### 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 propertie s, 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 subsequentlythe 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 saltdirectly to the aquatic environment , as well as the terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalklamine saltto 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 smallinsects 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 acidvalues.

• 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 followi ng 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 LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### is less than 1 ppm. The endothall N,N-

### 1 dimethylalkylamine salt marine/estuarine fish LC 50 

### 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-st age 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 LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### is less than 1 ppm. The endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt marine/estuarine invertebrate LC 50 

### 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 seedproduction 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 di potassium 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 saltand endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine saltdirectly to the aquatic environment , as well as the terrestrial application of endothall N,N-dimethylalklamine saltto 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 disso ciation constants (pKa’s). At most water body pH levels (6 - 8.5) three chemical forms will be present: endothall N,N-dimethylalkylaminesalt, 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 CO 2 

### . 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 saltposes 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 e ndothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt due to the fact that the mechanism(s) chemical constituent(s) responsible for this increased toxicity are notknown. 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 exceedthe 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 uncertaintyas 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 thathas 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 Ca lifornia), potatoes, and seed-use clover and alfalfa. Additionally, they are used to contro l 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 CH 3 N +
CH 3alkyl O O H

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 @25 B C) >11 >65 >50

Octanol:Water partition coefficient (K ow @25 B C) <1 <1 <1

Dissociation Constant (pKa 1 , pKa 2 ) 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@24.3 B C) 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 DATAAcid 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 sediment 5 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 CO 2 3 mono-and di- methyl ester degradates 4Study unacceptable 5 endothall acid and monohydrate degradates

### xiii Table 2. Properties of Endothall Aquatic Herbicide Formulations 1 Aquathol K® Aquathol ® Aquathol Super 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) salt Mixed 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 dimethyl alkylamine 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/AChemical 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) wherethe 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 inthe 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 tim es 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 th e 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 form ulations 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)

State 1

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
Louisiana 2

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 4000State 1 crop Year acreage treated typical # of applications/yr ae/application (lbs/acre) Typical yearly use (lbs)



### xviii Idaho 3

hops 1997 20 NS 1.0 756 Oregon 3

hops 1997 75 NS 0.5 3133 Washington 3

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 sorbto 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 CO 2 

### .(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 applicati on 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 tosupport 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 attribut es 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 ab sence 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 effect s 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 speci es (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 LD 50 1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck subacute dietary LD 50 1c. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck chronic reproduction NOAEL and LOAEL (supplemental studies) Dipotassium salt 1a. Mallard duck acute oral LD 50 1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck subacute dietary LD 50 N,N-dimethyl alkylamine salt 1a. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck acute oral LD 50 1b. Bobwhite quail and mallard duck subacute dietary LD 50 2. Abundance (i.e., survival, reproduction, and growth) of individuals and populations of mammals Acid 2a. Laboratory rat acute oral LD 50 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 LC 50 3b. Fathead minnow chronic NOAEC (weight & length) 3c. Water flea, mussel, ostracod, midge, and grass shrimp acute LC 50 3d. Water flea chronic NOAEC (offspring)

Dipotassium salt 3a. Rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish acute LC 50 3b. Rainbow trout chronic NOAEC & LOAEC (early life) 3c. Water flea acute LC 50

N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt 3a. Cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, bluegill sunfish (and others) acute LC 50 3b. Fathead minnow chronic NOAEC (survival) 3c. Water flea , grass shrimp, (and others) acute LC 50 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 LC 50 3b. Water flea, grass shrimp, and mussel acute LC 50Assessment 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 LC 50 4b. Estuarine/marine fish chronic NOAEC & LOAEC - NO STUDIES SUBMITTED 4c. Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp, and fiddler crab acute LC 50 4d. Estuarine/marine fish chronic NOAEC & LOAEC - NO STUDIES SUBMITTED Dipotassium salt 4a. Sheepshead minnow, chinook salmon, and coho salmon acute LC 50 4b. Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp, and fiddler crab acute LC 50N,Ndimethylalkyl amine

salt 4a. Sheepshead minnow and chinook salmon acute LC 50 4b. Eastern oyster, mysid shrimp, and fiddler crab acute LC 50
N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt (granular) 4a. Common mummichog acute LC 50 4b. Fiddler crab acute LC 50

5. Perpetuation of individuals and populations of non-target terrestrial plants (crops and non-crop plant species) Acid NO STUDIES SUBMITTEDN,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt 5a. Monocot and dicot seedling emergence EC 25 5b. Monocot and dicot seedling vegetative vigor EC 25
Dipotassium salt 5a. Monocot and dicot seedling emergence EC 25 5b. Monocot and dicot seedling vegetative vigor EC 25 6. Survival of beneficial insect populations Acid 6a. Honeybee acute contact LD 50N,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt 6a. Honeybee acute contact LD 50

Dipotassium salt 6a. Honeybee acute contact LD 50Assessment Endpoint Chemical Measurement Endpoint



### xxviii 7. Maintenance and growth of individuals and populations of aquatic plants from standing crop or biomass Acid NO STUDIES SUBMITTEDN,Ndimethylalkyl

amine salt 7a. Algae and duckweed acute EC 50 7b. Algae and duckweed NOAEC/EC 05
Dipotassium salt 7a. Algae EC 50 and NOAEC/EC 05 - NO STUDIES SUBMITTED 7b. Duckweed acute EC 50 7c. Duckweed chronic NOAEC/EC 05 LD 50 = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration LOAEC - Lowest observed adverse effect concentration LC 50 = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population EC 50 /EC 25 = 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 vi sit 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.xxxiFoodchainBirds &Mammals! !! !B !! !C B! BB BB BB BB BLEGENDPotentially complete and pathway of concernPotentially complete but no pathway of concernCPotentially complete and quantitatively evaluatedBPotentially complete but not quantitatively evaluated!Not applicable or incomplete pathwayAquatic EcosystemAquaticLifeSedimentGranular orLiquid EndothallApplicationApplicationMethodPrimary ReleaseMechanismsDirectApplicationAffectedMediaTarget SurfaceWaterEmergent andFloatingMacrophytesSecondaryReleaseMechanismsExposureRoutePartitioningAffected MediaSurface water andbed sediment flowOff-target SurfaceWater andSedimentRechargeGroundwaterIngestionIngestionIngestionContact/UptakeIngestionContact/UptakeContact/UptakeIngestionContact/UptakeContact/UptakeFoliarwashoffFigure 3. Ecological Conceptual Exposure Model for Application ofGranular and Liquid Endothall to a Pond, Lake, or Resevoir.

### 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. Additionalrelease 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 inFigure 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 se diment 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.xxxivFood ChainUplandVegetationWetlandVegetationHerbivores InsectivoresCarnivores(Food chain)Birds &Mammals!(2)! B B B !!! ! C C B !!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! B B B !!!(2)! B B B !!! ! B B B !!!! ! ! ! B!! ! ! ! ! !!!C ! ! !CB!! ! ! !!B!C ! ! !BB!!! ! !BBC ! B B B !!! ! B B B !!! ! B B B !!!C ! ! !CB!! ! ! !!B!C ! ! !BB!! ! ! !!BC C B B B !!! ! B B B !!C ! B B B !!! ! B B B !!! ! B B B !!LEGENDCB!FOOTNOTESEcological ReceptorsAquatic EcosystemProducers ConsumersTerrestrial Ecosystem(1)AquaticLifeContact/UptakeGroundwaterGround orAerialEndothallSprayApplicationApplicationMethodPrimary ReleaseMechanismsDirectApplicationSprayDriftAffectedMediaTargetField SoilOff-targetSurface WaterTarget FieldFoliage/Seeds/Fruit/InsectsOff-targetFoliage/Seeds/Fruits/InsectsSecondaryReleaseMechanismsExposureRouteInfiltration/percolationAffected Media(Tertiary ReleaseMechanismsAirstorm waterrunoffvolatilization/wind suspensionOff-targetSurface WaterSedimentuptakeFoliage/seeds/fruit/rootsInhalation(1) Detritivores are not included because they are not an ecological receptor of concern on oroff 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.IngestionIngestionIngestionContact/UptakeContact/UptakeIngestionSedimentContact/UptakeIngestionIngestionContact/UptakePotentially complete and pathway of concernPotentially complete but not pathway of concernPotentially complete and quantitatively evaluatedPotentially complete but not quantitatively evaluatedNot applicable or incomplete pathwayOff-target soilIngestionIngestionContact/UptakeIngestionContact/UptakeContact/UptakeIngestionContact/UptakeContact/UptakeAirOff-targetSoilRemaining exposure pathways and receptors are the same as the target soil, and arenot evaluated separately. Exposure concentrations based on target soil applicationsare conservative for these exposure pathways and receptors.IngestionOff-targetSurface Water, Soil,Foliage, FruitsdepositionContact/UptakeVolatilization(Long RangeTransport)InhalationExposure pathways and ecological receptors of concern for these affected media arethe same as that for spray drift and are not evaluated separately. Exposureconcentrations based on spray drift applications for this pesticide are conservative forthese exposurepathways and receptors.Figure 4.Ecological Conceptual Exposure Model for Application of Endothall to an Agricultural Field.

### xxxv 3. Conceptual Model SummaryDirect 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 viadirect contact and uptake from off-target surface water and sedimentalso 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 andinvertebrates 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 studi es on the endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine saltspecifically. 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 aci d 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 scen arios, 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 applieddirectly 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 limitedknowledge 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 dir ect 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 app lication 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 e ndpoints (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 alfa lfa 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 Pesticid e 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. Ecotoxicityendpoints derived from short-term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: • LC 50 

### - fish and birds • LD 50 

### - birds and mammals • EC 50 

### - aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates • EC 25 

### - 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 EEC 1 

### /LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /ft 2* 

### or LD 50 

### /day 2 

### 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### or LD 50 

### /day (or LD50<50 mg/kg) 0.2 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 

### or LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### or LD 50 

### /day 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1.0 Aquatic Animals Acute Risk EEC 3 

### /LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 0.1 Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 0.05 Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1.0 Terrestrial and Plants Inhabiting Semi-Aquatic Areas Acute Risk EEC 4 

### /EC 25 

### 1.0 Acute Endangered Use EEC/EC 05 

### or NOAEC 1.0 Aquatic Plants Acute Risk EEC 3 

### /EC 50 

### 1.0 Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC 05 

### or NOAEC 1.0
* 

### mg/ft 2
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 th at the N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt (MRID 44578401) and dipotassium salt (MRID 42289106) forms of endotha ll 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### 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 CO 2 

### . 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 inch es 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 (P esticide R oot Z one M odel) and EXAMS (EXposure Analysis M odeling S ystem). 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 aeriallyto 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 μ g/L (the application rate) for acute values and 49 to 486 μ g/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 C o

### / [-k(1-e -kt 

### ) / t] where C o

### = 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 μ g/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 μ g/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
2500 1 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 wildlif e 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, cl over, 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 Max 1 EEC (ppm) Mean 2 EEC (ppm) Typ 3
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 em ploys 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 app lications. The 60% efficiency factor employed in past EEC calculations for runoff EEC from aeria l 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 repr esent 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 acidranges 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 di etary basis; ranges from very highly toxic to highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute toxic ity 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 sli ghtly 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)

LC 50 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)
LD 50 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 o C and 82%humidity; EPA recommends 21 o C and 55% humidity. Eggs were incubated at 37.6 o C and 57% humidity; EPA recommends 39 o C and 70% humidity. High incident of midterm eggs, hi gh number of eggs cracked, and malfunction of an entire hatch due to incubator malfunction canbe indicative of atypical populati on and masked effects during study. 

### Toxicity to Plants :


### Table 17. Summary of Aquatic Plant Toxicity Data for Endothall Species EC 50 (ppb ae) NOAEC/EC 05 (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 EC 25 NOAEC/ EC 05 Affected Endpoint EC 25 NOAEC/ EC 05 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 si gnificant differences among the monocot and dicot plants.
2. Behavioral Studies Two studies tested mayfly nymph, red shiner, and s unfish 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 con centrations 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 th e 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) de veloped 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 (92 o 

### C) at application. Washington reported damage to alfalfa crops following aerial spraying of endothall and diquat on nearby potato fiel ds. 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 expos ure 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 Gof this document summarizes the LOCs used in this risk assessment. Appendix Hprovides 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 acidApplication 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 t oxicity 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 EC 50 

### 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 fr eshwater 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 dipota ssium 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 LC 50 = 9,152 ppb ae 2 Daphnia LC 50 = 63,800 ppb ae 3 Sheepshead minnow LC 50 = 72,000 ppb ae 4Mysid shrimp LC 50 = 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 tabl e signify exceedances.

### lix Table 21. Endothall dipotassium saltacute 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 RQ 1 Endangered vascular plant RQ 2
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 EC 50 = 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 Us e (LOC 0.1); ES = Endangered Species (LOC 0.05) Bold numbers in tabl e 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 Fish 1 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 Fish 1 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 Invertebrates 1 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 tabl e signify exceedances.

### lxi N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is applied directly to theaquatic 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 expos ed 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 (f ish 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 EC 50 

### 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 estuarin e/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 LC 50 

### 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 endangere d 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 Fish 1 Acute RQ Aquatic Invertebrate 2 Acute RQ Estuarine

Fish 3 Acute RQ Estuarine Invertebrate 4 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 LC 50 = 42 ppb ae 2 Grass shrimp LC 50 = 12 ppb ae; Daphnia LC 50 = 84 ppb ae (range from two endpoints) 3 Sheepshead minnow LC 50 = 819 ppb ae 4Eastern Oyster LC 50 = 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 tabl e signify exceedances.


### Table 26. Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine saltacute risk quotients for aquatic plants - 

### maximum application

ENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT Application rate (ppb) Max EEC (ppb ae) Algae RQ 1 Non-endangered vascular plant RQ 2 Endangered vascular plant RQ 3
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 LC 50 = 2.3 ppb ae 2 Duckweed EC 50 = 740 ppb ae 3 Duckweed NOAEC = 150 ppb ae 4Average application rate in Florida, per Dan Thayer of the SFWMD. AR= Acute risk (LOC 0.5); RU = Restricted Us e (LOC 0.1); ES = Endangered Species (LOC 0.05) Bold numbers in tabl e 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 Fish 1 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 tabl e 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 Invertebrates 1 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 tabl e signify exceedances.

### lxiv b. Terrestrial Application N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt: Endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt is the only endothallchemical 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 Ore gon, 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 andorganic 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 chroni c 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-dimethylalkylam ine 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, Pe nnsylvania, 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 LO C = 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 LC 50 

### 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 Ca lifornia, 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, Pennsylvani a, 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 (endangere d 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 Mississi ppi 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/AENDOTHALL 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 LC 50 = 42 ppb ae Sheepshead minnow LC 50 = 819 ppb ae Grass shrimp LC 50 = 12 ppb ae; Daphnia LC 50 = 84 ppb ae (range from two endpoints) Eastern Oyster LC 50 = 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 Fish 1 Chronic RQ Estuarine/ Marine Fish 2
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/AENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application Crop scenario Application 60-day EEC (ppb) Chronic RQ Freshwater Fish 1 Chronic RQ Estuarine/ Marine Fish 2



### 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 2No 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 Invertebrates 1 Chronic RQ Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates 2
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/AENDOTHALL N,N-DIMETHYLALKYLAMINE SALT - Terrestrial Application Crop scenario Application 21-day EEC (ppb) Chronic RQ Freshwater Invertebrates 1 Chronic RQ Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates 2



### 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 2No data available 

### Aquatic Plants: Peak EECs were compared to acute EC 50 

### 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 e ndothall 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-dimethylal kylamine 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 applicati on 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). Additionall y, 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 Max 1 N/A N/A Aerial Typical 1 N/A N/A
Ground Max 5.3 2.3 Ground Typical N/A N/AENDOTHALL 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 EC 50 = 2.3 ppb ae N/A: data not available or not applicable Bold numbers in ta ble 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 LC 50 

### and NOAEC for birds, LD 50 

### for mammals (based on laboratory rat studies) and appropriate EEC valu es. 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 t oxicity 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-toxi c 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/ACrop 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 ta ble 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 thelack 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 Quotients 1

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 0.00Crop (appl. level) Appl. Rate (lbs ae/acre) Body weight

(g) Mammalian Acute Risk Quotients 1

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 LD 50 = 44.4 mg/kg (endothall acid) Bold numbers in ta ble 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 Quotients 1

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 ta ble 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 EC 25 

### . 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 potat o, 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 nonendangerednon-target vascular plants using labeled application rates.

Crop/ scenario Application Adjacent Area Runoff Wetland Area Runoff Spray Drift

EEC (ppb) RQ 1 EEC (ppb) RQ 1 EEC (ppb) RQ 1 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 EC 25 = 0.055 lb ae/A (turnip); seedling emergence EC 25 = 0.020 lb ae/A (lettuce) Bold numbers in ta ble signify exceedances

### lxxx Table 37. Endothall terrestrial use acute risk quotients for endangerednon-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) RQ 1 EEC (ppb) RQ 1 EEC (ppb) RQ 1 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 ta ble 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-dime thylalkylamine salt, b) direct toxicity ofthe 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 DiscussionBased on the aforementioned LOC exceedances for aquatic organisms, endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt use poses the highest risk to aquatic organisms when applied directly tothe 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 theendothall 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 informati on on the structure of this chemical is provided by the registrant. Coconut-derived alkyl groups may have a chemical formula of C 14 

### H 31 

### N, 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 K ow

### 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 arenecessary 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 characterizethis 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/clove r 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 terre strial application of endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt based on endothall acid toxicity data

. • There are no chronic LOC exceedances for freshw ater 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-di methylalkylamine 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-dimethylal kylamine 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.

DiscussionBased 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 r unoff 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 (LC 50 

### = >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-dimethylalkylam ine salt toxicity data, and chronic RQs were calculated based only on endothall acidvalues. • 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 toxic ity 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 ar e 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 applicati on 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 cl over/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 Fo rce 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 saltThe 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-dimethylal kylamine salt poses risk to terrestrial species: Amphibians Seventeen endangered or threatened amphibian sp ecies 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 speci es 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 4.2x10 8 

### . 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 10 8 

### 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 ev ent 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 4.2x10 8 

### . 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 1x10 16 

### . 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 9.3x10 8 

### and 1 in 2.6x10 7 

### , 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 freshwaterinvertebrates 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 6.2x10 12 

### . 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 1x10 16 

### . 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 2.6x10 11 

### and 1 in 2x10 10 

### , 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 a quatic endothall N,N-dimethylalkylamine amine application is 1 in 1x10 16 

### . 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 6.2x10 12 

### and 1 in 1x10 16 

### . However, individual mortality associated with the calculated RQ value (0.6) forestuarine/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 1x10 16 

### . 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 1x10 16 

### . 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 endotha ll 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 10 8 

### . 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 10 8 

### . 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. Analyticall y, 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 invertebrate s (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, di rect 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 e xposure 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 effect s 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. Chroni c 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 notbe 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 Agen cy 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 Assumption s, 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 CO 2 

### . 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-dimethylalkylaminesalt 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, anddiffusion 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 avoidan ce 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 th e 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 se diment 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 peakmaximum 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 amountsof 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) incidentalcontact 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 sampli ng 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 LC 50 

### 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 me tabolic 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. Severa l 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. Th e 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 withthe 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-dimethylalkyl amine salt dissociation. Endothall N,Ndimethylalkylamine salt is much more toxic than the endothall dipotassium salt, however no explanation or data descri bing 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 acoco-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 endothallacid are approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude less toxic than the endothall N,Ndimethyalkylamine salt. This difference could al so 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 sa lt 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 LD 50 

### 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 Carolin a, 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 Society108:63-66, 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. App lication 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 Phot osynthesis 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/A 1 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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/AStudy 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 Upgradeable 2

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 state 3 44828802 44828801 44820101 Acceptable

Amine 5.9

Concentrations of 3.4 ppm at 15 miles downstream in treated canal N/A

None Washington state 3

44820103 Upgradeable 4Study 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 K ads 

### 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%) de gradates were present. Nonextractable residues were 2.8% on the day of application, and increased to 28.8% by 209 days posttreatment. Evolved CO 2 

### 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 de gradates were again unextractable residues and CO 2 

### . 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 inch es 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 o 

### C for 30 days. (44578401) Photodegradation in Water (161-2) Endothall acid did not absorb light above 290 nm inlength. 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 o 

### C 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, CO 2 

### , 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 CO 2 

### ; 14 

### CO 2 

### 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 re sults 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 endotha ll 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 DT 50 (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 rateType of Study DT 50 (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 St ate 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 subm itted 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 VARIABLE 1 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 VARIABLE 1 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.htmlAerobic 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 1.5EECs (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/molHenry'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 pondApplication 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/molHenry'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 pondApplication 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 

### = + 10 9 

### 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 M T

### is the total mass of pesticide in kg applied to 1 ha of paddy, V T

### is 1.067 x10 6 

### 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, m sed 

### , 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 10 9 

### 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 (T 1/2 

### 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/cm 3 ) 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
r2 =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 contri bute 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 insmall 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 concentr ation 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. Ho wever, 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 potentiallylarger contributor to dissipation than diffusion. However, a canal that is either non-flowing or fl owing 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 differe nt 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 provi ded 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 vert icillata 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw / 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s Fruit/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

0 4 8 12 16 2 0 2 4 2 8 3 2 36 40 44 4 8 5 2 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Da y # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 16 2 0 2 4 28 32 3 6 4 0 44 48 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance A cute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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./Yea r 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 1 6 2 0 2 4 2 8 32 36 40 44 4 8 5 2 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 48 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 1 6 20 2 4 28 32 3 6 40 44 4 8 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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/k g 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 plant s Fruit/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

0 4 8 1 2 1 6 2 0 2 4 2 8 3 2 3 6 4 0 4 4 4 8 5 2 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw / 44.4 56 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s Fruit/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

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 3 6 40 44 48 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 a lfa 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw/ 44.4 31 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 2 8 32 3 6 4 0 44 4 8 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw / 44.4 56 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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)

A cute Mammalian RQs Mammalian Class Body Wgt % body wgt consumed Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plant s 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

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 l fa 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A vian Acute 0.000 (Max. res. mult. apps.) A vian 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw / 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 3 2 36 40 44 48 5 2 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance A cute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 A cute LD50 (mg/kg bw / 44.4 0 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL (mg/k g 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 plant s Fruit/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

0 4 8 12 1 6 20 24 2 8 32 36 4 0 44 4 8 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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./Yea r 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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 ( m g /k g bw/ 44.4 22 Rat Calculated LC50 (ppm) 888 Chronic NOAEL ( m g /k g 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 plant s Fruit/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

0 4 8 12 16 2 0 2 4 2 8 32 36 4 0 4 4 4 8 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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 F ru it s / po d s /l g i nsec t s 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/k g 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 plant s 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

0 4 8 1 2 16 20 24 2 8 3 2 36 40 44 4 8 52 DaysConcentration (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 A vian A vian Mammalian Mammalian Graph Chronic Exceedance A cute Exceedance Chronic Exceedance Acute Exceedance Day # Apps App Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plant s Fruits/po d Line (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) (days in first 56) Period Small Insects lg insect s 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, ai rblast, 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 deriv e 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 Se miaquatic 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 LD 50 acid 0160000 Mallard duck core dipotassium salt 42359501 Mallard duck core N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 00035237 Bobwhite quail core

71-2 Avian Dietary LC 50 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 LC 50 acid 42327702 Rainbow trout core dipotassium salt 40098001 Rainbow trout core N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 40094602 Cutthroat trout core 72-2 Freshwater Invertebrate LC 50 acid 42359702 Daphnia magna core dipotassium salt 42695403 Scud core N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 00035242 Daphnia magna core 72-3(a) Estuarine/Marine Fish LC 50 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 EC 50 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 EC 50 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 coreTable 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) FreshwaterInvertebrate LifeCycle acid 43007801 Daphnia magna supplemental dipotassium salt NO DATA NA NA N,N-dimethylalkylamine salt 43437901 Daphnia magna core 72-4(d) Marine/EstuarineInvertebrate 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 coreTable 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 LD 50 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 LD 50 product (mg/kg) LD 50 ae (mg/kg) Toxicity Category MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification 1 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 Endotha ll - 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 = 3 89. 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 LD 50 

### 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 LD 50 

### 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 LD 50 

### 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 LC 50 (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 nontoxic 43167901 Pedersen et.al. 1994 core

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 23.4 > 10,000 >2336 practically nontoxic 35241 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 nontoxic 43167701 Pedersen et.al., 1994 core

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 83.16 > 5,000 practically nontoxic 43167702 Pedersen et.al., 1994 core

Dipotssium salt of Endothall - Aquathol K (40.3% a i; 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 LC 50 

### 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 LC 50 

### 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 re quired 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 Supplemental 1

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 c oncentration group (22% for both) was elevated which is atypical. Eggs were incubate d at 37.6 o C and 57% humidity. EPA recommends 39 o 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 15 o C and 82%humidity; EPA recommends 21 o C and 55% humidity. Eggs were incubated at 37.6 o C and 57% humidity; EPA recommends 39 o C and 70% humidity. High incident of midterm eggs, hi gh number of eggs cracked, and malfunction of an entire hatch due to incubator malfunction canbe indicative of atypical populati on and masked effects during study. 

### Since there is uncertainty of endothall adversely affecting mallard duck and bobwhite quail, additional studies are needed to access repr oductive 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 Toxi city 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 LD 50 = 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 e xposure. 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 T GAI were required to establish the toxicity of Endothall to fish. The preferred test species are rai nbow 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 EC 50 (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 EC 50 (ppm product) EC 50 (ppm ae) MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Static 18.8 0.3 0.0564 00068507 Hughes et.al, 1962 supplemental 1

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 cont ainer. Tested by Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. 2 Supplemental due to 5 wild fish tested per concentrati on, tap water used, hardness is 132 CaCO3, temperature is 55 o 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 EC 50 (ppm product) EC 50 (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. 1986Hydrothol 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 con centration, not preferred species, temperature 70-71 o F 2 Supplemental due to aerated water and polyethylene-lined container. Tested by Louisiana Wildlife Fisheries Commission 3 Fish loading averaged 1.47 g/L, wh ich the authors felt necessitate aeration. 4 Hydout pellets used 5 Hydout pellets ground into powder 6 Study is titled “Aquatic Algicide and He rbicide: 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 EC 50 (ppm product) EC 50 (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 supplementalAquathol 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 = 11.5 o 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 12 o C and weighing 0.4 grams. 3 Tested at 22 o C. 4 Temperature = 20 - 21.5 o C. 5 Avoidance test was also conducted in wh ich the tested goldfish did not avoid endothall concentrati ons at 1.7 ppm ai and avoi ded concentrations at 17.0 ppm ai. Only two concentrations were used in this test. 

### On an acute toxicity basis, dipotassium salt of e ndothall 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 fo r use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, (2) any aquatic acute LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### 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 15 o C 0.200 ai survival at 25 o C 0.050 ai growth at 25 o 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 15 oC 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, le ngth, 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 frysurvival 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 inverteb rates. 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 EC 50 (ppm product) 48-hour EC 50 (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, 25 o C) 1.43 (48 hr, 15 o 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, 22 o C) 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 = 21 o 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 concentr ation tested with no mortalities shown. 6 Sanders, H. O. 1969. Toxicity of Pesticides to the Crustacean Gammarus lacustris. Tech.Pap.N o.25, Bur.Sports Fish.Wildl., Fi sh Wildl.Serv., U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. 18 p. (Author Communicati on 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 p pm (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 fres h 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 dubiaat 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 Mu ssel, Anodonta imbecilis, Ceriodaphnia dubia. Bull.Envir on.Contam.Toxicol. 51(5), 696-702. 12 Hard well water, temperature = 21 o C 13 deformed larvae averaged 5.7 per replicate incontrol, 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 endotha ll is slightly toxic; and endothall acid ranges from slightly toxic to practically non-toxi c 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 inte nded for use such that its presence in water is likely to be continuous or recurre nt regardless of toxicity, (2) any aquatic acute LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### is less than 1 mg/L, or, (3) the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of any acute EC 50 

### or LC 50 

### value, or, (4) the actual or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is less than 0.01 of any aquatic acute EC 50 

### or LC 50 

### 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 25 o C. This species is more ecologically relevant than Daphnia magna. 3 Additional studies at 25 o C found the NOAEC to be 0.010 ppm product. Metabolic rate of this species decrease at 15 o C compared to 22 o C. 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 re productive 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 inlength and number of offspring at 2.2 ppb ae. (lowest concentration tested) when compared to controls. A NOAE C has not been determined for endothall acid.

### Appendix F-xvi Toxicity to Amphibians Although EPA does not have guideline studies for amphibi ans, amphibian toxicity data were provided.


### Table F-15. Toxicity to Amphibians with Hydrothol 191 - Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt

% ae EC 50 (ppm product) EC 50 (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 Toxi cities to Tadpoles of the Western Chorus Frog Pseudacris triser iata 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 EC 50 (ppm product) 96-hour EC 50 (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 coreSpecies, Type of Study Product % ae. 96-hour EC 50 (ppm product) 96-hour EC 50 (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 c hemical does not appear to impair osmoregulatory capacity of the fish.. This study is a challenge salt water study which may added additional s tress 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, fishbehaved normally in that they swam in groups, moved away quick ly when observers approached the tanks, and took food eagerly. 

### On an acute toxicity basis, endothall acid is prac tically 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 LC 50 

### is less than 1 mg/l, the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of the acute sheepshead minnow LC 50 

### of 0.1755 ppb ae. The preferred test species is sheepshead minnow. Data from this guideline using Hy drothol 191are needed to assess risk to estuarine fish.

c. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Acute Acute toxicity testing with estuarine/marine inve rtebrates 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 EC 50 (ppm product) 96-hour EC 50 (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) flowthru 89.5 39 42914101 Bettencourt, 1983 core

Mono (N,N dimethylalkylamine) salt Note: all Hydout pellets were grounded into powder for lab use Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) flowthru Hydrothol 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 atnext two higher concentrations, 32 and 56 ppm. 3 Supplemental due to testing only 5 organi sms per concentration level and high biologi cal loading. Since there was no morta lities 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 toxicitytest 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 LC 50 

### is less than 1 mg/l, the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of the acute mysid LC 50 

### 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 Dipota ssium Endothall on Rooted A quatics 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 Fe d. 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 inves tigate 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 hi gh (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. A lthough 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 s howed 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 treatme nt 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 le vel of Hydrothol 191 goes down, liver damage was4 Holmberg, D. J. and Lee, G. F. 1976. Effects and Persistence of Endothall in the Aquatic Environment. J.Water Pollut.Control Fe d. 48[23], 2738-2746.

5 Folmar, L. C. 1976. Overt Avoidance Reaction of Rainbow Tr out Fry to Nine Herbicides. Bull. Environ.Contam.T oxicol. 15[5], 509-514

6 Bettoli, P. W. and Clark, P. W. 1992. Behavior of Sunfish Expos ed 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 Herbicid e 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 afte r the third day of exposure of 0.03 and 0.3 ppm og Hydrothol 191. These abnormal cells disappeared by the 14 th

### day from the testes of the fish exposed to 0.03 ppm concentrations and from the 0.3 ppm concentrations by the 28 th

### day. Aquathol K (40.3% a.i. and 28.6%a.e. of dipotassium sa lt 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 c onsist 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 we re killed by the application and dropped to the bottom of the pond within 7 days. Chara, whic h was unaffected by the treatment, infested the entire
area. Avoidance reaction of rainbow trout (Ephemere lla walkeri) was tested by Folmar (1978) 5 

### . Folmar found no avoidance response from trout to Aquathol K (di potassium 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 , blueg ill 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 be havior of sunfish from endothall exposure because the abandonment of the nests were only temporary (15 mi nute 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 c onsidered 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 fi sh lost its righting ability. When compared to the8 Liguori, V. M., Zakour, H. R., Landolt, M. L., and Felton, S. P. 1983. Toxicity of the Herbicid e Endothall to Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: W.E. Bishop, R.D.Cardwell, and B. B.Heidolph (Eds.), Aquatic T oxicology and Hazard Assessment, 6th Symposium, ASTM STP 802.

9 Blouck, G. R. And D. A. Johnson. 1979. Medication Inhibits Tole rance 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 e nvironmental concentrations did not affect the red shiner’s ability to adapt to temperature stress. Th is study does have some deficiencies. The testing aquarium was gently aerated, no replicates were test ed, 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 concentrati on. 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 inthis 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 b ecause it is a herbicide with outdoor terrestrial use patterns, and it may pose hazards to endangered or thr eatened 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 requirement s 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 fo r 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 EC 25 (lb ae/A) NOAEC (lb ae/A) Parameter EC 25 (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 EC 25 (lb ae/A) NOAEC (lb ae/A) Parameter EC 25 (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 th an lowest dose concentration 4 Confidence is low for this value since cv = 1.7 x 10 -24- 2.0 x 10 15 

### Seed germination studies are not required as a part of the data package since ther e 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 germ ination 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 EC 25 (lb ae/A) NOAEC (lb ae/A) Parameter MRID No. Author/Year Study Classification

soybean 0.058 0.014 radicle length

44392803 Hoberg, 1997 core tomato 0.083 0.0135 radicle length 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 EC 25 (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 th at 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 EC 50 (ppb product) EC 50 (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 EC 50 (ppb product) EC 50 (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. 1972Species EC 50 (ppb product) EC 50 (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 fi nding test, does not meet GLP standards, 2 replicates used, 3 do ses used. 3 This study is supplemental since it was performed as range fi nding test, does not meet GLP standards, 2 replicates used, 4 d oses 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 10 4

### 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%. Th e 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 disc ussion 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 asse ssments (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 USFW S 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 interpretati on 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 assumptionof a probit dose-response relationship for acute toxicity endpoints. The listed species LO Cs 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 di scussions 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 te rms 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 LC 50 

### , LD 50 

### , or EC 50 

### 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 es timate, 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 acidand 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/estuarineinvertebrates (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 triglochid iatus 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 (=Ma rstonia) 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 triglochid iatus 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 (=Echinocac tus,=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 lentiginos us 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 (=Ma rstonia) 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 triglochid iatus 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 (=Plecot us) 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 CA LIFORNIA 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 CO AST 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 (=Ma rstonia) 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