0.903 0.059 0.058 0.054 0.046 0.034 0.016

0.935 0.050 0.049 0.044 0.036 0.032 0.016

0.968 0.044 0.043 0.040 0.032 0.026 0.014

0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.04

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: cactntyg

Metfile: w93193.d

vf

PRZM scenario: CAcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Appendix B-lv

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Mississippi Cotton (application of 0.11 kg/ha)

stored as msctnmxg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MScottonC.txt modified Wedday, 22 January 2003 at

11:52:38

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:46

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.580 1.512 1.314 1.005 0.962 0.323

1962 0.767 0.757 0.716 0.618 0.544 0.258

1963 0.256 0.250 0.239 0.140 0.100 0.061

1964 3.401 3.308 2.952 2.357 2.061 0.613

1965 4.871 4.659 3.903 2.955 2.496 1.008

1966 1.121 1.108 1.055 0.939 0.846 0.364

1967 2.729 2.657 2.359 2.002 1.786 0.580

1968 0.867 0.856 0.811 0.724 0.657 0.272

1969 0.117 0.115 0.109 0.085 0.077 0.046

1970 4.338 4.122 3.671 3.309 2.972 0.874

1971 2.837 2.705 2.240 1.631 1.381 0.770
Appendix B-lvi

1972 0.623 0.612 0.568 0.484 0.427 0.201

1973 1.691 1.615 1.476 1.136 0.956 0.298

1974 0.807 0.770 0.681 0.537 0.457 0.219

1975 0.866 0.834 0.730 0.654 0.619 0.229

1976 2.939 2.821 2.644 2.019 1.740 0.612

1977 1.034 0.986 0.827 0.694 0.616 0.361

1978 0.668 0.642 0.604 0.483 0.419 0.183

1979 5.200 4.993 4.278 3.356 2.996 1.008

1980 1.774 1.747 1.641 1.433 1.286 0.486

1981 0.678 0.651 0.573 0.436 0.371 0.134

1982 3.326 3.228 2.907 2.329 1.996 0.541

1983 1.289 1.272 1.203 1.057 0.948 0.389

1984 0.496 0.483 0.422 0.346 0.282 0.113

1985 1.121 1.087 0.973 0.830 0.759 0.280

1986 0.591 0.562 0.459 0.400 0.354 0.201

1987 0.239 0.234 0.215 0.157 0.140 0.078

1988 1.839 1.791 1.623 1.367 1.197 0.381

1989 0.745 0.731 0.676 0.575 0.510 0.289

1990 0.609 0.581 0.523 0.404 0.344 0.154

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 5.200 4.993 4.278 3.356 2.996 1.008

0.065 4.871 4.659 3.903 3.309 2.972 1.008

0.097 4.338 4.122 3.671 2.955 2.496 0.874

0.129 3.401 3.308 2.952 2.357 2.061 0.770

0.161 3.326 3.228 2.907 2.329 1.996 0.613

0.194 2.939 2.821 2.644 2.019 1.786 0.612

0.226 2.837 2.705 2.359 2.002 1.740 0.580

0.258 2.729 2.657 2.240 1.631 1.381 0.541

0.290 1.839 1.791 1.641 1.433 1.286 0.486

0.323 1.774 1.747 1.623 1.367 1.197 0.389

0.355 1.691 1.615 1.476 1.136 0.962 0.381

0.387 1.580 1.512 1.314 1.057 0.956 0.364

0.419 1.289 1.272 1.203 1.005 0.948 0.361

0.452 1.121 1.108 1.055 0.939 0.846 0.323

0.484 1.121 1.087 0.973 0.830 0.759 0.298

0.516 1.034 0.986 0.827 0.724 0.657 0.289

0.548 0.867 0.856 0.811 0.694 0.619 0.280

0.581 0.866 0.834 0.730 0.654 0.616 0.272

0.613 0.807 0.770 0.716 0.618 0.544 0.258

0.645 0.767 0.757 0.681 0.575 0.510 0.229

0.677 0.745 0.731 0.676 0.537 0.457 0.219

0.710 0.678 0.651 0.604 0.484 0.427 0.201

0.742 0.668 0.642 0.573 0.483 0.419 0.201

0.774 0.623 0.612 0.568 0.436 0.371 0.183

0.806 0.609 0.581 0.523 0.404 0.354 0.154

0.839 0.591 0.562 0.459 0.400 0.344 0.134

0.871 0.496 0.483 0.422 0.346 0.282 0.113

0.903 0.256 0.250 0.239 0.157 0.140 0.078
Appendix B-lvii

0.935 0.239 0.234 0.215 0.140 0.100 0.061

0.968 0.117 0.115 0.109 0.085 0.077 0.046

0.1 4.2 4.0 3.6 2.9 2.5 0.9

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.4

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: msctnmxg

Metfile: w03940.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MScottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.11 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-lviii

Mississippi Cotton (application of 0.07 kg/ha, typical rate)

stored as msctntyg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: MScottonC.txt modified Wedday, 22 January 2003 at

11:52:38

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:46

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.005 0.962 0.836 0.639 0.612 0.205

1962 0.488 0.482 0.456 0.393 0.347 0.164

1963 0.163 0.159 0.152 0.089 0.063 0.039

1964 2.164 2.105 1.878 1.500 1.312 0.390

1965 3.100 2.965 2.484 1.881 1.588 0.642

1966 0.714 0.705 0.672 0.598 0.538 0.231

1967 1.737 1.691 1.501 1.274 1.137 0.369

1968 0.552 0.545 0.516 0.461 0.418 0.173

1969 0.075 0.073 0.069 0.054 0.049 0.029

1970 2.761 2.623 2.336 2.106 1.891 0.556

1971 1.805 1.721 1.425 1.038 0.879 0.490

1972 0.396 0.389 0.362 0.308 0.271 0.128

1973 1.076 1.028 0.940 0.723 0.608 0.190

1974 0.514 0.490 0.433 0.342 0.291 0.140

1975 0.551 0.531 0.464 0.416 0.394 0.145

1976 1.870 1.795 1.682 1.285 1.107 0.389

1977 0.658 0.627 0.526 0.442 0.392 0.229

1978 0.425 0.409 0.384 0.307 0.266 0.116

1979 3.309 3.177 2.722 2.135 1.907 0.642

1980 1.129 1.112 1.044 0.912 0.819 0.309

1981 0.431 0.414 0.364 0.277 0.236 0.085

1982 2.117 2.054 1.850 1.482 1.270 0.344

1983 0.820 0.810 0.766 0.673 0.604 0.247

1984 0.316 0.307 0.269 0.220 0.179 0.072

1985 0.713 0.692 0.619 0.528 0.483 0.178

1986 0.376 0.358 0.292 0.254 0.225 0.128

1987 0.152 0.149 0.137 0.100 0.089 0.050

1988 1.170 1.139 1.032 0.870 0.762 0.242

1989 0.474 0.465 0.430 0.366 0.324 0.184

1990 0.388 0.370 0.333 0.257 0.219 0.098

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 3.309 3.177 2.722 2.135 1.907 0.642

0.065 3.100 2.965 2.484 2.106 1.891 0.642

0.097 2.761 2.623 2.336 1.881 1.588 0.556
Appendix B-lix

0.129 2.164 2.105 1.878 1.500 1.312 0.490

0.161 2.117 2.054 1.850 1.482 1.270 0.390

0.194 1.870 1.795 1.682 1.285 1.137 0.389

0.226 1.805 1.721 1.501 1.274 1.107 0.369

0.258 1.737 1.691 1.425 1.038 0.879 0.344

0.290 1.170 1.139 1.044 0.912 0.819 0.309

0.323 1.129 1.112 1.032 0.870 0.762 0.247

0.355 1.076 1.028 0.940 0.723 0.612 0.242

0.387 1.005 0.962 0.836 0.673 0.608 0.231

0.419 0.820 0.810 0.766 0.639 0.604 0.229

0.452 0.714 0.705 0.672 0.598 0.538 0.205

0.484 0.713 0.692 0.619 0.528 0.483 0.190

0.516 0.658 0.627 0.526 0.461 0.418 0.184

0.548 0.552 0.545 0.516 0.442 0.394 0.178

0.581 0.551 0.531 0.464 0.416 0.392 0.173

0.613 0.514 0.490 0.456 0.393 0.347 0.164

0.645 0.488 0.482 0.433 0.366 0.324 0.145

0.677 0.474 0.465 0.430 0.342 0.291 0.140

0.710 0.431 0.414 0.384 0.308 0.271 0.128

0.742 0.425 0.409 0.364 0.307 0.266 0.128

0.774 0.396 0.389 0.362 0.277 0.236 0.116

0.806 0.388 0.370 0.333 0.257 0.225 0.098

0.839 0.376 0.358 0.292 0.254 0.219 0.085

0.871 0.316 0.307 0.269 0.220 0.179 0.072

0.903 0.163 0.159 0.152 0.100 0.089 0.050

0.935 0.152 0.149 0.137 0.089 0.063 0.039

0.968 0.075 0.073 0.069 0.054 0.049 0.029

0.1 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.6 0.5

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.2

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: msctntyg

Metfile: w03940.d

vf

PRZM scenario: MScottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Appendix B-lx

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Texas Cotton (1 application of 0.15 kg ai/ha)

stored as txctnmxg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: TXcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:29:08

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.512 2.392 1.962 1.410 1.190 0.332

1962 6.728 6.283 5.062 3.473 2.765 0.900

1963 0.773 0.763 0.724 0.634 0.556 0.231

1964 2.262 2.150 1.892 1.607 1.394 0.403

1965 4.019 3.812 3.218 2.464 2.071 0.708

1966 0.973 0.960 0.906 0.793 0.704 0.356

1967 1.073 1.027 0.898 0.720 0.611 0.214

1968 1.110 1.061 0.921 0.659 0.542 0.215

1969 2.462 2.386 1.950 1.328 1.075 0.357

1970 0.732 0.696 0.582 0.459 0.392 0.193

1971 0.182 0.173 0.146 0.121 0.110 0.066
Appendix B-lxi

1972 0.664 0.639 0.565 0.475 0.399 0.121

1973 4.459 4.239 3.741 2.831 2.369 0.689

1974 1.797 1.709 1.480 1.080 0.889 0.507

1975 1.073 1.027 0.867 0.758 0.683 0.275

1976 1.615 1.539 1.267 0.987 0.854 0.317

1977 1.128 1.065 0.896 0.671 0.562 0.249

1978 0.733 0.701 0.585 0.423 0.366 0.166

1979 0.266 0.254 0.211 0.153 0.131 0.083

1980 0.787 0.753 0.635 0.550 0.477 0.168

1981 1.769 1.680 1.373 1.159 1.003 0.337

1982 0.414 0.407 0.378 0.322 0.281 0.122

1983 0.893 0.851 0.716 0.624 0.535 0.162

1984 1.073 1.047 0.935 0.748 0.631 0.230

1985 0.886 0.854 0.761 0.720 0.634 0.267

1986 2.200 2.084 1.686 1.231 1.037 0.366

1987 3.295 3.133 2.594 1.846 1.530 0.519

1988 0.612 0.603 0.566 0.488 0.429 0.190

1989 0.396 0.382 0.339 0.306 0.235 0.088

1990 0.744 0.717 0.634 0.550 0.478 0.182

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 6.728 6.283 5.062 3.473 2.765 0.900

0.065 4.459 4.239 3.741 2.831 2.369 0.708

0.097 4.019 3.812 3.218 2.464 2.071 0.689

0.129 3.295 3.133 2.594 1.846 1.530 0.519

0.161 2.512 2.392 1.962 1.607 1.394 0.507

0.194 2.462 2.386 1.950 1.410 1.190 0.403

0.226 2.262 2.150 1.892 1.328 1.075 0.366

0.258 2.200 2.084 1.686 1.231 1.037 0.357

0.290 1.797 1.709 1.480 1.159 1.003 0.356

0.323 1.769 1.680 1.373 1.080 0.889 0.337

0.355 1.615 1.539 1.267 0.987 0.854 0.332

0.387 1.128 1.065 0.935 0.793 0.704 0.317

0.419 1.110 1.061 0.921 0.758 0.683 0.275

0.452 1.073 1.047 0.906 0.748 0.634 0.267

0.484 1.073 1.027 0.898 0.720 0.631 0.249

0.516 1.073 1.027 0.896 0.720 0.611 0.231

0.548 0.973 0.960 0.867 0.671 0.562 0.230

0.581 0.893 0.854 0.761 0.659 0.556 0.215

0.613 0.886 0.851 0.724 0.634 0.542 0.214

0.645 0.787 0.763 0.716 0.624 0.535 0.193

0.677 0.773 0.753 0.635 0.550 0.478 0.190

0.710 0.744 0.717 0.634 0.550 0.477 0.182

0.742 0.733 0.701 0.585 0.488 0.429 0.168

0.774 0.732 0.696 0.582 0.475 0.399 0.166

0.806 0.664 0.639 0.566 0.459 0.392 0.162

0.839 0.612 0.603 0.565 0.423 0.366 0.122

0.871 0.414 0.407 0.378 0.322 0.281 0.121

0.903 0.396 0.382 0.339 0.306 0.235 0.088
Appendix B-lxii

0.935 0.266 0.254 0.211 0.153 0.131 0.083

0.968 0.182 0.173 0.146 0.121 0.110 0.066

0.1 3.9 3.7 3.2 2.4 2.0 0.7

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.3

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: txctnmxg

Metfile: w13958.d

vf

PRZM scenario: TXcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.15 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix B-lxiii

Texas Cotton (1 application of 0.07 kg ai/ha, typical rate)

stored as txctntyg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: TXcottonC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:29:08

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.172 1.097 0.898 0.645 0.545 0.152

1962 3.140 2.933 2.362 1.621 1.290 0.419

1963 0.361 0.356 0.338 0.296 0.260 0.108

1964 1.056 1.003 0.883 0.750 0.651 0.188

1965 1.875 1.779 1.502 1.150 0.967 0.330

1966 0.454 0.448 0.423 0.370 0.328 0.166

1967 0.501 0.479 0.419 0.336 0.285 0.100

1968 0.518 0.495 0.430 0.308 0.253 0.100

1969 1.149 1.114 0.910 0.620 0.502 0.167

1970 0.341 0.325 0.271 0.214 0.183 0.090

1971 0.085 0.081 0.068 0.056 0.051 0.031

1972 0.310 0.298 0.264 0.222 0.186 0.056

1973 2.081 1.978 1.746 1.321 1.106 0.322

1974 0.839 0.798 0.690 0.504 0.415 0.237

1975 0.501 0.480 0.405 0.354 0.319 0.128

1976 0.754 0.718 0.592 0.461 0.398 0.148

1977 0.526 0.497 0.418 0.313 0.262 0.116

1978 0.342 0.327 0.273 0.197 0.171 0.078

1979 0.124 0.118 0.099 0.071 0.061 0.039

1980 0.367 0.351 0.297 0.256 0.223 0.078

1981 0.825 0.784 0.641 0.541 0.468 0.157

1982 0.193 0.190 0.176 0.150 0.131 0.057

1983 0.417 0.397 0.334 0.291 0.250 0.075

1984 0.501 0.489 0.436 0.349 0.295 0.107

1985 0.414 0.399 0.355 0.336 0.296 0.125

1986 1.026 0.973 0.787 0.574 0.484 0.171

1987 1.537 1.462 1.210 0.861 0.714 0.242

1988 0.286 0.281 0.264 0.228 0.200 0.089

1989 0.185 0.178 0.158 0.143 0.110 0.041

1990 0.347 0.335 0.296 0.257 0.223 0.085

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 3.140 2.933 2.362 1.621 1.290 0.419

0.065 2.081 1.978 1.746 1.321 1.106 0.330

0.097 1.875 1.779 1.502 1.150 0.967 0.322
Appendix B-lxiv

0.129 1.537 1.462 1.210 0.861 0.714 0.242

0.161 1.172 1.114 0.910 0.750 0.651 0.237

0.194 1.149 1.097 0.898 0.645 0.545 0.188

0.226 1.056 1.003 0.883 0.620 0.502 0.171

0.258 1.026 0.973 0.787 0.574 0.484 0.167

0.290 0.839 0.798 0.690 0.541 0.468 0.166

0.323 0.825 0.784 0.641 0.504 0.415 0.157

0.355 0.754 0.718 0.592 0.461 0.398 0.152

0.387 0.526 0.497 0.436 0.370 0.328 0.148

0.419 0.518 0.495 0.430 0.354 0.319 0.128

0.452 0.501 0.489 0.423 0.349 0.296 0.125

0.484 0.501 0.480 0.419 0.336 0.295 0.116

0.516 0.501 0.479 0.418 0.336 0.285 0.108

0.548 0.454 0.448 0.405 0.313 0.262 0.107

0.581 0.417 0.399 0.355 0.308 0.260 0.100

0.613 0.414 0.397 0.338 0.296 0.253 0.100

0.645 0.367 0.356 0.334 0.291 0.250 0.090

0.677 0.361 0.351 0.297 0.257 0.223 0.089

0.710 0.347 0.335 0.296 0.256 0.223 0.085

0.742 0.342 0.327 0.273 0.228 0.200 0.078

0.774 0.341 0.325 0.271 0.222 0.186 0.078

0.806 0.310 0.298 0.264 0.214 0.183 0.075

0.839 0.286 0.281 0.264 0.197 0.171 0.057

0.871 0.193 0.190 0.176 0.150 0.131 0.056

0.903 0.185 0.178 0.158 0.143 0.110 0.041

0.935 0.124 0.118 0.099 0.071 0.061 0.039

0.968 0.085 0.081 0.068 0.056 0.051 0.031

0.1 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.3

Average

of yearly

averages:

0.1

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: txctntyg

Metfile: w13958.d

vf

PRZM scenario: TXcottonC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L
Appendix B-lxv

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 25-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

California Clover and Alfalfa for Seed (2 applications of 1.12 kg/ha)

stored as caalfpdg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: CAalfalfaC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

16:27:56

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w93193.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:24

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 8.582 8.456 7.955 5.094 3.500 0.947

1962 6.914 6.828 6.490 5.796 5.239 2.060

1963 2.234 2.186 2.091 1.804 1.592 0.926

1964 4.132 4.058 3.846 3.438 2.511 1.014

1965 2.657 2.617 2.457 2.132 1.900 0.994

1966 4.614 4.542 4.253 2.143 1.534 0.801

1967 3.768 3.711 3.484 3.036 2.711 1.307

1968 6.055 5.939 5.545 4.930 4.267 1.569

1969 3.947 3.891 3.688 3.246 2.917 1.282

1970 6.968 6.857 6.535 3.873 2.697 1.454

1971 6.278 6.185 5.812 5.061 4.526 1.816
Appendix B-lxvi

1972 5.159 5.093 4.743 3.779 2.632 1.153

1973 3.666 3.613 3.409 2.957 2.641 1.353

1974 4.250 4.117 3.756 3.407 2.518 1.075

1975 2.882 2.844 2.756 2.431 2.183 1.152

1976 4.748 4.608 4.073 3.237 2.849 1.594

1977 6.165 6.048 3.943 1.510 1.343 0.822

1978 5.876 5.765 5.598 4.884 4.293 2.278

1979 1.540 1.517 1.479 1.315 1.170 0.582

1980 1.104 1.066 0.991 0.858 0.762 0.419

1981 3.428 3.370 3.137 2.640 2.294 0.979

1982 5.212 5.006 4.341 3.802 3.559 1.417

1983 2.615 2.578 2.431 2.105 1.863 0.976

1984 1.084 1.043 0.970 0.748 0.651 0.451

1985 1.815 1.780 1.687 1.497 1.245 0.636

1986 7.520 7.394 4.317 1.677 1.218 0.677

1987 8.133 8.036 7.582 6.570 5.813 2.105

1988 2.498 2.462 2.019 1.246 0.923 0.414

1989 2.447 2.350 2.261 1.990 1.771 1.025

1990 1.498 1.479 1.392 1.208 1.073 0.541

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 8.582 8.456 7.955 6.570 5.813 2.278

0.065 8.133 8.036 7.582 5.796 5.239 2.105

0.097 7.520 7.394 6.535 5.094 4.526 2.060

0.129 6.968 6.857 6.490 5.061 4.293 1.816

0.161 6.914 6.828 5.812 4.930 4.267 1.594

0.194 6.278 6.185 5.598 4.884 3.559 1.569

0.226 6.165 6.048 5.545 3.873 3.500 1.454

0.258 6.055 5.939 4.743 3.802 2.917 1.417

0.290 5.876 5.765 4.341 3.779 2.849 1.353

0.323 5.212 5.093 4.317 3.438 2.711 1.307

0.355 5.159 5.006 4.253 3.407 2.697 1.282

0.387 4.748 4.608 4.073 3.246 2.641 1.153

0.419 4.614 4.542 3.943 3.237 2.632 1.152

0.452 4.250 4.117 3.846 3.036 2.518 1.075

0.484 4.132 4.058 3.756 2.957 2.511 1.025

0.516 3.947 3.891 3.688 2.640 2.294 1.014

0.548 3.768 3.711 3.484 2.431 2.183 0.994

0.581 3.666 3.613 3.409 2.143 1.900 0.979

0.613 3.428 3.370 3.137 2.132 1.863 0.976

0.645 2.882 2.844 2.756 2.105 1.771 0.947

0.677 2.657 2.617 2.457 1.990 1.592 0.926

0.710 2.615 2.578 2.431 1.804 1.534 0.822

0.742 2.498 2.462 2.261 1.677 1.343 0.801

0.774 2.447 2.350 2.091 1.510 1.245 0.677

0.806 2.234 2.186 2.019 1.497 1.218 0.636

0.839 1.815 1.780 1.687 1.315 1.170 0.582

0.871 1.540 1.517 1.479 1.246 1.073 0.541

0.903 1.498 1.479 1.392 1.208 0.923 0.451
Appendix B-lxvii

0.935 1.104 1.066 0.991 0.858 0.762 0.419

0.968 1.084 1.043 0.970 0.748 0.651 0.414

0.1 7.5 7.3 6.5 5.1 4.5 2.0

Average

of yearly

averages:

1.1

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: caalfpdg

Metfile: w93193.d

vf

PRZM scenario: CAalfalfaC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond
Appendix B-lxviii

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

North Carolina alfalfa for seed (2 applications of 0.84 kg ai/ha)

stored as ncalfpdg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: NCalfalfaC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17:08:44

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30

Metfile: w03812.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:05:50

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1965 6.511 6.276 5.594 5.009 4.588 1.484

1966 15.310 14.890 13.940 11.860 10.670 3.990

1967 66.980 65.180 58.180 46.860 41.010 14.920

1968 20.320 20.140 19.380 17.820 16.560 8.009

1969 15.240 14.690 12.760 9.973 8.625 3.666

1970 4.160 4.124 3.977 3.639 3.357 1.911

1971 5.800 5.604 4.967 4.405 3.978 1.806

1972 10.850 10.620 10.070 8.644 7.798 2.835

1973 5.249 5.195 4.975 4.514 4.132 2.394

1974 3.808 3.693 3.349 2.963 2.673 1.327

1975 6.440 6.251 5.620 4.924 4.534 1.986

1976 9.306 9.111 8.184 7.294 6.743 3.122

1977 23.160 22.610 21.080 17.720 15.680 5.953

1978 22.440 21.650 18.750 15.040 13.390 6.665

1979 8.351 8.273 7.956 7.279 6.700 4.194

1980 5.162 5.046 4.640 4.009 3.864 2.063

1981 4.365 4.276 3.970 3.522 3.139 1.772

1982 2.935 2.922 2.827 2.577 2.363 1.479

1983 14.380 13.930 13.160 10.720 9.409 3.288

1984 9.449 9.102 7.969 6.248 6.007 3.619

1985 29.500 28.750 26.610 21.510 18.390 6.813

1986 25.540 24.720 21.840 19.160 16.870 7.584

1987 27.720 26.860 24.890 20.470 18.210 7.774

1988 10.380 10.290 9.923 9.098 8.407 5.061

1989 29.100 28.030 25.170 19.680 16.970 6.393

1990 54.740 53.090 46.550 35.630 30.380 11.590

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.037 66.980 65.180 58.180 46.860 41.010 14.920

0.074 54.740 53.090 46.550 35.630 30.380 11.590

0.111 29.500 28.750 26.610 21.510 18.390 8.009

0.148 29.100 28.030 25.170 20.470 18.210 7.774

0.185 27.720 26.860 24.890 19.680 16.970 7.584

0.222 25.540 24.720 21.840 19.160 16.870 6.813

0.259 23.160 22.610 21.080 17.820 16.560 6.665
Appendix B-lxix

0.296 22.440 21.650 19.380 17.720 15.680 6.393

0.333 20.320 20.140 18.750 15.040 13.390 5.953

0.370 15.310 14.890 13.940 11.860 10.670 5.061

0.407 15.240 14.690 13.160 10.720 9.409 4.194

0.444 14.380 13.930 12.760 9.973 8.625 3.990

0.481 10.850 10.620 10.070 9.098 8.407 3.666

0.519 10.380 10.290 9.923 8.644 7.798 3.619

0.556 9.449 9.111 8.184 7.294 6.743 3.288

0.593 9.306 9.102 7.969 7.279 6.700 3.122

0.630 8.351 8.273 7.956 6.248 6.007 2.835

0.667 6.511 6.276 5.620 5.009 4.588 2.394

0.704 6.440 6.251 5.594 4.924 4.534 2.063

0.741 5.800 5.604 4.975 4.514 4.132 1.986

0.778 5.249 5.195 4.967 4.405 3.978 1.911

0.815 5.162 5.046 4.640 4.009 3.864 1.806

0.852 4.365 4.276 3.977 3.639 3.357 1.772

0.889 4.160 4.124 3.970 3.522 3.139 1.484

0.926 3.808 3.693 3.349 2.963 2.673 1.479

0.963 2.935 2.922 2.827 2.577 2.363 1.327

0.1 37.1 36.1 32.6 25.7 22.0 9.1

Average of

yearly

averages:

4.7

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: ncalfpdg

Metfile: w03812.dvf

PRZM scenario: NCalfalfaC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.ex

v

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atmm^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life
Appendix B-lxx

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to

pond

Application Date Date 15-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or ddmmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Pennsylvania alfalfa for seed (2 applications of 0.84 kg ai/ha)

stored as

paalfpdg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: PAalfalfaC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:24:04

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w14737.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:12

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.231 1.183 1.036 0.806 0.699 0.241

1962 5.689 5.540 5.302 4.512 4.027 1.454

1963 16.050 15.630 14.860 12.660 11.330 4.059

1964 7.231 7.167 6.907 6.361 5.951 3.223

1965 10.580 10.180 9.035 7.504 6.679 2.947

1966 7.875 7.660 7.261 6.352 5.859 3.225

1967 8.503 8.275 7.326 5.844 5.299 3.007

1968 3.306 3.277 3.159 2.910 2.720 1.743

1969 2.427 2.357 2.133 1.819 1.638 0.987

1970 4.097 3.930 3.377 3.094 3.054 1.378

1971 28.100 27.050 23.850 18.770 16.200 5.662

1972 8.243 8.172 7.879 7.263 6.812 4.146

1973 12.070 11.690 10.410 8.445 7.505 3.176

1974 15.630 15.190 14.600 12.880 11.470 5.217

1975 5.974 5.923 5.712 5.265 4.933 3.195

1976 13.860 13.450 12.290 10.840 9.948 3.662

1977 9.360 8.981 7.667 6.220 5.747 3.953
Appendix B-lxxi

1978 4.039 3.901 3.501 2.963 2.624 1.806

1979 15.150 14.680 13.230 12.000 10.800 3.700

1980 6.551 6.494 6.260 5.768 5.400 2.552

1981 4.068 3.951 3.530 3.067 2.812 1.276

1982 3.652 3.526 3.084 2.527 2.403 1.474

1983 2.594 2.549 2.378 2.151 1.887 1.115

1984 2.243 2.187 2.036 1.792 1.538 1.077

1985 10.430 10.090 9.158 7.649 6.896 2.657

1986 4.896 4.853 4.676 4.306 4.017 2.447

1987 8.888 8.620 7.709 6.297 5.618 2.231

1988 9.824 9.545 8.587 7.021 6.351 3.150

1989 10.980 10.690 9.573 7.950 7.148 3.364

1990 4.838 4.788 4.582 4.160 3.850 2.226

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 28.100 27.050 23.850 18.770 16.200 5.662

0.065 16.050 15.630 14.860 12.880 11.470 5.217

0.097 15.630 15.190 14.600 12.660 11.330 4.146

0.129 15.150 14.680 13.230 12.000 10.800 4.059

0.161 13.860 13.450 12.290 10.840 9.948 3.953

0.194 12.070 11.690 10.410 8.445 7.505 3.700

0.226 10.980 10.690 9.573 7.950 7.148 3.662

0.258 10.580 10.180 9.158 7.649 6.896 3.364

0.290 10.430 10.090 9.035 7.504 6.812 3.225

0.323 9.824 9.545 8.587 7.263 6.679 3.223

0.355 9.360 8.981 7.879 7.021 6.351 3.195

0.387 8.888 8.620 7.709 6.361 5.951 3.176

0.419 8.503 8.275 7.667 6.352 5.859 3.150

0.452 8.243 8.172 7.326 6.297 5.747 3.007

0.484 7.875 7.660 7.261 6.220 5.618 2.947

0.516 7.231 7.167 6.907 5.844 5.400 2.657

0.548 6.551 6.494 6.260 5.768 5.299 2.552

0.581 5.974 5.923 5.712 5.265 4.933 2.447

0.613 5.689 5.540 5.302 4.512 4.027 2.231

0.645 4.896 4.853 4.676 4.306 4.017 2.226

0.677 4.838 4.788 4.582 4.160 3.850 1.806

0.710 4.097 3.951 3.530 3.094 3.054 1.743

0.742 4.068 3.930 3.501 3.067 2.812 1.474

0.774 4.039 3.901 3.377 2.963 2.720 1.454

0.806 3.652 3.526 3.159 2.910 2.624 1.378

0.839 3.306 3.277 3.084 2.527 2.403 1.276

0.871 2.594 2.549 2.378 2.151 1.887 1.115

0.903 2.427 2.357 2.133 1.819 1.638 1.077

0.935 2.243 2.187 2.036 1.792 1.538 0.987

0.968 1.231 1.183 1.036 0.806 0.699 0.241

0.1 15.6 15.1 14.5 12.6 11.3 4.1

Average

of yearly

2.7
Appendix B-lxxii

averages:

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: paalfpdg

Metfile: w14737.d

vf

PRZM scenario: PAalfalfaC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 15-8 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

Oregon Hops (2 applications of 1.12 kg/ha)
Appendix B-lxxiii

stored as hopstypg.out

Chemical: Endothall

PRZM environment: ORhopsC.txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at

17:19:34

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at

16:33:30

Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:06:10

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.140 1.118 1.048 0.993 0.959 0.302

1962 3.003 2.965 2.803 2.409 2.211 0.873

1963 2.579 2.527 2.369 2.068 1.851 1.078

1964 1.574 1.554 1.474 1.315 1.209 0.789

1965 1.395 1.373 1.332 1.188 1.084 0.578

1966 1.143 1.111 1.021 0.843 0.774 0.548

1967 1.287 1.262 1.188 1.132 1.062 0.480

1968 4.338 4.284 3.986 3.699 3.429 1.228

1969 12.040 11.720 10.620 9.157 8.281 3.105

1970 5.350 5.285 5.019 4.457 4.062 2.225

1971 9.007 8.859 8.341 7.704 7.089 2.613

1972 4.354 4.307 4.113 3.692 3.374 1.923

1973 2.123 2.073 1.895 1.610 1.453 0.859

1974 1.960 1.929 1.841 1.603 1.317 0.704

1975 1.878 1.852 1.786 1.589 1.380 0.843

1976 1.201 1.186 1.127 1.008 0.928 0.620

1977 1.909 1.861 1.686 1.477 1.363 0.567

1978 2.819 2.745 2.459 2.004 1.846 0.840

1979 6.561 6.427 6.085 5.379 4.972 2.016

1980 3.915 3.876 3.714 3.346 3.067 1.531

1981 5.947 5.879 5.460 4.916 4.484 1.415

1982 3.115 3.080 2.939 2.636 2.417 1.250

1983 1.854 1.821 1.722 1.497 1.232 0.536

1984 2.268 2.226 2.059 1.818 1.654 0.886

1985 1.387 1.361 1.284 1.182 1.084 0.770

1986 1.164 1.136 1.065 0.986 0.900 0.559

1987 1.145 1.132 1.082 0.940 0.852 0.456

1988 1.140 1.109 0.988 0.874 0.863 0.573

1989 1.845 1.809 1.703 1.536 1.343 0.629

1990 1.747 1.716 1.667 1.485 1.313 0.765

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032 12.040 11.720 10.620 9.157 8.281 3.105

0.065 9.007 8.859 8.341 7.704 7.089 2.613

0.097 6.561 6.427 6.085 5.379 4.972 2.225

0.129 5.947 5.879 5.460 4.916 4.484 2.016

0.161 5.350 5.285 5.019 4.457 4.062 1.923

0.194 4.354 4.307 4.113 3.699 3.429 1.531

0.226 4.338 4.284 3.986 3.692 3.374 1.415
Appendix B-lxxiv

0.258 3.915 3.876 3.714 3.346 3.067 1.250

0.290 3.115 3.080 2.939 2.636 2.417 1.228

0.323 3.003 2.965 2.803 2.409 2.211 1.078

0.355 2.819 2.745 2.459 2.068 1.851 0.886

0.387 2.579 2.527 2.369 2.004 1.846 0.873

0.419 2.268 2.226 2.059 1.818 1.654 0.859

0.452 2.123 2.073 1.895 1.610 1.453 0.843

0.484 1.960 1.929 1.841 1.603 1.380 0.840

0.516 1.909 1.861 1.786 1.589 1.363 0.789

0.548 1.878 1.852 1.722 1.536 1.343 0.770

0.581 1.854 1.821 1.703 1.497 1.317 0.765

0.613 1.845 1.809 1.686 1.485 1.313 0.704

0.645 1.747 1.716 1.667 1.477 1.232 0.629

0.677 1.574 1.554 1.474 1.315 1.209 0.620

0.710 1.395 1.373 1.332 1.188 1.084 0.578

0.742 1.387 1.361 1.284 1.182 1.084 0.573

0.774 1.287 1.262 1.188 1.132 1.062 0.567

0.806 1.201 1.186 1.127 1.008 0.959 0.559

0.839 1.164 1.136 1.082 0.993 0.928 0.548

0.871 1.145 1.132 1.065 0.986 0.900 0.536

0.903 1.143 1.118 1.048 0.940 0.863 0.480

0.935 1.140 1.111 1.021 0.874 0.852 0.456

0.968 1.140 1.109 0.988 0.843 0.774 0.302

0.1 6.5 6.4 6.0 5.3 4.9 2.2

Average

of yearly

averages:

1.1

Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-August-2003

Data used for this run:

Output File: hopstypg

Metfile: w24232.d

vf

PRZM scenario: ORhopsC.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Endothall

Description Variable

Name

Value Units Comment

s

Molecular weight mwt 186.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 2.20E-15 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 2.20E-10 torr

Solubility sol 100000 mg/L

Kd Kd 2.4 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 30 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 27 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 43.5 days Halfife
Appendix B-lxxv

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied

to pond

Application Date Date 9-Jan dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or

dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line

for single app.

Record

17:

FILTRA

IPSCND

UPTKF

Record

18:

PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)
Appendix C-i

Appendix C 

Ecological Exposure from Direct Application to Water
Appendix C-ii

EEC

M

V mK

T

T sed d

= +

109

Ecological Exposure from Direct Application to Water

Endothall is applied directly to water at a concentration of 0.5 to 5 mg/L. to control algae and

aquatic macrophytes As a result, modeling of exposure must take into account the equilibrium 

of an applied pesticide between soil and water as well as degradation in the water body. 

Application to water can lead to direct exposure to both aquatic organisms and for drinking water. 

For ecological exposure, EFED used a modified version of the Interim Rice Model to estimate

concentrations in water in the absence of a finalized policy for herbicides applied directly to

aquatic systems. For ecological effects, EFED used a different approach from drinking

water because the drinking water assessment assumes flow in the “Index Reservoir” while

ecological exposure assumes the EFED pond with no flow. This combination of modeling

approaches has not been incorporated into an official EFED policy to date for modeling

direct application to water, and has not been through a rigorous peer review. 

The Interim Rice Model establishes a method for calculating estimated environmental

concentrations (EEC’s) for the use of pesticides in rice paddies as a Tier I approach. It applies

the total annual application to the paddy and partitions the pesticide between the water and the

sediment according to a linear or Kd partitioning model. The EEC (ug L-1) is then the

concentration occurring in the water column and is considered as the concentration in water

released from the paddy. The equation to use for this calculation is:

where MT is the total mass of pesticide in kg applied to 1 ha of paddy, VT is 1.067 x106

 L which

the volume of water in a paddy 1 ha in size, 4 inches (10.16 cm) deep, and the pore space in the 1

cm sediment interaction zone. The mass of sediment, msed, is 130,000 kg, is mass of sediment in

the 1 ha paddy in the top 1 cm interaction zone. The sediment bulk density was assumed to be 1.3

kg L-1. The 109

 constant converts the units for mass from kg to :g. For chemicals that have a

valid Koc, the Kd can be calculated using a sediment carbon content of 2% (Koc*0.02). . 

Several modifications were made to the model. The Interim Rice Model was modified to account

for degradation in the EFED Pond, which has an area of one hectare, a depth of two meters, and a

volume of 20 million liters. Also, EFED calculated peak (day of application), 4-day, 21-day, 60-

day, 90-day, and 365-day aqueous concentrations by taking into account both sorption and

degradation. Degradation was estimated using the aerobic aquatic metabolism data (T1/2 of 10

days, MRID 42618901), multiplied by three to account for only one half-life being submitted by

the registrant. EFED normally multiplies single half-lives by three because of environmental

variability (Table 1). 
Appendix C-iii

Table C-1. Inputs and Assumptions

Input Value Comments

Area of Pond (HA) 1 Area of Standard Pond, which is used in Interim Rice Model

Pond volume

(millions of liters)

20 Standard Pond volume

Depth of sediment

interaction (cm)

1 Value used in Interim Rice Model

Bulk density of soil

(g/cm3

)

1.3 Value used in Interim Rice Model

Weight of soil

interacting with

water (kg)

130,000 Value used in Interim Rice Model

Percent of pond

treated (%)

100 Conservative assumption

Sorption coefficient

of endothall (Kd,

ml/g)

0.8 Stonelick sandy loam

MRID 41616404

1.5 % Organic matter, pH 6.8

Used to represent Florida, a high use state

Aerobic aquatic

metabolism half-life

(total system, days)

30 Only aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life (10 days) multiplied by 3

MRID 42618901

r

2

=0.97, F=446, p=7.3e-11

EEC values

calculated (days)

0, 4, 21, 60, 90, 365 Standard values calculated in ecological effects modeling

Application rates

modeled (ppb)

500, 1500, 2500,

3000, 4000, 5000

500 ppb is used for algae control

1,500 ppb is typical rate 

2,500 ppb is typical rate of Aquathol K used in Florida in quiescent

waters

3,000 ppb is typical rate of Aquathol K used in Florida in canals

4,000 ppb is possible based on labels

5,000 ppb is maximum application rate for some formulations
Appendix C-iv

The following assumptions apply for the modeling:

• 100 % of perfectly-normal application reaches pondwater, instantaneously partitions

between the bottom sediment and water, and also instantaneously dilutes in the water

• The water volume does not change over time.

• There is no suspended sediment.

• The same sorption isotherm applied regardless of concentration

• Degradation occurs by aerobic aquatic metabolism total system half-life which remains

constant over time. 

• No drift, volatility, foliar interception, leaching, or flow occurs in the pond

• For ecological effects, the concentration of pond water was used as exposure to aquatic

organisms without further dilution.

• Diffusion and dispersion do not contribute to the dissipation of the compound.

Depending on the application rate used in modeling (500 to 5000 ug/L), the predicted EECs

ranged from 500 to 5000 ug/L (the application rate) for acute values and 0.1 to 1.1 ug/L for

annual mean values (Table 2). 

Table C-2. Estimated Environmental Concentrations from Direct Application to Water.

Applied

Concentration

in Pond

Estimated Concentrations (ug/L)

Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day 365-day

500 497 454 306 124 62 0.1

1500 1492 1361 919 373 187 0.3

2500 2487 2268 1531 622 311 0.5

3000 2924 2666 1800 1731 366 0.7

4000 3979 3628 2450 995 498 0.9

5000 4974 4535 3062 1244 622 1.1

Conservativeness of Modeling

The assumption of 100 % treated is conservative and inconsistent with the general use of the

compound. According to state and federal officials, endothall is primarily used to control aquatic

weeds in high value areas such as boat ramps, boat ramps, and piers, along with aquatic weeds in

small areas to prevent treatment to larger areas. The labels also state that only one-third to onehalf of a water body may be treated. However, this 100 % treated approach has been used in the

past for herbicides with similar use patterns and labeling. 

Diffusion and dispersion are not considered in a contained pond. Diffusion is the movement of a

substance in water that depends on the concentration gradient and not flow. Dispersion accounts
Appendix C-v

for movement of the pesticide in water based on flow. The predicted EECs are consistent with

those of a 100 % treated pond with no outflow. However, diffusion and dispersion are significant

routes of dissipation in other environments, such as a lake or canal. In a lake, concentrations in a

treated area are likely to decrease because the treated area is surrounded by non-treated areas. 

Diffusion and dispersion will act to move applied endothall to non-treated areas in concentrations

that are eventually non-toxic. For laboratory studies, the median half-life of endothall was 8.5

days (4.1-30 days). For ponds and lakes, the median half-lives were 4.1 days (0.5-20 days) and

1.2 days (0.24-8.5 days), respectively. In all field dissipation studies, the times to total

disappearance (<0.01 to 0.05 mg/L) ranged from 0.25 to 62 days, with a median of 8 days. In

flowing canals, flow (dispersion) is a potentially larger contributor to dissipation than diffusion. 

However, a canal that is either non-flowing or flowing is not likely to be treated in its entirity. 

For example, the state of Florida is the primary user of endothall, and only treats 25 % of a canal

once a week. 

The chemical characteristics of the amine portion of the amine salt are such that it will not be

bioavailable after a short time in the environment. The amine cation will exist as a positively

charged cation that will sorb to soil and suspended sediment because the negative charges of soil

will remove it from the water column. 

Different formulations are likely to have different rates of release and environmental effects.. 

Early efficacy work by Blackburn et al. (1971) showed that the dimethylalkylamine salt of

endothall (2 mg/L) was more effective on hydrilla than the dipotassium salt and the speed of

herbicidal activity and length of control varied with the formulation. Blackburn determined that

the controlled release pellet of hydrothol provided 98-100 % control of hydrilla from 8-20 weeks

after treatment. No mortality of stocked bluegill sunfish was observed. However, the liquid and

granular formulations had a faster rate of dissolution than the pellet, and were more readily

available to plants and animals in the aquatic environment. For example, the pellet formulation in

water did not kill any of the stocked bluegill sunfish, whereas the liquid and granular

formulations killed between 65 and 100 % of the stocked fish.

REFERENCE:

Blackburn, R.D., K.A. Boyer, and C.E. Timmer. Phytotoxicity of four formulations of the

alkylamine salt of endothall on Hydrilla verticillata and fish. Hyacinth Control Journal 9:

55-58.

Persistence in water will also depend on the formulation and rate used. Since aerobic organisms

are the only ones that degrade endothall, dramatic reductions in dissolved oxygen will slow the

rate of degradation. Therefore, a formulation that causes a quick kill and reduces dissolved

oxygen will also increase the persistence of endothall acid.

 
Appendix C-vi
Appendix C-vii

 EXCEL Spreadsheet Output Containing Model Inputs and EECs

Direct Application to Water

Endothall

Using Modified

Interim Rice Model

and EFED Pond

5000 ug/L

Area treated (Ha) 1 per interim rice model

Volume of Pond (L) 2.00E+07 volume in EFED pond

Depth of Sediment

Interaction (cm)

1 per interim rice model

Bulk Density of soil

(g/cm^3)

1.3 per interim rice model

Weight of Soil 1.30E+05 kg/ha per interim rice model

Application rate

(mg/L)

5 maximum application rate

Applied compound

(ug)

1.00E+11 ug applied

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life

(days)

30 10-day half-life * 3

Degradation rate

constant

0.0231

Kd (ml/g) 0.8 based on sandy soil (e.g. florida)

ug/L

Peak EEC 4974 0

4535 4

3062 21

1244 60

622 90

1.1 365

Direct Application to Water

Endothall

Using Modified

Interim Rice Model

and EFED Pond

4000 ug/L

Area treated (Ha) 1 per interim rice model

Volume of Pond (L) 2.00E+07 volume in EFED pond

Depth of Sediment

Interaction (cm)

1 per interim rice model
Appendix C-viii

Bulk Density of soil

(g/cm^3)

1.3 per interim rice model

Weight of Soil 1.30E+05 kg/ha per interim rice model

Application rate

(mg/L)

4 maximum application rate

Applied compound

(ug)

8.00E+10 ug applied

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life

(days)

30 10-day half-life * 3

Degradation rate

constant

0.0231

Kd (ml/g) 0.8 based on sandy soil (e.g. florida)

ug/L

Peak EEC 3979 0

3628 4

2450 21

995 60

498 90

0.9 365

Direct Application to Water

Endothall

Using Modified

Interim Rice Model

and EFED Pond

3,000 ug/L

Area treated (Ha) 1 per interim rice model

Volume of Pond (L) 2.00E+07 volume in EFED pond

Depth of Sediment

Interaction (cm)

1 per interim rice model

Bulk Density of soil

(g/cm^3)

1.3 per interim rice model

Weight of Soil 1.30E+05 kg/ha per interim rice model

Application rate

(mg/L)

3 maximum application rate

Applied compound

(ug)

6.00E+10 ug applied

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life

(days)

30 10-day half-life * 3

Degradation rate

constant

0.0231

Kd (ml/g) 0.8 based on Stonelick sandy loam soil

(41616404)

ug/L

Peak EEC 2984 0
Appendix C-ix

2721 4

1837 21

746 60

373 90

0.7 365

Direct Application to Water

Endothall

Using Modified

Interim Rice Model

and EFED Pond

2500 ug/L

Area treated (Ha) 1 per interim rice model

Volume of Pond (L) 2.00E+07 volume in EFED pond

Depth of Sediment

Interaction (cm)

1 per interim rice model

Bulk Density of soil

(g/cm^3)

1.3 per interim rice model

Weight of Soil 1.30E+05 kg/ha per interim rice model

Application rate

(mg/L)

2.5 maximum application rate

Applied compound

(ug)

5.00E+10 ug applied

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life

(days)

30 10-day half-life * 3

Degradation rate

constant

0.0231

Kd (ml/g) 0.8 based on sandy soil (e.g. florida)

ug/L

Peak EEC 2487 0

2268 4

1531 21

622 60

311 90

0.5 365

Direct Application to Water

Endothall

Using Modified

Interim Rice Model

and EFED Pond

1500 ug/L

Area treated (Ha) 1 per interim rice model
Appendix C-x

Volume of Pond (L) 2.00E+07 volume in EFED pond

Depth of Sediment

Interaction (cm)

1 per interim rice model

Bulk Density of soil

(g/cm^3)

1.3 per interim rice model

Weight of Soil 1.30E+05 kg/ha per interim rice model

Application rate

(mg/L)

1.5 maximum application rate

Applied compound

(ug)

3.00E+10 ug applied

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life

(days)

30 10-day half-life * 3

Degradation rate

constant

0.0231

Kd (ml/g) 0.8 based on sandy soil (e.g. florida)

ug/L

Peak EEC 1492 0

1361 4

919 21

373 60

187 90

0.3 365

Direct Application to Water

Endothall

Using Modified

Interim Rice Model

and EFED Pond

500 ug/L

Area treated (Ha) 1 per interim rice model

Volume of Pond (L) 2.00E+07 volume in EFED pond

Depth of Sediment

Interaction (cm)

1 per interim rice model

Bulk Density of soil

(g/cm^3)

1.3 per interim rice model

Weight of Soil 1.30E+05 kg/ha per interim rice model

Application rate

(mg/L)

0.5 maximum application rate

Applied compound

(ug)

1.00E+10 ug applied

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half-life

(days)

30 10-day half-life * 3

Degradation rate

constant

0.0231
Appendix C-xi

Kd (ml/g) 0.8 based on sandy soil (e.g. florida)

ug/L

Peak EEC 497 0

454 4

306 21

124 60

62 90

0.1 365
Appendix D-i

Appendix D

ELLfate Model Runs
Appendix D-ii

ELL-Fate Version 1.3 June 27,2003

Developed by Laurence Libelo. February, 1999

Updated by John Ravenscroft, June 2003

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:

CT = Cie-kT

or in log form:

ln (CT/Ci) = 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 is calculated based on the Kanaga 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 

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 hardwired 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 and the average concentration during the first 56

days are calculated.

The inputs used to calculate the amount of the chemical present are in highlighted in yellow on

the spread sheet. Outputs are in blue. The inputs required are:

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 # Application per year: From the label

The calculated concentrations are used to calculate Avian and Mammalian RQ values. The

maximum calculated concentration is divided by user input values of

Chronic No Observable Adverse Effects Level and acute LC50 to give RQs for each type of plant

surface. 

The rat LC 50 is calculated by dividing the mammalian LD 50 by 0.05 (to correct for actual food consumption)

For 15g, 35g and 1000 g mammals the RQ values are calculated by dividing the maximum concentration

for each surface by the LD 50 or NOAEL corrected for consumption (0.95, 0.66 and .15 body wt. for herbivores and )

insectivores and 0.21, 0.15 and 0.03 body wt. for granivore)

The number of days that the input value of Chronic No Observable Adverse Effects Level and

acute LC50 are exceeded in the first 56 days is calculated by comparing the input value to the

calculated concentration.

A graph of concentration on each plant surface vs time is plotted and a "level of concern" line

can be added at a user specified level.
Appendix D-iii

Chemical Name: endothall Use cotton

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.0989 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 23.74 10.30

Tall Grass 10.88 4.72 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 13.35 5.79 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 1.48 0.64 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.47

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.22 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.27 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.03 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 26 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.51 0.35 0.08 0.03 0.16

Tall Grass 0.23 0.16 0.04 0.01 0.07

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.29 0.20 0.05 0.02 0.09

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.51 0.23 0.29 0.03

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.35 0.16 0.20 0.02

insectivores 1000 15 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01

21 21 0.01

Grainivores 35 15 0.01

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.16 0.07 0.09 0.01

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-iv

Calculations

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 23.736

Tall Grass (110) 10.879

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 13.3515

Seeds (15) 1.4835

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plantsFruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 23.74 10.879 13.3515 1.4835 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 22.89 10.49 12.87 1.43 150 0 1 1 0

2 1 0 22.07 10.11 12.41 1.38 150 0 2 2 0

3 1 0 21.28 9.75 11.97 1.33 150 0 3 3 0

4 1 0 20.51 9.40 11.54 1.28 150 0 4 4 0

5 1 0 19.78 9.07 11.13 1.24 150 0 5 5 0

6 1 0 19.07 8.74 10.73 1.19 150 0 6 6 0

7 1 0 18.39 8.43 10.34 1.15 150 0 7 7 0

8 1 0 17.73 8.13 9.97 1.11 150 0 8 8 0

9 1 0 17.09 7.83 9.61 1.07 150 0 9 9 0

10 1 0 16.48 7.55 9.27 1.03 150 0 10 10 0

11 1 0 15.89 7.28 8.94 0.99 150 0 11 11 0

12 1 0 15.32 7.02 8.62 0.96 150 0 12 12 0

13 1 0 14.77 6.77 8.31 0.92 150 0 13 13 0

14 1 0 14.24 6.53 8.01 0.89 150 0 14 14 0

15 1 0 13.73 6.29 7.72 0.86 150 0 15 15 0

16 1 0 13.24 6.07 7.45 0.83 150 0 16 16 0

17 1 0 12.77 5.85 7.18 0.80 150 0 17 17 0

18 1 0 12.31 5.64 6.92 0.77 150 0 18 18 0

19 1 0 11.87 5.44 6.68 0.74 150 0 19 19 0

20 1 0 11.44 5.24 6.44 0.72 150 0 20 20 0

21 1 0 11.03 5.06 6.21 0.69 150 0 21 21 0

22 1 0 10.64 4.88 5.98 0.66 150 0 22 22 0

23 1 0 10.26 4.70 5.77 0.64 150 0 23 23 0

24 1 0 9.89 4.53 5.56 0.62 150 0 24 24 0

25 1 0 9.53 4.37 5.36 0.60 150 0 25 25 0

26 1 0 9.19 4.21 5.17 0.57 150 0 26 26 0

27 1 0 8.86 4.06 4.99 0.55 150 0 27 26 0

28 1 0 8.55 3.92 4.81 0.53 150 0 28 26 0

29 1 0 8.24 3.78 4.64 0.52 150 0 29 26 0

30 1 0 7.95 3.64 4.47 0.50 150 0 30 26 0

31 1 0 7.66 3.51 4.31 0.48 150 0 31 26 0

32 1 0 7.39 3.39 4.15 0.46 150 0 32 26 0

33 1 0 7.12 3.26 4.01 0.45 150 0 33 26 0

34 1 0 6.87 3.15 3.86 0.43 150 0 34 26 0

35 1 0 6.62 3.03 3.72 0.41 150 0 35 26 0

36 1 0 6.38 2.93 3.59 0.40 150 0 36 26 0

37 1 0 6.15 2.82 3.46 0.38 150 0 37 26 0

38 1 0 5.93 2.72 3.34 0.37 150 0 38 26 0

39 1 0 5.72 2.62 3.22 0.36 150 0 39 26 0

40 1 0 5.52 2.53 3.10 0.34 150 0 40 26 0

41 1 0 5.32 2.44 2.99 0.33 150 0 41 26 0

42 1 0 5.13 2.35 2.88 0.32 150 0 42 26 0

43 1 0 4.94 2.27 2.78 0.31 150 0 43 26 0

44 1 0 4.77 2.19 2.68 0.30 150 0 44 26 0

45 1 0 4.60 2.11 2.59 0.29 150 0 45 26 0

46 1 0 4.43 2.03 2.49 0.28 150 0 46 26 0

47 1 0 4.27 1.96 2.40 0.27 150 0 47 26 0

48 1 0 4.12 1.89 2.32 0.26 150 0 48 26 0

49 1 0 3.97 1.82 2.23 0.25 150 0 49 26 0

50 1 0 3.83 1.76 2.15 0.24 150 0 50 26 0

51 1 0 3.69 1.69 2.08 0.23 150 0 51 26 0

52 1 0 3.56 1.63 2.00 0.22 150 0 52 26 0

53 1 0 3.43 1.57 1.93 0.21 150 0 53 26 0
Appendix D-v
Appendix D-vi

Chemical Name: endothall Use cotton

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.1319 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 31.66 13.73

Tall Grass 14.51 6.29 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 17.81 7.73 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 1.98 0.86 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.63

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.29 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.36 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.04 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 34 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.68 0.47 0.11 0.04 0.21

Tall Grass 0.31 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.10

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.38 0.26 0.06 0.02 0.12

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.68 0.31 0.38 0.04

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.47 0.22 0.26 0.03

insectivores 1000 15 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01

21 21 0.01

Grainivores 35 15 0.01

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 31.656

Tall Grass (110) 14.509

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 17.8065

Seeds (15) 1.9785

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plantsFruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 31.66 14.509 17.8065 1.9785 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 30.52 13.99 17.17 1.91 150 0 1 1 0

2 1 0 29.43 13.49 16.55 1.84 150 0 2 2 0

3 1 0 28.37 13.00 15.96 1.77 150 0 3 3 0

4 1 0 27.36 12.54 15.39 1.71 150 0 4 4 0

5 1 0 26.38 12.09 14.84 1.65 150 0 5 5 0

6 1 0 25.43 11.66 14.31 1.59 150 0 6 6 0

7 1 0 24.52 11.24 13.79 1.53 150 0 7 7 0

8 1 0 23.64 10.84 13.30 1.48 150 0 8 8 0

9 1 0 22.80 10.45 12.82 1.42 150 0 9 9 0

10 1 0 21.98 10.07 12.36 1.37 150 0 10 10 0

11 1 0 21.19 9.71 11.92 1.32 150 0 11 11 0

12 1 0 20.43 9.37 11.49 1.28 150 0 12 12 0

13 1 0 19.70 9.03 11.08 1.23 150 0 13 13 0

14 1 0 19.00 8.71 10.68 1.19 150 0 14 14 0

15 1 0 18.31 8.39 10.30 1.14 150 0 15 15 0

16 1 0 17.66 8.09 9.93 1.10 150 0 16 16 0

17 1 0 17.03 7.80 9.58 1.06 150 0 17 17 0

18 1 0 16.42 7.52 9.23 1.03 150 0 18 18 0

19 1 0 15.83 7.25 8.90 0.99 150 0 19 19 0

20 1 0 15.26 6.99 8.58 0.95 150 0 20 20 0

21 1 0 14.71 6.74 8.28 0.92 150 0 21 21 0

22 1 0 14.19 6.50 7.98 0.89 150 0 22 22 0

23 1 0 13.68 6.27 7.69 0.85 150 0 23 23 0

24 1 0 13.19 6.04 7.42 0.82 150 0 24 24 0

25 1 0 12.72 5.83 7.15 0.79 150 0 25 25 0

26 1 0 12.26 5.62 6.90 0.77 150 0 26 26 0

27 1 0 11.82 5.42 6.65 0.74 150 0 27 27 0

28 1 0 11.40 5.22 6.41 0.71 150 0 28 28 0

29 1 0 10.99 5.04 6.18 0.69 150 0 29 29 0

30 1 0 10.60 4.86 5.96 0.66 150 0 30 30 0

31 1 0 10.22 4.68 5.75 0.64 150 0 31 31 0

32 1 0 9.85 4.51 5.54 0.62 150 0 32 32 0

33 1 0 9.50 4.35 5.34 0.59 150 0 33 33 0

34 1 0 9.16 4.20 5.15 0.57 150 0 34 34 0

35 1 0 8.83 4.05 4.97 0.55 150 0 35 34 0

36 1 0 8.51 3.90 4.79 0.53 150 0 36 34 0

37 1 0 8.21 3.76 4.62 0.51 150 0 37 34 0

38 1 0 7.91 3.63 4.45 0.49 150 0 38 34 0

39 1 0 7.63 3.50 4.29 0.48 150 0 39 34 0

40 1 0 7.36 3.37 4.14 0.46 150 0 40 34 0

41 1 0 7.09 3.25 3.99 0.44 150 0 41 34 0

42 1 0 6.84 3.13 3.85 0.43 150 0 42 34 0

43 1 0 6.59 3.02 3.71 0.41 150 0 43 34 0

44 1 0 6.36 2.91 3.58 0.40 150 0 44 34 0

45 1 0 6.13 2.81 3.45 0.38 150 0 45 34 0

46 1 0 5.91 2.71 3.32 0.37 150 0 46 34 0

47 1 0 5.70 2.61 3.21 0.36 150 0 47 34 0

48 1 0 5.49 2.52 3.09 0.34 150 0 48 34 0

49 1 0 5.30 2.43 2.98 0.33 150 0 49 34 0

50 1 0 5.11 2.34 2.87 0.32 150 0 50 34 0

51 1 0 4.93 2.26 2.77 0.31 150 0 51 34 0

52 1 0 4.75 2.18 2.67 0.30 150 0 52 34 0

53 1 0 4.58 2.10 2.58 0.29 150 0 53 34 0

54 1 0 4.41 2.02 2.48 0.28 150 0 54 34 0

55 1 0 4.26 1.95 2.39 0.27 150 0 55 34 0

56 1 0 4.10 1.88 2.31 0.26 150 0 56 34 0
Appendix D-vii

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use cotton (mean)

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.1319 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 11.21 4.86

Tall Grass 4.75 2.06 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 5.94 2.58 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.92 0.40 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.22

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.09 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.12 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.02 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 5 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.24 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.07

Tall Grass 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Seeds (granivore) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.24 0.10 0.13 0.02

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.17 0.07 0.09 0.01

insectivores 1000 15 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.00

21 21 0.00

Grainivores 35 15 0.00

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.07 0.03 0.04 0.01

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

12162024

283236

40

444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-viii

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 11.2115

Tall Grass (110) 4.7484

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 5.9355

Seeds (15) 0.9233

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 11.21 4.7484 5.9355 0.9233 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 10.81 4.58 5.72 0.89 150 0 1 1 0

2 1 0 10.42 4.41 5.52 0.86 150 0 2 2 0

3 1 0 10.05 4.26 5.32 0.83 150 0 3 3 0

4 1 0 9.69 4.10 5.13 0.80 150 0 4 4 0

5 1 0 9.34 3.96 4.95 0.77 150 0 5 5 0

6 1 0 9.01 3.81 4.77 0.74 150 0 6 5 0

7 1 0 8.68 3.68 4.60 0.72 150 0 7 5 0

8 1 0 8.37 3.55 4.43 0.69 150 0 8 5 0

9 1 0 8.07 3.42 4.27 0.66 150 0 9 5 0

10 1 0 7.78 3.30 4.12 0.64 150 0 10 5 0

11 1 0 7.51 3.18 3.97 0.62 150 0 11 5 0

12 1 0 7.24 3.06 3.83 0.60 150 0 12 5 0

13 1 0 6.98 2.96 3.69 0.57 150 0 13 5 0

14 1 0 6.73 2.85 3.56 0.55 150 0 14 5 0

15 1 0 6.49 2.75 3.43 0.53 150 0 15 5 0

16 1 0 6.25 2.65 3.31 0.52 150 0 16 5 0

17 1 0 6.03 2.55 3.19 0.50 150 0 17 5 0

18 1 0 5.81 2.46 3.08 0.48 150 0 18 5 0

19 1 0 5.61 2.37 2.97 0.46 150 0 19 5 0

20 1 0 5.40 2.29 2.86 0.45 150 0 20 5 0

21 1 0 5.21 2.21 2.76 0.43 150 0 21 5 0

22 1 0 5.02 2.13 2.66 0.41 150 0 22 5 0

23 1 0 4.84 2.05 2.56 0.40 150 0 23 5 0

24 1 0 4.67 1.98 2.47 0.38 150 0 24 5 0

25 1 0 4.50 1.91 2.38 0.37 150 0 25 5 0

26 1 0 4.34 1.84 2.30 0.36 150 0 26 5 0

27 1 0 4.19 1.77 2.22 0.34 150 0 27 5 0

28 1 0 4.04 1.71 2.14 0.33 150 0 28 5 0

29 1 0 3.89 1.65 2.06 0.32 150 0 29 5 0

30 1 0 3.75 1.59 1.99 0.31 150 0 30 5 0

31 1 0 3.62 1.53 1.92 0.30 150 0 31 5 0

32 1 0 3.49 1.48 1.85 0.29 150 0 32 5 0

33 1 0 3.36 1.42 1.78 0.28 150 0 33 5 0

34 1 0 3.24 1.37 1.72 0.27 150 0 34 5 0

35 1 0 3.13 1.32 1.66 0.26 150 0 35 5 0

36 1 0 3.02 1.28 1.60 0.25 150 0 36 5 0

37 1 0 2.91 1.23 1.54 0.24 150 0 37 5 0

38 1 0 2.80 1.19 1.48 0.23 150 0 38 5 0

39 1 0 2.70 1.14 1.43 0.22 150 0 39 5 0

40 1 0 2.61 1.10 1.38 0.21 150 0 40 5 0

41 1 0 2.51 1.06 1.33 0.21 150 0 41 5 0

42 1 0 2.42 1.03 1.28 0.20 150 0 42 5 0

43 1 0 2.34 0.99 1.24 0.19 150 0 43 5 0

44 1 0 2.25 0.95 1.19 0.19 150 0 44 5 0

45 1 0 2.17 0.92 1.15 0.18 150 0 45 5 0

46 1 0 2.09 0.89 1.11 0.17 150 0 46 5 0

47 1 0 2.02 0.85 1.07 0.17 150 0 47 5 0

48 1 0 1.95 0.82 1.03 0.16 150 0 48 5 0

49 1 0 1.88 0.79 0.99 0.15 150 0 49 5 0

50 1 0 1.81 0.77 0.96 0.15 150 0 50 5 0

51 1 0 1.74 0.74 0.92 0.14 150 0 51 5 0

52 1 0 1.68 0.71 0.89 0.14 150 0 52 5 0

53 1 0 1.62 0.69 0.86 0.13 150 0 53 5 0

54 1 0 1.56 0.66 0.83 0.13 150 0 54 5 0

55 1 0 1.51 0.64 0.80 0.12 150 0 55 5 0

56 1 0 1.45 0.62 0.77 0.12 150 0 56 5 0
Appendix D-ix

Chemical Name: endothall Use cotton

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.0989 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 8.41 3.65

Tall Grass 3.56 1.54 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 4.45 1.93 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.69 0.30 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.17

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.07 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.09 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.01 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 0 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.18 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.06

Tall Grass 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.02

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seeds (granivore) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.01

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.01

insectivores 1000 15 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00

21 21 0.00

Grainivores 35 15 0.00

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.06 0.02 0.03 0.00

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

121620

24283236404448

52

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-x

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 8.4065

Tall Grass (110) 3.5604

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 4.4505

Seeds (15) 0.6923

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plantsFruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 8.41 3.5604 4.4505 0.6923 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 8.11 3.43 4.29 0.67 150 0 1 0 0

2 1 0 7.81 3.31 4.14 0.64 150 0 2 0 0

3 1 0 7.54 3.19 3.99 0.62 150 0 3 0 0

4 1 0 7.27 3.08 3.85 0.60 150 0 4 0 0

5 1 0 7.00 2.97 3.71 0.58 150 0 5 0 0

6 1 0 6.75 2.86 3.58 0.56 150 0 6 0 0

7 1 0 6.51 2.76 3.45 0.54 150 0 7 0 0

8 1 0 6.28 2.66 3.32 0.52 150 0 8 0 0

9 1 0 6.05 2.56 3.20 0.50 150 0 9 0 0

10 1 0 5.84 2.47 3.09 0.48 150 0 10 0 0

11 1 0 5.63 2.38 2.98 0.46 150 0 11 0 0

12 1 0 5.43 2.30 2.87 0.45 150 0 12 0 0

13 1 0 5.23 2.22 2.77 0.43 150 0 13 0 0

14 1 0 5.04 2.14 2.67 0.42 150 0 14 0 0

15 1 0 4.86 2.06 2.57 0.40 150 0 15 0 0

16 1 0 4.69 1.99 2.48 0.39 150 0 16 0 0

17 1 0 4.52 1.91 2.39 0.37 150 0 17 0 0

18 1 0 4.36 1.85 2.31 0.36 150 0 18 0 0

19 1 0 4.20 1.78 2.23 0.35 150 0 19 0 0

20 1 0 4.05 1.72 2.15 0.33 150 0 20 0 0

21 1 0 3.91 1.65 2.07 0.32 150 0 21 0 0

22 1 0 3.77 1.60 1.99 0.31 150 0 22 0 0

23 1 0 3.63 1.54 1.92 0.30 150 0 23 0 0

24 1 0 3.50 1.48 1.85 0.29 150 0 24 0 0

25 1 0 3.38 1.43 1.79 0.28 150 0 25 0 0

26 1 0 3.26 1.38 1.72 0.27 150 0 26 0 0

27 1 0 3.14 1.33 1.66 0.26 150 0 27 0 0

28 1 0 3.03 1.28 1.60 0.25 150 0 28 0 0

29 1 0 2.92 1.24 1.55 0.24 150 0 29 0 0

30 1 0 2.81 1.19 1.49 0.23 150 0 30 0 0

31 1 0 2.71 1.15 1.44 0.22 150 0 31 0 0

32 1 0 2.62 1.11 1.38 0.22 150 0 32 0 0

33 1 0 2.52 1.07 1.34 0.21 150 0 33 0 0

34 1 0 2.43 1.03 1.29 0.20 150 0 34 0 0

35 1 0 2.34 0.99 1.24 0.19 150 0 35 0 0

36 1 0 2.26 0.96 1.20 0.19 150 0 36 0 0

37 1 0 2.18 0.92 1.15 0.18 150 0 37 0 0

38 1 0 2.10 0.89 1.11 0.17 150 0 38 0 0

39 1 0 2.03 0.86 1.07 0.17 150 0 39 0 0

40 1 0 1.95 0.83 1.03 0.16 150 0 40 0 0

41 1 0 1.88 0.80 1.00 0.16 150 0 41 0 0

42 1 0 1.82 0.77 0.96 0.15 150 0 42 0 0

43 1 0 1.75 0.74 0.93 0.14 150 0 43 0 0

44 1 0 1.69 0.72 0.89 0.14 150 0 44 0 0

45 1 0 1.63 0.69 0.86 0.13 150 0 45 0 0

46 1 0 1.57 0.66 0.83 0.13 150 0 46 0 0

47 1 0 1.51 0.64 0.80 0.12 150 0 47 0 0

48 1 0 1.46 0.62 0.77 0.12 150 0 48 0 0

49 1 0 1.41 0.60 0.74 0.12 150 0 49 0 0

50 1 0 1.36 0.57 0.72 0.11 150 0 50 0 0

51 1 0 1.31 0.55 0.69 0.11 150 0 51 0 0

52 1 0 1.26 0.53 0.67 0.10 150 0 52 0 0

53 1 0 1.22 0.51 0.64 0.10 150 0 53 0 0

54 1 0 1.17 0.50 0.62 0.10 150 0 54 0 0

55 1 0 1.13 0.48 0.60 0.09 150 0 55 0 0

56 1 0 1.09 0.46 0.58 0.09 150 0 56 0 0
Appendix D-xi

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use potato and hops

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 1.04 lbs a.e./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 249.60 108.29

Tall Grass 114.40 49.63 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 140.40 60.91 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 15.60 6.77 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 45 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 4.99

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 2.29 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 2.81 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.31 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 48 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 5.34 3.71 0.84 0.28 1.66

Tall Grass 2.45 1.70 0.39 0.13 0.76

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 3.00 2.09 0.47 0.16 0.94

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.33 0.23 0.05 0.02 0.10

Seeds (granivore) 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.02

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 5.34 2.45 3.00 0.33

Herbivores/ 35 66 3.71 1.70 2.09 0.23

insectivores 1000 15 0.84 0.39 0.47 0.05

21 21 0.07

Grainivores 35 15 0.05

1000 3 0.01

Chronic Mammalian RQs

1.66 0.76 0.94 0.10

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xii

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 249.6

Tall Grass (110) 114.4

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 140.4

Seeds (15) 15.6

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plantsFruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 249.60 114.4 140.4 15.6 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 240.66 110.30 135.37 15.04 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 0 232.04 106.35 130.52 14.50 150 2 2 2 2

3 1 0 223.72 102.54 125.85 13.98 150 3 3 3 3

4 1 0 215.71 98.87 121.34 13.48 150 4 4 4 4

5 1 0 207.98 95.33 116.99 13.00 150 5 5 5 5

6 1 0 200.53 91.91 112.80 12.53 150 6 6 6 6

7 1 0 193.35 88.62 108.76 12.08 150 7 7 7 7

8 1 0 186.42 85.44 104.86 11.65 150 8 8 8 8

9 1 0 179.74 82.38 101.11 11.23 150 9 9 9 9

10 1 0 173.30 79.43 97.48 10.83 150 10 10 10 10

11 1 0 167.10 76.59 93.99 10.44 150 11 11 11 11

12 1 0 161.11 73.84 90.62 10.07 150 12 12 12 12

13 1 0 155.34 71.20 87.38 9.71 150 13 13 13 13

14 1 0 149.77 68.65 84.25 9.36 150 14 14 14 14

15 1 0 144.41 66.19 81.23 9.03 150 15 15 15 15

16 1 0 139.23 63.82 78.32 8.70 150 16 16 16 16

17 1 0 134.25 61.53 75.51 8.39 150 17 17 17 17

18 1 0 129.44 59.33 72.81 8.09 150 18 18 18 18

19 1 0 124.80 57.20 70.20 7.80 150 19 19 19 19

20 1 0 120.33 55.15 67.69 7.52 150 20 20 20 20

21 1 0 116.02 53.18 65.26 7.25 150 21 21 21 21

22 1 0 111.86 51.27 62.92 6.99 150 22 22 22 22

23 1 0 107.85 49.43 60.67 6.74 150 23 23 23 23

24 1 0 103.99 47.66 58.50 6.50 150 24 24 24 24

25 1 0 100.27 45.96 56.40 6.27 150 25 25 25 25

26 1 0 96.67 44.31 54.38 6.04 150 26 26 26 26

27 1 0 93.21 42.72 52.43 5.83 150 27 27 27 27

28 1 0 89.87 41.19 50.55 5.62 150 28 28 28 28

29 1 0 86.65 39.72 48.74 5.42 150 29 29 29 29

30 1 0 83.55 38.29 47.00 5.22 150 30 30 30 30

31 1 0 80.55 36.92 45.31 5.03 150 31 31 31 31

32 1 0 77.67 35.60 43.69 4.85 150 32 32 32 32

33 1 0 74.89 34.32 42.12 4.68 150 33 33 33 33

34 1 0 72.20 33.09 40.61 4.51 150 34 34 34 34

35 1 0 69.62 31.91 39.16 4.35 150 35 35 35 35

36 1 0 67.12 30.76 37.76 4.20 150 36 36 36 36

37 1 0 64.72 29.66 36.40 4.04 150 37 37 37 37

38 1 0 62.40 28.60 35.10 3.90 150 38 38 38 38

39 1 0 60.16 27.58 33.84 3.76 150 39 39 39 39

40 1 0 58.01 26.59 32.63 3.63 150 40 40 40 40

41 1 0 55.93 25.64 31.46 3.50 150 41 41 41 41

42 1 0 53.93 24.72 30.33 3.37 150 42 42 42 42

43 1 0 52.00 23.83 29.25 3.25 150 43 43 43 43

44 1 0 50.13 22.98 28.20 3.13 150 44 44 44 44

45 1 0 48.34 22.15 27.19 3.02 150 45 45 45 45

46 1 0 46.61 21.36 26.22 2.91 150 45 46 46 46

47 1 0 44.94 20.60 25.28 2.81 150 45 47 47 47

48 1 0 43.33 19.86 24.37 2.71 150 45 48 48 48

49 1 0 41.77 19.15 23.50 2.61 150 45 49 49 48

50 1 0 40.28 18.46 22.66 2.52 150 45 50 50 48

51 1 0 38.83 17.80 21.84 2.43 150 45 51 51 48

52 1 0 37.44 17.16 21.06 2.34 150 45 52 52 48

53 1 0 36.10 16.55 20.31 2.26 150 45 53 53 48

54 1 0 34.81 15.95 19.58 2.18 150 45 54 54 48

55 1 0 33.56 15.38 18.88 2.10 150 45 55 55 48

56 1 0 32.36 14.83 18.20 2.02 150 45 56 56 48
Appendix D-xiii

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use potato and hops (mean)

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 1.04 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 88.40 38.35

Tall Grass 37.44 16.24 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 46.80 20.30 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 7.28 3.16 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 16 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 1.77

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.75 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.94 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.15 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 19 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 1.89 1.31 0.30 0.10 0.59

Tall Grass 0.80 0.56 0.13 0.04 0.25

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 1.00 0.70 0.16 0.05 0.31

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.16 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.05

Seeds (granivore) 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 1.89 0.80 1.00 0.16

Herbivores/ 35 66 1.31 0.56 0.70 0.11

insectivores 1000 15 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.02

21 21 0.03

Grainivores 35 15 0.02

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.59 0.25 0.31 0.05

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

12162024283236404448

52

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xiv

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 88.4

Tall Grass (110) 37.44

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 46.8

Seeds (15) 7.28

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plantsFruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 88.40 37.44 46.8 7.28 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 85.23 36.10 45.12 7.02 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 0 82.18 34.81 43.51 6.77 150 2 2 2 2

3 1 0 79.24 33.56 41.95 6.53 150 3 3 3 3

4 1 0 76.40 32.36 40.45 6.29 150 4 4 4 4

5 1 0 73.66 31.20 39.00 6.07 150 5 5 5 5

6 1 0 71.02 30.08 37.60 5.85 150 6 6 6 6

7 1 0 68.48 29.00 36.25 5.64 150 7 7 7 7

8 1 0 66.02 27.96 34.95 5.44 150 8 8 8 8

9 1 0 63.66 26.96 33.70 5.24 150 9 9 9 9

10 1 0 61.38 26.00 32.49 5.05 150 10 10 10 10

11 1 0 59.18 25.06 31.33 4.87 150 11 11 11 11

12 1 0 57.06 24.17 30.21 4.70 150 12 12 12 12

13 1 0 55.02 23.30 29.13 4.53 150 13 13 13 13

14 1 0 53.04 22.47 28.08 4.37 150 14 14 14 14

15 1 0 51.14 21.66 27.08 4.21 150 15 15 15 15

16 1 0 49.31 20.89 26.11 4.06 150 16 16 16 16

17 1 0 47.55 20.14 25.17 3.92 150 16 17 17 17

18 1 0 45.84 19.42 24.27 3.78 150 16 18 18 18

19 1 0 44.20 18.72 23.40 3.64 150 16 19 19 19

20 1 0 42.62 18.05 22.56 3.51 150 16 20 20 19

21 1 0 41.09 17.40 21.75 3.38 150 16 21 21 19

22 1 0 39.62 16.78 20.97 3.26 150 16 22 22 19

23 1 0 38.20 16.18 20.22 3.15 150 16 23 23 19

24 1 0 36.83 15.60 19.50 3.03 150 16 24 24 19

25 1 0 35.51 15.04 18.80 2.92 150 16 25 25 19

26 1 0 34.24 14.50 18.13 2.82 150 16 26 26 19

27 1 0 33.01 13.98 17.48 2.72 150 16 27 27 19

28 1 0 31.83 13.48 16.85 2.62 150 16 28 28 19

29 1 0 30.69 13.00 16.25 2.53 150 16 29 29 19

30 1 0 29.59 12.53 15.67 2.44 150 16 30 30 19

31 1 0 28.53 12.08 15.10 2.35 150 16 31 31 19

32 1 0 27.51 11.65 14.56 2.27 150 16 32 32 19

33 1 0 26.52 11.23 14.04 2.18 150 16 33 33 19

34 1 0 25.57 10.83 13.54 2.11 150 16 34 34 19

35 1 0 24.66 10.44 13.05 2.03 150 16 35 35 19

36 1 0 23.77 10.07 12.59 1.96 150 16 36 36 19

37 1 0 22.92 9.71 12.13 1.89 150 16 37 37 19

38 1 0 22.10 9.36 11.70 1.82 150 16 38 38 19

39 1 0 21.31 9.02 11.28 1.75 150 16 39 39 19

40 1 0 20.54 8.70 10.88 1.69 150 16 40 40 19

41 1 0 19.81 8.39 10.49 1.63 150 16 41 41 19

42 1 0 19.10 8.09 10.11 1.57 150 16 42 42 19

43 1 0 18.42 7.80 9.75 1.52 150 16 43 43 19

44 1 0 17.76 7.52 9.40 1.46 150 16 44 44 19

45 1 0 17.12 7.25 9.06 1.41 150 16 45 45 19

46 1 0 16.51 6.99 8.74 1.36 150 16 46 46 19

47 1 0 15.91 6.74 8.43 1.31 150 16 47 47 19

48 1 0 15.34 6.50 8.12 1.26 150 16 48 48 19

49 1 0 14.79 6.27 7.83 1.22 150 16 49 49 19

50 1 0 14.26 6.04 7.55 1.17 150 16 50 50 19

51 1 0 13.75 5.83 7.28 1.13 150 16 51 51 19

52 1 0 13.26 5.62 7.02 1.09 150 16 52 52 19

53 1 0 12.79 5.42 6.77 1.05 150 16 53 53 19

54 1 0 12.33 5.22 6.53 1.02 150 16 54 54 19

55 1 0 11.89 5.03 6.29 0.98 150 16 55 55 19

56 1 0 11.46 4.85 6.07 0.94 150 16 56 56 19
Appendix D-xv

Chemical Name: endothall Use alfalfa and clover seed

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.75 lbs a.e./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application 3 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 2

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 341.34 154.84

Tall Grass 156.45 70.97 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 192.00 87.10 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 21.33 9.68 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 56 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 6.83

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 3.13 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 3.84 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.43 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 56 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 7.30 5.07 1.15 0.38 2.28

Tall Grass 3.35 2.33 0.53 0.18 1.04

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 4.11 2.85 0.65 0.22 1.28

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.46 0.32 0.07 0.02 0.14

Seeds (granivore) 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.02

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 7.30 3.35 4.11 0.46

Herbivores/ 35 66 5.07 2.33 2.85 0.32

insectivores 1000 15 1.15 0.53 0.65 0.07

21 21 0.10

Grainivores 35 15 0.07

1000 3 0.01

Chronic Mammalian RQs

2.28 1.04 1.28 0.14

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xvi

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 180

Tall Grass (110) 82.5

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 101.25

Seeds (15) 11.25

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 180.00 82.5 101.25 11.25 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 173.55 79.54 97.62 10.85 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 167.33 76.69 94.13 10.46 150 2 2 2 2

3 2 0 341.34 156.45 192.00 21.33 150 3 3 3 3

4 2 1 329.11 150.84 185.13 20.57 150 4 4 4 4

5 2 2 317.32 145.44 178.49 19.83 150 5 5 5 5

6 2 0 305.95 140.23 172.10 19.12 150 6 6 6 6

7 2 1 294.99 135.21 165.93 18.44 150 7 7 7 7

8 2 2 284.43 130.36 159.99 17.78 150 8 8 8 8

9 2 0 274.24 125.69 154.26 17.14 150 9 9 9 9

10 2 1 264.41 121.19 148.73 16.53 150 10 10 10 10

11 2 2 254.94 116.85 143.40 15.93 150 11 11 11 11

12 2 0 245.81 112.66 138.27 15.36 150 12 12 12 12

13 2 1 237.00 108.63 133.31 14.81 150 13 13 13 13

14 2 2 228.51 104.73 128.54 14.28 150 14 14 14 14

15 2 0 220.32 100.98 123.93 13.77 150 15 15 15 15

16 2 1 212.43 97.36 119.49 13.28 150 16 16 16 16

17 2 2 204.82 93.88 115.21 12.80 150 17 17 17 17

18 2 0 197.48 90.51 111.08 12.34 150 18 18 18 18

19 2 1 190.41 87.27 107.11 11.90 150 19 19 19 19

20 2 2 183.59 84.14 103.27 11.47 150 20 20 20 20

21 2 0 177.01 81.13 99.57 11.06 150 21 21 21 21

22 2 1 170.67 78.22 96.00 10.67 150 22 22 22 22

23 2 2 164.56 75.42 92.56 10.28 150 23 23 23 23

24 2 0 158.66 72.72 89.25 9.92 150 24 24 24 24

25 2 1 152.98 70.11 86.05 9.56 150 25 25 25 25

26 2 2 147.50 67.60 82.97 9.22 150 26 26 26 26

27 2 0 142.21 65.18 79.99 8.89 150 27 27 27 27

28 2 1 137.12 62.85 77.13 8.57 150 28 28 28 28

29 2 2 132.21 60.59 74.37 8.26 150 29 29 29 29

30 2 0 127.47 58.42 71.70 7.97 150 30 30 30 30

31 2 1 122.90 56.33 69.13 7.68 150 31 31 31 31

32 2 2 118.50 54.31 66.66 7.41 150 32 32 32 32

33 2 0 114.26 52.37 64.27 7.14 150 33 33 33 33

34 2 1 110.16 50.49 61.97 6.89 150 34 34 34 34

35 2 2 106.22 48.68 59.75 6.64 150 35 35 35 35

36 2 0 102.41 46.94 57.61 6.40 150 36 36 36 36

37 2 1 98.74 45.26 55.54 6.17 150 37 37 37 37

38 2 2 95.20 43.64 53.55 5.95 150 38 38 38 38

39 2 0 91.79 42.07 51.63 5.74 150 39 39 39 39

40 2 1 88.51 40.57 49.78 5.53 150 40 40 40 40

41 2 2 85.33 39.11 48.00 5.33 150 41 41 41 41

42 2 0 82.28 37.71 46.28 5.14 150 42 42 42 42

43 2 1 79.33 36.36 44.62 4.96 150 43 43 43 43

44 2 2 76.49 35.06 43.02 4.78 150 44 44 44 44

45 2 0 73.75 33.80 41.48 4.61 150 45 45 45 45

46 2 1 71.11 32.59 40.00 4.44 150 46 46 46 46

47 2 2 68.56 31.42 38.56 4.28 150 47 47 47 47

48 2 0 66.10 30.30 37.18 4.13 150 48 48 48 48

49 2 1 63.73 29.21 35.85 3.98 150 49 49 49 49

50 2 2 61.45 28.17 34.57 3.84 150 50 50 50 50

51 2 0 59.25 27.16 33.33 3.70 150 51 51 51 51

52 2 1 57.13 26.18 32.13 3.57 150 52 52 52 52

53 2 2 55.08 25.25 30.98 3.44 150 53 53 53 53

54 2 0 53.11 24.34 29.87 3.32 150 54 54 54 54

55 2 1 51.21 23.47 28.80 3.20 150 55 55 55 55

56 2 2 49.37 22.63 27.77 3.09 150 56 56 56 56
Appendix D-xvii

Chemical Name: endothall Use alfa and cloer seeds (mean)

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.75 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application 3 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 2

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 120.89 54.84

Tall Grass 51.20 23.23 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 64.00 29.03 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 9.96 4.52 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 28 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 2.42

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 1.02 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 1.28 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.20 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 31 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 2.59 1.80 0.41 0.14 0.81

Tall Grass 1.10 0.76 0.17 0.06 0.34

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 1.37 0.95 0.22 0.07 0.43

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.21 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.07

Seeds (granivore) 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 2.59 1.10 1.37 0.21

Herbivores/ 35 66 1.80 0.76 0.95 0.15

insectivores 1000 15 0.41 0.17 0.22 0.03

21 21 0.05

Grainivores 35 15 0.03

1000 3 0.01

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.81 0.34 0.43 0.07

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

12162024283236

404448

52

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xviii

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 63.75

Tall Grass (110) 27

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 33.75

Seeds (15) 5.25

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plantsFruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 63.75 27 33.75 5.25 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 61.47 26.03 32.54 5.06 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 59.26 25.10 31.38 4.88 150 2 2 2 2

3 2 0 120.89 51.20 64.00 9.96 150 3 3 3 3

4 2 1 116.56 49.37 61.71 9.60 150 4 4 4 4

5 2 2 112.38 47.60 59.50 9.26 150 5 5 5 5

6 2 0 108.36 45.89 57.37 8.92 150 6 6 6 6

7 2 1 104.48 44.25 55.31 8.60 150 7 7 7 7

8 2 2 100.73 42.66 53.33 8.30 150 8 8 8 8

9 2 0 97.13 41.14 51.42 8.00 150 9 9 9 9

10 2 1 93.65 39.66 49.58 7.71 150 10 10 10 10

11 2 2 90.29 38.24 47.80 7.44 150 11 11 11 11

12 2 0 87.06 36.87 46.09 7.17 150 12 12 12 12

13 2 1 83.94 35.55 44.44 6.91 150 13 13 13 13

14 2 2 80.93 34.28 42.85 6.66 150 14 14 14 14

15 2 0 78.03 33.05 41.31 6.43 150 15 15 15 15

16 2 1 75.24 31.86 39.83 6.20 150 16 16 16 16

17 2 2 72.54 30.72 38.40 5.97 150 17 17 17 17

18 2 0 69.94 29.62 37.03 5.76 150 18 18 18 18

19 2 1 67.44 28.56 35.70 5.55 150 19 19 19 19

20 2 2 65.02 27.54 34.42 5.35 150 20 20 20 20

21 2 0 62.69 26.55 33.19 5.16 150 21 21 21 21

22 2 1 60.45 25.60 32.00 4.98 150 22 22 22 22

23 2 2 58.28 24.68 30.85 4.80 150 23 23 23 23

24 2 0 56.19 23.80 29.75 4.63 150 24 24 24 24

25 2 1 54.18 22.95 28.68 4.46 150 25 25 25 25

26 2 2 52.24 22.12 27.66 4.30 150 26 26 26 26

27 2 0 50.37 21.33 26.66 4.15 150 27 27 27 27

28 2 1 48.56 20.57 25.71 4.00 150 28 28 28 28

29 2 2 46.82 19.83 24.79 3.86 150 28 29 29 29

30 2 0 45.15 19.12 23.90 3.72 150 28 30 30 30

31 2 1 43.53 18.44 23.04 3.58 150 28 31 31 31

32 2 2 41.97 17.78 22.22 3.46 150 28 32 32 31

33 2 0 40.47 17.14 21.42 3.33 150 28 33 33 31

34 2 1 39.02 16.52 20.66 3.21 150 28 34 34 31

35 2 2 37.62 15.93 19.92 3.10 150 28 35 35 31

36 2 0 36.27 15.36 19.20 2.99 150 28 36 36 31

37 2 1 34.97 14.81 18.51 2.88 150 28 37 37 31

38 2 2 33.72 14.28 17.85 2.78 150 28 38 38 31

39 2 0 32.51 13.77 17.21 2.68 150 28 39 39 31

40 2 1 31.35 13.28 16.59 2.58 150 28 40 40 31

41 2 2 30.22 12.80 16.00 2.49 150 28 41 41 31

42 2 0 29.14 12.34 15.43 2.40 150 28 42 42 31

43 2 1 28.10 11.90 14.87 2.31 150 28 43 43 31

44 2 2 27.09 11.47 14.34 2.23 150 28 44 44 31

45 2 0 26.12 11.06 13.83 2.15 150 28 45 45 31

46 2 1 25.18 10.67 13.33 2.07 150 28 46 46 31

47 2 2 24.28 10.28 12.85 2.00 150 28 47 47 31

48 2 0 23.41 9.92 12.39 1.93 150 28 48 48 31

49 2 1 22.57 9.56 11.95 1.86 150 28 49 49 31

50 2 2 21.76 9.22 11.52 1.79 150 28 50 50 31

51 2 0 20.98 8.89 11.11 1.73 150 28 51 51 31

52 2 1 20.23 8.57 10.71 1.67 150 28 52 52 31

53 2 2 19.51 8.26 10.33 1.61 150 28 53 53 31

54 2 0 18.81 7.97 9.96 1.55 150 28 54 54 31

55 2 1 18.14 7.68 9.60 1.49 150 28 55 55 31

56 2 2 17.49 7.41 9.26 1.44 150 28 56 56 31
Appendix D-xix

Chemical Name: endothall Use alfalfa and clover seed

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 1 lbs a.e./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application 3 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 2

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 455.12 206.45

Tall Grass 208.60 94.62 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 256.00 116.13 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 28.44 12.90 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 56 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 9.10

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 4.17 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 5.12 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.57 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 56 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 9.74 6.77 1.54 0.51 3.03

Tall Grass 4.46 3.10 0.70 0.23 1.39

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 5.48 3.81 0.86 0.29 1.71

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.61 0.42 0.10 0.03 0.19

Seeds (granivore) 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.03

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 9.74 4.46 5.48 0.61

Herbivores/ 35 66 6.77 3.10 3.81 0.42

insectivores 1000 15 1.54 0.70 0.86 0.10

21 21 0.13

Grainivores 35 15 0.10

1000 3 0.02

Chronic Mammalian RQs

3.03 1.39 1.71 0.19

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xx

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 240

Tall Grass (110) 110

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 135

Seeds (15) 15

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 240.00 110 135 15 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 231.40 106.06 130.16 14.46 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 223.11 102.26 125.50 13.94 150 2 2 2 2

3 2 0 455.12 208.60 256.00 28.44 150 3 3 3 3

4 2 1 438.82 201.12 246.83 27.43 150 4 4 4 4

5 2 2 423.10 193.92 237.99 26.44 150 5 5 5 5

6 2 0 407.94 186.97 229.47 25.50 150 6 6 6 6

7 2 1 393.32 180.27 221.24 24.58 150 7 7 7 7

8 2 2 379.23 173.82 213.32 23.70 150 8 8 8 8

9 2 0 365.65 167.59 205.68 22.85 150 9 9 9 9

10 2 1 352.55 161.59 198.31 22.03 150 10 10 10 10

11 2 2 339.92 155.80 191.20 21.24 150 11 11 11 11

12 2 0 327.74 150.22 184.36 20.48 150 12 12 12 12

13 2 1 316.00 144.83 177.75 19.75 150 13 13 13 13

14 2 2 304.68 139.65 171.38 19.04 150 14 14 14 14

15 2 0 293.77 134.64 165.24 18.36 150 15 15 15 15

16 2 1 283.24 129.82 159.32 17.70 150 16 16 16 16

17 2 2 273.10 125.17 153.62 17.07 150 17 17 17 17

18 2 0 263.31 120.68 148.11 16.46 150 18 18 18 18

19 2 1 253.88 116.36 142.81 15.87 150 19 19 19 19

20 2 2 244.78 112.19 137.69 15.30 150 20 20 20 20

21 2 0 236.01 108.17 132.76 14.75 150 21 21 21 21

22 2 1 227.56 104.30 128.00 14.22 150 22 22 22 22

23 2 2 219.41 100.56 123.42 13.71 150 23 23 23 23

24 2 0 211.55 96.96 119.00 13.22 150 24 24 24 24

25 2 1 203.97 93.49 114.73 12.75 150 25 25 25 25

26 2 2 196.66 90.14 110.62 12.29 150 26 26 26 26

27 2 0 189.62 86.91 106.66 11.85 150 27 27 27 27

28 2 1 182.82 83.79 102.84 11.43 150 28 28 28 28

29 2 2 176.27 80.79 99.15 11.02 150 29 29 29 29

30 2 0 169.96 77.90 95.60 10.62 150 30 30 30 30

31 2 1 163.87 75.11 92.18 10.24 150 31 31 31 31

32 2 2 158.00 72.42 88.88 9.88 150 32 32 32 32

33 2 0 152.34 69.82 85.69 9.52 150 33 33 33 33

34 2 1 146.88 67.32 82.62 9.18 150 34 34 34 34

35 2 2 141.62 64.91 79.66 8.85 150 35 35 35 35

36 2 0 136.55 62.58 76.81 8.53 150 36 36 36 36

37 2 1 131.66 60.34 74.06 8.23 150 37 37 37 37

38 2 2 126.94 58.18 71.40 7.93 150 38 38 38 38

39 2 0 122.39 56.10 68.85 7.65 150 39 39 39 39

40 2 1 118.01 54.09 66.38 7.38 150 40 40 40 40

41 2 2 113.78 52.15 64.00 7.11 150 41 41 41 41

42 2 0 109.70 50.28 61.71 6.86 150 42 42 42 42

43 2 1 105.77 48.48 59.50 6.61 150 43 43 43 43

44 2 2 101.98 46.74 57.37 6.37 150 44 44 44 44

45 2 0 98.33 45.07 55.31 6.15 150 45 45 45 45

46 2 1 94.81 43.45 53.33 5.93 150 46 46 46 46

47 2 2 91.41 41.90 51.42 5.71 150 47 47 47 47

48 2 0 88.14 40.40 49.58 5.51 150 48 48 48 48

49 2 1 84.98 38.95 47.80 5.31 150 49 49 49 49

50 2 2 81.94 37.55 46.09 5.12 150 50 50 50 50

51 2 0 79.00 36.21 44.44 4.94 150 51 51 51 51

52 2 1 76.17 34.91 42.85 4.76 150 52 52 52 52

53 2 2 73.44 33.66 41.31 4.59 150 53 53 53 53

54 2 0 70.81 32.45 39.83 4.43 150 54 54 54 54

55 2 1 68.27 31.29 38.40 4.27 150 55 55 55 55
Appendix D-xxi

Chemical Name: endothall Use lfa and clover seeds (mean)

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 1 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application 3 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 2

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 161.19 73.12

Tall Grass 68.27 30.97 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 85.33 38.71 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 13.27 6.02 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 36 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 3.22

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 1.37 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 1.71 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.27 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 39 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 3.45 2.40 0.54 0.18 1.07

Tall Grass 1.46 1.01 0.23 0.08 0.46

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 1.83 1.27 0.29 0.10 0.57

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.28 0.20 0.04 0.01 0.09

Seeds (granivore) 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 3.45 1.46 1.83 0.28

Herbivores/ 35 66 2.40 1.01 1.27 0.20

insectivores 1000 15 0.54 0.23 0.29 0.04

21 21 0.06

Grainivores 35 15 0.04

1000 3 0.01

Chronic Mammalian RQs

1.07 0.46 0.57 0.09

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

12

162024

2832

36

40

44

4852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xxii

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 85

Tall Grass (110) 36

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 45

Seeds (15) 7

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 85.00 36 45 7 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 81.95 34.71 43.39 6.75 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 2 79.02 33.47 41.83 6.51 150 2 2 2 2

3 2 0 161.19 68.27 85.33 13.27 150 3 3 3 3

4 2 1 155.41 65.82 82.28 12.80 150 4 4 4 4

5 2 2 149.85 63.46 79.33 12.34 150 5 5 5 5

6 2 0 144.48 61.19 76.49 11.90 150 6 6 6 6

7 2 1 139.30 59.00 73.75 11.47 150 7 7 7 7

8 2 2 134.31 56.89 71.11 11.06 150 8 8 8 8

9 2 0 129.50 54.85 68.56 10.66 150 9 9 9 9

10 2 1 124.86 52.88 66.10 10.28 150 10 10 10 10

11 2 2 120.39 50.99 63.73 9.91 150 11 11 11 11

12 2 0 116.08 49.16 61.45 9.56 150 12 12 12 12

13 2 1 111.92 47.40 59.25 9.22 150 13 13 13 13

14 2 2 107.91 45.70 57.13 8.89 150 14 14 14 14

15 2 0 104.04 44.06 55.08 8.57 150 15 15 15 15

16 2 1 100.31 42.49 53.11 8.26 150 16 16 16 16

17 2 2 96.72 40.96 51.21 7.97 150 17 17 17 17

18 2 0 93.26 39.50 49.37 7.68 150 18 18 18 18

19 2 1 89.92 38.08 47.60 7.40 150 19 19 19 19

20 2 2 86.69 36.72 45.90 7.14 150 20 20 20 20

21 2 0 83.59 35.40 44.25 6.88 150 21 21 21 21

22 2 1 80.59 34.13 42.67 6.64 150 22 22 22 22

23 2 2 77.71 32.91 41.14 6.40 150 23 23 23 23

24 2 0 74.92 31.73 39.67 6.17 150 24 24 24 24

25 2 1 72.24 30.60 38.24 5.95 150 25 25 25 25

26 2 2 69.65 29.50 36.87 5.74 150 26 26 26 26

27 2 0 67.16 28.44 35.55 5.53 150 27 27 27 27

28 2 1 64.75 27.42 34.28 5.33 150 28 28 28 28

29 2 2 62.43 26.44 33.05 5.14 150 29 29 29 29

30 2 0 60.19 25.49 31.87 4.96 150 30 30 30 30

31 2 1 58.04 24.58 30.73 4.78 150 31 31 31 31

32 2 2 55.96 23.70 29.63 4.61 150 32 32 32 32

33 2 0 53.95 22.85 28.56 4.44 150 33 33 33 33

34 2 1 52.02 22.03 27.54 4.28 150 34 34 34 34

35 2 2 50.16 21.24 26.55 4.13 150 35 35 35 35

36 2 0 48.36 20.48 25.60 3.98 150 36 36 36 36

37 2 1 46.63 19.75 24.69 3.84 150 36 37 37 37

38 2 2 44.96 19.04 23.80 3.70 150 36 38 38 38

39 2 0 43.35 18.36 22.95 3.57 150 36 39 39 39

40 2 1 41.79 17.70 22.13 3.44 150 36 40 40 39

41 2 2 40.30 17.07 21.33 3.32 150 36 41 41 39

42 2 0 38.85 16.46 20.57 3.20 150 36 42 42 39

43 2 1 37.46 15.87 19.83 3.09 150 36 43 43 39

44 2 2 36.12 15.30 19.12 2.97 150 36 44 44 39

45 2 0 34.83 14.75 18.44 2.87 150 36 45 45 39

46 2 1 33.58 14.22 17.78 2.77 150 36 46 46 39

47 2 2 32.38 13.71 17.14 2.67 150 36 47 47 39

48 2 0 31.22 13.22 16.53 2.57 150 36 48 48 39

49 2 1 30.10 12.75 15.93 2.48 150 36 49 49 39

50 2 2 29.02 12.29 15.36 2.39 150 36 50 50 39

51 2 0 27.98 11.85 14.81 2.30 150 36 51 51 39

52 2 1 26.98 11.43 14.28 2.22 150 36 52 52 39

53 2 2 26.01 11.02 13.77 2.14 150 36 53 53 39

54 2 0 25.08 10.62 13.28 2.07 150 36 54 54 39

55 2 1 24.18 10.24 12.80 1.99 150 36 55 55 39

56 2 2 23.31 9.87 12.34 1.92 150 36 56 56 39
Appendix D-xxiii

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use typical cotton rates

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.06 lbs a.e./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application 0 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 14.40 6.25

Tall Grass 6.60 2.86 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 8.10 3.51 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.90 0.39 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.29

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.13 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.16 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.02 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 12 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.31 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.10

Tall Grass 0.14 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.04

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.05

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Seeds (granivore) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.31 0.14 0.17 0.02

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01

insectivores 1000 15 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.00

21 21 0.00

Grainivores 35 15 0.00

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.10 0.04 0.05 0.01

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

121620242832

3640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xxiv

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 14.4

Tall Grass (110) 6.6

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 8.1

Seeds (15) 0.9

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 14.40 6.6 8.1 0.9 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 13.88 6.36 7.81 0.87 150 0 1 1 0

2 1 0 13.39 6.14 7.53 0.84 150 0 2 2 0

3 1 0 12.91 5.92 7.26 0.81 150 0 3 3 0

4 1 0 12.44 5.70 7.00 0.78 150 0 4 4 0

5 1 0 12.00 5.50 6.75 0.75 150 0 5 5 0

6 1 0 11.57 5.30 6.51 0.72 150 0 6 6 0

7 1 0 11.15 5.11 6.27 0.70 150 0 7 7 0

8 1 0 10.76 4.93 6.05 0.67 150 0 8 8 0

9 1 0 10.37 4.75 5.83 0.65 150 0 9 9 0

10 1 0 10.00 4.58 5.62 0.62 150 0 10 10 0

11 1 0 9.64 4.42 5.42 0.60 150 0 11 11 0

12 1 0 9.29 4.26 5.23 0.58 150 0 12 12 0

13 1 0 8.96 4.11 5.04 0.56 150 0 13 12 0

14 1 0 8.64 3.96 4.86 0.54 150 0 14 12 0

15 1 0 8.33 3.82 4.69 0.52 150 0 15 12 0

16 1 0 8.03 3.68 4.52 0.50 150 0 16 12 0

17 1 0 7.74 3.55 4.36 0.48 150 0 17 12 0

18 1 0 7.47 3.42 4.20 0.47 150 0 18 12 0

19 1 0 7.20 3.30 4.05 0.45 150 0 19 12 0

20 1 0 6.94 3.18 3.90 0.43 150 0 20 12 0

21 1 0 6.69 3.07 3.77 0.42 150 0 21 12 0

22 1 0 6.45 2.96 3.63 0.40 150 0 22 12 0

23 1 0 6.22 2.85 3.50 0.39 150 0 23 12 0

24 1 0 6.00 2.75 3.37 0.37 150 0 24 12 0

25 1 0 5.78 2.65 3.25 0.36 150 0 25 12 0

26 1 0 5.58 2.56 3.14 0.35 150 0 26 12 0

27 1 0 5.38 2.46 3.02 0.34 150 0 27 12 0

28 1 0 5.18 2.38 2.92 0.32 150 0 28 12 0

29 1 0 5.00 2.29 2.81 0.31 150 0 29 12 0

30 1 0 4.82 2.21 2.71 0.30 150 0 30 12 0

31 1 0 4.65 2.13 2.61 0.29 150 0 31 12 0

32 1 0 4.48 2.05 2.52 0.28 150 0 32 12 0

33 1 0 4.32 1.98 2.43 0.27 150 0 33 12 0

34 1 0 4.17 1.91 2.34 0.26 150 0 34 12 0

35 1 0 4.02 1.84 2.26 0.25 150 0 35 12 0

36 1 0 3.87 1.77 2.18 0.24 150 0 36 12 0

37 1 0 3.73 1.71 2.10 0.23 150 0 37 12 0

38 1 0 3.60 1.65 2.03 0.23 150 0 38 12 0

39 1 0 3.47 1.59 1.95 0.22 150 0 39 12 0

40 1 0 3.35 1.53 1.88 0.21 150 0 40 12 0

41 1 0 3.23 1.48 1.82 0.20 150 0 41 12 0

42 1 0 3.11 1.43 1.75 0.19 150 0 42 12 0

43 1 0 3.00 1.37 1.69 0.19 150 0 43 12 0

44 1 0 2.89 1.33 1.63 0.18 150 0 44 12 0

45 1 0 2.79 1.28 1.57 0.17 150 0 45 12 0

46 1 0 2.69 1.23 1.51 0.17 150 0 46 12 0

47 1 0 2.59 1.19 1.46 0.16 150 0 47 12 0

48 1 0 2.50 1.15 1.41 0.16 150 0 48 12 0

49 1 0 2.41 1.10 1.36 0.15 150 0 49 12 0

50 1 0 2.32 1.07 1.31 0.15 150 0 50 12 0

51 1 0 2.24 1.03 1.26 0.14 150 0 51 12 0

52 1 0 2.16 0.99 1.22 0.14 150 0 52 12 0

53 1 0 2.08 0.95 1.17 0.13 150 0 53 12 0

54 1 0 2.01 0.92 1.13 0.13 150 0 54 12 0

55 1 0 1.94 0.89 1.09 0.12 150 0 55 12 0

56 1 0 1.87 0.86 1.05 0.12 150 0 56 12 0
Appendix D-xxv

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use typical rate for cotton

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.06 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 5.10 2.21

Tall Grass 2.16 0.94 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 2.70 1.17 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.42 0.18 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.10

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.04 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.05 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.01 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 0 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.11 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.03

Tall Grass 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seeds (granivore) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.01

insectivores 1000 15 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00

21 21 0.00

Grainivores 35 15 0.00

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xxvi

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 5.1

Tall Grass (110) 2.16

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 2.7

Seeds (15) 0.42

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 5.10 2.16 2.7 0.42 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 4.92 2.08 2.60 0.40 150 0 1 0 0

2 1 0 4.74 2.01 2.51 0.39 150 0 2 0 0

3 1 0 4.57 1.94 2.42 0.38 150 0 3 0 0

4 1 0 4.41 1.87 2.33 0.36 150 0 4 0 0

5 1 0 4.25 1.80 2.25 0.35 150 0 5 0 0

6 1 0 4.10 1.74 2.17 0.34 150 0 6 0 0

7 1 0 3.95 1.67 2.09 0.33 150 0 7 0 0

8 1 0 3.81 1.61 2.02 0.31 150 0 8 0 0

9 1 0 3.67 1.56 1.94 0.30 150 0 9 0 0

10 1 0 3.54 1.50 1.87 0.29 150 0 10 0 0

11 1 0 3.41 1.45 1.81 0.28 150 0 11 0 0

12 1 0 3.29 1.39 1.74 0.27 150 0 12 0 0

13 1 0 3.17 1.34 1.68 0.26 150 0 13 0 0

14 1 0 3.06 1.30 1.62 0.25 150 0 14 0 0

15 1 0 2.95 1.25 1.56 0.24 150 0 15 0 0

16 1 0 2.84 1.20 1.51 0.23 150 0 16 0 0

17 1 0 2.74 1.16 1.45 0.23 150 0 17 0 0

18 1 0 2.64 1.12 1.40 0.22 150 0 18 0 0

19 1 0 2.55 1.08 1.35 0.21 150 0 19 0 0

20 1 0 2.46 1.04 1.30 0.20 150 0 20 0 0

21 1 0 2.37 1.00 1.26 0.20 150 0 21 0 0

22 1 0 2.29 0.97 1.21 0.19 150 0 22 0 0

23 1 0 2.20 0.93 1.17 0.18 150 0 23 0 0

24 1 0 2.12 0.90 1.12 0.17 150 0 24 0 0

25 1 0 2.05 0.87 1.08 0.17 150 0 25 0 0

26 1 0 1.98 0.84 1.05 0.16 150 0 26 0 0

27 1 0 1.90 0.81 1.01 0.16 150 0 27 0 0

28 1 0 1.84 0.78 0.97 0.15 150 0 28 0 0

29 1 0 1.77 0.75 0.94 0.15 150 0 29 0 0

30 1 0 1.71 0.72 0.90 0.14 150 0 30 0 0

31 1 0 1.65 0.70 0.87 0.14 150 0 31 0 0

32 1 0 1.59 0.67 0.84 0.13 150 0 32 0 0

33 1 0 1.53 0.65 0.81 0.13 150 0 33 0 0

34 1 0 1.48 0.62 0.78 0.12 150 0 34 0 0

35 1 0 1.42 0.60 0.75 0.12 150 0 35 0 0

36 1 0 1.37 0.58 0.73 0.11 150 0 36 0 0

37 1 0 1.32 0.56 0.70 0.11 150 0 37 0 0

38 1 0 1.28 0.54 0.68 0.11 150 0 38 0 0

39 1 0 1.23 0.52 0.65 0.10 150 0 39 0 0

40 1 0 1.19 0.50 0.63 0.10 150 0 40 0 0

41 1 0 1.14 0.48 0.61 0.09 150 0 41 0 0

42 1 0 1.10 0.47 0.58 0.09 150 0 42 0 0

43 1 0 1.06 0.45 0.56 0.09 150 0 43 0 0

44 1 0 1.02 0.43 0.54 0.08 150 0 44 0 0

45 1 0 0.99 0.42 0.52 0.08 150 0 45 0 0

46 1 0 0.95 0.40 0.50 0.08 150 0 46 0 0

47 1 0 0.92 0.39 0.49 0.08 150 0 47 0 0

48 1 0 0.89 0.37 0.47 0.07 150 0 48 0 0

49 1 0 0.85 0.36 0.45 0.07 150 0 49 0 0

50 1 0 0.82 0.35 0.44 0.07 150 0 50 0 0

51 1 0 0.79 0.34 0.42 0.07 150 0 51 0 0

52 1 0 0.77 0.32 0.41 0.06 150 0 52 0 0

53 1 0 0.74 0.31 0.39 0.06 150 0 53 0 0

54 1 0 0.71 0.30 0.38 0.06 150 0 54 0 0

55 1 0 0.69 0.29 0.36 0.06 150 0 55 0 0

56 1 0 0.66 0.28 0.35 0.05 150 0 56 0 0
Appendix D-xxvii

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use typical rate for potato

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.41 lbs a.e./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application 0 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Maximum 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 98.40 42.69

Tall Grass 45.10 19.57 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 55.35 24.01 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 6.15 2.67 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 19 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 1.97

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.90 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 1.11 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.12 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 22 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 56 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 2.11 1.46 0.33 0.11 0.66

Tall Grass 0.96 0.67 0.15 0.05 0.30

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 1.18 0.82 0.19 0.06 0.37

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.04

Seeds (granivore) 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.01

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plantsFruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 2.11 0.96 1.18 0.13

Herbivores/ 35 66 1.46 0.67 0.82 0.09

insectivores 1000 15 0.33 0.15 0.19 0.02

21 21 0.03

Grainivores 35 15 0.02

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.66 0.30 0.37 0.04

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

1216202428323640

444852

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xxviii
Appendix D-xxix

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 98.4

Tall Grass (110) 45.1

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 55.35

Seeds (15) 6.15

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 98.40 45.1 55.35 6.15 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 94.87 43.48 53.37 5.93 150 1 1 1 1

2 1 0 91.48 41.93 51.46 5.72 150 2 2 2 2

3 1 0 88.20 40.42 49.61 5.51 150 3 3 3 3

4 1 0 85.04 38.98 47.83 5.31 150 4 4 4 4

5 1 0 81.99 37.58 46.12 5.12 150 5 5 5 5

6 1 0 79.06 36.23 44.47 4.94 150 6 6 6 6

7 1 0 76.22 34.94 42.88 4.76 150 7 7 7 7

8 1 0 73.49 33.68 41.34 4.59 150 8 8 8 8

9 1 0 70.86 32.48 39.86 4.43 150 9 9 9 9

10 1 0 68.32 31.31 38.43 4.27 150 10 10 10 10

11 1 0 65.87 30.19 37.05 4.12 150 11 11 11 11

12 1 0 63.51 29.11 35.73 3.97 150 12 12 12 12

13 1 0 61.24 28.07 34.45 3.83 150 13 13 13 13

14 1 0 59.05 27.06 33.21 3.69 150 14 14 14 14

15 1 0 56.93 26.09 32.02 3.56 150 15 15 15 15

16 1 0 54.89 25.16 30.88 3.43 150 16 16 16 16

17 1 0 52.92 24.26 29.77 3.31 150 17 17 17 17

18 1 0 51.03 23.39 28.70 3.19 150 18 18 18 18

19 1 0 49.20 22.55 27.68 3.08 150 19 19 19 19

20 1 0 47.44 21.74 26.68 2.96 150 19 20 20 20

21 1 0 45.74 20.96 25.73 2.86 150 19 21 21 21

22 1 0 44.10 20.21 24.81 2.76 150 19 22 22 22

23 1 0 42.52 19.49 23.92 2.66 150 19 23 23 22

24 1 0 41.00 18.79 23.06 2.56 150 19 24 24 22

25 1 0 39.53 18.12 22.23 2.47 150 19 25 25 22

26 1 0 38.11 17.47 21.44 2.38 150 19 26 26 22

27 1 0 36.75 16.84 20.67 2.30 150 19 27 27 22

28 1 0 35.43 16.24 19.93 2.21 150 19 28 28 22

29 1 0 34.16 15.66 19.22 2.14 150 19 29 29 22

30 1 0 32.94 15.10 18.53 2.06 150 19 30 30 22

31 1 0 31.76 14.56 17.86 1.98 150 19 31 31 22

32 1 0 30.62 14.03 17.22 1.91 150 19 32 32 22

33 1 0 29.52 13.53 16.61 1.85 150 19 33 33 22

34 1 0 28.46 13.05 16.01 1.78 150 19 34 34 22

35 1 0 27.45 12.58 15.44 1.72 150 19 35 35 22

36 1 0 26.46 12.13 14.88 1.65 150 19 36 36 22

37 1 0 25.51 11.69 14.35 1.59 150 19 37 37 22

38 1 0 24.60 11.28 13.84 1.54 150 19 38 38 22

39 1 0 23.72 10.87 13.34 1.48 150 19 39 39 22

40 1 0 22.87 10.48 12.86 1.43 150 19 40 40 22

41 1 0 22.05 10.11 12.40 1.38 150 19 41 41 22

42 1 0 21.26 9.74 11.96 1.33 150 19 42 42 22

43 1 0 20.50 9.40 11.53 1.28 150 19 43 43 22

44 1 0 19.76 9.06 11.12 1.24 150 19 44 44 22

45 1 0 19.06 8.73 10.72 1.19 150 19 45 45 22

46 1 0 18.37 8.42 10.33 1.15 150 19 46 46 22

47 1 0 17.72 8.12 9.96 1.11 150 19 47 47 22

48 1 0 17.08 7.83 9.61 1.07 150 19 48 48 22

49 1 0 16.47 7.55 9.26 1.03 150 19 49 49 22

50 1 0 15.88 7.28 8.93 0.99 150 19 50 50 22

51 1 0 15.31 7.02 8.61 0.96 150 19 51 51 22

52 1 0 14.76 6.77 8.30 0.92 150 19 52 52 22

53 1 0 14.23 6.52 8.01 0.89 150 19 53 53 22

54 1 0 13.72 6.29 7.72 0.86 150 19 54 54 22

55 1 0 13.23 6.06 7.44 0.83 150 19 55 55 22

56 1 0 12.76 5.85 7.18 0.80 150 19 56 56 22
Appendix D-xxx

Chemical Name: endothall

 Use typical rate for potato

 Formulation amine salt

Inputs

Application Rate 0.41 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 19 days 

Frequency of Application days

Maximum # Apps./Year 1

Outputs

Kenega Mean (see 50A) 56 day Average

 Concentration Concentration 

(PPM) (PPM)

Short Grass 34.85 15.12

Tall Grass 14.76 6.40 # days 

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 18.45 8.00 Exceeded Fruits/pods/lg insects 2.87 1.25 on short grass

(in first 56)

Avian Acute LC50 (ppm) 56

 Chronic NOAEC (ppm) 50 0 Max Single Application

which does NOT exceed

Acute RQ Chronic RQ Avian Acute 0.000

(Max. res. mult. apps.) Avian Chronic 0.208 (lb a.i.)

Short Grass #DIV/0! 0.70

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 0.30 # days 

Mammalian 

Acute 1.23

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects #DIV/0! 0.37 Exceeded

Mammalian 

Chronic 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects #DIV/0! 0.06 on short grass

(in first 56)

Mammalian Acute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888

 Chronic NOAEL (mg/kg 9.4 36 Rat Study NOAEL (ppm) 150

15 g mammal 35 g mammal 1000 g mammal

Rat Acute Rat Chronic

 Acute RQ Acute RQ Acute RQ Dietary Dietary

(mult. apps) (mult. apps) (mult. apps) RQ RQ

Short Grass 0.75 0.52 0.12 0.04 0.23

Tall Grass 0.32 0.22 0.05 0.02 0.10

Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.39 0.27 0.06 0.02 0.12

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Length of Simulation 1 year

Level of Concern 150.00 (ppm)

Predicted mean residue are for a 1 lb ae/A application rate based on Hoeger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et. Al. (1994)

Acute Mammalian RQs

Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Fruit/pods/lg insects

15 95 0.75 0.32 0.39 0.06

Herbivores/ 35 66 0.52 0.22 0.27 0.04

insectivores 1000 15 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.01

21 21 0.01

Grainivores 35 15 0.01

1000 3 0.00

Chronic Mammalian RQs

0.23 0.10 0.12 0.02

Terresterial Application Residues

0

5

10

15

20

25

048

12

1620242832

36404448

52

Days

Concentration (PPM)

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Broadleaf

plants/sm

Insects

Fruits/pods/l
Appendix D-xxxi

Food Item (Kanaga #) Initial Concentration

Short Grass (240) 34.85

Tall Grass (110) 14.76

Broadleaf plants/Insects (135) 18.45

Seeds (15) 2.87

1st order decay constant 0.036

Avian Avian Mammalian Mammalian

Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance

Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants Fruits/podLine (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56)

Period Small Insects lg insects Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass Short Grass

0 1 0 34.85 14.76 18.45 2.87 150 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 33.60 14.23 17.79 2.77 150 0 1 1 0

2 1 0 32.40 13.72 17.15 2.67 150 0 2 2 0

3 1 0 31.24 13.23 16.54 2.57 150 0 3 3 0

4 1 0 30.12 12.76 15.94 2.48 150 0 4 4 0

5 1 0 29.04 12.30 15.37 2.39 150 0 5 5 0

6 1 0 28.00 11.86 14.82 2.31 150 0 6 6 0

7 1 0 27.00 11.43 14.29 2.22 150 0 7 7 0

8 1 0 26.03 11.02 13.78 2.14 150 0 8 8 0

9 1 0 25.10 10.63 13.29 2.07 150 0 9 9 0

10 1 0 24.20 10.25 12.81 1.99 150 0 10 10 0

11 1 0 23.33 9.88 12.35 1.92 150 0 11 11 0

12 1 0 22.49 9.53 11.91 1.85 150 0 12 12 0

13 1 0 21.69 9.19 11.48 1.79 150 0 13 13 0

14 1 0 20.91 8.86 11.07 1.72 150 0 14 14 0

15 1 0 20.16 8.54 10.67 1.66 150 0 15 15 0

16 1 0 19.44 8.23 10.29 1.60 150 0 16 16 0

17 1 0 18.74 7.94 9.92 1.54 150 0 17 17 0

18 1 0 18.07 7.65 9.57 1.49 150 0 18 18 0

19 1 0 17.43 7.38 9.23 1.44 150 0 19 19 0

20 1 0 16.80 7.12 8.89 1.38 150 0 20 20 0

21 1 0 16.20 6.86 8.58 1.33 150 0 21 21 0

22 1 0 15.62 6.61 8.27 1.29 150 0 22 22 0

23 1 0 15.06 6.38 7.97 1.24 150 0 23 23 0

24 1 0 14.52 6.15 7.69 1.20 150 0 24 24 0

25 1 0 14.00 5.93 7.41 1.15 150 0 25 25 0

26 1 0 13.50 5.72 7.15 1.11 150 0 26 26 0

27 1 0 13.01 5.51 6.89 1.07 150 0 27 27 0

28 1 0 12.55 5.31 6.64 1.03 150 0 28 28 0

29 1 0 12.10 5.12 6.41 1.00 150 0 29 29 0

30 1 0 11.67 4.94 6.18 0.96 150 0 30 30 0

31 1 0 11.25 4.76 5.95 0.93 150 0 31 31 0

32 1 0 10.84 4.59 5.74 0.89 150 0 32 32 0

33 1 0 10.46 4.43 5.54 0.86 150 0 33 33 0

34 1 0 10.08 4.27 5.34 0.83 150 0 34 34 0

35 1 0 9.72 4.12 5.15 0.80 150 0 35 35 0

36 1 0 9.37 3.97 4.96 0.77 150 0 36 36 0

37 1 0 9.04 3.83 4.78 0.74 150 0 37 36 0

38 1 0 8.71 3.69 4.61 0.72 150 0 38 36 0

39 1 0 8.40 3.56 4.45 0.69 150 0 39 36 0

40 1 0 8.10 3.43 4.29 0.67 150 0 40 36 0

41 1 0 7.81 3.31 4.13 0.64 150 0 41 36 0

42 1 0 7.53 3.19 3.99 0.62 150 0 42 36 0

43 1 0 7.26 3.07 3.84 0.60 150 0 43 36 0

44 1 0 7.00 2.96 3.71 0.58 150 0 44 36 0

45 1 0 6.75 2.86 3.57 0.56 150 0 45 36 0

46 1 0 6.51 2.76 3.44 0.54 150 0 46 36 0

47 1 0 6.27 2.66 3.32 0.52 150 0 47 36 0

48 1 0 6.05 2.56 3.20 0.50 150 0 48 36 0

49 1 0 5.83 2.47 3.09 0.48 150 0 49 36 0

50 1 0 5.62 2.38 2.98 0.46 150 0 50 36 0

51 1 0 5.42 2.30 2.87 0.45 150 0 51 36 0

52 1 0 5.23 2.21 2.77 0.43 150 0 52 36 0

53 1 0 5.04 2.13 2.67 0.42 150 0 53 36 0

54 1 0 4.86 2.06 2.57 0.40 150 0 54 36 0

55 1 0 4.69 1.98 2.48 0.39 150 0 55 36 0

56 1 0 4.52 1.91 2.39 0.37 150 0 56 36 0
Appendix E-i

Appendix E

TerrPlant Model

*Model runs can be found in an attached Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet
Appendix E-ii

Exposure to Terrestrial Plants including Wetlands

 (August 8, 2001; version 1.0)

Terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and semi-aquatic (wetland) areas may be exposed to pesticides 

from runoff and/or spray drift. Semi-aquatic areas are low-lying wet areas that may dry up 

at times throughout the year. 

 EFED's runoff scenario is

(1) based on a pesticide's water solubility and the amount ot pesticide present on the soil surface 

and its top one inch,

(2) characterized as "sheet runoff" (one treated acre to an adjacent acre) for dry areas,

(3) characterized as "channel runoff" (10 acres to a distant low-lying acre) for semi-aquatic or 

wetland areas, and

(4) based on percent runoff values of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 for water solubilities of <10, 10-100, 

and <100 ppm, respectively.

EFED's Spray Drift scenario is assumed as 

(1) 1% for ground application, and (2) 5% for aerial, airblast, forced air, and spray chemigation applications. 

The spray drift ratio used here is in agreement with the policy procedures at the time the worksheet was designed. 

Currently, 1) this worksheet is designed to derive the plant exposure concentrations from a single,

maximum application rate only. 2) For pesticide applications with incorporation of depth of less than 

1 inch, the total loading EECs derived for the incorporation method will be same as 

the unincorporated method. 

To calculate RQ values for Non-Endangered Terrestrial Plants:

Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Areas Adjacent to Treatment Site:

Emergence RQ = Total Loading to Adjacent Area or EEC/Seedling Emergence EC25

Drift RQ = Drift EEC/Vegetative Vigor EC25

Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Semi-aquatic Areas Adjacent to Treatment Site:

Emergence RQ = Total Loading to Semi-aquatic Area or EEC/Seedling Emergence EC25

Drift RQ = Drift EEC/Vegetative Vigor EC25

To calculate RQ values for Endangered Terrestrial Plants:

Endangered Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Areas Adjacent to Treatment Site:

Emergence RQ = Total Loading to Adjacent Area or EEC/Seedling Emergence EC05 

or NOAEC

Drift RQ = Drift EEC/Vegetative Vigor EC05 or NOAEC

Endangered Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Semiaquatic Areas Near Treatment Site:

Emergence RQ = Total Loading to Semiaquatic Area or EEC/Seedling Emergence EC05

or NOAEC

Drift RQ = Drift EEC/Vegetative Vigor EC05 or NOAEC
Appendix E-iii

Formulas used to calculate EEC values (8/08/01; version 1.0)

To calculate EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting in areas adjacent to treatment sites 

Un-incorporated Ground Application (Non-granular):

Sheet Runoff = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Runoff Value

Drift = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.01

Total Loading = EEC = Sheet Runoff + Drift

Incorporated Ground Application with Drift (Non-granular):

Sheet Runoff = [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/Incorporation Depth (inch)] x Runoff Value 

Drift = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.01

Total Loading = EEC = Sheet Runoff + Drift

Un-incorporated Ground Application (Granular):

Sheet Runoff = EEC = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Runoff Value

Incorporated Ground Application without Drift (Granular):

Sheet Runoff = EEC = [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/Incorportion Depth (inch)] 

x Runoff Value

Aerial/Airblast/Spray Chemigation Applications:

Sheet Runoff = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Runoff Value x Application Efficiency of 0.6 

Drift = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.05

Total Loading = EEC = Sheet Runoff + Drift

Runoff Value = 0.01, 0.02, or 0.05 when the solubility of the chemical is <10 ppm, 10-100 ppm, or

>100 ppm, respectively

Incorporation Depth: Use the minimum incorporation depth reported on the label.

Formulas used to calculate EEC values

To calculate EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting semi-aquatic low-lying areas near

treatment sites:

Un-incorporated Ground Application (Non-granular):

Channelized Runoff = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Runoff Value x Factor 10

Drift = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.01

Total Loading = EEC = Channelized Runoff + Drift

Incorporated Ground Application with Drift (Non-granular):

Channelized Runoff = [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/Incorporation Depth (inch)] 

x Runoff Value x Factor 10

Drift = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.01

Total Loading = EEC = Channelized Runoff + Drift

Un-incorporated Ground Application (Granular):

Channelized Runoff = EEC = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Runoff Value x Factor 10
Appendix F-i

Appendix F

Ecological Toxicity Studies
Appendix F-ii

Table F-1. Ecological Effects Data Requirements For Endothall

Guideline # Data 

Requirement

Endothall Type MRID #’s Species Study

Classification

71-1 Avian Oral LD50

acid 0160000 Mallard duck core

dipotassium salt 42359501 Mallard duck core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 00035237 Bobwhite quail core

71-2 Avian Dietary LC50

acid 43167701 Bobwhite quail core

dipotassium salt 43167801 Bobwhite quail core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43167901 Bobwhite quail core

71-4

Avian Reproduction acid 42507301 Mallard duck supplemental

dipotassium salt NA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NA NA NA

72-1 Freshwater Fish LC50 acid 42327702 Rainbow trout core

dipotassium salt 40098001 Rainbow trout core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 40094602 Cutthroat trout core

72-2 Freshwater

Invertebrate LC50

acid 42359702 Daphnia magna core

dipotassium salt 42695403 Scud core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 00035242 Daphnia magna core

72-3(a) Estuarine/Marine Fish

LC50

acid 42914102 Sheepshead

minnow

core

dipotassium salt 42695405 Sheepshead

minnow

core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43196903 Sheepshead

minnow

core

72-3(b) Estuarine/Marine

Mollusk EC50

acid 42895201 Eastern oyster core

dipotassium salt 42695404 Eastern oyster core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43550201 Eastern oyster core

72-3(c)

Estuarine/Marine

Shrimp EC50

acid 42914101 Mysid shrimp core

dipotassium salt 42695406 Mysid shrimp core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43210001 Mysid shrimp core

72-4(a) Freshwater Fish Early 

Life-Stage

acid 43295401 Fathead minnow core

dipotassium salt 00095812 Rainbow trout supplemental

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43276501 Fathead minnow core
Table F-1. Ecological Effects Data Requirements For Endothall

Guideline # Data 

Requirement

Endothall Type MRID #’s Species Study

Classification

Appendix F-iii

72-4(b) Estuarine/Marine Fish

Early 

Life-Stage

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

72-4(c) Freshwater

Invertebrate LifeCycle

acid 43007801 Daphnia magna supplemental

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43437901 Daphnia magna core

72-4(d) Marine/Estuarine

Invertebrate LifeCycle

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

72-5(a)

Freshwater Fish Full

Life-Cycle

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

72-5(b) Marine/Estuarine Fish

Full Life-Cycle

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

122-1(a) Seed Germ./Seedling

Emergence (Tier I)

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

122-1(b) Vegetative Vigor

(Tier I)

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

122-2 Aquatic Plant Growth

(Tier I)

acid 41613809 Green algae core

dipotassium salt 44392802 Freshwater diatom core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

123-1(a)

Seed Germ./Seedling

Emergence (Tier II)

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt 42396405 Lettuce core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43870401 Lettuce core

123-1(b) Vegetative Vigor

(Tier II)

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt 42396405 Lettuce core
Table F-1. Ecological Effects Data Requirements For Endothall

Guideline # Data 

Requirement

Endothall Type MRID #’s Species Study

Classification

Appendix F-iv

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43870401 Turnip core

123-2 Aquatic Plant Growth

(Tier II)

acid Walsh, 1972 Marine algae NA

dipotassium salt 42396406 Duckweed core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 44949402

44949203

Duckweed

Green algae

core

core

141-1 Honey Bee Acute

Contact LD50

acid 44038201 Honey bee core

dipotassium salt 44038201 Honey bee core

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 44038201 Honey bee core

141-2 Honey Bee Residue

on Foliage

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

81-1 Mammalian Acute

Oral Toxicity

acid 42289201 Rat --

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

83-4 Mammalian

Reproductive 

Toxicity*

acid NO DATA NA NA

dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA

N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt NO DATA NA NA

*data available for endothall disodium salt
Appendix F-v

1. Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

a. Birds, Acute and Subacute

An acute oral toxicity study using the technical grade of the active ingredient (TGAI) was

required to establish the toxicity of Endothall to birds. The preferred test species is either mallard

duck (a waterfowl) or bobwhite quail (an upland gamebird). Results of this test are tabulated

below.

Table F-2. Acute Oral Toxicity to Birds

Species % ae LD50 product

(mg/kg)

LD50 ae

(mg/kg)

Toxicity

Category

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study 

Classification1

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt Hydrothol 191 (23.4% a.e.; 53% a.i.)

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

23.4 736 172 moderately

toxic

00035237

Fink et. al. 1977

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

23.4 389

(60) 2

91

(14) 2

moderately

toxic

42359601

Pedersen et. al. 1992

supplemental 2

Endothall Acid ( % ae)

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

 83 -- (<30) 4 moderately

toxic

42359701

Petersen et.al., 1992

supplemental

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

75 -- 500 moderately

toxic

00074220

Bodden 1979 

supplemental 5

Ring-Necked Pheasant

(Phasianus colchicus)

 83.6 -- (<198) 4 moderately

toxic

00160000

Tucker, 1984

supplemental 

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

 83.6 -- 229 moderately

toxic

00160000

Tucker, 1984

core

Dipotassium salt of Endothall - Aquathol 47 (18.8% ae)

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

18.8 328 61.6 moderately

toxic

42359501

Pedersen et. al. 1992

core

1 Core (study satisfies guideline). Supplemental (study is scientifically sound, but does not satisfy guideline)

2 Study is supplemental due to all treatment levels exhibited emesis (vomiting), hence, actual dosage is not known. LD50 = 389. The NOAEL is

below the lowest dosage tested (60 mg/kg body weight which is 14 mg ae/kg body wt.). 

3 Mortality at 2150 ppm and 4640 ppm is 100% and 80% at 1000 ppm. 

4 LD50 is unknown due to emesis. NOAEL is below lowest dosage tested.

5 Supplemental due to no negative control and continuous lighting, 

Since the LD50 ranges from 229 to 513 mg ae/kg bw, Endothall acid is moderately to

slightly toxic to avian species on an acute oral basis. Since the LD50 ranges from 389 to 736 mg

product/kg bw, mono amine salt of Endothall is moderately toxic to avian species on an acute oral

basis. Since the LD50 is 328 mg product/kg bw, dipotassium salt of Endothall is moderately toxic

to avian species on an acute oral basis.

Two subacute dietary studies using the TGAI are required to establish the toxicity of

Endothall to birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of
Appendix F-vi

these tests are tabulated below.

Table F-3: Acute Avian Toxicity

Species % ae

5-day LC50

(ppm product)

5-Day LC50

(ppm ae) Toxicity

Category

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt Hydrothol 191 (23.4% a.e.; 53% a.i.)

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

23.4 > 10,000 1 >2336 practically nontoxic

35240

Fink et.al. 1977

core

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

23.7 > 5,000 >1170 practically nontoxic43167901

 Pedersen et.al. 1994

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

23.4 > 10,000 >2336 practically nontoxic35241

Fink et.al. 1977

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

23.4 > 5,000 1 >1170 practically nontoxic

43167902

Pedersen et.al. 1994

core

Acid Endothall

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

84 > 10,000 1 practically nontoxic

 00116270

Fink et. al. 1995

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

84 > 10,000 2 practically nontoxic

00116271

Fink et. al. 1975

core

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

83.16 >5,000 practically nontoxic43167701

Pedersen et.al., 1994

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

83.16 > 5,000 practically nontoxic43167702

Pedersen et.al., 1994

core

Dipotssium salt of Endothall - Aquathol K (40.3% ai; 28.6% ae) - Aquathol Super K (63% ai; 44.7% ae)

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

29.5 >5,000 4 >1475 practically nontoxic

43167801

Pedersen , 1994

core

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

28.6 > 10,000 3 >2860 practically nontoxic

00035238

Fink et. al. 1977

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

28.6 > 10,000 3 >2860 practically nontoxic

00035239

Fink et. al. 1977

core

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

29.5 > 5,000 3 >1475 practically nontoxic

43167802

Pedersen., 1994

core

1 Test organisms observed an additional three days while on untreated feed. No mortalities were observed. 

2 One mortality at highest dose on eighth day.

3 No mortalities observed at higher doses.

4 Two mortalities observed at the 347 ppm ae group and one at 1343 ppm ai group. 

Since the LC50 ranges from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm ae, Endothall acid is practically non-toxic to

avian species on a subacute dietary basis. Since the LC50 ranges from 5,000 to 10,000 ppm product, mono

amine salt of Endothall and dipotassium salt of Endothall are practically non-toxic to avian species on an

subacute dietary basis. 

b. Birds, Chronic

Avian reproduction studies using the TGAI were required for Endothall because the following conditions

were met: (1) birds may be subject to repeated or continuous exposure to the pesticide, especially
Appendix F-vii

preceding or during the breeding season, (2) the pesticide is stable in the environment to the extent that

potentially toxic amounts may persist in animal feed, (3) the pesticide is stored or accumulated in plant or

animal tissues, and/or, (4) information derived from mammalian reproduction studies indicates

reproduction in terrestrial vertebrates may be adversely affected by the anticipated use of the product. The

preferred test species are mallard duck and bobwhite quail. Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table F-4: Endothall Acid Reproductive Toxicity to Birds

Species/ 

Study Duration % ai

NOAEL

(ppm ae)

LOAEL

(ppm

ae)

LOAEL Endpoints 

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Northern bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus)

83 > 250 > 250 all endpoints 42507302

Pedersen, et. al., 1992

Supplemental1

Mallard duck

(Anas platyrhynchos)

83 50 250 early embryonic mortality 42507301

Pedersen, et. al., 1992

supplemental 2

1 Mortality in the controls and low dose concentration group (22% for both) was elevated which is atypical. Eggs were incubated at 37.6 oC and

57% humidity. EPA recommends 39o

C and 70% humidity. Crowding in pens was noticed. 250 ppm is highest dose tested. It seems that at

higher doses (50 and 250 ppm) the birds become more lethargic. 

2 Adult birds maintained at 15o

C and 82%humidity; EPA recommends 21oC and 55% humidity. Eggs were incubated at 37.6 oC and 57%

humidity; EPA recommends 39o

C and 70% humidity. High incident of midterm eggs, high number of eggs cracked, and malfunction of an entire

hatch due to incubator malfunction can be indicative of atypical population and masked effects during study.

Since there is uncertainty of endothall adversely affecting mallard duck and bobwhite quail, additional

studies are needed to access reproductive effects to birds. 

c. Mammals, Acute and Chronic

Wild mammal testing is required on a case-by-case basis, depending on the results of lower tier

laboratory mammalian studies, intended use pattern and pertinent environmental fate characteristics. In

most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values obtained from the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED)

substitute for wild mammal testing. These toxicity values are reported below.

Table F-5. Mammalian Toxicity Values

Species % ai study type Toxicity Value Remarks MRID 

Acute Oral Toxicity to Mammals

Rabbit acid acute eye

irritation

100 mg applied to rabbit cornea (eye). 4/6

of the rabbits died within 24 hrs.

42289203

Rat Acute

Oral Toxicity

acid LD50 = 50.2 (male) mg ae/kg body wt

 =44.4 (female) mg ae/kg body wt

death within one day of

treatment

42289201

Reproductive (disodium salt of endothall)

Rat (Rattus

norvegicus)

19.9%

ai

Reproduction - 

2-generation

NOAEL = 150 ppm ae (9.4 mg ae/kg/day) 

LOAEL = 900 ppm ae (60.0 mg ae/kg/day)

decreased pup body weights

(both sexes) at Day 0 of the F1

and F2a generations

43152101 

43629301

same same same (parental systemic toxicity)

 LOEL = 30 ppm ae (2 mg ae/kg/day for

males and 2.3 mg ae/kg/day for females)

 proliferative lesions of the

gastric epithelium for both sexes

same

 

The results indicate that endothall is highly toxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis. Reproductive
Appendix F-viii

effects may be seen above 150 ppm for small mammals. Parental systemic toxicity occurs at 30 ppm or

above during reproductive testing.

d. Insects

A honey bee acute contact study using the TGAI was required for Endothall because its use on

alfalfa, berries, and clover will result in honey bee exposure. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table F-6. Acute Contact Toxicity to Nontarget Insects

Species Chemical Toxicity Category

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Honey bee

(Apis mellifera)

Endothall acid, mono amine salt, and

dipotassium salt

practically non-toxic 44038201

Atkins, E.L. , 1981

core

Endothall acid, mono amine salt, and dipotassium salt are practically non-toxic to honey bees.

2. Toxicity to Freshwater Animals

a. Freshwater Fish, Acute

Two freshwater fish toxicity studies using the TGAI were required to establish the toxicity of

Endothall to fish. The preferred test species are rainbow trout (a coldwater fish) and bluegill sunfish (a

warmwater fish). Results of these tests are tabulated below.

Table F-7. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish with Endothall Acid (%ae)

Species/

(Flow-through or Static) % ae

EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus)

77.9 77 42327701

Bettencourt 1992

core

rainbow trout 77.9 49 42327702

Bettencourt 1992

core

On an acute toxicity basis, endothall acid is slightly toxic to freshwater fish.

Table F-8. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish with Di (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt 
Appendix F-ix

Hydrothol 47 (granular 18.8% ae)

Species/

(Flow-through or Static) % ae

EC50

(ppm product)

EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

18.8 0.3 0.0564 00068507

Hughes et.al, 1962

supplemental1

Emerald shiner

(Notropis atherinoides)

static

18.8 0.08 0.0150 114510, 113971

Penn Walt Corp, 1970

supplemental 2

1 Supplemental due to aerated water and polyethylene-lined container. Tested by Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission.

2 Supplemental due to 5 wild fish tested per concentration, tap water used, hardness is 132 CaCO3, temperature is 55o

F

On an acute toxicity basis, di-amine salt of endothall is very highly toxic to freshwater fish.

Table F-9. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish with Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt 

Hydrothol 191 (23.4% ae) and (granular 5.0 % ae) - Hydout (slow release pellet)(10 % ae)

% ae

EC50

(ppm product)

EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Flow-thru

23.4 1.5000 43472801

Bettencourt, 1994

core

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

23.4 0.94 0.2200 40094602

Johnson et. al. 1980

core

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

10 7.0 0.7000 00084149

Vilkas, 1979

core

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

23.4 1.2 0.2808 00084148

Vilkas, 1979

core

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

23.4 0.8 0.1872 00068507

Hughes et.al., 1962

supplemental 2

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static 

23.4 1.3 0.3042 00084147

Vilkas, 1979

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static 

10 7.6 0.7600 00007113

Vilkas, 1979

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

flow-thru

23.4 0.94 0.2201 43196901

Bettencourt, 1994

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static 

23.4 0.56 0.1310 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static 

23.4 1.5 0.3510 Literature

Mudge et.al. 1986
Hydrothol 191 (23.4% ae) and (granular 5.0 % ae) - Hydout (slow release pellet)(10 % ae)

Appendix F-x

Cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki)

static

23.4 0.18 0.0421 40094602

Johnson et. al. 1980

core

Channel catfish (Ictalurus

punctatus)

static

23.4 0.49 0.1147 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Emerald shiner

(Notropis atherinoides)

static

23.4 0.10 0.0234 00046269

Swabey et. al 1963

supplemental 1

Steelhead Trout

(Salmo gairdneri)

static

23.4 1.5 3 0.3510 Literature

Mudge et.al. 1986

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

23.4 0.75 0.1755 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Golden Shiner

(Notemigonus crysoleucas)

23.4 3.2 0.7488 Literature

Finlayson, 1980

Gold fish 10 >20 4

14.2 5

2.0000

1.4200

00071148 6

Pennwalt Corp., 1980

supplemental

1 Supplemental due to 5 wild fish tested per concentration, not preferred species, temperature 70-71oF

2 Supplemental due to aerated water and polyethylene-lined container. Tested by Louisiana Wildlife Fisheries Commission

3 Fish loading averaged 1.47 g/L, which the authors felt necessitate aeration. 

4 Hydout pellets used

5 Hydout pellets ground into powder

6 Study is titled “Aquatic Algicide and Herbicide: Pellet State verus Toxicity”

On an acute toxicity basis, mon-amine salt of endothall ranges from very highly toxic to highly toxic to

freshwater fish.
Appendix F-xi

Table F-10. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish with Dipotassium salt 

Aquathol K (28.6 % ae), Aquathol (granular 7.2% ae), Aquathol Super K (granular 44.7 % ae)

Species/

(Flow-through or Static) % ae

EC50

(ppm product)

EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static

28.6 230 65.78 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static

28.6 450 128.7 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static

28.6 32 9.152 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

static

28.6 529 151.29 83025

Vilkas, 1979

supplemental 1

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

flow-thru

29.5 363 107.09 42695402

Bettencourt 1991

core

Channel catfish (Ictalurus

punctatus)

static

28.6 >150 2 >42.9 40098001

Mayer, 1986

supplemental

Channel catfish (Ictalurus

punctatus)

static

28.6 >100 >28.6 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

28.6 343 3 98.10 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill

(Lepomis macrochirus)

Static

28.6 970 277.42 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus)

Static

28.6 1070 306.02 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus)

Static

28.6 1600 457.6 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus)

Static

28.6 1050 300.3 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus)

Static

28.6 975 278.85 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus)

Static

28.6 1030 294.58 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill(Lepomis

macrochirus)

Static

28.6 440 125.84 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Bluegill (Lepomis 28.6 501 143.86 00071134 4 supplemental 
Aquathol K (28.6 % ae), Aquathol (granular 7.2% ae), Aquathol Super K (granular 44.7 % ae)

Appendix F-xii

Bluegill (Lepomis

macrochirus) flow-thru

29.5 1071 316 42695401

Bettencourt, 1991

core

1 Nominal concentration, Temperature = 11.5o

C, soft reconstituted water, 100% mortality at 560 ppm, next lower dose of 320 ppm had no

mortality

2 Supplemental due to being tested at 12o

C and weighing 0.4 grams.

3 Tested at 22o

C.

4 Temperature = 20 - 21.5o

C.

5 Avoidance test was also conducted in which the tested goldfish did not avoid endothall concentrations at 1.7 ppm ai and avoided concentrations

at 17.0 ppm ai. Only two concentrations were used in this test.

On an acute toxicity basis, dipotassium salt of endothall ranges from slightly to practically non-toxic to

freshwater fish.

b. Freshwater Fish, Chronic

A freshwater fish early life-stage test using the TGAI was required for Endothall because the end-use

product is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and the following conditions are

met: (1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or

recurrent regardless of toxicity, (2) any aquatic acute LC50 or EC50 is less than 1 mg/L, and (3) studies of

other birds and small mammals indicate the reproductive physiology of fish may be affected. The

preferred test species is rainbow trout. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table F-11. Early life stage toxicity to Freshwater fish 

Species,

Type of Study

%

ae

NOAEC

(ppm ae)

LOAEC

(ppm ae)

Parameters MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

 Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt Hydrothol 191 (23.4% ae)

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

23.4 0.132 ai survival at 15oC

0.200 ai survival at 25o

C

 0.050 ai growth at 25o

C 1

literature

Keller et. al. 1988

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Flow thru

23.4 0.056

0.120

0.120

0.240

survival at test

termination (35 days)

percent hatch, length,

wet weight

43276501

Bettencourt 1994

core

Endothall Acid

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales promelas)

Flow thru

91.2 1.3 2.6 Length and wet weight 43295401

Bettencourt 1994

core

 Dipotassium of Endothall (40.3 % ai liquid, 28.6 % ae)

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

28.6 1.79 6. 25 2 Percent eggs hatch

Sac fry survival

00095812

Folmar, (FWS)

1976

supplemental 3

1 No significant differences was found for growth at 15o C when compared to controls. EPA protocols were used in the test.

2 The results are from 4-hour exposure

3 No protocol provided

Mono-amine salt. At 56 ppb ae, no significant differences were noted in survival and at 120 ppb ae, no

significant differences were noted in percent hatch, length, and wet weight when compared to controls. 

Significant reductions in survival occurred at the 120 ppb ae and in percent hatch, length, and wet weight
Appendix F-xiii

at the 240 ppb ae concentrations. 

Endothall acid. At 1300 ppb ae, no significant differences were noted in length and wet weight when

compared to controls. Significant reductions in survival length and wet weight occurred at the 2600 ppb

ae concentrations. 

DiPotassium salt. At 1.79 ppm ae concentration and from 4-hour exposure, no significant differences

were noted in percent eggs hatch and sac fry survival when compared to controls. 

c. Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

A freshwater aquatic invertebrate toxicity test using the TGAI was required to establish the

toxicity of Endothall to aquatic invertebrates. The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Results of

this test are tabulated below.

Table F-12. Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

Species,

Study Type % ae

48-hour EC50

(ppm product)

48-hour EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt - Hydrothol 191 (23.4% a.e.; 53% a.i.) - Hydout (10% ae)

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

static

23.4 0.36 0.084 00035242

Union Carbide,

1977

core 2

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

static

10 4.2 0.420 00074221

Vilkas, 1979

core 

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

Flow-thru

23.4 >0.32 3 >0.075 43196902

Putt 1994

supplemental 2

Scud (Gammarius lacustris)

static

23.4 1.0 (48 hr)

0.5 (96 hr)

0.234

0.117

05009242

Sanders, 1969

supplemental

Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)

static

10 16.8 1.68 00074222

Vilkas 1980

core

Glass/Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes

kadiakensis) static

23.4 0.05 (96 hr) 0.012 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Scud (Gammarius lacustris)

static

23.4 2.0 (48 hr)

0.5 (96 hr)

0.468

0.117

40098001 6

Mayer, 1986

core

Giant salmonfly (Pteronarcys

californica) static 

23.4 3.25 (48 hr) 0.751 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia) static

23.4 0.495 (48 hr, 25o

C)

1.43 (48 hr, 15o

C)

0.116

0.335

Literature 10

Keller et. al. 1988

Mussel (Mytilus edulis)

static

10 17.6 (48 hr) 1.76 00074228

Vilkas 1980

supplemental 14

Freshwater mussel

(Anodonta imbecilis)

23.4 4.85 (48 hr, 22oC) 1.135 Literature 11

Keller et. al. 1993

Endothall acid

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

static

89.5 32.5 00071137

Vilkas, 1979

supplemental 1

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

static

77.9 92 42359702

McNamara, 1992

core
Appendix F-xiv

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

static

75-86 46 4

(26 hr.)

00115863,

00017800

Crosby et. al. 1966

supplemental

Mussel (Mytilus edulis) (embryo)

static

89.5 49.2 00074227

Bailey, 1980

supplemental 13

Ostracod

(Cypretta kawatai)

99 180 (24 hr) 8

123 (72 hr) 8

literature

Hansen, 1976 7

Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)

static

89.5 85.1 00084151

Vilkas, 1980

core

Midge

(Chironomus tentans)

99 354 (24 hr) 8

151 (72 hr) 8

literature

Hansen, 1976 7

Waterflea (Daphnia magna)

static

25

50

84

72% immobile, no mortality observed

56% immobile, no mortality observed

 100% mortality 6 days after treatment

literature

Crosby, et.al. 1966 9

 Di (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt ; Hydrothol 47 (granular 18.8% ae)

Scud (Gammarius lacustris)

static

18.8 0.51 (96 hr) 0.096 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core

dipotassium salt ; Aquathol K (28.6 % ae), Aquathol (granular 7.2% ae), Aquathol Super K (granular 44.7 % ae)

Scud (Gammarius lacustris)

static

28.6 313 89.52 40098001 

Mayer, 1986

core

Scud (Gammarius lacustris)

static

28.6 223 63.8 42695403

Putt, 1991

core

Daphnia magna

static

28.6 319 91.23 00084150

Vilkas, 1979

supplemental 12

Daphnia magna

static

28.6 >100 5 >28.6 05009242

Sanders 1969

core

1 Hard water (192 mg/L CaCO3), temperature = 21o

C

2 Core only for formulated product.

3 0.32 is highest concentration tested. No mortalities were observed at lower concentrations.

4 Survivors transferred to fresh medium after 26 hr. period. Those exposed at 25 and 50 ppm, survived for more than 30 days. Those exposed at

84 ppm all died within 6 days.

5 100 ppm product is highest concentration tested with no mortalities shown.

6 Sanders, H. O. 1969. Toxicity of Pesticides to the Crustacean Gammarus lacustris. Tech.Pap.No.25, Bur.Sports Fish.Wildl., Fish Wildl.Serv.,

U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. 18 p. (Author Communication Used)(Used with Reference 732) (Publ in Part As 6797). 

7 Hansen, C. R. J. and Kawatski, J. A. 1976. Application of 24-Hour Postexposure Observation to Acute Toxicity Studies with Invertebrates.

J.Fish.Res.Board Can. 33(5), 1198-1201.

8 LC50 (mortality) results for midge is 205 ppm (24 hr) and 120 ppm (72 hr). For ostracod, LC50 is 249 ppm (24 hr) and 173 ppm (72 hr). EC50

is defined as being immobilized.

9 Crosby, D. G. and Tucker, R. K. 1966. Toxicity of Aquatic Herbicides to Daphnia magna. Science 154, 289-291. 18154. Daphnia was exposed

to endothall acid for 46 hours and then put into fresh untreated media for observations up to 30 days. 

10 Keller, A. E., Dutton, R. J., Bitton, G., and Crisman, T. L. 1988. Chronic Toxicity of Hydrothol-191 to Ceriodaphnia dubia at 25 and 15

Degrees C. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 41[2], 233-240.

11 Keller, A. E. 1993. Acute Toxicity of Several Pesticides, Organic Compounds, and a Wastewater Effluent to the Freshwater Mussel, Anodonta 

imbecilis, Ceriodaphnia dubia. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51(5), 696-702. 

12 Hard well water, temperature = 21o

C

13 deformed larvae averaged 5.7 per replicate in control, seawater = 25%o, nominal concentration

14 48-Hr. mussel larvae study

On an acute toxicity basis, mono-amine salt of endothall ranges from very highly toxic to slightly toxic; diamine salt is highly toxic; dipotassium salt of endothall is slightly toxic; and endothall acid ranges from

slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to aquatic freshwater invertebrates.
Appendix F-xv

d. Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic

A freshwater aquatic invertebrate life-cycle test using the TGAI was required for endothall since

the end-use product may be applied directly to water or is expected to be transported to water from the

intended use site, and the following conditions are met: (1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its

presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, (2) any aquatic acute LC50

or EC50 is less than 1 mg/L, or, (3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC50 or

LC50 value, or, (4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less

than 0.01 of any aquatic acute EC50 or LC50 value and any of the following conditions exist: studies of

other organisms indicate the reproductive physiology of invertebrates may be affected, physicochemical

properties indicate cumulative effects, or the pesticide is persistent in water (i.e., half-life greater than 4

days). The preferred test species is Daphnia magna. Results of this test are tabulated below.

Table F-13. 21-day Life-Cycle Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

Species

Endothall

Formulation

NOAEL

(ppm

product)

NOAEL

(ppm ae)

LOAEL 

(ppm

product)

LOAEL

(ppm ae)

Endpoints

Affected

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classific

ation

Waterflea 

(Daphnia

magna)

Flow-thru

Acid 0.068 0.0159 0.140 

0.280 

0.280

0.033

0.066

0.066

Reproduction

Young survival 1

 Length or

weight 1

43437901

Putt 1993

core

Water flea

(Ceriodaphnia

dubia)

<0.25 2

0.010 3

< 0.0585

 0.0023

0.25 2

0.25 3

0.059

0.059

Survival and

number of

broods

Literature

Keller , 1988

1 At the highest concentration (280 ppb) survival of 55% was observed.

2 Seven day reproduction test at 25o

C. This species is more ecologically relevant than Daphnia magna.

3 Additional studies at 25o

C found the NOAEC to be 0.010 ppm product. Metabolic rate of this species decrease at 15oC compared to 22oC. A

lower metabolic rate results in a lower reproductive rate.

At 15.9 ppb ae, no significant differences were noted in reproduction. Significant reductions were noted

in reproduction at 33 ppb ae., and weight, length, and young survival at 66 ppb ae when compared to

controls. The guideline (72-4b) is core. Adverse reproductive effects may occur at low concentrations to

Daphnia magna.

Table F-14. 21-day Life-Cycle Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

Species

Endothall

Form

% ae NOAEL

(ppm ae)

LOAEL

 (ppm ae)

Endpoints Affected MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Waterflea 

(Daphnia

magna)

Flow-thru

N,Ndimethylalkylamine

salt

91.2 < 2.2 2.2 Length and number of

offspring

43007801

Putt 1993

supplemental 1

 1 NOAEC not established

Significant reductions were noted in length and number of offspring at 2.2 ppb ae. (lowest concentration

tested) when compared to controls. A NOAEC has not been determined for endothall acid.
Appendix F-xvi

Toxicity to Amphibians 

Although EPA does not have guideline studies for amphibians, amphibian toxicity data were provided. 

Table F-15. Toxicity to Amphibians with Hydrothol 191 - Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt

% ae

EC50

(ppm product)

EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

Fowlers toad (Bufo woodhousii

fowleri) static

23.4 1.20 (96 hr) 0.28 40098001

Mayer, 1986 1

supplemental

1 Data was also found in - Sanders, H. O. 1970. Pesticide Toxicities to Tadpoles of the Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triseriata and Fowler's

Toad Bufo woodhousii fowleri. Copeia 2: 246-251 (Author Communication Used) (Publ in Part As 6797). 

3. Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

a. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute

Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine fish using the TGAI was required for Endothall because the

end-use product is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. The preferred

test species is sheepshead minnow. 

Table F-16. Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

Species,

Type of Study

Product

% ae.

96-hour EC50

(ppm product)

96-hour EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Endothall Acid

Common mummichog

(Fundulus heteroclitus)

 flow-thru

89.5 N/A 213.9 74225

Vilkas, 1979

core

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyrinodon variegatus)

flow-thru

77.9 N/A 110 42914102

Bettencourt 1993

core

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt - Hydrothol 191 (23.4% ae)

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyrinodon variegatus)

flow-thru

Hydrothol 191

23.4

3.5 0.819 43196903

Putt 1994

core

Chinook salmon

(Oncorhymchus

tshawytscha) Flow-thru

Hydrothol 191

23.4

0.241 44700401

Serdar et. al. 1995 2

supplemental 1

Common mummichog

(Fundulus heteroclitus)

 flow-thru

Hydout

10

7.5 0.75 00074226

Vilkas, 1980

core

Dipotassium salt

Coho Salmon

(Oncorhynchus kisutch)

Static

Aquathol K

 28.6

>100 >28.6 40098001

Mayer, 1986

core
Species,

Type of Study

Product

% ae.

96-hour EC50

(ppm product)

96-hour EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Endothall Acid

Appendix F-xvii

Chinook salmon

(Oncorhymchus

tshawytscha) Flow-thru

Aquathol K

28.6

88.2 62.5 3

(Nominal conc)

literature

Liguori et. al. 1983

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyrinodon variegatus)

Aquathol K

29.5

340 72 42695405

Bettencourt 1991

core

1 Study is supplemental because the chinook smolt were exposed to only 3 concentrations. The study authors indicate that the chemical does not

appear to impair osmoregulatory capacity of the fish.. This study is a challenge salt water study which may added additional stress to the salmon.

2 Testing conducted by Washington State Department of Ecology Lab.

3 14-day test. At concentrations of 25.5 ppm ae or lower, fish behaved normally in that they swam in groups, moved away quickly when

observers approached the tanks, and took food eagerly.

On an acute toxicity basis, endothall acid is practically non-toxic, mono-amine salt ranges from moderately

toxic to highly toxic, and dipotassium salt of endothall is slightly toxic to estuarine and marine fish.

d. Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic

An estuarine/marine fish early life cycle toxicity test for mono-amine salt of endothall should be

required because the end-use product is expected to be transported to the estuarine environment from the

intended use site (cotton), the sheepshead minnow LC50 is less than 1 mg/l, the EEC in water is equal to or

greater than 0.01 of the acute sheepshead minnow LC50 of 0.1755 ppb ae. The preferred test species is

sheepshead minnow. Data from this guideline using Hydrothol 191are needed to assess risk to estuarine

fish.

c. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute

Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine invertebrates using the TGAI was required for Endothall

because the end-use product is expected to reach this environment because of its use in coastal counties. 

The preferred test species are mysid shrimp and eastern oyster. Results of these tests are tabulated below.
Appendix F-xviii

Table F-17. Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Species,

Type of Study

Product

% ae

96-hour EC50

(ppm product)

96-hour EC50

(ppm ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Endothall Acid

Fiddler crab (Uca pugilator)

static

89.5 132.8 00074224

Vilkas, 1980

supplemental 1

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea

virginica) flow-thru

shell deposition

89.5 43 42895201

Dionne, 1991

core

Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) flowthru89.5 39 42914101

Bettencourt, 1983

core

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt Note: all Hydout pellets were grounded into powder for lab use 

Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) flowthruHydrothol 191

23.4

2.2 0.515 43210001

Putt 1994

core

Fiddler crab (Uca pugilator)

static

Hydrothol 191

23.4

14.1 2 3.323 35244

Vilkas 1977

supplemental 1

Fiddler crab (Uca pugilator)

static

Hydout

10

473.2 47.32 00074223

Vilkas 1979

supplemental 3

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea

virginica) flow-thru

shell deposition

Hydrothol 191

23.4

0.69 0.161 43550201

Dionne 1995

core

Dipotassium salt of Endothall

Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia)

flow thru

Aquathol K

30.5% ai

79 4 42695406

Bettencourt, 1992

core

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea

virginica) flow-thru

shell deposition

Aquathol K

30.5% ai

335 117 42695404

Dione 1991

core

Fiddler crab (Uca pugilator)

static

40.3% ai

28.6% ae

752 215 00035243

Vilkas 1977

supplemental 1

1 Supplemental due to species was not preferred species

2 No mortality observed at 5.6 and 10.0 ppm concentration level. 100% mortality at next two higher concentrations, 32 and 56 ppm.

3 Supplemental due to testing only 5 organisms per concentration level and high biological loading. Since there was no mortalities in control and

lower concentration, organisms appear to not be stressed.

4 100% mortality at 560 ppm product dose and 80% at 330 ppm product. Slope of dose response is 8.3

On an acute toxicity basis, mono-amine salt of endothall ranges from very highly toxic to moderately

toxic; dipotassium salt of endothall ranges from moderately toxic to practically non-toxic; and endothall

acid ranges from slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to estuarine invertebrates.

d. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrate, Chronic

An estuarine/marine invertebrate life-cycle toxicity test using Hydrothol 191 should be required because

the end-use product is expected to be transported to the estuarine environment from the intended use site

(cotton) the mysid LC50 is less than 1 mg/l, the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of the acute

mysid LC50 of 0.515 ppm ae. The preferred test species is mysid shrimp. Data from this guideline using

Hydrothol 191are needed to assess risk to estuarine invertebrates.
1 Serns, S. L. 1977. Effects of Dipotassium Endothall on Rooted Aquatics and Adult and First Generation Bluegills. Water

Resour.Bull. 13[1], 71-80. 

2

 Holmberg, D. J. and Lee, G. F. 1976. Effects and Persistence of Endothall in the Aquatic Environment. J.Water Pollut.Control Fed. 

48[23], 2738-2746. 

3

 Eller, L. L. 1969. Pathology in Redear Sunfish Exposed to Hydrothol 191. Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 98[1], 52-59.

Appendix F-xix

4. Aquatic Behavior and Field Studies

Freshwater Fish

A field study was done in Wisconsin on two ponds by Steven Serns (1977) 1

. One pond was used as a

control and one pond was dosed with 5.0 ppm ai (3.5 mg a.e./L) of dipotassium salt of endothall

(Aquathol). This study’s purpose was to investigate the effects of dipotassium on the survival,

reproduction and growth of adult and first generation bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus). Concentrations

were measured at several integrals up to 25 days after treatment. Treatments may cause an oxygen slump

from saturation (10 mg/L) to about 6.0 mg/L and last for several days to several weeks. Serns (1977)

found that fish in a Wisconsin pond treated with 5.0 mg a.i./L® did not bioaccumulate endothall. The BCF

values obtained from bluegill sunfish in this study ranged from 0.003 to 0.008. Elimination of endothall

occurred rapidly from these fish with less than <0.01 mg a.e./L detected in the fish tissue after three days

despite concentration in the water column remaining high (6.2 to 3.4 mg a.e./L) for the first 10 days. The

author has indicated that the chemical did not affect the number of young-of-the-year bluegills, and the

survival of adult and first generation bluegills. Although the bluegills had slower growth in the treatment

pools than the controls, it was not clear if this was attributed to the endothall. The plant population was

affected by Aquathol treatment of the whole pond. Myriophyllum sibericum, Ceratophyllum demersum,

Potamogeton crispus, Elodea canadensis, P. zosteriformis, and P. pectinatus were completely eliminated

within two weeks of application. E. canadensis was completely eliminated within three weeks of

application. Chara spp. appeared to be unaffected. All species showed signs of recovery within one year

of treatment. However, Chara spp. spread over the entire pond and became the dominant anchored

macrophytic by the end of the 1973 growing season.

A field study was done in Wisconsin on two ponds by Holmberg et. al.(1976) 2

. One pond was used as a

control and one pond was dosed with 5.0 ppm ai of dipotassium salt of endothall (Aquathol K). Most

weeds which were controlled by the endothall treatment dropped to the bottom of the pond within 7 days. 

Chara spp. which was unaffected by the treatment infested the whole area. The endothall application did

not appear to cause any bluegill mortalities. 

Nineteen earthen one-tenth acre ponds were used in a study 3

 to understand the pathology Hydrothol 191

has on redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus). Twelve of the ponds are recently constructed and seven are

old ponds. The fish exposed to Hydrothol 191 for 14 days or less to 0.03 ppm of Hydrothol 191 showed

gill alteration characterized by moderate basal branchial epithelial hyperplasia of a small number of

filaments. Fish exposed to 0.3 ppm showed marked adjacent fusion of lamellae and filaments. After 14

days, the trend toward gill damage was reversed with a gradual return to a stable gill structure. Livers of

fish exposed to 0.03 and 0.3 ppm showed minimal acute morphological changes but when fish is exposed

at concentrations of 0.3 ppm up to 28 days, liver damage was seen (enlarged atypical liver cells and some

pigmentation among cells). As the concentration level of Hydrothol 191 goes down, liver damage was
4 Holmberg, D. J. and Lee, G. F. 1976. Effects and Persistence of Endothall in the Aquatic Environment. J.Water Pollut.Control Fed. 

48[23], 2738-2746.

5

 Folmar, L. C. 1976. Overt Avoidance Reaction of Rainbow Trout Fry to Nine Herbicides. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 15[5],

509-514

6

Bettoli, P. W. and Clark, P. W. 1992. Behavior of Sunfish Exposed to Herbicides: A Field Study. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 11[10],

1461-1467. 

7

 Takle, J. C. C., Beitinger, T. L., and Dickson, K. L. 1983. Effect of the Aquatic Herbicide Endothal on the Critical Thermal

Maximum of Red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 31[5], 512-517.

Appendix F-xx

reversed. Ova-like hypertrophic cells appeared after the third day of exposure of 0.03 and 0.3 ppm og

Hydrothol 191. These abnormal cells disappeared by the 14th day from the testes of the fish exposed to

0.03 ppm concentrations and from the 0.3 ppm concentrations by the 28th day. 

Aquathol K (40.3% a.i. and 28.6%a.e. of dipotassium salt of endothall) was applied at a rate of 5.0 ppm a.i.

to a pond of 0.78 acre and was compared to a control pond of 1.07 acre located in Delafield, WI. 4

 Prior

to application, adult bluegills were stock in the ponds at the rate of 100/acre with half male and half

female. Up to 18 days after application, no fish mortalities were observed. During this period of time,

dissolved oxygen content went from about 8.0 mg/l at application time to 5.0 mg/l 6 days later to >7.0

mg/l 21 days after application. Plant populations also were affected by the Aquathol K application. The

aquatic plant life in the treated pond consist of approximately 80% milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), with

the remaining 20% consisting of mostly chara (Ceratophyllum demersum), and elodea (Elodea

canadensis), with some flat-stemmed pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) and sago pondweed

(Potamogeton zosteriformis). Most of the aquatic plant species were killed by the application and dropped

to the bottom of the pond within 7 days. Chara, which was unaffected by the treatment, infested the entire

area. 

Avoidance reaction of rainbow trout (Ephemerella walkeri) was tested by Folmar (1978)5

 . Folmar found

no avoidance response from trout to Aquathol K (dipotassium salt; 40.3% ai, 28.6% ae) at concentrations

up to 10 ppm for up to 96 hours after treatment. 

Sunfish behavior due to Aquathol K (dipotassium salt; 28.6% ae, 40.3% ai) exposure (4 ppm ai) was

studied by Bettoli et. al. (1992)6

 . Using remote video camera , bluegill and redear sunfishs were observed

for nest abandonment. Although the data showed some response of abandonment, Bettoli has indicated

that no biological significant were made in the behavior of sunfish from endothall exposure because the

abandonment of the nests were only temporary (15 minute duration). However, this study had several

limitations that make additional studies necessary. These limitations are: no sample analysis was made of

endothall; only one male fish per trial was able to be observed even though an entire colony was treated;

the limit on the number of cameras used reduced the observations that can be done for statistical relevancy;

and the frequency and duration of the video recording was not controlled.

Red Shiner (Notropis lutrensis) was tested by Takle et. al. (1983) 7

 for critical thermal maximum (CTM)

when exposed to Aquathol K (dipotassium salt of endothall) for 48 hrs. CTM is a method used to quantify

temperature tolerance of aquatic organisms and is considered to be a tool in physiology of stress and

adaption in fish. The red shiner was put into a static aquarium with 30 ppm of Aquathol K and

temperature of the water was slowly raised until the fish lost its righting ability. When compared to the
8

 Liguori, V. M., Zakour, H. R., Landolt, M. L., and Felton, S. P. 1983. Toxicity of the Herbicide Endothall to Juvenile Chinook

Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: W.E.Bishop, R.D.Cardwell, and B.B.Heidolph (Eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, 6th

Symposium, ASTM STP 802.

9

 Blouck, G. R. And D. A. Johnson. 1979. Medication Inhibits Tolerance to Seawater in Coho Salmon Smolts. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 108:63-66, 1979. 

10 Folmar, L. C. 1978. Avoidance Chamber Responses of Mayfly Nymphs Exposed to Eight Herbicides.

Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 19[3], 312-318 (Author Communication Used).

Appendix F-xxi

controls, there was no significant difference in response by the fish. The authors concluded that exposure

to dipotassium salt of endothall in excess of estimated environmental concentrations did not affect the red

shiner’s ability to adapt to temperature stress. This study does have some deficiencies. The testing

aquarium was gently aerated, no replicates were tested, and test population for each dose and control was

six.

Estuarine/Marine Fish

Liguori et. al. (1983)8

 conducted a 14 day seawater entry test on Chinook salmon (Oncorhymchus

tshawytscha). Fish exposed to levels of endothall acid as low as 3 ppm ae, all died within 3 days after

exposure to seawater (30 ppt salinity). Fish in the control and exposed to 1.5 ppm ae survived entry into

seawater from freshwater. 

Bouck et. al. (1979) 9

 tested the adaptability of coho salmon smolts to seawater from freshwater after

exposure to 5 mg a.i./l endothall nominal concentration. The fish placed directly into seawater after

endothall exposure suffered 100% mortality, whereas the controls had no mortality. However, when the

endothall exposed salmons are placed into clean freshwater for 4 days and then into seawater for 4 hours,

4% mortality occurs. There are some uncertainties in this study. The formulation of the endothall was not

identified. The second replicate of the second test (salmon put into freshwater prior to putting into

seawater) had no mortalities. The authors could not explain why this happens. 

Freshwater Invertebrates

Avoidance reaction of mayfly nymphs (Ephemerella walkeri) was tested by Folmar (1978)10 . Folmar

found no avoidance response from mayflies to Aquathol K (dipotassium salt; 40.3% ai, 28.6% ae) at

concentrations up to 10 ppm. 
Appendix F-xxii

3. Toxicity to Plants

i. Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plant testing was required for Endothall because it is a herbicide with outdoor terrestrial use

patterns, and it may pose hazards to endangered or threatened plant species. The required testing consists

of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests with ten plant species. Six of the species must be

dicotyledonous and represent at least four families. One of these species must be soybean (Glycine max)

and a second must be a root crop. The remaining four species must be monocotyledonous and represent at

least two families. One of these species must be corn (Zea mays). 

Registrant had tested Endothall on the germination of ten crop species in 1989. Since that time, the

Agency has waived the germination data requirements due to high uncertainty associated with the data

from germination studies and the low value such studies offer since the seedling emergence studies also

provide emergence information. The citation for the germination studies submitted in 1993 is MRID

44127801, Hoberg, 1993. 

Tier II tests measure the response of plants, relative to a control, and five or more test concentrations. 

Results of Tier II toxicity testing with endothall amine salt (Hydrothol 191; Mono (N,N

dimethylalkylamine; 23.4% a.e.; 53% a.i.) are tabulated below.

Table F-18. Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Toxicity (Tier II) - Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt

- Hydrothol 191(23.4% ae)

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Species

EC25

(lb ae/A)

NOAEC

(lb ae/A) Parameter

EC25

(lb ae/A)

NOAEC

(lb ae/A) Parameter

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

 Corn 0.30 0.11 length 0.48 0.42 root weight 43870401

Hoberg, 1995

core

Oat 0.094 0.027 length 0.069 0.034 root weight

Onion 0.087 0.027 length 0.33 0.22 shoot weight

Ryegrass 0.041 0.017 length 0.18 0.11 shoot weight

Cabbage 0.18 0.11 length 0.24 0.12 root weight

Cucumber 0.17 0.11 length 0.18 0.11 shoot weight

Lettuce 0.020 0.004 length 0.067 0.021 shoot weight

Soybean 0.048 0.030 length 0.068 0.013 shoot weight

Tomato 0.18 0.11 length 0.18 0.08 root weight

Turnip 0.16 0.05 length 0.055 0.034 root weight
Appendix F-xxiii

Table F-19. Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Toxicity (Tier II) - Dipotassium salt - (40.3% ai, 28.6%

ae) 

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Species

EC25

(lb ae/A)

NOAEC

(lb ae/A) Parameter

EC25

(lb ae/A)

NOAEC

(lb ae/A) Parameter

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

 Cabbage 0.43 0.29 length 0.67 ---- shoot weight

42396405

Hoberg,

1992

core

Corn 0.65 0.58 length 4.5 ----- shoot weight

Cucumber 1.1 0.58 length 0.16 ------ shoot weight

Lettuce 0.026 0.018 length 0.016 0.0089 shoot weight

Oat 0.17 0.073 length 0.092 -------- shoot weight

 Onion 0.22 0.15 length 0.048 1 0.00200 2 shoot weight

Radish 1.7 1.2 length 0.058 3 0.00006 2 4 shoot weight

 Ryegrass 0.050 <0.073 length 0.0056 1 0.00015 2 shoot weight

Soybean 0.047 <0.036 length 0.081 0.0089 2 shoot weight

Tomato 0.086 <0.073 length 0.065 0.017 shoot weight

1 EC25 value not very confident since EC50 value is below lowest dose concentration.

2 EC05 since NOAEC can not be determined

3 Confidence of this value is uncertain since EC25 is lower than lowest dose concentration 

4 Confidence is low for this value since cv = 1.7 x 10 -24 - 2.0 x 1015

Seed germination studies are not required as a part of the data package since there is much uncertainty in

the data provided from such studies. The seedling emergence does provide data on emergence which is

similar to germination. However, seed germination was provided and the results are below:

Table F-20. Seed Germination

Table Seed Germination (Tier II) - Dipotassium salt - (40.3% ai, 28.6% ae)

species EC25

(lb ae/A)

NOAEC

(lb ae/A) Parameter

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

soybean 0.058 0.014 radicle length

44392803

Hoberg, 1997

tomato 0.083 0.0135 radicle length core

onion 0.27 0.0519 radicle length

ryegrass 0.05 0.0072 radicle length

Table Seed Germination (Tier II) - Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt - Hydrothol 191(23.4% ae)

species EC25

(lb ae/A)

NOAEC

(lb ae/A) Parameter

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study Classification

corn 0.61 0.17 radicle length

44127801

Hoberg, 1997

core

oat 0.128 0.17 radicle length

onion 1.36 0.17 radicle length

ryegrass 0.007 0.001 radicle length
Appendix F-xxiv

cabbage 0.51 0.17 radicle length

cucumber 0.88 0.17 radicle length

lettuce 0.020 0.003 radicle length

soybean 0.85 0.17 Germination

tomato 0.150 0.17 radicle length

turnip 0.40 0.17 radicle length

ii. Aquatic Plants

Aquatic plant testing is required for any herbicide that has outdoor non-residential terrestrial uses and that

can runoff into nearby water bodies.

Results of Tier I toxicity tests are tabulated below.

Table F-21. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants (Tier I)

Species

% ai

% ae

conc. tested

(ppb product)

conc. tested

(ppb ae)

%

Reduction

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Acid Endothall

Green algae (Kirchneria subcapitata, 

formerly Selenastrum capricorntum)

 95.9 — 100 49 41613809

Cocke, 1990

core 

Dipotassium Salt of Endothall

Marine Diatom

(Skeletonema costatum)

40.3 ai

28.6 ae

22,300 6,400 23 42396404

Hoberg, 1992

core

Green algae (Kirchneria subcapitata, 

formerly Selenastrum capricorntum)

40.3 ai

28.6 ae

3,800 1,100 30 42396403

Hoberg, 1992

supplemental

Green algae (Kirchneria subcapitata, 

formerly Selenastrum capricorntum)

40.3 ai

28.6 ae

24,600 7,000 2 44392801

Hoberg, 1997

core

Blue-green algae (Anabaena flosaquae)40.3 ai

28.6 ae

3,700 1,000 8 42396401

Hoberg, 1992

supplemental

Freshwater diatom (Navicula

pelliculosa) 

40.3 ai

28.6 ae

3,600 1,000 11 42396402

Hoberg, 1992

supplemental

Freshwater diatom (Navicula

pelliculosa) 

40.3 ai

28.6 ae

27,300 7,800 41 44392802

Hoberg, 1997

core

Results of Tier II toxicity testing tabulated below.

Table F-22. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants (Tier II)

Species

EC50

(ppb product)

EC50

(ppb ae)

NOAEC

(ppb product)

NOAEC

(ppb ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt Hydrothol 191 (23.4% a.e.; 53% a.i.)
Species

EC50

(ppb product)

EC50

(ppb ae)

NOAEC

(ppb product)

NOAEC

(ppb ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Appendix F-xxv

Green algae (formerly

Selenastrum capricorntum)

Kirchneria subcapitata

9.6 2.3 — 0.54 44949203

Drottar et. al. 1999

core

Marine Diatom

(Skeletonema costatum)

----- 5.6 ----- not

determined

44127802

Hoberg, 1994

supplemental 3

Bluegreen algae

(Anabaena flos-aquae)

----- 7.0 ----- 0.5 44127803

Hoberg, 1994

supplemental 2

Freshwater diatom

Navicula pelliculosa

----- 106.0 ----- 5.0 44127805

Hoberg, 1994

supplemental 2

Green algae (formerly

Selenastrum capricorntum)

Kirchneria subcapitata

---- 1.9 ----- 0.5 44127804

Hoberg, 1994

supplemental 2

Duckweed

Lemna gibba

----- 430 ---- 50 44127806

Hoberg, 1994

supplemental 2

Duckweed

Lemna gibba

3,100 740 ------ 150 44949402

Drottar et. al. 1999

core

Marine Diatom

(Skeletonema costatum)

92 22 15.5 3.7 44976701

Drottar et. al. 1999

core

Bluegreen algae

(Anabaena flos-aquae)

167 40 103 24 44949202

Drottar et. al. 1999

core

Freshwater diatom

Navicula pelliculosa

31 7.2 9.9 2.3 44949201

Drottar et. al. 1999

core

Filamentous algae

(Cladophora sp.)

1000 250 acc. 244122

USDI Bureau of

Reclamation, 1964

supplemental

Cyanophytes (bluegreens)

(Microcystis aeruginosa)

65 ai (96 hr) N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Cyanophytes (bluegreens)

(Phormidium inundatum)

94 ai (96 hr) N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Chlorophytes (greens)

(Chlamydomonas noctigama)

273 ai (96 hr) N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Chlorophytes (greens)

(Chlorella vulgaris)

>600 ai (96

hr)

N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Chlorophytes (greens)

(Scenedesmus acuminatus)

417 ai (96 hr) N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Diatoms

(Synedra sp.)

>600 ai (96

hr)

N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Diatoms

(Cyclotella meneghiana)

232 ai (96 hr) N/A N/A literature

Ruzycki et. al. 1998

Amine Salt - no further information

Marine green algae

(Chlorococcum sp.)

300,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine green algae

(Dunaliella tertiolecta)

450,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972
Species

EC50

(ppb product)

EC50

(ppb ae)

NOAEC

(ppb product)

NOAEC

(ppb ae)

MRID No.

Author/Year

Study

Classification

Appendix F-xxvi

Marine chrysophyte algae

(Isochrysis galbana)

225,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine chrysophyte algae

(Phaeodactylum tricornutum)

250,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Bluegreen algae

(Anabaena flos-aquae)

5,460 1,560 250 71 44408801

Hoberg, 1997

core

Dipotassium Salt of Endothall (40.3 ai, 28.6 ae)

Duckweed

 (Lemna gibba)

2134 610 16.1 4.6 42396406

Hoberg, 1992

core

Marine green algae

(Chlorococcum sp.)

1,500,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine green algae

(Dunaliella tertiolecta)

1,500,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine chrysophyte algae

(Isochrysis galbana)

3,000,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine chrysophyte algae

(Phaeodactylum tricornutum)

500,000 1 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Endothall Acid

Marine green algae

(Chlorococcum sp.)

50,000 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine green algae

(Dunaliella tertiolecta)

50,000 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine chrysophyte algae

(Isochrysis galbana)

25,000 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

Marine chrysophyte algae

(Phaeodactylum tricornutum)

15,000 literature search

Walsh, G. 1972

1 Percentage acid equivalent is unknown, 240 hr test by EPA Gulf Breeze Lab.

2 This study is supplemental since it was performed as range finding test, does not meet GLP standards, 2 replicates used, 3 doses used.

3 This study is supplemental since it was performed as range finding test, does not meet GLP standards, 2 replicates used, 4 doses used.

iii. Plant Field Trials

Hydrothol 191 was tested on phytoplankton with dominant species consisting of Cyclotella, Euglena,

Fragilaria, Nitzschia, and Pediastrum. Cell count at test initiation is 2.8 + 0.4 x 104

 cells/mL. The 120-

hour LC50 was estimated on total phytoplankton population. Water used was collected from the Columbia

River and light was based on the day length at the time, which was not measured. No replicates were used. 

The controls after 5 days had growth of 300%. The 120-hr LC50 was calculated to be 1.5 ppm. (Mudge,

J. E., Northstrom, T. E., and Stables, T. B. 1986. Acute Toxicity of Hydrothol 191 to Phytoplankton and

Rainbow Trout. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 37[3], 350-354.)
Appendix G-i

Appendix G 

Explanation of Probit Slope Analysis and LOC
Appendix G-ii

Use of the Probit Dose Response Relationship to Provide Information on the Endangered

Species Levels of Concern

Introduction

The document entitled Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of

Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2004, the Overview

Document) discusses methods for providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with additional information regarding the listed

animal species acute levels of concern (LOCs). This document provides (1) the background

information on how agreements were reached between the services and USEPA for methods to

provide additional LOC information, and (2) a discussion of issues concerning those methods and

their resolution. Risk Assessors within the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

should use the Overview Document as well as the following information as guidance for using the

probit dose response relationship as a tool for providing additional information on the listed

species LOCs

Effective immediately, all screening-level risk assessments (REDS, Section 3's, Section 18's, etc.)

using risk quotient (RQ) methods will incorporate this analysis, regardless of whether listed

species LOCs are exceeded or not.

Background on Discussion of LOCs with USFWS and NMFS

Over the course of negotiations with the USFWS and NMFS, one topic of discussion centered on

the risk quotient values established as screening thresholds for consideration of direct toxic

effects on listed species (i.e., the acute listed species LOCs of 0.1 and 0.05 used for terrestrial and

aquatic animals, respectively). The Agency provided the Services with the mathematical

interpretations of these LOC values, which was documented in the background information

supplied to the Services and is included in the Overview Document CD distributed to all

employees in EFED. In short, the interpretation of the LOCs was discussed in terms of best

estimates of the chance of an individual event (mortality or immobilization) should exposure at

the estimated environmental concentration actually occur for a species with sensitivity to the

pesticide on par with the toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation.

The mathematics were based on a long-held assumption of a probit dose-response relationship for

acute toxicity endpoints. The listed species LOCs or the fraction (0.05 or 0.1) of the dose

estimated to produce 50% mortality were used to interpolate from a probit dose response curve to

estimate the associated ECx, LDx, or LCx. These values were then used to estimate the chance of

an individual event. 

Two issues were identified over the course of discussions with the Services in regard to the

Agency's presentations of the math and the interpretation of the LOCs. First was the issue that

the chance of individual event was highly dependant upon the assumed shape and slope of the

dose-response relationship. Second was that the Services were unwilling to present a generic
Appendix G-iii

threshold of the chance of an individual event, below which the Services would not have a

concern for listed species impacts The services indicated that the baseline conditions of a species

and it's biology would dictate species-specific concerns for tolerated effects. Further discussion

on the confidence of extreme value extrapolations for probit dose response did not achieve an

agreement between all parties on what the lower limit of cutoff in reporting extreme events

should be for interpretation of listed species acute LOCs. Even consideration of using the most

intolerant listed species within taxonomic groups as a screening basis for other more tolerant

listed species was not accepted as a viable strategy for establishing generic effects thresholds for

listed species. 

Consequently, it was accepted by all parties that the Agency would provide in its risk assessments

an interpretation of the listed species LOCs in terms of the chance of an individual effect should

organisms be exposed to a media concentration or dose corresponding to 1/10 or 1/20 of the LC50,

LD50, or EC50 used as the acute toxicity measurement endpoint for a particular animal taxonomic

group. To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency would use (1) the slope of the dose

response relationship available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity

measurement endpoints for each animal taxonomic group; (2) an assumption of a probit dose

response relationship; (3) a mean estimate of slope consistent with current Agency statistical

procedures; and (4) a lower limit to the estimate of individual effect chance based on what could

be calculated by Excel spreadsheet "Normdist" function. 

Issues with the LOC Interpretation Method and Their Resolution

Discussion within the Agency has identified three issues with regard to the calculation of the

chance of individual event corresponding to the listed species acute LOCs. The largest issue is

the extrapolation to extremely low probability events, referring to the very large confidence

intervals surrounding such estimates. A secondary issue, but still very important, is the extent to

which probit dose response slopes can be calculated for existing studies (i.e., the fitting of a probit

dose response relationship to available data). The third issue is how to proceed when information

is unavailable to estimate a slope. The following guidance information will address these issues:

Extrapolation to Extremely Low Probability Events

The nature of this issue centers on the fact that slope estimates are accompanied by a

corresponding variance in the slope term. This variance in the slope term and to some extent the

variance in the median lethal dose estimate, can result in wide variations of effects probabilities at

the upper and lower tails of the dose range. While the Agency has agreed to present the effects

probability associated with the LOCs based on the mean estimate of slope, it is evident that

expression of this single estimate of the corresponding effects probability would suggest that the

Agency has inordinately high confidence in this estimate, when in fact there is likely considerable

variability in the estimate. Consequently, for the short term, it is recommended that both the

estimate of effects probability be calculated for the mean slope estimate and listed species LOC

and available information on the 95% confidence interval of the slope estimate be used to

calculate an upper and lower estimate of the effects probability. It is important to note that
Appendix G-iv

interpretation of these results is not required under agreement with the Services. The Services

have requested that the results be made available in the screening assessment reports. It is

recommended that reporting minimally include the following discussion:

" Based on an assumption of a probit dose response relationship with a mean

estimated slope of (enter slope here), the corresponding estimated chance of

individual mortality associated with the listed species LOC of (0.1 or 0.05) the

acute toxic endpoint for (enter appropriate animal taxonomic group) is (enter

value). It is recognized that extrapolation of very low probability events is

associated with considerable uncertainty in the resulting estimates. To explore

possible bounds to such estimates, the upper and lower values for the mean slope

estimate (enter the 95 percent confidence interval for the slope) were used to

calculate upper and lower estimates of the effects probability associated with the

listed species LOC. These values are (enter the upper and lower estimates)."

For the present time, the Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 will allow for such calculations by

entering in the mean slope estimate and the 95 percent confidence bounds of that estimate as the

slope parameter for the spreadsheet. It is important to note that the model output can go as low as

10 E-16 in estimating the event probability. This cut-off is a limit in the Excel spreadsheet

environment and is not to be interpreted as an agreed upon lower bound threshold for concern for

individual effects in any given listed species. 

EFED will continue to work on establishing subsequent approaches to account for both the

variance in the slope and the median lethal dose estimate when establishing this upper and lower

estimates of effects estimates associated with the listed species LOCs.

Probit Slopes for Existing Studies

Slope information may or may not be estimated for a given study upon which RQs were

calculated. When the available data evaluation records (DERs) or study reports provide the slope

information (i.e., mean slope estimate, p-value of estimate, and 95% confidence interval of the

estimate) , it should be used as reported once these reported values have been carefully reviewed

to ensure their accuracy. However, there are likely to be situations where slope information is not

provided in the DERs. For such situations, the raw data from the study must be entered into and

analyzed by the EFED current statistical package for acute effects studies. See the EFED

Statistical Workgroup for assistance with accessing these software. Probit slope information will

be used from these analyses. However, there a re two distinctions that must be made in the

reporting of these results for listed species evaluation. First, studies with good probit fit

characteristics can be used as reported accompanied with a statement that the probit dose

response relationship was statistically appropriate for the data set. Alternatively, if the

assumption of a probit dose response was shown to be statistically unsupported, the slope

estimates are still used in the listed species LOC interpretation (remember we have in our policy

assumed probit dose response when LOCs were established), but the statistical rejection criteria

must be presented along with a statement : 
Appendix G-v

"Although the Agency has assumed a probit dose response relationship in

establishing the listed species LOCs, the available data for the toxicity study

generating RQs for this taxonomic group do not statistically support a probit dose

response relationship (enter the p-value from the statistical package) and so the

confidence in estimated event probabilities based on this dose response

relationship and the listed species LOC is low."

EFED will continue to work on the development of statistical tools to explore alternative dose

response relationships in situations where the assumption of probit dose response relationship is

not upheld by available data.

How to Proceed When Information is Unavailable to Estimate a Slope 

State in the assessment that information is unavailable to estimate a slope from the available

toxicity study and the reason why re-analysis of raw data is not possible. Then state that a event

probability was calculated for the listed species LOC based on a default slope assumption of 4.5

as per original Agency assumptions of typical slope cited in Urban and Cook (1986).

References

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Overview of Ecological Risk

Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington,

DC.

Urban D.J. and N.J. Cook. 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure

Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.
Appendix H-i

Appendix H

Supplementary RQ Tables
Appendix H-ii

Table H-1. Endothall acid and N, N-dimethylalkylamine terrestrial use acute risk quotients for

freshwater fish (runoff) for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

Freshwater Fish

Crop scenario Application EEC (ppb) Acute RQ

(acid)

Acute RQ

(amine)

ID Potato Aerial Max 8 <0.05 0.19

Aerial Typical 3.1 <0.05 0.07

Ground Max 6.1 <0.05 0.15

Ground Typical 2.4 <0.05 0.06

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 <0.05 0.42

Aerial Typical 6.9 <0.05 0.16

Ground Max 16.2 <0.05 0.39

Ground Typical 6.4 <0.05 0.15

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 0.4 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3 <0.05 0.07

Aerial Typical 2.7 <0.05 0.06

Ground Max 4.2 <0.05 0.10

Ground Typical 2.7 <0.05 0.06

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.9 <0.05 0.09

Aerial Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 3.9 <0.05 0.09

Ground Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 5.3 <0.05 0.13

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 5.1 <0.05 0.12

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A
Appendix H-iii

Ground Max 4.9 <0.05 0.12

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 <0.05 0.41

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 <0.05 0.37

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 <0.05 0.92

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 37.1 <0.05 0.88

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

Exceedances are indicated in bold

Table H-2. Endothall acid and N,N-dimethylalkylamine terrestrial use acute risk quotients for

marine and estuarine fish (runoff) for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

Marine/Estuarine Fish

Crop scenario Application EEC (ppb) Acute RQ

(acid)

Acute RQ

(amine)

ID Potato Aerial Max 8 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 3.1 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 6.1 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 2.4 <0.05 <0.05

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 6.9 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 16.2 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 6.4 <0.05 <0.05

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 0.4 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 2.7 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 4.2 <0.05 <0.05
Appendix H-iv

Ground Typical 2.7 <0.05 <0.05

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.9 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 3.9 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 5.3 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 5.1 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 4.9 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 <0.05 0.41

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 <0.05 0.37

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 <0.05 0.05

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 37.1 <0.05 0.05

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

Exceedances are indicated in bold

Table H-3. Endothall terrestrial use risk quotients for aquatic vascular plants (runoff) for

typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

Vascular Plants

Crop scenario Application EEC (ppb) Acute RQ

(non-endangered)*

Acute RQ

(endangered)*

ID Potato Aerial Max 8 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical 3.1 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 6.1 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical 2.4 <1.0 <1.0
Appendix H-v

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical 6.9 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 16.2 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical 6.4 <1.0 <1.0

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical 0.3 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 0.4 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical 0.3 <1.0 <1.0

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical 2.7 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 4.2 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical 2.7 <1.0 <1.0

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.9 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical 1.8 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 3.9 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical 1.8 <1.0 <1.0

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 5.3 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 5.1 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 4.9 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A
Appendix H-vi

Ground Max 37.1 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

*Acute Aquatic Plant RQs calculated using amine salt due to lack of data

Exceedances are indicated in bold

Table H-4. Endothall terrestrial use acute risk quotients for freshwater invertebrates (runoff)

for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

Freshwater Invertebrates

Crop scenario Application peak EEC (ppb) Acute RQ

(acid)

Acute RQ

(amine)

ID Potato Aerial Max 8.0 <0.05 0.09

Aerial Typical 3.1 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 6.1 <0.05 0.07

Ground Typical 2.4 <0.05 <0.05

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 <0.05 0.19

Aerial Typical 6.9 <0.05 0.08

Ground Max 16.2 <0.05 0.18

Ground Typical 6.4 <0.05 0.07

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 0.4 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3.0 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 2.7 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 4.2 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 2.7 <0.05 <0.05

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.9 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 3.9 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 1.8 <0.05 <0.05

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A
Appendix H-vii

Ground Max 6.5 <0.05 0.07

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 7.8 <0.05 0.08

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 7.5 <0.05 0.08

Ground Typical 4.9 <0.05 0.05

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 <0.05 0.4

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 37.1 <0.05 0.39

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 <0.05 0.19

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 <0.05 0.17

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

Exceedances are indicated in bold

Table H-5. Endothall terrestrial use acute risk quotients for marine/estuarine invertebrates

(runoff) for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

Marine/Estuarine Invertebrates

Crop scenario Application max EEC (ppb) Acute RQ

(acid)

Acute RQ

(amine)

ID Potato Aerial Max 8.0 <0.05 0.05

Aerial Typical 3.1 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 6.1 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 2.4 <0.05 <1.0

ME Potato Aerial Max 17.6 <0.05 0.11

Aerial Typical 6.9 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 16.2 <0.05 0.10

Ground Typical 6.4 <0.05 <0.05

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.5 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 0.4 <0.05 <0.05
Appendix H-viii

Ground Typical 0.3 <0.05 <0.05

MS Cotton Aerial Max 3.0 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 2.7 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 4.2 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 2.7 <0.05 <0.05

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.1 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical 1.5 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Max 3.2 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 1.5 <0.05 <0.05

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 6.0 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 7.0 <0.05 <0.05

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 6.5 <0.05 <0.05

Ground Typical 3.9 N/A N/A

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 38.7 <0.05 0.24

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 37.1 <0.05 0.23

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 17.4 <0.05 0.11

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 15.6 <0.05 0.10

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

Exceedances are indicated in bold

Table H-6. Endothall terrestrial use chronic risk quotients for freshwater invertebrates (runoff)

for typical and maximum uses (ground and aerial application)

FW Invertebrates
Appendix H-ix

Crop scenario Application 21-dEEC (ppb) Chronic

RQ

(acid) 

 Chronic

RQ

(amine)

ID Potato Aerial Max 7.3 <0.05 3.17

Aerial Typical 2.9 <0.05 1.26

Ground Max 5.6 <0.05 2.43

Ground Typical 2.2 <0.05 <1.0

ME Potato Aerial Max 16.0 <0.05 6.96

Aerial Typical 6.3 <0.05 2.74

Ground Max 14.8 <0.05 6.43

Ground Typical 5.8 <0.05 2.52

CA Cotton Aerial Max 0.4 <1.0 <1.0

Aerial Typical 0.2 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 0.3 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Typical 0.2 <1.0 <1.0

MS Cotton Aerial Max 2.6 <1.0 1.13

Aerial Typical 2.2 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 3.6 <1.0 1.57

Ground Typical 2.3 <1.0 1.0

TX Cotton Aerial Max 3.1 <1.0 1.35

Aerial Typical 1.5 <1.0 <1.0

Ground Max 3.2 <1.0 1.39

Ground Typical 1.5 <1.0 <1.0

OR Hops Aerial Max N/A N/A N/A

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 6.0 <0.05 2.61

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

CA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 7.0 <1.0 3.04

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 6.5 <0.05 2.83

Ground Typical 4.3 <1.0 1.87
Appendix H-x

NC Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 34.0 <1.0 14.8

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 32.6 <1.0 14.2

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

PA Alfalfa &

Clover

Aerial Max 16.1 <1.0 7

Aerial Typical N/A N/A N/A

Ground Max 14.5 <1.0 6.3

Ground Typical N/A N/A N/A

Exceedances are indicated in bold
Appendix I-i

Appendix I

List of Endangered and Threatened Species where

Endothall is Applied Terrestrially
Appendix I-ii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arizona

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 1

Empidonax traillii extimus

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS Endangered 1

Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum

RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER Endangered 2

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Fish

MINNOW, LOACH Threatened 1

Tiaroga cobitis

PUPFISH, DESERT Endangered 1

Cyprinodon macularius

SPIKEDACE Threatened 1

Meda fulgida

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 2

Xyrauchen texanus

TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI) Endangered 1

Poeciliopsis occidentalis

Mammal

BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-NOSED Endangered 2

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae

JAGUAR Endangered 1

Panthera onca

PRONGHORN, SONORAN Endangered 1

Antilocapra americana sonoriensis

Plant

CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG Endangered 1

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 1 of 12
Appendix I-iii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arizona

Plant

CACTUS, NICHOL'S TURK'S HEAD Endangered 1

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii

California

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, CALIFORNIA TIGER Endangered 2

Ambystoma californiense

TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN Endangered 1

Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)

Bird

CONDOR, CALIFORNIA Endangered 1

Gymnogyps californianus

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 4

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 1

Empidonax traillii extimus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 1

Strix occidentalis caurina

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER Endangered 1

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

VIREO, LEAST BELL'S Endangered 1

Vireo bellii pusillus

Crustacean

SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY Endangered 1

Branchinecta longiantenna

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY Threatened 1

Branchinecta lynchi

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE Endangered 1

Lepidurus packardi

Fish

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 2 of 12
Appendix I-iv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Fish

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 1

Gila elegans

PUPFISH, DESERT Endangered 1

Cyprinodon macularius

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Endangered 1

Ptychocheilus lucius

SUCKER, MODOC Endangered 1

Catostomus microps

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 1

Xyrauchen texanus

TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei

TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris

Insect

BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN Threatened 1

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

MOTH, KERN PRIMROSE SPHINX Threatened 1

Euproserpinus euterpe

SKIPPER, CARSON WANDERING Endangered 1

Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus

Mammal

FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT Endangered 2

Vulpes macrotis mutica

KANGAROO RAT, FRESNO Endangered 1

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis

KANGAROO RAT, GIANT Endangered 2

Dipodomys ingens

KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON Endangered 1

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides

SHREW, BUENA VISTA Endangered 1

Sorex ornatus relictus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 3 of 12
Appendix I-v

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN Endangered 1

Pseudobahia peirsonii

BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED Endangered 1

Cordylanthus palmatus

CACTUS, BAKERSFIELD Endangered 1

Opuntia treleasei

CHECKER-MALLOW, KECK'S Endangered 1

Sidalcea keckii

DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY Endangered 1

Dudleya setchellii

GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S Endangered 1

Pseudobahia bahiifolia

GRASS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ORCUTT Threatened 1

Orcuttia inaequalis

GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT Threatened 1

Orcuttia tenuis

JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA Endangered 2

Caulanthus californicus

MALLOW, KERN Endangered 1

Eremalche kernensis

MILK-VETCH, PIERSON'S Threatened 1

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii

OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY Endangered 1

Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta

PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA Threatened 1

Calyptridium pulchellum

WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN Endangered 2

Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii

Reptile

LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD Endangered 2

Gambelia silus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 4 of 12
Appendix I-vi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Reptile

SNAKE, GIANT GARTER Threatened 1

Thamnophis gigas

TORTOISE, DESERT Threatened 2

Gopherus agassizii

Colorado

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 1

Strix occidentalis lucida

Fish

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 1

Gila elegans

CHUB, HUMPBACK Endangered 1

Gila cypha

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Endangered 1

Ptychocheilus lucius

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 1

Xyrauchen texanus

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 2

Mustela nigripes

Plant

CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS Threatened 2

Sclerocactus glaucus

WILD-BUCKWHEAT, CLAY-LOVING Endangered 1

Eriogonum pelinophilum

Idaho

Bird

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 5 of 12
Appendix I-vii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Idaho

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 8

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

STURGEON, WHITE Endangered 1

Acipenser transmontanus

TROUT, BULL Threatened 5

Salvelinus confluentus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 1

Ursus arctos horribilis

CARIBOU, WOODLAND Endangered 1

Rangifer tarandus caribou

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 1

Canis lupus

Snail

SNAIL, BLISS RAPIDS Threatened 1

Taylorconcha serpenticola

SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA Endangered 2

Physa natricina

SPRINGSNAIL, BRUNEAU HOT Endangered 1

Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis

SPRINGSNAIL, IDAHO Endangered 1

Fontelicella idahoensis

Kansas

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 6

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Minnesota

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 6 of 12
Appendix I-viii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Minnesota

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Montana

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 9

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 2

Sterna antillarum

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 9

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 2

Ursus arctos horribilis

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 7

Mustela nigripes

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 1

Canis lupus

Nebraska

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Nevada

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 7 of 12
Appendix I-ix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Nevada

Fish

DACE, DESERT Threatened 1

Eremichthys acros

TROUT, BULL Threatened 1

Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

New Mexico

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO Endangered 1

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 1

Strix occidentalis lucida

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

Fish

GAMBUSIA, PECOS Endangered 1

Gambusia nobilis

SHINER, PECOS BLUNTNOSE Threatened 1

Notropis simus pecosensis

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 1

Mustela nigripes

Plant

CACTUS, LEE PINCUSHION Threatened 1

Coryphantha sneedii var. leei

WILD-BUCKWHEAT, GYPSUM Threatened 1

Eriogonum gypsophilum

North Dakota

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 8 of 12
Appendix I-x

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Dakota

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 1

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Oklahoma

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 2

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 3

Sterna antillarum

Oregon

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Threatened

1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING) Endangered

1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Endangered 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 9 of 12
Appendix I-xi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Oregon

Fish

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Endangered 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

TROUT, BULL Threatened 2

Salvelinus confluentus

South Dakota

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 10

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 12

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 4

Sterna antillarum

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 2

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 10

Mustela nigripes

Plant

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 2

Platanthera praeclara

Texas

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 1

Grus americana

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

Utah

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 10 of 12
Appendix I-xii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Utah

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

Plant

MILK-VETCH, HELIOTROPE Endangered 1

Astragalus montii

Washington

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 4

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Threatened

2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING) Endangered

3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Endangered 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Endangered 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

TROUT, BULL Threatened 2

Salvelinus confluentus

Mammal

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 11 of 12
Appendix I-xiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Alfalfa seed Crop # 2

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Washington

Mammal

RABBIT, PYGMY Endangered 2

Brachylagus idahoensis

Wyoming

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 1

Ursus arctos horribilis

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 3

Mustela nigripes

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 1

Canis lupus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 12 of 12
Appendix I-xiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, FLATWOODS Threatened 4

Ambystoma cingulatum

SALAMANDER, RED HILLS Threatened 4

Phaeognathus hubrichti

TREEFROG, PINE BARRENS E/T 1

Hyla andersonii

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 8

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 7

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 12

Picoides borealis

Clam

ACORNSHELL, SOUTHERN Endangered 2

Epioblasma othcaloogensis

CLUBSHELL, OVATE Endangered 7

Pleurobema perovatum

CLUBSHELL, SOUTHERN Endangered 8

Pleurobema decisum

COMBSHELL, CUMBERLAND Endangered 1

Epioblasma brevidens

COMBSHELL, SOUTHERN (=PENITENT MUSSEL) Endangered 1

Epioblasma penita

COMBSHELL, UPLAND Endangered 1

Epioblasma metastriata

HEELSPLITTER, INFLATED Threatened 3

Potamilus inflatus

KIDNEYSHELL, TRIANGULAR Endangered 4

Ptychobranchus greeni

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 1 of 38
Appendix I-xv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Clam

MOCCASINSHELL, ALABAMA Threatened 6

Medionidus acutissimus

MOCCASINSHELL, COOSA Endangered 2

Medionidus parvulus

MUCKET, ORANGE-NACRE Threatened 5

Lampsilis perovalis

MUSSEL, RING PINK (=GOLF STICK PEARLY) Endangered 1

Obovaria retusa

PEARLYMUSSEL, CRACKING Endangered 1

Hemistena lata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND MONKEYFACE Endangered 1

Quadrula intermedia

PEARLYMUSSEL, ORANGE-FOOTED Endangered 2

Plethobasus cooperianus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 6

Lampsilis abrupta

PEARLYMUSSEL, TURGID-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma turgidula

PEARLYMUSSEL, WHITE WARTYBACK Endangered 2

Plethobasus cicatricosus

PIGTOE, DARK Endangered 3

Pleurobema furvum

PIGTOE, FINE-RAYED Endangered 1

Fusconaia cuneolus

PIGTOE, HEAVY (=JUDGE TAIT'S MUSSEL) Endangered 4

Pleurobema taitianum

PIGTOE, ROUGH Endangered 6

Pleurobema plenum

PIGTOE, SHINY Endangered 1

Fusconaia cor

PIGTOE, SOUTHERN Endangered 2

Pleurobema georgianum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 2 of 38
Appendix I-xvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Clam

POCKETBOOK, FINE-LINED Threatened 12

Lampsilis altilis

POCKETBOOK, SHINY-RAYED Endangered 1

Lampsilis subangulata

STIRRUP SHELL Endangered 1

Quadrula stapes

Crustacean

SHRIMP, ALABAMA CAVE Endangered 1

Palaemonias alabamae

Fish

CAVEFISH, ALABAMA Endangered 1

Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni

CHUB, SPOTFIN Threatened 2

Cyprinella monacha

DARTER, BOULDER Endangered 1

Etheostoma wapiti

DARTER, GOLDLINE Threatened 1

Percina aurolineata

DARTER, SLACKWATER Threatened 3

Etheostoma boschungi

DARTER, SNAIL Threatened 1

Percina tanasi

SHINER, BLUE Endangered 1

Cyprinella caerulea

SHINER, CAHABA Endangered 2

Notropis cahabae

STURGEON, ALABAMA Endangered 3

Scaphirhynchus suttkusi

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 11

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Mammal

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 3 of 38
Appendix I-xvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 8

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 6

Myotis sodalis

MOUSE, ALABAMA BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates

MOUSE, PERDIDO KEY BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis

Plant

BARBARA'S BUTTONS, MOHR'S Endangered 2

Marshallia mohrii

BLADDERPOD, LYRATE Threatened 3

Lesquerella lyrata

FERN, AMERICAN HART'S-TONGUE Threatened 1

Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum

GRASS, TENNESSEE YELLOW-EYED Endangered 1

Xyris tennesseensis

HARPERELLA Endangered 2

Ptilimnium nodosum

LEATHER-FLOWER, ALABAMA Endangered 2

Clematis socialis

LEATHER-FLOWER, MOREFIELD'S Endangered 1

Clematis morefieldii

PITCHER-PLANT, ALABAMA CANEBRAKE Endangered 2

Sarracenia rubra alabamensis

PITCHER-PLANT, GREEN Endangered 2

Sarracenia oreophila

POTATO-BEAN, PRICE'S Threatened 2

Apios priceana

PRAIRIE-CLOVER, LEAFY Endangered 3

Dalea foliosa

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 4 of 38
Appendix I-xviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Plant

QUILLWORT, LOUISIANA Endangered 1

Isoetes louisianensis

SUNFLOWER, EGGERT'S Threatened 1

Helianthus eggertii

TRILLIUM, RELICT Endangered 3

Trillium reliquum

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 7

Drymarchon corais couperi

TORTOISE, GOPHER Threatened 1

Gopherus polyphemus

TURTLE, ALABAMA RED-BELLIED Endangered 2

Pseudemys alabamensis

TURTLE, FLATTENED MUSK Threatened 3

Sternotherus depressus

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 2

Caretta caretta

Snail

CAMPELOMA, SLENDER Endangered 1

Campeloma decampi

ELIMIA, LACY Threatened 1

Elimia crenatella

LIOPLAX, CYLINDRICAL Endangered 1

Lioplax cyclostomaformis

PEBBLESNAIL, FLAT Endangered 1

Lepyrium showalteri

RIVERSNAIL, ANTHONY'S Endangered 1

Athearnia anthonyi

ROCKSNAIL, PAINTED Threatened 2

Leptoxis taeniata

ROCKSNAIL, PLICATE Endangered 1

Leptoxis plicata

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 5 of 38
Appendix I-xix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Snail

ROCKSNAIL, ROUND Threatened 1

Leptoxis ampla

SNAIL, ARMORED Endangered 1

Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta

SNAIL, TULOTOMA Endangered 3

Tulotoma magnifica

Arizona

Amphibian

FROG, CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD Threatened 4

Rana chiricahuensis

SALAMANDER, SONORA TIGER Endangered 1

Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi

Bird

BOBWHITE, MASKED Endangered 1

Colinus virginianus ridgwayi

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 9

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO Endangered 1

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 3

Empidonax traillii extimus

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 6

Strix occidentalis lucida

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS Endangered 5

Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum

RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER Endangered 5

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Fish

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 6 of 38
Appendix I-xx

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arizona

Fish

CATFISH, YAQUI Threatened 1

Ictalurus pricei

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 2

Gila elegans

CHUB, HUMPBACK Endangered 1

Gila cypha

CHUB, VIRGIN RIVER Endangered 1

Gila seminuda (=robusta)

CHUB, YAQUI Endangered 1

Gila purpurea

MINNOW, LOACH Threatened 3

Tiaroga cobitis

PUPFISH, DESERT Endangered 6

Cyprinodon macularius

SHINER, BEAUTIFUL Threatened 1

Cyprinella formosa

SPIKEDACE Threatened 3

Meda fulgida

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 6

Xyrauchen texanus

TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI) Endangered 5

Poeciliopsis occidentalis

TROUT, APACHE Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus apache

Mammal

BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-NOSED Endangered 6

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae

JAGUAR Endangered 5

Panthera onca

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Endangered 2

Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 7 of 38
Appendix I-xxi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arizona

Mammal

OCELOT Endangered 2

Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis

PRONGHORN, SONORAN Endangered 3

Antilocapra americana sonoriensis

SQUIRREL, MOUNT GRAHAM RED Endangered 1

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis

VOLE, HUALAPAI MEXICAN Endangered 1

Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 1

Canis lupus

Plant

AGAVE, ARIZONA Endangered 1

Agave arizonica

BLUE-STAR, KEARNEY'S Endangered 1

Amsonia kearneyana

CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG Endangered 2

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus

CACTUS, COCHISE PINCUSHION Threatened 1

Coryphantha robbinsorum

CACTUS, NICHOL'S TURK'S HEAD Endangered 2

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii

CACTUS, PIMA PINEAPPLE Endangered 1

Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina

CACTUS, SILER PINCUSHION Threatened 1

Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri

CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA Endangered 3

Purshia (=cowania) subintegra

CYCLADENIA, JONES Threatened 1

Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis)

MILK-VETCH, HOLMGREN Endangered 1

Astragalus holmgreniorum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 8 of 38
Appendix I-xxii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arizona

Plant

UMBEL, HUACHUCA WATER Endangered 2

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva

Reptile

RATTLESNAKE, NEW MEXICAN RIDGE-NOSED Threatened 1

Crotalus willardi obscurus

TORTOISE, DESERT Threatened 1

Gopherus agassizii

Snail

AMBERSNAIL, KANAB Endangered 1

Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis

Arkansas

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 16

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 12

Sterna antillarum

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 5

Picoides borealis

Clam

MUSSEL, SCALESHELL Endangered 3

Leptodea leptodon

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 7

Lampsilis abrupta

POCKETBOOK, FAT Endangered 12

Potamilus capax

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 6

Scaphirhynchus albus

Plant

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 9 of 38
Appendix I-xxiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arkansas

Plant

GEOCARPON MINIMUM Endangered 1

Geocarpon minimum

PONDBERRY Endangered 3

Lindera melissifolia

California

Amphibian

FROG, MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED Endangered 2

Rana muscosa

SALAMANDER, CALIFORNIA TIGER Endangered 8

Ambystoma californiense

SALAMANDER, DESERT SLENDER Endangered 1

Batrachoseps aridus

TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN Endangered 3

Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)

Bird

CONDOR, CALIFORNIA Endangered 2

Gymnogyps californianus

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 11

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 3

Empidonax traillii extimus

GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA Threatened 2

Polioptila californica californica

MURRELET, MARBLED Threatened 1

Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 2

Strix occidentalis caurina

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 2

Pelecanus occidentalis

RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER Endangered 3

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 10 of 38
Appendix I-xxiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Bird

VIREO, LEAST BELL'S Endangered 3

Vireo bellii pusillus

Crustacean

SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY Endangered 2

Branchinecta conservatio

SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY Endangered 1

Branchinecta longiantenna

SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY Endangered 1

Streptocephalus woottoni

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY Threatened 6

Branchinecta lynchi

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE Endangered 8

Lepidurus packardi

Fish

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 3

Gila elegans

CHUB, MOHAVE TUI Endangered 1

Gila bicolor mohavensis

PUPFISH, DESERT Endangered 3

Cyprinodon macularius

SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VALLEY SPRING RUN) Threatened 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO RIVER WINTER Endangered 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/NORTHERN CA Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SMELT, DELTA Threatened 1

Hypomesus transpacificus

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Endangered 3

Ptychocheilus lucius

STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY POP Threatened 4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 11 of 38
Appendix I-xxv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Fish

STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED THREESPINE Endangered 1

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 3

Xyrauchen texanus

SUCKER, SANTA ANA Threatened 2

Catostomus santaanae

TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei

TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris

Insect

BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN Threatened 6

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

BUTTERFLY, QUINO CHECKERSPOT Endangered 1

Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti)

FLY, DELHI SANDS FLOWER-LOVING Endangered 2

Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis

MOTH, KERN PRIMROSE SPHINX Threatened 1

Euproserpinus euterpe

Mammal

FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT Endangered 6

Vulpes macrotis mutica

KANGAROO RAT, FRESNO Endangered 4

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis

KANGAROO RAT, GIANT Endangered 5

Dipodomys ingens

KANGAROO RAT, SAN BERNARDINO Endangered 2

Dipodomys merriami parvus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 12 of 38
Appendix I-xxvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Mammal

KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS' Threatened 2

Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus)

KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON Endangered 3

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides

SHEEP, PENINSULAR BIGHORN Threatened 1

Ovis canadensis

SHREW, BUENA VISTA Endangered 1

Sorex ornatus relictus

VOLE, AMARGOSA Endangered 1

Microtus californicus scirpensis

Plant

ADOBE SUNBURST, SAN JOAQUIN Endangered 2

Pseudobahia peirsonii

AMBROSIA, SAN DIEGO Endangered 1

Ambrosia pumila

BARBERRY, NEVIN'S Endangered 1

Berberis nevinii

BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED Endangered 4

Cordylanthus palmatus

BLADDERPOD, SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS Endangered 1

Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina

BLUECURLS, HIDDEN LAKE Threatened 1

Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum

BLUEGRASS, SAN BERNARDINO Endangered 1

Poa atropurpurea

BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED Threatened 2

Brodiaea filifolia

BUCKWHEAT, CUSHENBURY Endangered 1

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum

BUCKWHEAT, SOUTHERN MOUNTAIN WILD Threatened 1

Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 13 of 38
Appendix I-xxvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

BUTTON-CELERY, SAN DIEGO Endangered 1

Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii

CACTUS, BAKERSFIELD Endangered 1

Opuntia treleasei

CEANOTHUS, VAIL LAKE Threatened 1

Ceanothus ophiochilus

CHECKER-MALLOW, KECK'S Endangered 2

Sidalcea keckii

CHECKER-MALLOW, PEDATE Endangered 1

Sidalcea pedata

CLARKIA, SPRINGVILLE Threatened 1

Clarkia springvillensis

CROWNSCALE, SAN JACINTO VALLEY Endangered 1

Atriplex coronata var. notatior

DAISY, PARISH'S Threatened 2

Erigeron parishii

DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY Endangered 1

Dudleya setchellii

GOLDEN SUNBURST, HARTWEG'S Endangered 2

Pseudobahia bahiifolia

GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT Endangered 1

Orcuttia californica

GRASS, COLUSA Threatened 2

Neostapfia colusana

GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT Endangered 3

Orcuttia pilosa

GRASS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ORCUTT Threatened 4

Orcuttia inaequalis

GRASS, SOLANO Endangered 1

Tuctoria mucronata

JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA Endangered 4

Caulanthus californicus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 14 of 38
Appendix I-xxviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

LUPINE, CLOVER Endangered 1

Lupinus tidestromii

MALLOW, KERN Endangered 1

Eremalche kernensis

MILK-VETCH, COACHELLA VALLEY Endangered 1

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae

MILK-VETCH, CUSHENBURY Endangered 1

Astragalus albens

MILK-VETCH, LANE MOUNTAIN Endangered 1

Astragalus jaegerianus

MILK-VETCH, PIERSON'S Threatened 1

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii

MILK-VETCH, TRIPLE-RIBBED Endangered 2

Astragalus tricarinatus

MINT, OTAY MESA Endangered 1

Pogogyne nudiuscula

MUSTARD, SLENDER-PETALED Endangered 1

Thelypodium stenopetalum

NAVARRETIA, SPREADING Threatened 1

Navarretia fossalis

ONION, MUNZ'S Endangered 1

Allium munzii

OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY Endangered 3

Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta

OXYTHECA, CUSHENBURY Endangered 1

Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana

PAINTBRUSH, ASH-GREY INDIAN Threatened 1

Castilleja cinerea

PUSSYPAWS, MARIPOSA Threatened 2

Calyptridium pulchellum

SANDWORT, BEAR VALLEY Threatened 1

Arenaria ursina

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 15 of 38
Appendix I-xxix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER-HORNED Endangered 2

Dodecahema leptoceras

SPURGE, HOOVER'S Threatened 3

Chamaesyce hooveri

TARAXACUM, CALIFORNIA Endangered 1

Taraxacum californicum

TUCTORIA, GREEN'S Endangered 3

Tuctoria greenei

WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S Endangered 1

Rorippa gambellii

WOOLLY-STAR, SANTA ANA RIVER Endangered 2

Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum

WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN Endangered 4

Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii

Reptile

LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD Endangered 6

Gambelia silus

LIZARD, COACHELLA VALLEY FRINGE-TOED Threatened 1

Uma inornata

SNAKE, GIANT GARTER Threatened 5

Thamnophis gigas

TORTOISE, DESERT Threatened 4

Gopherus agassizii

Florida

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, FLATWOODS Threatened 7

Ambystoma cingulatum

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 16 of 38
Appendix I-xxx

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Florida

Bird

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 4

Charadrius melodus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 13

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 11

Picoides borealis

Clam

BANKCLIMBER, PURPLE Threatened 2

Elliptoideus sloatianus

MOCCASINSHELL, GULF Endangered 2

Medionidus penicillatus

PIGTOE, OVAL Endangered 2

Pleurobema pyriforme

POCKETBOOK, SHINY-RAYED Endangered 2

Lampsilis subangulata

SLABSHELL, CHIPOLA Threatened 2

Elliptio chipolaensis

THREERIDGE, FAT Endangered 1

Amblema neislerii

Crustacean

SHRIMP, SQUIRREL CHIMNEY CAVE Threatened 1

Palaemonetes cummingi

Fish

DARTER, OKALOOSA Endangered 2

Etheostoma okaloosae

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 12

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 1

Myotis grisescens

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 17 of 38
Appendix I-xxxi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Florida

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 1

Myotis sodalis

MOUSE, CHOCTAWHATCHEE BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus allophrys

MOUSE, PERDIDO KEY BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

CLADONIA, FLORIDA PERFORATE Endangered 1

Cladonia perforata

GOOSEBERRY, MICCOSUKEE (FLORIDA) Threatened 1

Ribes echinellum

MEADOWRUE, COOLEY'S Endangered 1

Thalictrum cooleyi

PINKROOT, GENTIAN Endangered 2

Spigelia gentianoides

TORREYA, FLORIDA Endangered 1

Torreya taxifolia

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 13

Drymarchon corais couperi

TURTLE, GREEN SEA Endangered 4

Chelonia mydas

TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA Endangered 4

Dermochelys coriacea

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 4

Caretta caretta

Georgia

Amphibian

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 18 of 38
Appendix I-xxxii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Georgia

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, FLATWOODS Threatened 3

Ambystoma cingulatum

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 78

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 73

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 79

Picoides borealis

Clam

BANKCLIMBER, PURPLE Threatened 10

Elliptoideus sloatianus

CLUBSHELL, OVATE Endangered 2

Pleurobema perovatum

CLUBSHELL, SOUTHERN Endangered 1

Pleurobema decisum

COMBSHELL, UPLAND Endangered 2

Epioblasma metastriata

KIDNEYSHELL, TRIANGULAR Endangered 2

Ptychobranchus greeni

MOCCASINSHELL, ALABAMA Threatened 2

Medionidus acutissimus

MOCCASINSHELL, COOSA Endangered 1

Medionidus parvulus

MOCCASINSHELL, GULF Endangered 13

Medionidus penicillatus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 1

Lampsilis abrupta

PIGTOE, OVAL Endangered 12

Pleurobema pyriforme

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 19 of 38
Appendix I-xxxiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Georgia

Clam

PIGTOE, SOUTHERN Endangered 1

Pleurobema georgianum

POCKETBOOK, FINE-LINED Threatened 1

Lampsilis altilis

POCKETBOOK, SHINY-RAYED Endangered 15

Lampsilis subangulata

THREERIDGE, FAT Endangered 3

Amblema neislerii

Fish

DARTER, CHEROKEE Threatened 1

Etheostoma scotti

DARTER, ETOWAH Endangered 1

Etheostoma etowahae

SHINER, BLUE Endangered 1

Cyprinella caerulea

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 2

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 13

Acipenser brevirostrum

Insect

BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Endangered 1

Nicrophorus americanus

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 3

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 20

Myotis sodalis

MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA) Endangered 1

Trichechus manatus

Plant

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 20 of 38
Appendix I-xxxiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Georgia

Plant

AMPHIANTHUS, LITTLE Threatened 2

Amphianthus pusillus

BARBARA'S BUTTONS, MOHR'S Endangered 1

Marshallia mohrii

CAMPION, FRINGED Endangered 4

Silene polypetala

DROPWORT, CANBY'S Endangered 6

Oxypolis canbyi

GRASS, TENNESSEE YELLOW-EYED Endangered 1

Xyris tennesseensis

PITCHER-PLANT, GREEN Endangered 1

Sarracenia oreophila

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 3

Isotria medeoloides

PONDBERRY Endangered 1

Lindera melissifolia

QUILLWORT, BLACK-SPORED Endangered 1

Isoetes melanospora

RATTLEWEED, HAIRY Endangered 1

Baptisia arachnifera

SKULLCAP, LARGE-FLOWERED Threatened 1

Scutellaria montana

SUMAC, MICHAUX'S Endangered 1

Rhus michauxii

TORREYA, FLORIDA Endangered 1

Torreya taxifolia

TRILLIUM, RELICT Endangered 6

Trillium reliquum

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 68

Drymarchon corais couperi

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 21 of 38
Appendix I-xxxv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Georgia

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 1

Caretta caretta

Kansas

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 4

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 5

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 2

Sterna antillarum

Fish

SHINER, ARKANSAS RIVER Threatened 2

Notropis girardi

SHINER, TOPEKA Endangered 1

Notropis topeka (=tristis)

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 1

Scaphirhynchus albus

Plant

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 1

Platanthera praeclara

Louisiana

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum browni

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 22 of 38
Appendix I-xxxvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Louisiana

Bird

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 8

Picoides borealis

Clam

PEARLSHELL, LOUISIANA Threatened 2

Margaritifera hembeli

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 20

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

BEAR, AMERICAN BLACK Threatened 1

Ursus americanus

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened 9

Ursus americanus luteolus

Mississippi

Bird

CRANE, MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL Endangered 1

Grus canadensis pulla

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 14

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 6

Sterna antillarum

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 8

Picoides borealis

Clam

CLUBSHELL, BLACK (=CURTUS' MUSSEL) Endangered 2

Pleurobema curtum

COMBSHELL, SOUTHERN (=PENITENT MUSSEL) Endangered 3

Epioblasma penita

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 23 of 38
Appendix I-xxxvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Mississippi

Clam

PIGTOE, HEAVY (=JUDGE TAIT'S MUSSEL) Endangered 3

Pleurobema taitianum

Fish

DARTER, BAYOU Threatened 3

Etheostoma rubrum

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 6

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 8

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened 23

Ursus americanus luteolus

Plant

PONDBERRY Endangered 3

Lindera melissifolia

POTATO-BEAN, PRICE'S Threatened 3

Apios priceana

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 2

Drymarchon corais couperi

TORTOISE, GOPHER Threatened 3

Gopherus polyphemus

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 1

Caretta caretta

TURTLE, RINGED SAWBACK Threatened 6

Graptemys oculifera

TURTLE, YELLOW-BLOTCHED MAP Threatened 3

Graptemys flavimaculata

Missouri

Bird

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 24 of 38
Appendix I-xxxviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Missouri

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 3

Sterna antillarum

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, CURTIS' Endangered 1

Epioblasma florentina curtisii

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 1

Lampsilis abrupta

POCKETBOOK, FAT Endangered 1

Potamilus capax

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 3

Scaphirhynchus albus

Insect

BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Endangered 1

Nicrophorus americanus

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 1

Myotis grisescens

Plant

ASTER, DECURRENT FALSE Threatened 2

Boltonia decurrens

BLADDERPOD, MISSOURI Endangered 1

Lesquerella filiformis

CLOVER, RUNNING BUFFALO Endangered 2

Trifolium stoloniferum

GEOCARPON MINIMUM Endangered 1

Geocarpon minimum

MILKWEED, MEAD'S Threatened 1

Asclepias meadii

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 25 of 38
Appendix I-xxxix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Missouri

Plant

PONDBERRY Endangered 1

Lindera melissifolia

New Mexico

Amphibian

FROG, CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD Threatened 2

Rana chiricahuensis

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 9

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO Endangered 6

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 1

Empidonax traillii extimus

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 4

Strix occidentalis lucida

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 3

Sterna antillarum

Fish

GAMBUSIA, PECOS Endangered 2

Gambusia nobilis

SHINER, BEAUTIFUL Threatened 1

Cyprinella formosa

SHINER, PECOS BLUNTNOSE Threatened 2

Notropis simus pecosensis

SPIKEDACE Threatened 1

Meda fulgida

Mammal

BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-NOSED Endangered 1

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae

BAT, MEXICAN LONG-NOSED Endangered 1

Leptonycteris nivalis

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 26 of 38
Appendix I-xl

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

New Mexico

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 9

Mustela nigripes

JAGUAR Endangered 1

Panthera onca

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 2

Canis lupus

Plant

CACTUS, KUENZLER HEDGEHOG Endangered 1

Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri

CACTUS, LEE PINCUSHION Threatened 1

Coryphantha sneedii var. leei

CACTUS, SNEED PINCUSHION Endangered 1

Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii

SUNFLOWER, PECOS Threatened 1

Helianthus paradoxus

WILD-BUCKWHEAT, GYPSUM Threatened 1

Eriogonum gypsophilum

Reptile

RATTLESNAKE, NEW MEXICAN RIDGE-NOSED Threatened 1

Crotalus willardi obscurus

North Carolina

Bird

CAHOW Endangered 1

Pterodroma cahow

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 8

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 4

Charadrius melodus

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 38

Picoides borealis

Clam

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 27 of 38
Appendix I-xli

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Carolina

Clam

HEELSPLITTER, CAROLINA Endangered 1

Lasmigona decorata

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 6

Alasmidonta heterodon

SPINYMUSSEL, TAR RIVER Endangered 5

Elliptio steinstansana

Fish

SHINER, CAPE FEAR Endangered 3

Notropis mekistocholas

SILVERSIDE, WACCAMAW Threatened 1

Menidia extensa

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 14

Acipenser brevirostrum

Insect

BUTTERFLY, SAINT FRANCIS' SATYR Endangered 2

Neonympha mitchellii francisci

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 2

Myotis sodalis

SQUIRREL, CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered 1

Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

WOLF, RED Endangered 8

Canis rufus

Plant

AMARANTH, SEABEACH Threatened 2

Amaranthus pumilus

CHAFFSEED, AMERICAN Endangered 1

Schwalbea americana

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 28 of 38
Appendix I-xlii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Carolina

Plant

CONEFLOWER, SMOOTH Endangered 1

Echinacea laevigata

DROPWORT, CANBY'S Endangered 1

Oxypolis canbyi

HARPERELLA Endangered 1

Ptilimnium nodosum

HEARTLEAF, DWARF-FLOWERED Threatened 2

Hexastylis naniflora

HEATHER, MOUNTAIN GOLDEN Threatened 1

Hudsonia montana

IRISETTE, WHITE Endangered 1

Sisyrinchium dichotomum

JOINT-VETCH, SENSITIVE Threatened 3

Aeschynomene virginica

LICHEN, ROCK GNOME Endangered 1

Gymnoderma lineare

LOOSESTRIFE, ROUGH-LEAVED Endangered 8

Lysimachia asperulaefolia

MEADOWRUE, COOLEY'S Endangered 1

Thalictrum cooleyi

PONDBERRY Endangered 3

Lindera melissifolia

SEDGE, GOLDEN Endangered 1

Carex lutea

SPIRAEA, VIRGINIA Threatened 1

Spiraea virginiana

SUMAC, MICHAUX'S Endangered 5

Rhus michauxii

SUNFLOWER, SCHWEINITZ'S Endangered 2

Helianthus schweinitzii

Reptile

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 29 of 38
Appendix I-xliii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Carolina

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 13

Caretta caretta

Oklahoma

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 19

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 14

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 12

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 15

Sterna antillarum

VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED Endangered 4

Vireo atricapilla

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 1

Picoides borealis

Fish

SHINER, ARKANSAS RIVER Threatened 7

Notropis girardi

Insect

BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Endangered 1

Nicrophorus americanus

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 1

Myotis sodalis

South Carolina

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, FLATWOODS Threatened 1

Ambystoma cingulatum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 30 of 38
Appendix I-xliv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

South Carolina

Amphibian

TREEFROG, PINE BARRENS E/T 1

Hyla andersonii

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 11

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 11

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 23

Picoides borealis

Clam

HEELSPLITTER, CAROLINA Endangered 2

Lasmigona decorata

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 12

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

AMARANTH, SEABEACH Threatened 2

Amaranthus pumilus

AMPHIANTHUS, LITTLE Threatened 2

Amphianthus pusillus

CHAFFSEED, AMERICAN Endangered 7

Schwalbea americana

CONEFLOWER, SMOOTH Endangered 4

Echinacea laevigata

DROPWORT, CANBY'S Endangered 10

Oxypolis canbyi

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 31 of 38
Appendix I-xlv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

South Carolina

Plant

HARPERELLA Endangered 2

Ptilimnium nodosum

LOOSESTRIFE, ROUGH-LEAVED Endangered 4

Lysimachia asperulaefolia

PONDBERRY Endangered 4

Lindera melissifolia

SUNFLOWER, SCHWEINITZ'S Endangered 3

Helianthus schweinitzii

TRILLIUM, RELICT Endangered 2

Trillium reliquum

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 1

Drymarchon corais couperi

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 3

Caretta caretta

Tennessee

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 5

Sterna antillarum

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, ALABAMA LAMP Endangered 1

Lampsilis virescens

PEARLYMUSSEL, BIRDWING Endangered 1

Conradilla caelata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CRACKING Endangered 1

Hemistena lata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND MONKEYFACE Endangered 2

Quadrula intermedia

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 32 of 38
Appendix I-xlvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Tennessee

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, PALE LILLIPUT Endangered 1

Toxolasma cylindrellus

PIGTOE, FINE-RAYED Endangered 1

Fusconaia cuneolus

PIGTOE, SHINY Endangered 2

Fusconaia cor

RIFFLESHELL, TAN Endangered 1

Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)

Fish

DARTER, BOULDER Endangered 1

Etheostoma wapiti

DARTER, SNAIL Threatened 1

Percina tanasi

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 5

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 3

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 18

Myotis sodalis

Plant

CONEFLOWER, TENNESSEE PURPLE Endangered 1

Echinacea tennesseensis

GROUND-PLUM, GUTHRIE'S Endangered 1

Astragalus bibullatus

PRAIRIE-CLOVER, LEAFY Endangered 1

Dalea foliosa

ROCK-CRESS, LARGE (=BRAUN'S) Endangered 1

Arabis perstellata

Snail

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 33 of 38
Appendix I-xlvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Tennessee

Snail

SNAIL, PAINTED SNAKE COILED FOREST Threatened 1

Anguispira picta

Texas

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, BARTON SPRINGS Endangered 1

Eurycea sosorum

SALAMANDER, SAN MARCOS Threatened 1

Eurycea nana

SALAMANDER, TEXAS BLIND Endangered 1

Typhlomolge rathbuni

TOAD, HOUSTON Endangered 7

Bufo houstonensis

Arachnid

HARVESTMAN, BEE CREEK CAVE Endangered 2

Texella reddelli

HARVESTMAN, BONE CAVE Endangered 2

Texella reyesi

PSEUDOSCORPION, TOOTH CAVE Endangered 1

Tartarocreagris texana

SPIDER, TOOTH CAVE Endangered 1

Neoleptoneta myopica

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 50

Grus americana

CURLEW, ESKIMO Endangered 2

Numenius borealis

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 33

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO Endangered 14

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 34 of 38
Appendix I-xlviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Texas

Bird

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 12

Pelecanus occidentalis

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 11

Charadrius melodus

PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S GREATER Endangered 3

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 15

Sterna antillarum

VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED Endangered 17

Vireo atricapilla

WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-CHEEKED Endangered 9

Dendroica chrysoparia

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 3

Picoides borealis

Crustacean

AMPHIPOD, PECK'S CAVE Endangered 1

Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki

Fish

DARTER, FOUNTAIN Endangered 2

Etheostoma fonticola

GAMBUSIA, PECOS Endangered 2

Gambusia nobilis

GAMBUSIA, SAN MARCOS Endangered 1

Gambusia georgei

PUPFISH, COMANCHE SPRINGS Endangered 1

Cyprinodon elegans

PUPFISH, LEON SPRINGS Endangered 1

Cyprinodon bovinus

Insect

BEETLE, COFFIN CAVE MOLD Endangered 1

Batrisodes texanus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 35 of 38
Appendix I-xlix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Texas

Insect

BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS DRYOPID Endangered 1

Stygoparnus comalensis

BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS RIFFLE Endangered 1

Heterelmis comalensis

BEETLE, KRETSCHMARR CAVE MOLD Endangered 1

Texamaurops reddelli

BEETLE, TOOTH CAVE GROUND Endangered 2

Rhadine persephone

Mammal

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened 5

Ursus americanus luteolus

JAGUARUNDI, Gulf Coast Endangered 9

Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitli

OCELOT Endangered 10

Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis

Plant

AMBROSIA, SOUTH TEXAS Endangered 3

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia

AYENIA, TEXAS Endangered 3

Ayenia limitaris

BLADDERPOD, ZAPATA Endangered 1

Lesquerella thamnophila

CACTUS, BLACK LACE Endangered 4

Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii

CACTUS, SNEED PINCUSHION Endangered 3

Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii

CACTUS, STAR Endangered 1

Astrophytum asterias

CACTUS, TOBUSCH FISHHOOK Endangered 1

Ancistrocactus tobuschii

DAWN-FLOWER, TEXAS PRAIRIE (=TEXAS Endangered 1

Hymenoxys texana

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 36 of 38
Appendix I-l

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Texas

Plant

DOGWEED, ASHY Endangered 1

Thymophylla tephroleuca

LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA Endangered 3

Spiranthes parksii

MANIOC, WALKER'S Endangered 2

Manihot walkerae

POPPY-MALLOW, TEXAS Endangered 3

Callirhoe scabriuscula

RUSH-PEA, SLENDER Endangered 2

Hoffmannseggia tenella

SAND-VERBENA, LARGE-FRUITED Endangered 1

Abronia macrocarpa

SNOWBELLS, TEXAS Endangered 1

Styrax texanus

SUNFLOWER, PECOS Threatened 2

Helianthus paradoxus

WILD-RICE, TEXAS Endangered 1

Zizania texana

Reptile

SNAKE, CONCHO WATER Threatened 6

Nerodia paucimaculata

TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY SEA Endangered 6

Lepidochelys kempii

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 8

Caretta caretta

Virginia

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 8

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 37 of 38
Appendix I-li

Species Listing by State for Crop

Cotton Crop # 43

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Virginia

Bird

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 2

Picoides borealis

Fish

LOGPERCH, ROANOKE Endangered 4

Percina rex

Insect

BEETLE, NORTHEASTERN BEACH TIGER Threatened 3

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis

Mammal

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered 2

Sciurus niger cinereus

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

JOINT-VETCH, SENSITIVE Threatened 3

Aeschynomene virginica

SUMAC, MICHAUX'S Endangered 1

Rhus michauxii

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 3

Caretta caretta

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 38 of 38
Appendix I-lii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Hops Crop # 91

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Oregon

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 1

Strix occidentalis caurina

Fish

CHUB, OREGON Endangered 1

Oregonichthys crameri

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER) Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER POPULATION Threatened

1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

Plant

CHECKER-MALLOW, NELSON'S Threatened 1

Sidalcea nelsoniana

DAISY, WILLAMETTE Endangered 1

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S Endangered 1

Lomatium bradshawii

Washington

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 1

Strix occidentalis caurina

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Threatened

1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 1 of 2
Appendix I-liii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Hops Crop # 91

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Washington

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING) Endangered

2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Endangered 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Endangered 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

TROUT, BULL Threatened 2

Salvelinus confluentus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 1

Ursus arctos horribilis

RABBIT, PYGMY Endangered 1

Brachylagus idahoensis

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 1

Canis lupus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 2 of 2
Appendix I-liv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, FLATWOODS Threatened 2

Ambystoma cingulatum

SALAMANDER, RED HILLS Threatened 1

Phaeognathus hubrichti

TREEFROG, PINE BARRENS E/T 1

Hyla andersonii

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 2

Picoides borealis

Clam

CLUBSHELL, OVATE Endangered 2

Pleurobema perovatum

HEELSPLITTER, INFLATED Threatened 1

Potamilus inflatus

KIDNEYSHELL, TRIANGULAR Endangered 2

Ptychobranchus greeni

MUSSEL, RING PINK (=GOLF STICK PEARLY) Endangered 1

Obovaria retusa

PEARLYMUSSEL, ALABAMA LAMP Endangered 1

Lampsilis virescens

PEARLYMUSSEL, CRACKING Endangered 1

Hemistena lata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND MONKEYFACE Endangered 1

Quadrula intermedia

PEARLYMUSSEL, PALE LILLIPUT Endangered 1

Toxolasma cylindrellus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 3

Lampsilis abrupta

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 1 of 65
Appendix I-lv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, TURGID-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma turgidula

PEARLYMUSSEL, WHITE WARTYBACK Endangered 1

Plethobasus cicatricosus

PIGTOE, FINE-RAYED Endangered 1

Fusconaia cuneolus

PIGTOE, HEAVY (=JUDGE TAIT'S MUSSEL) Endangered 1

Pleurobema taitianum

PIGTOE, ROUGH Endangered 2

Pleurobema plenum

PIGTOE, SHINY Endangered 1

Fusconaia cor

POCKETBOOK, FINE-LINED Threatened 3

Lampsilis altilis

Fish

CAVEFISH, ALABAMA Endangered 1

Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni

CHUB, SPOTFIN Threatened 1

Cyprinella monacha

DARTER, BOULDER Endangered 1

Etheostoma wapiti

DARTER, SLACKWATER Threatened 2

Etheostoma boschungi

SHINER, BLUE Endangered 1

Cyprinella caerulea

SHINER, PALEZONE Endangered 1

Notropis albizonatus

STURGEON, ALABAMA Endangered 1

Scaphirhynchus suttkusi

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 4

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Mammal

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 2 of 65
Appendix I-lvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 4

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 3

Myotis sodalis

MOUSE, ALABAMA BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates

MOUSE, PERDIDO KEY BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis

Plant

FERN, AMERICAN HART'S-TONGUE Threatened 1

Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum

HARPERELLA Endangered 4

Ptilimnium nodosum

PITCHER-PLANT, GREEN Endangered 2

Sarracenia oreophila

QUILLWORT, LOUISIANA Endangered 1

Isoetes louisianensis

WATER-PLANTAIN, KRAL'S Threatened 1

Sagittaria secundifolia

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 3

Drymarchon corais couperi

TORTOISE, GOPHER Threatened 1

Gopherus polyphemus

TURTLE, ALABAMA RED-BELLIED Endangered 2

Pseudemys alabamensis

TURTLE, FLATTENED MUSK Threatened 2

Sternotherus depressus

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 2

Caretta caretta

Snail

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 3 of 65
Appendix I-lvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Alabama

Snail

CAMPELOMA, SLENDER Endangered 1

Campeloma decampi

RIVERSNAIL, ANTHONY'S Endangered 2

Athearnia anthonyi

SNAIL, ARMORED Endangered 1

Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta

Arizona

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 1

Empidonax traillii extimus

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 1

Strix occidentalis lucida

PYGMY-OWL, CACTUS FERRUGINOUS Endangered 2

Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum

RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER Endangered 2

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

Fish

MINNOW, LOACH Threatened 1

Tiaroga cobitis

PUPFISH, DESERT Endangered 2

Cyprinodon macularius

SPIKEDACE Threatened 1

Meda fulgida

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 1

Xyrauchen texanus

TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI) Endangered 2

Poeciliopsis occidentalis

Mammal

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 4 of 65
Appendix I-lviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arizona

Mammal

BAT, LESSER (=SANBORN'S) LONG-NOSED Endangered 2

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae

JAGUAR Endangered 1

Panthera onca

PRONGHORN, SONORAN Endangered 1

Antilocapra americana sonoriensis

Plant

AGAVE, ARIZONA Endangered 1

Agave arizonica

CACTUS, ARIZONA HEDGEHOG Endangered 2

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus

CACTUS, NICHOL'S TURK'S HEAD Endangered 1

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii

CLIFFROSE, ARIZONA Endangered 1

Purshia (=cowania) subintegra

Arkansas

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 1

Picoides borealis

Clam

FATMUCKET, ARKANSAS Threatened 1

Lampsilis powelli

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 1

Myotis grisescens

BAT, OZARK BIG-EARED Endangered 1

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingens

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 5 of 65
Appendix I-lix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Arkansas

Plant

BLADDERPOD, MISSOURI Endangered 1

Lesquerella filiformis

California

Amphibian

FROG, CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED Threatened 2

Rana aurora draytonii

SALAMANDER, CALIFORNIA TIGER Endangered 9

Ambystoma californiense

SALAMANDER, SANTA CRUZ LONG-TOED Endangered 1

Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum

TOAD, ARROYO SOUTHWESTERN Endangered 2

Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)

Bird

CONDOR, CALIFORNIA Endangered 2

Gymnogyps californianus

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 17

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FLYCATCHER, SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW Endangered 2

Empidonax traillii extimus

GNATCATCHER, COASTAL CALIFORNIA Threatened 1

Polioptila californica californica

MURRELET, MARBLED Threatened 8

Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 5

Strix occidentalis caurina

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 9

Pelecanus occidentalis

PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY Threatened 8

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

RAIL, CALIFORNIA CLAPPER Endangered 5

Rallus longirostris obsoletus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 6 of 65
Appendix I-lx

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Bird

RAIL, LIGHT-FOOTED CLAPPER Endangered 1

Rallus longirostris levipes

RAIL, YUMA CLAPPER Endangered 1

Rallus longirostris yumanensis

TERN, CALIFORNIA LEAST Endangered 4

Sterna antillarum browni

VIREO, LEAST BELL'S Endangered 3

Vireo bellii pusillus

Crustacean

SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER Endangered 2

Syncaris pacifica

SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY Endangered 1

Branchinecta conservatio

SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY Endangered 2

Branchinecta longiantenna

SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY Endangered 1

Streptocephalus woottoni

SHRIMP, SAN DIEGO FAIRY Endangered 1

Branchinecta sandiegonensis

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY Threatened 5

Branchinecta lynchi

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE Endangered 6

Lepidurus packardi

Fish

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 1

Gila elegans

CHUB, MOHAVE TUI Endangered 1

Gila bicolor mohavensis

GOBY, TIDEWATER Endangered 8

Eucyclogobius newberryi

PUPFISH, DESERT Endangered 2

Cyprinodon macularius

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 7 of 65
Appendix I-lxi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (CALIFORNIA COASTAL ESU) Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VALLEY SPRING RUN) Threatened 5

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO RIVER WINTER Endangered 6

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST POP) Endangered

4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/NORTHERN CA Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SMELT, DELTA Threatened 3

Hypomesus transpacificus

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Endangered 1

Ptychocheilus lucius

STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY POP Threatened 9

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA POPULATION Threatened 4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA POP Threatened 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION Endangered 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED THREESPINE Endangered 1

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni

SUCKER, LOST RIVER Endangered 2

Deltistes luxatus

SUCKER, MODOC Endangered 1

Catostomus microps

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 1

Xyrauchen texanus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 8 of 65
Appendix I-lxii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Fish

SUCKER, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Chasmistes brevirostris

TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

Insect

BEETLE, MOUNT HERMON JUNE Endangered 1

Polyphylla barbata

BEETLE, OHLONE TIGER Endangered 1

Cicindela ohlone

BEETLE, VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN Threatened 6

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

BUTTERFLY, BAY CHECKERSPOT Threatened 2

Euphydryas editha bayensis

BUTTERFLY, BEHREN'S SILVERSPOT Endangered 1

Speyeria zerene behrensii

BUTTERFLY, CALLIPPE SILVERSPOT Endangered 1

Speyeria callippe callippe

BUTTERFLY, MISSION BLUE Endangered 2

Icaricia icarioides missionensis

BUTTERFLY, MYRTLE'S SILVERSPOT Endangered 2

Speyeria zerene myrtleae

BUTTERFLY, SAN BRUNO ELFIN Endangered 1

Callophrys mossii bayensis

GRASSHOPPER, ZAYANTE BAND-WINGED Endangered 1

Trimerotropis infantilis

MOTH, KERN PRIMROSE SPHINX Threatened 1

Euproserpinus euterpe

SKIPPER, LAGUNA MOUNTAIN Endangered 1

Pyrgus ruralis lagunae

Mammal

FOX, SAN JOAQUIN KIT Endangered 4

Vulpes macrotis mutica

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 9 of 65
Appendix I-lxiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Mammal

KANGAROO RAT, GIANT Endangered 2

Dipodomys ingens

KANGAROO RAT, MORRO BAY Endangered 1

Dipodomys heermanni morroensis

KANGAROO RAT, STEPHENS' Threatened 1

Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus)

KANGAROO RAT, TIPTON Endangered 1

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides

MOUSE, PACIFIC POCKET Endangered 1

Perognathus longimembris pacificus

MOUSE, SALT MARSH HARVEST Endangered 4

Reithrodontomys raviventris

OTTER, SOUTHERN SEA Threatened 2

Enhydra lutris nereis

RABBIT, RIPARIAN BRUSH Endangered 1

Sylvilagus bachmani riparius

SHEEP, PENINSULAR BIGHORN Threatened 1

Ovis canadensis

SHREW, BUENA VISTA Endangered 1

Sorex ornatus relictus

WOODRAT, RIPARIAN Endangered 1

Neotoma fuscipes riparia

Plant

ALOPECURUS, SONOMA Endangered 2

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis

AMBROSIA, SAN DIEGO Endangered 1

Ambrosia pumila

Amole, Camatta Canyon Threatened 1

Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum

AMOLE, PURPLE Threatened 1

Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 10 of 65
Appendix I-lxiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

BACCHARIS, ENCINITAS Threatened 1

Baccharis vanessae

BEDSTRAW, EL DORADO Endangered 1

Galium californicum ssp. sierrae

BIRD'S-BEAK, PALMATE-BRACTED Endangered 2

Cordylanthus palmatus

BIRD'S-BEAK, PENNELL'S Endangered 1

Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris

BIRD'S-BEAK, SALT MARSH Endangered 2

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus

BLUEGRASS, SAN BERNARDINO Endangered 1

Poa atropurpurea

BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED Threatened 1

Brodiaea filifolia

BUTTERWEED, LAYNE'S Threatened 1

Senecio layneae

BUTTON-CELERY, SAN DIEGO Endangered 1

Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii

CACTUS, BAKERSFIELD Endangered 1

Opuntia treleasei

CEANOTHUS, COYOTE Endangered 1

Ceanothus ferrisae

CEANOTHUS, PINE HILL Endangered 1

Ceanothus roderickii

CHECKER-MALLOW, KENWOOD MARSH Endangered 1

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida

CLARKIA, PISMO Endangered 1

Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata

CLARKIA, VINE HILL Endangered 1

Clarkia imbricata

CLOVER, SHOWY INDIAN Endangered 2

Trifolium amoenum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 11 of 65
Appendix I-lxv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

CROWN-BEARD, BIG-LEAVED Threatened 1

Verbesina dissita

CYPRESS, SANTA CRUZ Endangered 2

Cupressus abramsiana

DUDLEYA, SANTA CLARA VALLEY Endangered 1

Dudleya setchellii

DWARF-FLAX, MARIN Threatened 1

Hesperolinon congestum

EVENING-PRIMROSE, ANTIOCH DUNES Endangered 1

Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii

FIDDLENECK, LARGE-FLOWERED Endangered 1

Amsinckia grandiflora

FLANNELBUSH, MEXICAN Endangered 1

Fremontodendron mexicanum

FLANNELBUSH, PINE HILL Endangered 1

Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens

GOLDFIELDS, BURKE'S Endangered 1

Lasthenia burkei

GOLDFIELDS, CONTRA COSTA Endangered 1

Lasthenia conjugens

GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT Endangered 1

Orcuttia californica

GRASS, COLUSA Threatened 1

Neostapfia colusana

GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT Endangered 1

Orcuttia pilosa

GRASS, SACRAMENTO ORCUTT Endangered 1

Orcuttia viscida

GRASS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ORCUTT Threatened 1

Orcuttia inaequalis

GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT Threatened 4

Orcuttia tenuis

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 12 of 65
Appendix I-lxvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

GRASS, SOLANO Endangered 1

Tuctoria mucronata

JEWELFLOWER, CALIFORNIA Endangered 2

Caulanthus californicus

JEWELFLOWER, TIBURON Endangered 1

Streptanthus niger

LARKSPUR, BAKER'S Endangered 1

Delphinium bakeri

LARKSPUR, YELLOW Endangered 2

Delphinium luteum

LAYIA, BEACH Endangered 2

Layia carnosa

LESSINGIA, SAN FRANCISCO Endangered 1

Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germanorum)

LILY, PITKIN MARSH Endangered 1

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense

LILY, WESTERN Endangered 1

Lilium occidentale

LUPINE, CLOVER Endangered 2

Lupinus tidestromii

LUPINE, NIPOMO MESA Endangered 1

Lupinus nipomensis

MALLOW, KERN Endangered 1

Eremalche kernensis

MANZANITA, DEL MAR Endangered 1

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia

MANZANITA, MORRO Threatened 1

Arctostaphylos morroensis

MEADOWFOAM, BUTTE COUNTY Endangered 1

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica

MEADOWFOAM, SEBASTOPOL Endangered 1

Limnanthes vinculans

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 13 of 65
Appendix I-lxvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

MILK-VETCH, CLARA HUNT'S Endangered 1

Astragalus clarianus

MILK-VETCH, PIERSON'S Threatened 1

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii

MINT, OTAY MESA Endangered 1

Pogogyne nudiuscula

MINT, SAN DIEGO MESA Endangered 1

Pogogyne abramsii

MONARDELLA, WILLOWY Endangered 1

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea

MORNING-GLORY, STEBBINS Endangered 1

Calystegia stebbinsii

MOUNTAINBALM, INDIAN KNOB Endangered 1

Eriodictyon altissimum

NAVARRETIA, FEW-FLOWERED Endangered 1

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (=N. 

NAVARRETIA, MANY-FLOWERED Endangered 1

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha

NAVARRETIA, SPREADING Threatened 1

Navarretia fossalis

OWL'S-CLOVER, FLESHY Endangered 1

Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta

PAINTBRUSH, TIBURON Endangered 2

Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta

PENNY-CRESS, KNEELAND PRAIRIE Endangered 1

Thlaspi californicum

PENTACHAETA, WHITE-RAYED Endangered 3

Pentachaeta bellidiflora

PHLOX, YREKA Endangered 1

Phlox hirsuta

POLYGONUM, SCOTT'S VALLEY Endangered 1

Polygonum hickmanii

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 14 of 65
Appendix I-lxviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

POTENTILLA, HICKMAN'S Endangered 1

Potentilla hickmanii

SANDWORT, MARSH Endangered 1

Arenaria paludicola

SEA-BLITE, CALIFORNIA Endangered 1

Suaeda californica

SEDGE, WHITE Endangered 1

Carex albida

SPINEFLOWER, BEN LOMOND Endangered 1

Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana

SPINEFLOWER, MONTEREY Threatened 1

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens

SPINEFLOWER, ORCUTT'S Endangered 1

Chorizanthe orcuttiana

SPINEFLOWER, ROBUST Endangered 1

Chorizanthe robusta (incl. vars. robusta and 

SPINEFLOWER, SCOTTS VALLEY Endangered 1

Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii

SPINEFLOWER, SLENDER-HORNED Endangered 1

Dodecahema leptoceras

SPINEFLOWER, SONOMA Endangered 2

Chorizanthe valida

SPURGE, HOOVER'S Threatened 1

Chamaesyce hooveri

STICKYSEED, BAKER'S Endangered 1

Blennosperma bakeri

STONECROP, LAKE COUNTY Endangered 1

Parvisedum leiocarpum

SUNFLOWER, SAN MATEO WOOLLY Endangered 1

Eriophyllum latilobum

TARPLANT, OTAY Threatened 1

Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 15 of 65
Appendix I-lxix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Plant

TARPLANT, SANTA CRUZ Threatened 1

Holocarpha macradenia

THISTLE, CHORRO CREEK BOG Endangered 1

Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense

THISTLE, FOUNTAIN Endangered 2

Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale

THISTLE, LA GRACIOSA Endangered 1

Cirsium loncholepis

THORNMINT, SAN DIEGO Threatened 1

Acanthomintha ilicifolia

THORNMINT, SAN MATEO Endangered 1

Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii

TUCTORIA, GREEN'S Endangered 1

Tuctoria greenei

WALLFLOWER, BEN LOMOND Endangered 1

Erysimum teretifolium

WALLFLOWER, MENZIE'S Endangered 1

Erysimum menziesii

WATERCRESS, GAMBEL'S Endangered 2

Rorippa gambellii

WOOLLY-THREADS, SAN JOAQUIN Endangered 2

Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii

Reptile

LIZARD, BLUNT-NOSED LEOPARD Endangered 2

Gambelia silus

SNAKE, GIANT GARTER Threatened 3

Thamnophis gigas

SNAKE, SAN FRANCISCO GARTER Endangered 2

Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia

TORTOISE, DESERT Threatened 2

Gopherus agassizii

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 16 of 65
Appendix I-lxx

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

California

Reptile

TURTLE, OLIVE (PACIFIC) RIDLEY SEA Endangered 2

Lepidochelys olivacea

Snail

SNAIL, MORRO SHOULDERBAND Endangered 1

Helminthoglypta walkeriana

Colorado

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 1

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 13

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 6

Strix occidentalis lucida

Fish

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 1

Gila elegans

CHUB, HUMPBACK Endangered 1

Gila cypha

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Endangered 4

Ptychocheilus lucius

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 3

Xyrauchen texanus

TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus clarki stomias

Insect

BUTTERFLY, UNCOMPAHGRE FRITILLARY Endangered 1

Boloria acrocnema

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 10

Mustela nigripes

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 17 of 65
Appendix I-lxxi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Colorado

Mammal

MOUSE, PREBLE'S MEADOW JUMPING Threatened 2

Zapus hudsonius preblei

Plant

BUTTERFLY PLANT, COLORADO Threatened 1

Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis

CACTUS, MESA VERDE Threatened 1

Sclerocactus mesae-verdae

CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS Threatened 4

Sclerocactus glaucus

LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE Threatened 2

Spiranthes diluvialis

MILK-VETCH, MANCOS Endangered 1

Astragalus humillimus

WILD-BUCKWHEAT, CLAY-LOVING Endangered 2

Eriogonum pelinophilum

Connecticut

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

TERN, ROSEATE Endangered 1

Sterna dougallii dougallii

Clam

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 1

Alasmidonta heterodon

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 2

Acipenser brevirostrum

Insect

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 18 of 65
Appendix I-lxxii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Connecticut

Insect

BEETLE, PURITAN TIGER Threatened 1

Cicindela puritana

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 3

Myotis sodalis

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

GERARDIA, SANDPLAIN Endangered 1

Agalinis acuta

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 1

Isotria medeoloides

Delaware

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

PINK, SWAMP Threatened 1

Helonias bullata

Florida

Bird

CARACARA, AUDUBON'S CRESTED Threatened 2

Polyborus plancus audubonii

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 19 of 65
Appendix I-lxxiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Florida

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 9

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

JAY, FLORIDA SCRUB Threatened 7

Aphelocoma coerulescens

KITE, EVERGLADE SNAIL Endangered 5

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 5

Charadrius melodus

SPARROW, CAPE SABLE SEASIDE Endangered 2

Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis

SPARROW, FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER Endangered 2

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 10

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 10

Picoides borealis

Fish

SAWFISH, SMALLTOOTH Endangered 3

Pristis pectinata

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 1

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Acipenser brevirostrum

Insect

BUTTERFLY, SCHAUS SWALLOWTAIL Endangered 1

Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus

Mammal

MANATEE, WEST INDIAN (FLORIDA) Endangered 8

Trichechus manatus

MOUSE, ANASTASIA ISLAND BEACH Endangered 1

Peromyscus polionotus phasma

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 20 of 65
Appendix I-lxxiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Florida

Mammal

PANTHER, FLORIDA Endangered 3

Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

BEARGRASS, BRITTON'S Endangered 1

Nolina brittoniana

BLAZING STAR, SCRUB Endangered 1

Liatris ohlingerae

BONAMIA, FLORIDA Threatened 2

Bonamia grandiflora

BUCKWHEAT, SCRUB Threatened 1

Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium

FRINGE TREE, PYGMY Endangered 1

Chionanthus pygmaeus

HAREBELLS, AVON PARK Endangered 1

Crotalaria avonensis

HYPERICUM, HIGHLANDS SCRUB Endangered 1

Hypericum cumulicola

JACQUEMONTIA, BEACH Endangered 1

Jacquemontia reclinata

LEAD-PLANT, CRENULATE Endangered 1

Amorpha crenulata

LUPINE, SCRUB Endangered 1

Lupinus aridorum

MILKPEA, SMALL'S Endangered 1

Galactia smallii

MINT, LONGSPURRED Endangered 1

Dicerandra cornutissima

MUSTARD, CARTER'S Endangered 1

Warea carteri

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 21 of 65
Appendix I-lxxv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Florida

Plant

PAWPAW, BEAUTIFUL Endangered 1

Deeringothamnus pulchellus

PLUM, SCRUB Endangered 1

Prunus geniculata

POLYGALA, LEWTON'S Endangered 2

Polygala lewtonii

POLYGALA, TINY Endangered 1

Polygala smallii

ROSEMARY, ETONIA Endangered 1

Conradina etonia

ROSEMARY, SHORT-LEAVED Endangered 1

Conradina brevifolia

SANDLACE Endangered 1

Polygonella myriophylla

SEAGRASS, JOHNSON'S Threatened 1

Halophila johnsonii

SNAKEROOT Endangered 2

Eryngium cuneifolium

SPURGE, DELTOID Endangered 1

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea

SPURGE, GARBER'S Threatened 1

Chamaesyce garberi

WAREA, WIDE-LEAF Endangered 1

Warea amplexifolia

WHITLOW-WORT, PAPERY Threatened 1

Paronychia chartacea

WINGS, PIGEON Threatened 1

Clitoria fragrans

WIREWEED Endangered 1

Polygonella basiramia

ZIZIPHUS, FLORIDA Endangered 1

Ziziphus celata

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 22 of 65
Appendix I-lxxvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Florida

Reptile

CROCODILE, AMERICAN Endangered 3

Crocodylus acutus

SKINK, BLUE-TAILED MOLE Threatened 1

Eumeces egregius lividus

SKINK, SAND Threatened 2

Neoseps reynoldsi

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 10

Drymarchon corais couperi

TURTLE, GREEN SEA Endangered 6

Chelonia mydas

TURTLE, HAWKSBILL SEA Endangered 1

Eretmochelys imbricata

TURTLE, KEMP'S (ATLANTIC) RIDLEY SEA Endangered 1

Lepidochelys kempii

TURTLE, LEATHERBACK SEA Endangered 6

Dermochelys coriacea

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 6

Caretta caretta

Georgia

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 3

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 3

Picoides borealis

Clam

CLUBSHELL, SOUTHERN Endangered 1

Pleurobema decisum

COMBSHELL, UPLAND Endangered 1

Epioblasma metastriata

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 23 of 65
Appendix I-lxxvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Georgia

Clam

KIDNEYSHELL, TRIANGULAR Endangered 1

Ptychobranchus greeni

Fish

DARTER, GOLDLINE Threatened 1

Percina aurolineata

SHINER, BLUE Endangered 1

Cyprinella caerulea

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 3

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 1

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 3

Myotis sodalis

Plant

PINK, SWAMP Threatened 1

Helonias bullata

PITCHER-PLANT, GREEN Endangered 1

Sarracenia oreophila

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 3

Isotria medeoloides

RATTLEWEED, HAIRY Endangered 2

Baptisia arachnifera

TRILLIUM, PERSISTENT Endangered 1

Trillium persistens

Reptile

SNAKE, EASTERN INDIGO Threatened 3

Drymarchon corais couperi

Idaho

Bird

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 24 of 65
Appendix I-lxxviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Idaho

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 24

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Threatened

3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Endangered 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Threatened 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STURGEON, WHITE Endangered 1

Acipenser transmontanus

TROUT, BULL Threatened 9

Salvelinus confluentus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 3

Ursus arctos horribilis

CARIBOU, WOODLAND Endangered 1

Rangifer tarandus caribou

SQUIRREL, NORTHERN IDAHO GROUND Threatened 1

Spermophilus brunneus brunneus

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 7

Canis lupus

Plant

HOWELLIA, WATER Threatened 1

Howellia aquatilis

Snail

LIMPET, BANBURY SPRINGS Endangered 2

Lanx sp.

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 25 of 65
Appendix I-lxxix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Idaho

Snail

SNAIL, BLISS RAPIDS Threatened 3

Taylorconcha serpenticola

SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA Endangered 4

Physa natricina

SNAIL, UTAH VALVATA Endangered 3

Valvata utahensis

SPRINGSNAIL, BRUNEAU HOT Endangered 1

Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis

SPRINGSNAIL, IDAHO Endangered 2

Fontelicella idahoensis

Illinois

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 4

Myotis sodalis

Plant

BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE Threatened 1

Lespedeza leptostachya

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 2

Platanthera leucophaea

Indiana

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Clam

FANSHELL Endangered 1

Cyprogenia stegaria

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 26 of 65
Appendix I-lxxx

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Indiana

Clam

MUSSEL, RING PINK (=GOLF STICK PEARLY) Endangered 1

Obovaria retusa

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 2

Lampsilis abrupta

PEARLYMUSSEL, TUBERCLED-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma torulosa torulosa

PIGTOE, ROUGH Endangered 1

Pleurobema plenum

POCKETBOOK, FAT Endangered 1

Potamilus capax

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 1

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 6

Myotis sodalis

Reptile

SNAKE, NORTHERN COPPERBELLY WATER Threatened 1

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta

Iowa

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 4

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE Endangered 2

Lampsilis higginsii

POCKETBOOK, FAT Endangered 1

Potamilus capax

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 27 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Iowa

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 2

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 5

Myotis sodalis

Plant

BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE Threatened 8

Lespedeza leptostachya

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 3

Platanthera leucophaea

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 9

Platanthera praeclara

Kansas

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 3

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

SHINER, TOPEKA Endangered 2

Notropis topeka (=tristis)

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 3

Scaphirhynchus albus

Insect

BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Endangered 2

Nicrophorus americanus

Plant

MILKWEED, MEAD'S Threatened 3

Asclepias meadii

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 28 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Kansas

Plant

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 4

Platanthera praeclara

Kentucky

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 6

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 2

Picoides borealis

Clam

FANSHELL Endangered 4

Cyprogenia stegaria

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND BEAN Endangered 5

Villosa trabalis

PEARLYMUSSEL, LITTLE-WING Endangered 4

Pegias fabula

PEARLYMUSSEL, TUBERCLED-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma torulosa torulosa

PIGTOE, ROUGH Endangered 1

Pleurobema plenum

POCKETBOOK, FAT Endangered 1

Potamilus capax

RIFFLESHELL, TAN Endangered 2

Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)

Crustacean

SHRIMP, KENTUCKY CAVE Endangered 1

Palaemonias ganteri

Fish

DACE, BLACKSIDE Threatened 2

Phoxinus cumberlandensis

DARTER, RELICT Endangered 1

Etheostoma chienense

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 29 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Kentucky

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 12

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 35

Myotis sodalis

BAT, VIRGINIA BIG-EARED Endangered 4

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus

Plant

CLOVER, RUNNING BUFFALO Endangered 1

Trifolium stoloniferum

GOLDENROD, WHITE-HAIRED Threatened 1

Solidago albopilosa

SPIRAEA, VIRGINIA Threatened 2

Spiraea virginiana

SUNFLOWER, EGGERT'S Threatened 2

Helianthus eggertii

Louisiana

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 1

Picoides borealis

Fish

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 1

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 2

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened 2

Ursus americanus luteolus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 30 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Louisiana

Plant

QUILLWORT, LOUISIANA Endangered 1

Isoetes louisianensis

Reptile

TORTOISE, GOPHER Threatened 1

Gopherus polyphemus

TURTLE, RINGED SAWBACK Threatened 1

Graptemys oculifera

Maine

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 9

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, ROSEATE Endangered 2

Sterna dougallii dougallii

Fish

SALMON, ATLANTIC Endangered 5

Salmo salar

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

LYNX, CANADA Threatened 2

Lynx canadensis

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

LOUSEWORT, FURBISH Endangered 1

Pedicularis furbishiae

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 1

Platanthera leucophaea

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 2

Isotria medeoloides

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 31 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Maryland

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 11

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Clam

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 3

Alasmidonta heterodon

Fish

DARTER, MARYLAND Endangered 1

Etheostoma sellare

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 6

Myotis sodalis

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered 3

Sciurus niger cinereus

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) Endangered 1

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

DROPWORT, CANBY'S Endangered 1

Oxypolis canbyi

GERARDIA, SANDPLAIN Endangered 1

Agalinis acuta

HARPERELLA Endangered 1

Ptilimnium nodosum

PINK, SWAMP Threatened 2

Helonias bullata

Massachusetts

Bird

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 32 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Massachusetts

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 7

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 4

Charadrius melodus

TERN, ROSEATE Endangered 3

Sterna dougallii dougallii

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 3

Acipenser brevirostrum

Insect

BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Endangered 1

Nicrophorus americanus

BEETLE, NORTHEASTERN BEACH TIGER Threatened 1

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis

BEETLE, PURITAN TIGER Threatened 1

Cicindela puritana

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 1

Myotis sodalis

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) Endangered 1

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

GERARDIA, SANDPLAIN Endangered 2

Agalinis acuta

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 3

Isotria medeoloides

Reptile

TURTLE, PLYMOUTH RED-BELLIED Endangered 1

Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 33 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Michigan

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 19

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

WARBLER (WOOD), KIRTLAND'S Endangered 1

Dendroica kirtlandii

Clam

RIFFLESHELL, NORTHERN Endangered 3

Epioblasma torulosa rangiana

Insect

BUTTERFLY, KARNER BLUE Endangered 5

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

BUTTERFLY, MITCHELL'S SATYR Endangered 2

Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 2

Myotis sodalis

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 5

Canis lupus

Plant

GOLDENROD, HOUGHTON'S Threatened 3

Solidago houghtonii

IRIS, DWARF LAKE Threatened 3

Iris lacustris

MONKEY-FLOWER, MICHIGAN Endangered 1

Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 4

Platanthera leucophaea

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 1

Isotria medeoloides

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 34 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Michigan

Plant

THISTLE, PITCHER'S Threatened 10

Cirsium pitcheri

Reptile

SNAKE, NORTHERN COPPERBELLY WATER Threatened 1

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta

Minnesota

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 22

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE Endangered 4

Lampsilis higginsii

Mammal

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 10

Canis lupus

Plant

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 5

Platanthera praeclara

Mississippi

Fish

STURGEON, GULF Threatened 1

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Mammal

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened 2

Ursus americanus luteolus

Reptile

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 35 of 65
Appendix I-lxxxix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Mississippi

Reptile

TORTOISE, GOPHER Threatened 2

Gopherus polyphemus

TURTLE, RINGED SAWBACK Threatened 1

Graptemys oculifera

Missouri

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

Clam

MUSSEL, SCALESHELL Endangered 1

Leptodea leptodon

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 1

Lampsilis abrupta

Fish

CAVEFISH, OZARK Threatened 1

Amblyopsis rosae

DARTER, NIANGUA Threatened 1

Etheostoma nianguae

SHINER, TOPEKA Endangered 1

Notropis topeka (=tristis)

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 4

Scaphirhynchus albus

Insect

BEETLE, AMERICAN BURYING Endangered 3

Nicrophorus americanus

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 3

Myotis grisescens

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 36 of 65
Appendix I-xc

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Missouri

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 2

Myotis sodalis

Plant

ASTER, DECURRENT FALSE Threatened 1

Boltonia decurrens

BLADDERPOD, MISSOURI Endangered 1

Lesquerella filiformis

CLOVER, RUNNING BUFFALO Endangered 2

Trifolium stoloniferum

GEOCARPON MINIMUM Endangered 1

Geocarpon minimum

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 1

Platanthera praeclara

Montana

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 2

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 12

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Fish

TROUT, BULL Threatened 3

Salvelinus confluentus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 6

Ursus arctos horribilis

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 7

Canis lupus

Plant

CATCHFLY, SPALDING'S Threatened 2

Silene spaldingii

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 37 of 65
Appendix I-xci

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Montana

Plant

HOWELLIA, WATER Threatened 1

Howellia aquatilis

Nebraska

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 4

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 4

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 2

Sterna antillarum

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 1

Scaphirhynchus albus

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 2

Mustela nigripes

Plant

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 1

Platanthera praeclara

PENSTEMON, BLOWOUT Endangered 1

Penstemon haydenii

New Hampshire

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 4

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Clam

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 1

Alasmidonta heterodon

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 38 of 65
Appendix I-xcii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

New Hampshire

Insect

BUTTERFLY, KARNER BLUE Endangered 1

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 2

Myotis sodalis

Plant

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 5

Isotria medeoloides

New Jersey

Bird

CURLEW, ESKIMO Endangered 1

Numenius borealis

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 8

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 5

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 6

Myotis sodalis

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

BEAKED-RUSH, KNIESKERN'S Threatened 2

Rhynchospora knieskernii

CHAFFSEED, AMERICAN Endangered 1

Schwalbea americana

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 39 of 65
Appendix I-xciii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

New Jersey

Plant

JOINT-VETCH, SENSITIVE Threatened 2

Aeschynomene virginica

PINK, SWAMP Threatened 7

Helonias bullata

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 1

Isotria medeoloides

New Mexico

Amphibian

FROG, CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD Threatened 1

Rana chiricahuensis

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO Endangered 1

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

Fish

SHINER, BEAUTIFUL Threatened 1

Cyprinella formosa

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 2

Mustela nigripes

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 1

Canis lupus

New York

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 10

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 40 of 65
Appendix I-xciv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

New York

Bird

TERN, ROSEATE Endangered 1

Sterna dougallii dougallii

Clam

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 1

Alasmidonta heterodon

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 4

Acipenser brevirostrum

Insect

BUTTERFLY, KARNER BLUE Endangered 1

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 34

Myotis sodalis

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

AMARANTH, SEABEACH Threatened 1

Amaranthus pumilus

FERN, AMERICAN HART'S-TONGUE Threatened 1

Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum

GERARDIA, SANDPLAIN Endangered 1

Agalinis acuta

MONKSHOOD, NORTHERN WILD Threatened 3

Aconitum noveboracense

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 1

Isotria medeoloides

ROSEROOT, LEEDY'S Threatened 3

Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi

North Carolina

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 41 of 65
Appendix I-xcv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Carolina

Arachnid

SPIDER, SPRUCE-FIR MOSS Endangered 2

Microhexura montivaga

Bird

CAHOW Endangered 1

Pterodroma cahow

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

TERN, ROSEATE Endangered 1

Sterna dougallii dougallii

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 14

Picoides borealis

Clam

ELKTOE, APPALACHIAN Endangered 7

Alasmidonta raveneliana

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 1

Alasmidonta heterodon

PEARLYMUSSEL, LITTLE-WING Endangered 2

Pegias fabula

SPINYMUSSEL, TAR RIVER Endangered 1

Elliptio steinstansana

Fish

CHUB, SPOTFIN Threatened 2

Cyprinella monacha

SHINER, CAPE FEAR Endangered 1

Notropis mekistocholas

SILVERSIDE, WACCAMAW Threatened 1

Menidia extensa

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 8

Acipenser brevirostrum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 42 of 65
Appendix I-xcvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Carolina

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 8

Myotis sodalis

BAT, VIRGINIA BIG-EARED Endangered 2

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus

SQUIRREL, CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered 9

Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

WOLF, RED Endangered 4

Canis rufus

Plant

AMARANTH, SEABEACH Threatened 1

Amaranthus pumilus

ARROWHEAD, BUNCHED Endangered 2

Sagittaria fasciculata

AVENS, SPREADING Endangered 5

Geum radiatum

BITTERCRESS, SMALL-ANTHERED Endangered 1

Cardamine micranthera

BLAZING STAR, HELLER'S Threatened 4

Liatris helleri

BLUET, ROAN MOUNTAIN Endangered 5

Hedyotis purpurea var. montana

GOLDENROD, BLUE RIDGE Threatened 3

Solidago spithamaea

HEARTLEAF, DWARF-FLOWERED Threatened 1

Hexastylis naniflora

IRISETTE, WHITE Endangered 2

Sisyrinchium dichotomum

LICHEN, ROCK GNOME Endangered 8

Gymnoderma lineare

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 43 of 65
Appendix I-xcvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Carolina

Plant

LOOSESTRIFE, ROUGH-LEAVED Endangered 5

Lysimachia asperulaefolia

MEADOWRUE, COOLEY'S Endangered 1

Thalictrum cooleyi

PINK, SWAMP Threatened 2

Helonias bullata

PITCHER-PLANT, GREEN Endangered 1

Sarracenia oreophila

PITCHER-PLANT, MOUNTAIN SWEET Endangered 2

Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 5

Isotria medeoloides

SEDGE, GOLDEN Endangered 1

Carex lutea

SPIRAEA, VIRGINIA Threatened 7

Spiraea virginiana

SUMAC, MICHAUX'S Endangered 2

Rhus michauxii

SUNFLOWER, SCHWEINITZ'S Endangered 1

Helianthus schweinitzii

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 7

Caretta caretta

Snail

SNAIL, NOONDAY Threatened 1

Mesodon clarki nantahala

North Dakota

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 6

Grus americana

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 44 of 65
Appendix I-xcviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

North Dakota

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 4

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 3

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 1

Sterna antillarum

Fish

STURGEON, PALLID Endangered 1

Scaphirhynchus albus

Plant

ORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 1

Platanthera praeclara

Ohio

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 7

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Clam

CLUBSHELL Endangered 1

Pleurobema clava

FANSHELL Endangered 1

Cyprogenia stegaria

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 3

Lampsilis abrupta

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 18

Myotis sodalis

Plant

CLOVER, RUNNING BUFFALO Endangered 3

Trifolium stoloniferum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 45 of 65
Appendix I-xcix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Ohio

Plant

MONKSHOOD, NORTHERN WILD Threatened 1

Aconitum noveboracense

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 3

Platanthera leucophaea

Oklahoma

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 1

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 2

Sterna antillarum

Fish

SHINER, ARKANSAS RIVER Threatened 2

Notropis girardi

Oregon

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 12

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

MURRELET, MARBLED Threatened 2

Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 7

Strix occidentalis caurina

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

PLOVER, WESTERN SNOWY Threatened 1

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Fish

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 46 of 65
Appendix I-c

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Oregon

Fish

CHUB, OREGON Endangered 3

Oregonichthys crameri

SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER) Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Threatened 4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Threatened

4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING) Endangered

3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER) Threatened 5

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHUM (COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION) Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta

SALMON, COHO (OREGON COAST POPULATION) Threatened 4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/NORTHERN CA Threatened 2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Endangered 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

2

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

5

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Threatened 5

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Endangered 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER POPULATION Threatened

4

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

SUCKER, LOST RIVER Endangered 1

Deltistes luxatus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 47 of 65
Appendix I-ci

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Oregon

Fish

SUCKER, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Chasmistes brevirostris

TROUT, BULL Threatened 9

Salvelinus confluentus

Insect

BUTTERFLY, FENDER'S BLUE Endangered 3

Icaricia icarioides fenderi

BUTTERFLY, OREGON SILVERSPOT Threatened 2

Speyeria zerene hippolyta

Mammal

DEER, COLUMBIAN WHITE-TAILED Endangered 1

Odocoileus virginianus leucurus

Plant

CHECKER-MALLOW, NELSON'S Threatened 3

Sidalcea nelsoniana

DAISY, WILLAMETTE Endangered 2

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens

FRITILLARY, GENTNER'S Endangered 1

Fritillaria gentneri

LOMATIUM, BRADSHAW'S Endangered 2

Lomatium bradshawii

LOMATIUM, COOK'S Endangered 1

Lomatium cookii

MILK-VETCH, APPLEGATE'S Endangered 1

Astragalus applegatei

THELYPODY, HOWELL'S SPECTACULAR Threatened 2

Thelypodium howellii spectabilis

Pennsylvania

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 8

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 48 of 65
Appendix I-cii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Pennsylvania

Bird

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

Clam

CLUBSHELL Endangered 2

Pleurobema clava

RIFFLESHELL, NORTHERN Endangered 2

Epioblasma torulosa rangiana

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 48

Myotis sodalis

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered 1

Sciurus niger cinereus

Plant

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) Endangered 5

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 1

Isotria medeoloides

Rhode Island

Bird

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 1

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

South Carolina

Amphibian

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 49 of 65
Appendix I-ciii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

South Carolina

Amphibian

TREEFROG, PINE BARRENS E/T 1

Hyla andersonii

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 3

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

STORK, WOOD Endangered 2

Mycteria americana

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 5

Picoides borealis

Fish

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Endangered 2

Acipenser brevirostrum

Mammal

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

AMARANTH, SEABEACH Threatened 1

Amaranthus pumilus

CHAFFSEED, AMERICAN Endangered 1

Schwalbea americana

CONEFLOWER, SMOOTH Endangered 3

Echinacea laevigata

DROPWORT, CANBY'S Endangered 2

Oxypolis canbyi

HARPERELLA Endangered 1

Ptilimnium nodosum

LOOSESTRIFE, ROUGH-LEAVED Endangered 2

Lysimachia asperulaefolia

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 50 of 65
Appendix I-civ

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

South Carolina

Plant

PONDBERRY Endangered 1

Lindera melissifolia

SUNFLOWER, SCHWEINITZ'S Endangered 2

Helianthus schweinitzii

TRILLIUM, RELICT Endangered 1

Trillium reliquum

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 1

Caretta caretta

South Dakota

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 1

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 1

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Tennessee

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 11

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 4

Picoides borealis

Clam

BEAN, PURPLE Endangered 3

Villosa perpurpurea

COMBSHELL, CUMBERLAND Endangered 3

Epioblasma brevidens

ELKTOE, APPALACHIAN Endangered 1

Alasmidonta raveneliana

ELKTOE, CUMBERLAND Endangered 1

Alasmidonta atropurpurea

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 51 of 65
Appendix I-cv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Tennessee

Clam

FANSHELL Endangered 3

Cyprogenia stegaria

MUSSEL, OYSTER Endangered 2

Epioblasma capsaeformis

MUSSEL, RING PINK (=GOLF STICK PEARLY) Endangered 2

Obovaria retusa

PEARLYMUSSEL, APPALACHIAN MONKEYFACE Endangered 2

Quadrula sparsa

PEARLYMUSSEL, BIRDWING Endangered 8

Conradilla caelata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CRACKING Endangered 2

Hemistena lata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND MONKEYFACE Endangered 4

Quadrula intermedia

PEARLYMUSSEL, DROMEDARY Endangered 4

Dromus dromas

PEARLYMUSSEL, GREEN-BLOSSOM Endangered 2

Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum

PEARLYMUSSEL, ORANGE-FOOTED Endangered 3

Plethobasus cooperianus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PALE LILLIPUT Endangered 1

Toxolasma cylindrellus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 9

Lampsilis abrupta

PEARLYMUSSEL, PURPLE CAT'S PAW Endangered 2

Epioblasma obliquata obliquata

PEARLYMUSSEL, TURGID-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma turgidula

PEARLYMUSSEL, WHITE WARTYBACK Endangered 1

Plethobasus cicatricosus

PIGTOE, CUMBERLAND (=CUMBERLAND PIGTOE Endangered 2

Pleurobema gibberum

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 52 of 65
Appendix I-cvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Tennessee

Clam

PIGTOE, FINE-RAYED Endangered 7

Fusconaia cuneolus

PIGTOE, ROUGH Endangered 5

Pleurobema plenum

PIGTOE, SHINY Endangered 5

Fusconaia cor

RABBITSFOOT, ROUGH Endangered 2

Quadrula cylindrica strigillata

RIFFLESHELL, TAN Endangered 4

Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)

Fish

CHUB, SLENDER Threatened 3

Erimystax cahni

CHUB, SPOTFIN Threatened 6

Cyprinella monacha

DACE, BLACKSIDE Threatened 2

Phoxinus cumberlandensis

DARTER, AMBER Endangered 1

Percina antesella

DARTER, BOULDER Endangered 1

Etheostoma wapiti

DARTER, SLACKWATER Threatened 2

Etheostoma boschungi

DARTER, SNAIL Threatened 6

Percina tanasi

LOGPERCH, CONASAUGA Endangered 1

Percina jenkinsi

MADTOM, YELLOWFIN Threatened 2

Noturus flavipinnis

SHINER, BLUE Endangered 1

Cyprinella caerulea

Mammal

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 53 of 65
Appendix I-cvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Tennessee

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 22

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 34

Myotis sodalis

SQUIRREL, CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered 1

Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

Plant

AVENS, SPREADING Endangered 1

Geum radiatum

BLADDERPOD, SPRING CREEK Endangered 1

Lesquerella perforata

BLUET, ROAN MOUNTAIN Endangered 1

Hedyotis purpurea var. montana

CONEFLOWER, TENNESSEE PURPLE Endangered 1

Echinacea tennesseensis

GOLDENROD, BLUE RIDGE Threatened 1

Solidago spithamaea

PRAIRIE-CLOVER, LEAFY Endangered 1

Dalea foliosa

ROCK-CRESS, LARGE (=BRAUN'S) Endangered 1

Arabis perstellata

ROSEMARY, CUMBERLAND Threatened 3

Conradina verticillata

SANDWORT, CUMBERLAND Endangered 2

Arenaria cumberlandensis

SPIRAEA, VIRGINIA Threatened 4

Spiraea virginiana

SUNFLOWER, EGGERT'S Threatened 1

Helianthus eggertii

Texas

Amphibian

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 54 of 65
Appendix I-cviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Texas

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, SAN MARCOS Threatened 1

Eurycea nana

SALAMANDER, TEXAS BLIND Endangered 1

Typhlomolge rathbuni

TOAD, HOUSTON Endangered 4

Bufo houstonensis

Bird

CRANE, WHOOPING Endangered 9

Grus americana

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 14

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FALCON, NORTHERN APLOMADO Endangered 2

Falco femoralis septentrionalis

PELICAN, BROWN Endangered 1

Pelecanus occidentalis

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

PRAIRIE-CHICKEN, ATTWATER'S GREATER Endangered 1

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri

TERN, INTERIOR (POPULATION) LEAST Endangered 3

Sterna antillarum

VIREO, BLACK-CAPPED Endangered 1

Vireo atricapilla

WARBLER (WOOD), GOLDEN-CHEEKED Endangered 1

Dendroica chrysoparia

WOODPECKER, RED-COCKADED Endangered 5

Picoides borealis

Crustacean

AMPHIPOD, PECK'S CAVE Endangered 1

Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki

Fish

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 55 of 65
Appendix I-cix

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Texas

Fish

DARTER, FOUNTAIN Endangered 1

Etheostoma fonticola

GAMBUSIA, SAN MARCOS Endangered 1

Gambusia georgei

Insect

BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS DRYOPID Endangered 1

Stygoparnus comalensis

BEETLE, COMAL SPRINGS RIFFLE Endangered 1

Heterelmis comalensis

Mammal

BEAR, LOUISIANA BLACK Threatened 4

Ursus americanus luteolus

JAGUARUNDI, Gulf Coast Endangered 1

Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitli

OCELOT Endangered 1

Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis

Plant

AMBROSIA, SOUTH TEXAS Endangered 1

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia

AYENIA, TEXAS Endangered 1

Ayenia limitaris

LADIES'-TRESSES, NAVASOTA Endangered 3

Spiranthes parksii

MANIOC, WALKER'S Endangered 1

Manihot walkerae

PHLOX, TEXAS TRAILING Endangered 2

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis

SAND-VERBENA, LARGE-FRUITED Endangered 2

Abronia macrocarpa

WILD-RICE, TEXAS Endangered 1

Zizania texana

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 56 of 65
Appendix I-cx

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Texas

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 1

Caretta caretta

Utah

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 11

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

OWL, MEXICAN SPOTTED Threatened 2

Strix occidentalis lucida

Fish

CHUB, BONYTAIL Endangered 1

Gila elegans

CHUB, HUMPBACK Endangered 1

Gila cypha

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Endangered 1

Ptychocheilus lucius

SUCKER, JUNE Endangered 1

Chasmistes liorus

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Endangered 1

Xyrauchen texanus

Mammal

FERRET, BLACK-FOOTED Endangered 2

Mustela nigripes

PRAIRIE DOG, UTAH Threatened 3

Cynomys parvidens

Plant

CACTUS, UINTA BASIN HOOKLESS Threatened 2

Sclerocactus glaucus

CACTUS, WRIGHT FISHHOOK Endangered 1

Sclerocactus wrightiae

LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE Threatened 6

Spiranthes diluvialis

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 57 of 65
Appendix I-cxi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Utah

Plant

MILK-VETCH, DESERET Threatened 1

Astragalus desereticus

MILK-VETCH, HELIOTROPE Endangered 2

Astragalus montii

PHACELIA, CLAY Endangered 1

Phacelia argillacea

REED-MUSTARD, CLAY Endangered 1

Schoenocrambe argillacea

REED-MUSTARD, SHRUBBY Endangered 2

Schoenocrambe suffrutescens

RIDGE-CRESS (=PEPPER-CRESS), BARNEBY Endangered 1

Lepidium barnebyanum

TOWNSENDIA, LAST CHANCE Threatened 1

Townsendia aprica

Reptile

TORTOISE, DESERT Threatened 1

Gopherus agassizii

Vermont

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 7

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Clam

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Endangered 1

Alasmidonta heterodon

Mammal

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 4

Myotis sodalis

Plant

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) Endangered 1

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 58 of 65
Appendix I-cxii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Vermont

Plant

MILK-VETCH, JESUP'S Endangered 1

Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi

Virginia

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, SHENANDOAH Endangered 1

Plethodon shenandoah

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 7

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 2

Charadrius melodus

Clam

BEAN, PURPLE Endangered 5

Villosa perpurpurea

COMBSHELL, CUMBERLAND Endangered 2

Epioblasma brevidens

FANSHELL Endangered 1

Cyprogenia stegaria

MUSSEL, OYSTER Endangered 4

Epioblasma capsaeformis

PEARLYMUSSEL, APPALACHIAN MONKEYFACE Endangered 2

Quadrula sparsa

PEARLYMUSSEL, BIRDWING Endangered 5

Conradilla caelata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CRACKING Endangered 3

Hemistena lata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND MONKEYFACE Endangered 4

Quadrula intermedia

PEARLYMUSSEL, DROMEDARY Endangered 2

Dromus dromas

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 59 of 65
Appendix I-cxiii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Virginia

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, GREEN-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum

PEARLYMUSSEL, LITTLE-WING Endangered 5

Pegias fabula

PIGTOE, FINE-RAYED Endangered 6

Fusconaia cuneolus

PIGTOE, ROUGH Endangered 1

Pleurobema plenum

PIGTOE, SHINY Endangered 5

Fusconaia cor

RABBITSFOOT, ROUGH Endangered 5

Quadrula cylindrica strigillata

RIFFLESHELL, TAN Endangered 3

Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)

Crustacean

ISOPOD, LEE COUNTY CAVE Endangered 1

Lirceus usdagalun

ISOPOD, MADISON CAVE Threatened 2

Antrolana lira

Fish

CHUB, SLENDER Threatened 3

Erimystax cahni

CHUB, SPOTFIN Threatened 2

Cyprinella monacha

DARTER, DUSKYTAIL Endangered 1

Etheostoma percnurum

LOGPERCH, ROANOKE Endangered 5

Percina rex

MADTOM, YELLOWFIN Threatened 2

Noturus flavipinnis

Insect

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 60 of 65
Appendix I-cxiv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Virginia

Insect

BEETLE, NORTHEASTERN BEACH TIGER Threatened 2

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 4

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 4

Myotis sodalis

BAT, VIRGINIA BIG-EARED Endangered 2

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus

SQUIRREL, DELMARVA PENINSULA FOX Endangered 2

Sciurus niger cinereus

SQUIRREL, VIRGINIA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered 2

Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus

WHALE, NORTHERN RIGHT Endangered 1

Eubalaena glacialis

Plant

BITTERCRESS, SMALL-ANTHERED Endangered 1

Cardamine micranthera

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) Endangered 2

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

CONEFLOWER, SMOOTH Endangered 4

Echinacea laevigata

JOINT-VETCH, SENSITIVE Threatened 3

Aeschynomene virginica

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 1

Platanthera leucophaea

PINK, SWAMP Threatened 1

Helonias bullata

POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED Threatened 2

Isotria medeoloides

ROCK-CRESS, SHALE BARREN Endangered 2

Arabis serotina

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 61 of 65
Appendix I-cxv

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Virginia

Plant

SNEEZEWEED, VIRGINIA Threatened 2

Helenium virginicum

SPIRAEA, VIRGINIA Threatened 3

Spiraea virginiana

Reptile

TURTLE, LOGGERHEAD SEA Threatened 2

Caretta caretta

Washington

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 14

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

MURRELET, MARBLED Threatened 6

Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus

OWL, NORTHERN SPOTTED Threatened 6

Strix occidentalis caurina

Fish

SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND) Threatened 5

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Threatened 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Threatened

3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING) Endangered

6

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHUM (HOOD CANAL SUMMER Threatened 1

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Endangered 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Threatened

5

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 62 of 65
Appendix I-cxvi

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Washington

Fish

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Threatened 3

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Endangered 6

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

TROUT, BULL Threatened 10

Salvelinus confluentus

Mammal

BEAR, GRIZZLY Threatened 6

Ursus arctos horribilis

RABBIT, PYGMY Endangered 4

Brachylagus idahoensis

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 6

Canis lupus

Plant

CATCHFLY, SPALDING'S Threatened 1

Silene spaldingii

PAINTBRUSH, GOLDEN Threatened 1

Castilleja levisecta

West Virginia

Amphibian

SALAMANDER, CHEAT MOUNTAIN Threatened 4

Plethodon nettingi

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Clam

CLUBSHELL Endangered 5

Pleurobema clava

FANSHELL Endangered 1

Cyprogenia stegaria

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 63 of 65
Appendix I-cxvii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

West Virginia

Clam

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Endangered 4

Lampsilis abrupta

PEARLYMUSSEL, TUBERCLED-BLOSSOM Endangered 1

Epioblasma torulosa torulosa

SPINYMUSSEL, JAMES RIVER Endangered 1

Pleurobema collina

Mammal

BAT, GRAY Endangered 1

Myotis grisescens

BAT, INDIANA Endangered 37

Myotis sodalis

BAT, VIRGINIA BIG-EARED Endangered 2

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus

SQUIRREL, CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered 1

Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus

SQUIRREL, VIRGINIA NORTHERN FLYING Endangered 4

Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus

Plant

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) Endangered 1

Scirpus ancistrochaetus

CLOVER, RUNNING BUFFALO Endangered 2

Trifolium stoloniferum

HARPERELLA Endangered 1

Ptilimnium nodosum

ROCK-CRESS, SHALE BARREN Endangered 3

Arabis serotina

SPIRAEA, VIRGINIA Threatened 4

Spiraea virginiana

Snail

SNAIL, FLAT-SPIRED THREE-TOOTHED Threatened 1

Triodopsis platysayoides

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 64 of 65
Appendix I-cxviii

Species Listing by State for Crop

Potatoes (excluding sweet potatoes) Crop # 154

Minimum of 1 Acre

State Group Inverse Name Scientific Name Status: No of Counties:

Wisconsin

Bird

EAGLE, BALD Threatened 18

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

PLOVER, PIPING Endangered 1

Charadrius melodus

Clam

MUSSEL, WINGED MAPLELEAF Endangered 1

Quadrula fragosa

PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE Endangered 6

Lampsilis higginsii

Insect

BUTTERFLY, KARNER BLUE Endangered 10

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

Mammal

WOLF, GRAY Threatened 2

Canis lupus

Plant

BUSH-CLOVER, PRAIRIE Threatened 4

Lespedeza leptostachya

LOCOWEED, FASSETT'S Threatened 2

Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea

MONKSHOOD, NORTHERN WILD Threatened 2

Aconitum noveboracense

ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE FRINGED Threatened 5

Platanthera leucophaea

THISTLE, PITCHER'S Threatened 1

Cirsium pitcheri

Thursday, August 26, 2004 Page 65 of 65
Appendix J-i

Appendix J

Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Associated with

Aquatic Endothall Use
Appendix J-ii

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species of the United States

Excluding Plants and Insects

GROUP Clam

Common Name Scientific Name

ACORNSHELL, SOUTHERN Epioblasma othcaloogensis

BANKCLIMBER, PURPLE Elliptoideus sloatianus

BEAN, PURPLE Villosa perpurpurea

CLUBSHELL Pleurobema clava

CLUBSHELL, BLACK (=CURTUS' MUSSEL) Pleurobema curtum

CLUBSHELL, OVATE Pleurobema perovatum

CLUBSHELL, SOUTHERN Pleurobema decisum

COMBSHELL, CUMBERLAND Epioblasma brevidens

COMBSHELL, SOUTHERN (=PENITENT MUSSEL) Epioblasma penita

COMBSHELL, UPLAND Epioblasma metastriata

ELKTOE, APPALACHIAN Alasmidonta raveneliana

ELKTOE, CUMBERLAND Alasmidonta atropurpurea

FANSHELL Cyprogenia stegaria

FATMUCKET, ARKANSAS Lampsilis powelli

HEELSPLITTER, CAROLINA Lasmigona decorata

HEELSPLITTER, INFLATED Potamilus inflatus

KIDNEYSHELL, TRIANGULAR Ptychobranchus greeni

MOCCASINSHELL, ALABAMA Medionidus acutissimus

MOCCASINSHELL, COOSA Medionidus parvulus

MOCCASINSHELL, GULF Medionidus penicillatus

MOCCASINSHELL, OCHLOCKONEE Medionidus simpsonianus

MUCKET, ORANGE-NACRE Lampsilis perovalis

MUSSEL, DWARF WEDGE Alasmidonta heterodon

MUSSEL, OYSTER Epioblasma capsaeformis

MUSSEL, RING PINK (=GOLF STICK PEARLY) Obovaria retusa

MUSSEL, SCALESHELL Leptodea leptodon

MUSSEL, WINGED MAPLELEAF Quadrula fragosa

PEARLSHELL, LOUISIANA Margaritifera hembeli

PEARLYMUSSEL, ALABAMA LAMP Lampsilis virescens

PEARLYMUSSEL, APPALACHIAN MONKEYFACE Quadrula sparsa

PEARLYMUSSEL, BIRDWING Conradilla caelata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CRACKING Hemistena lata

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND BEAN Villosa trabalis

PEARLYMUSSEL, CUMBERLAND MONKEYFACE Quadrula intermedia

PEARLYMUSSEL, CURTIS' Epioblasma florentina curtisii
Appendix J-iii

PEARLYMUSSEL, DROMEDARY Dromus dromas

PEARLYMUSSEL, GREEN-BLOSSOM Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum

PEARLYMUSSEL, HIGGINS' EYE Lampsilis higginsii

PEARLYMUSSEL, LITTLE-WING Pegias fabula

PEARLYMUSSEL, ORANGE-FOOTED Plethobasus cooperianus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PALE LILLIPUT Toxolasma cylindrellus

PEARLYMUSSEL, PINK MUCKET Lampsilis abrupta

PEARLYMUSSEL, PURPLE CAT'S PAW Epioblasma obliquata obliquata

PEARLYMUSSEL, TUBERCLED-BLOSSOM Epioblasma torulosa torulosa

PEARLYMUSSEL, TURGID-BLOSSOM Epioblasma turgidula

PEARLYMUSSEL, WHITE CAT'S PAW Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua

PEARLYMUSSEL, WHITE WARTYBACK Plethobasus cicatricosus

PEARLYMUSSEL, YELLOW-BLOSSOM Epioblasma florentina florentina

PIGTOE, CUMBERLAND (=CUMBERLAND PIGTOE MUSSEL Pleurobema gibberum

PIGTOE, DARK Pleurobema furvum

PIGTOE, FINE-RAYED Fusconaia cuneolus

PIGTOE, FLAT (=MARSHALL'S MUSSEL) Pleurobema marshalli

PIGTOE, HEAVY (=JUDGE TAIT'S MUSSEL) Pleurobema taitianum

PIGTOE, OVAL Pleurobema pyriforme

PIGTOE, ROUGH Pleurobema plenum

PIGTOE, SHINY Fusconaia cor

PIGTOE, SOUTHERN Pleurobema georgianum

POCKETBOOK, FAT Potamilus capax

POCKETBOOK, FINE-LINED Lampsilis altilis

POCKETBOOK, SHINY-RAYED Lampsilis subangulata

POCKETBOOK, SPECKLED Lampsilis streckeri

RABBITSFOOT, ROUGH Quadrula cylindrica strigillata

RIFFLESHELL, NORTHERN Epioblasma torulosa rangiana

RIFFLESHELL, TAN Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)

ROCK-POCKETBOOK, OUACHITA (=WHEELER'S PM) Arkansia wheeleri

SLABSHELL, CHIPOLA Elliptio chipolaensis

SPINYMUSSEL, JAMES RIVER Pleurobema collina

SPINYMUSSEL, TAR RIVER Elliptio steinstansana

STIRRUP SHELL Quadrula stapes

THREERIDGE, FAT Amblema neislerii

GROUP Crustacean

Common Name Scientific Name

AMPHIPOD, HAY'S SPRING Stygobromus hayi

AMPHIPOD, ILLINOIS CAVE Gammarus acherondytes

AMPHIPOD, KAUAI CAVE Spelaeorchestia koloana

Amphipod, Noel's Gammarus desperatus
Appendix J-iv

AMPHIPOD, PECK'S CAVE Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki

CRAYFISH, CAVE (CAMBARUS ACULABRUM) Cambarus aculabrum

CRAYFISH, CAVE (CAMBARUS ZOPHONASTES) Cambarus zophonastes

CRAYFISH, NASHVILLE Orconectes shoupi

CRAYFISH, SHASTA Pacifastacus fortis

ISOPOD, LEE COUNTY CAVE Lirceus usdagalun

ISOPOD, MADISON CAVE Antrolana lira

ISOPOD, SOCORRO Thermosphaeroma thermophilus

LINDERIELLA, CALIFORNIA Linderiella occidentalis

SHRIMP, ALABAMA CAVE Palaemonias alabamae

SHRIMP, CALIFORNIA FRESHWATER Syncaris pacifica

SHRIMP, CONSERVANCY FAIRY Branchinecta conservatio

SHRIMP, KENTUCKY CAVE Palaemonias ganteri

SHRIMP, LONGHORN FAIRY Branchinecta longiantenna

SHRIMP, RIVERSIDE FAIRY Streptocephalus woottoni

SHRIMP, SAN DIEGO FAIRY Branchinecta sandiegonensis

SHRIMP, SQUIRREL CHIMNEY CAVE Palaemonetes cummingi

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL FAIRY Branchinecta lynchi

SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE Lepidurus packardi

GROUP Fish

Common Name Scientific Name

CATFISH, YAQUI Ictalurus pricei

CAVEFISH, ALABAMA Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni

CAVEFISH, OZARK Amblyopsis rosae

CHUB, BONYTAIL Gila elegans

CHUB, BORAX LAKE Gila boraxobius

CHUB, CHIHUAHUA Gila nigrescens

CHUB, COWHEAD LAKE TUI Gila bicolor vaccaceps

Chub, Gila Gila intermedia

CHUB, HUMPBACK Gila cypha

CHUB, HUTTON TUI Gila bicolor ssp.

CHUB, LEAST Iotichthys phlegethontis

CHUB, MOHAVE TUI Gila bicolor mohavensis

CHUB, OREGON Oregonichthys crameri

CHUB, OWENS TUI Gila bicolor snyderi

CHUB, PAHRANAGAT ROUNDTAIL Gila robusta jordani

CHUB, SLENDER Erimystax cahni

CHUB, SONORA Gila ditaenia

CHUB, SPOTFIN Cyprinella monacha

CHUB, VIRGIN RIVER Gila seminuda (=robusta)

CHUB, YAQUI Gila purpurea
Appendix J-v

CUI-UI Chasmistes cujus

DACE, ASH MEADOWS SPECKLED Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis

DACE, BLACKSIDE Phoxinus cumberlandensis

DACE, CLOVER VALLEY SPECKLED Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus

DACE, DESERT Eremichthys acros

DACE, FOSKETT SPECKLED Rhinichthys osculus ssp.

DACE, INDEPENDENCE VALLEY SPECKLED Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus

DACE, KENDALL WARM SPRINGS Rhinichthys osculus thermalis

DACE, MOAPA Moapa coriacea

DARTER, AMBER Percina antesella

DARTER, BAYOU Etheostoma rubrum

DARTER, BLUEMASK (=JEWEL) Etheostoma /

DARTER, BOULDER Etheostoma wapiti

DARTER, CHEROKEE Etheostoma scotti

DARTER, DUSKYTAIL Etheostoma percnurum

DARTER, ETOWAH Etheostoma etowahae

DARTER, FOUNTAIN Etheostoma fonticola

DARTER, GOLDLINE Percina aurolineata

DARTER, LEOPARD Percina pantherina

DARTER, MARYLAND Etheostoma sellare

DARTER, NIANGUA Etheostoma nianguae

DARTER, OKALOOSA Etheostoma okaloosae

DARTER, RELICT Etheostoma chienense

DARTER, SLACKWATER Etheostoma boschungi

DARTER, SNAIL Percina tanasi

DARTER, VERMILION Etheostoma chermocki

DARTER, WATERCRESS Etheostoma nuchale

GAMBUSIA, BIG BEND Gambusia gaigei

GAMBUSIA, CLEAR CREEK Gambusia heterochir

GAMBUSIA, PECOS Gambusia nobilis

GAMBUSIA, SAN MARCOS Gambusia georgei

GOBY, TIDEWATER Eucyclogobius newberryi

LOGPERCH, CONASAUGA Percina jenkinsi

LOGPERCH, ROANOKE Percina rex

MADTOM, NEOSHO Noturus placidus

MADTOM, PYGMY Noturus stanauli

MADTOM, SCIOTO Noturus trautmani

MADTOM, SMOKY Noturus baileyi

MADTOM, YELLOWFIN Noturus flavipinnis

MINNOW, DEVILS RIVER Dionda diaboli

MINNOW, LOACH Tiaroga cobitis

MINNOW, RIO GRANDE SILVERY Hybognathus amarus
Appendix J-vi

POOLFISH, PAHRUMP (= PAHRUMP KILLIFISH) Empetrichthys latos

PUPFISH, ASH MEADOWS AMARGOSA Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes

PUPFISH, COMANCHE SPRINGS Cyprinodon elegans

PUPFISH, DESERT Cyprinodon macularius

PUPFISH, DEVILS HOLE Cyprinodon diabolis

PUPFISH, LEON SPRINGS Cyprinodon bovinus

PUPFISH, OWENS Cyprinodon radiosus

PUPFISH, PECOS Cyprinodon pecoensis

PUPFISH, WARM SPRINGS Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis

SALMON, ATLANTIC Salmo salar

SALMON, CHINOOK (CALIFORNIA COASTAL ESU) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VALLEY FALL RUN) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (CENTRAL VALLEY SPRING RUN) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (PUGET SOUND) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SACRAMENTO RIVER WINTER RUN) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER FALL RUN) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SNAKE RIVER SPRING/SUMMER) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (SOUTHERN OR/CA COAST) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER SPRING) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHINOOK (UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha

SALMON, CHUM (COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta

SALMON, CHUM (HOOD CANAL SUMMER POPULATION) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta

SALMON, COHO (CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST POP) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SALMON, COHO (OREGON COAST POPULATION) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SALMON, COHO (SOUTHERN OR/NORTHERN CA COAST) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch

SALMON, SOCKEYE (OZETTE LAKE POPULATION) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

SALMON, SOCKEYE (SNAKE RIVER POPULATION) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka

SAWFISH, SMALLTOOTH Pristis pectinata

SCULPIN, PYGMY Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus)

SHINER, ARKANSAS RIVER Notropis girardi

SHINER, BEAUTIFUL Cyprinella formosa

SHINER, BLUE Cyprinella caerulea

SHINER, CAHABA Notropis cahabae

SHINER, CAPE FEAR Notropis mekistocholas

SHINER, PALEZONE Notropis albizonatus

SHINER, PECOS BLUNTNOSE Notropis simus pecosensis

SHINER, TOPEKA Notropis topeka (=tristis)

SILVERSIDE, WACCAMAW Menidia extensa

SMELT, DELTA Hypomesus transpacificus

SPIKEDACE Meda fulgida

SPINEDACE, BIG SPRING Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis
Appendix J-vii

SPINEDACE, LITTLE COLORADO Lepidomeda vittata

SPINEDACE, WHITE RIVER Lepidomeda albivallis

SPLITTAIL, SACRAMENTO Pogonichthys macrolepidotus

SPRINGFISH, HIKO WHITE RIVER Crenichthys baileyi grandis

SPRINGFISH, RAILROAD VALLEY Crenichthys nevadae

SPRINGFISH, WHITE RIVER Crenichthys baileyi baileyi

SQUAWFISH, COLORADO Ptychocheilus lucius

STEELHEAD, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY POP Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, CENTRAL CALIFORNIA POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, KLAMATH MOUNTAINS PROVINCE Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, MIDDLE COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, OREGON COAST POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SNAKE RIVER BASIN POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SOUTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA POP Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STEELHEAD, UPPER WILLAMETTE RIVER POPULATION Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss

STICKLEBACK, UNARMORED THREESPINE Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni

STURGEON, ALABAMA Scaphirhynchus suttkusi

STURGEON, GULF Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

STURGEON, PALLID Scaphirhynchus albus

STURGEON, SHORTNOSE Acipenser brevirostrum

STURGEON, WHITE Acipenser transmontanus

SUCKER, JUNE Chasmistes liorus

SUCKER, LOST RIVER Deltistes luxatus

SUCKER, MODOC Catostomus microps

SUCKER, RAZORBACK Xyrauchen texanus

SUCKER, SANTA ANA Catostomus santaanae

SUCKER, SHORTNOSE Chasmistes brevirostris

SUCKER, WARNER Catostomus warnerensis

TOPMINNOW, GILA (YAQUI) Poeciliopsis occidentalis

TROUT, APACHE Oncorhynchus apache

TROUT, BULL Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, BULL (COASTAL-PUGET SOUND POPULATION) Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, BULL (COLUMBIA RIVER POPULATION) Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, BULL (JARBRIDGE RIVER POPULATION) Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, BULL (KLAMATH RIVER POPULATION) Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, BULL (ST. MARY-BELLY RIVER POPULATION) Salvelinus confluentus

TROUT, COASTAL CUTTHROAT (UMPQUA RIVER POPULATION) Oncorhynchus clarki clarki

TROUT, CUTTHROAT (SW WA/COLUMBIA RIVER POP) Oncorhynchus clarki clarki
Appendix J-viii

TROUT, DOLLY VARDEN Salvelinus malma

TROUT, GILA Oncorhynchus gilae

TROUT, GREENBACK CUTTHROAT Oncorhynchus clarki stomias

TROUT, LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi

TROUT, LITTLE KERN GOLDEN Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei

TROUT, PAIUTE CUTTHROAT Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris

WOUNDFIN Plagopterus argentissimus

GROUP Snail

Common Name Scientific Name

ABALONE, WHITE Haliotis sorenseni

AMBERSNAIL, KANAB Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis

CAMPELOMA, SLENDER Campeloma decampi

CAVESNAIL, TUMBLING CREEK Antrobia culveri

ELIMIA, LACY Elimia crenatella

LIMPET, BANBURY SPRINGS Lanx sp.

LIOPLAX, CYLINDRICAL Lioplax cyclostomaformis

MARSTONIA, ROYAL (=ROYAL SNAIL) Pyrgulopsis ogmorhaphe

PEBBLESNAIL, FLAT Lepyrium showalteri

RIVERSNAIL, ANTHONY'S Athearnia anthonyi

ROCKSNAIL, PAINTED Leptoxis taeniata

ROCKSNAIL, PLICATE Leptoxis plicata

ROCKSNAIL, ROUND Leptoxis ampla

SHAGREEN, MAGAZINE MOUNTAIN Mesodon magazinensis

SNAIL, ARMORED Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta

SNAIL, BLISS RAPIDS Taylorconcha serpenticola

SNAIL, CHITTENANGO OVATE AMBER Succinea chittenangoensis

SNAIL, FLAT-SPIRED THREE-TOOTHED Triodopsis platysayoides

SNAIL, IOWA PLEISTOCENE Discus macclintocki

Snail, Koster's Tryonia Tryonia kosteri

SNAIL, MORRO SHOULDERBAND Helminthoglypta walkeriana

SNAIL, NEWCOMB'S Erinna newcombi

SNAIL, NOONDAY Mesodon clarki nantahala

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA ABBREVIATA) Achatinella abbreviata

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA APEXFULVA) Achatinella apexfulva

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA BELLULA) Achatinella bellula

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA BUDDII) Achatinella buddii

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA BULIMOIDES) Achatinella bulimoides

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA BYRONII) Achatinella byronii

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA CAESIA) Achatinella caesia

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA CASTA) Achatinella casta

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA CESTUS) Achatinella cestus
Appendix J-ix

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA CONCAVOSPIRA) Achatinella concavospira

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA CURTA) Achatinella curta

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA DECIPIENS) Achatinella decipiens

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA DECORA) Achatinella decora

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA DIMORPHA) Achatinella dimorpha

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA ELEGANS) Achatinella elegans

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA FULGENS) Achatinella fulgens

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA FUSCOBASIS) Achatinella fuscobasis

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA JUDDII) Achatinella juddii

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA JUNCEA) Achatinella juncea

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA LEHUIENSIS) Achatinella lehuiensis

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA LEUCORRAPHE) Achatinella leucorraphe

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA LILA) Achatinella lila

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA LIVIDA) Achatinella livida

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA LORATA) Achatinella lorata

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA MUSTELINA) Achatinella mustelina

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA PAPYRACEA) Achatinella papyracea

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA PHAEOZONA) Achatinella phaeozona

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA PULCHERRIMA) Achatinella pulcherrima

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA PUPUKANIOE) Achatinella pupukanioe

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA ROSEA) Achatinella rosea

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA SOWERBYANA) Achatinella sowerbyana

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA SPALDINGI) Achatinella spaldingi

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA STEWARTII) Achatinella stewartii

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA SWIFTII) Achatinella swiftii

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA TAENIOLATA) Achatinella taeniolata

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA THAANUMI) Achatinella thaanumi

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA TURGIDA) Achatinella turgida

SNAIL, O'AHU TREE (ACHATINELLA VALIDA) Achatinella valida

SNAIL, OAHU TREE (MANY SPECIES) Achatinella spp.

SNAIL, PAINTED SNAKE COILED FOREST Anguispira picta

Snail, Pecos Assiminea Assiminea pecos

SNAIL, SNAKE RIVER PHYSA Physa natricina

SNAIL, STOCK ISLAND Orthalicus reses (not incl. nesodryas)

SNAIL, TULOTOMA Tulotoma magnifica

SNAIL, UTAH VALVATA Valvata utahensis

SNAIL, VIRGINIA FRINGED MOUNTAIN Polygyriscus virginianus

SPRINGSNAIL, ALAMOSA Tryonia alamosae

SPRINGSNAIL, BRUNEAU HOT Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis

SPRINGSNAIL, IDAHO Fontelicella idahoensis

Springsnail, Roswell Pyrgulopsis roswellensis

SPRINGSNAIL, SOCORRO Pyrgulopsis neomexicana
Appendix J-x

TALUSSNAIL, SAN XAVIER Sonorella eremita