# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Boscalid

New Use on Rapeseed, Including Canola (Seed Treatment)

Boscalid

CAS 188425

- 85

- 6 PC Code 128 008



### Prepared b y Catherine Aubee

, Biologist

David Lieu

, Chemist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Environmental Risk Branch IV 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460 

### Reviewed by Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Chuck Peck, Environmental Fate Scientist

Marietta Echeverria , Branch Chief- Page 2 of 52

- 

# Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3

2. Problem Formulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5

2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 5

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 5

2.3. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 6

2.4. Assessment En dpoints

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 6

2.5. Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6

2.5.1. Risk Hypothesis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6

2.5.2. Con ceptual Diagram

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7

2.6. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 8

2.6.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ................ 8

2.6.2. Identification of Data Gaps and Uncertain ties

................................ ................................ ............... 9

2.6.3. Measures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 9

2.6.4. Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 10

2.6.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects

................................ ................................ .............................. 10

3. Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 11

3.1. Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 11

3.2. Exposure Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 11

3. 2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ ............................... 11

3.2.2. Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 13

3.2.3. Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 16

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17

3.3.1. Ecotoxicity Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 17

3.3.2. Incident Reports

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 21

4. Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 22

4.1. Risk Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 22

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 22

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 23

4.2. Risk Description and Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 25

4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 25

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 27

4.2. 3. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 29

5. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

................................ .......................... 30

5.1. Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 30

5.2. Taxonomic G roups Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 31

5.2.1. Probit Dose

- Response Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 32

5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence with Proposed New Use of Boscalid

................................ ................. 33

6. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 35

Appendix A. Chemical names and structures of boscalid and its degradates

................................ ..................... 38 Appendix B. PRZM/EXAMS file names and sample input/output data

................................ ............................. 39 Appendix C. SCI

- GROW sample input/output data

................................ ................................ ............................. 41 Appendix D. Example T

- REX (v. 1.4.1) input and output data

................................ ................................ ............ 42 Appendix E. Example TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) input and output data

................................ ................................ ....... 43 Appendix F. Ecotoxicity data gaps and uncertainties

................................ ................................ ........................... 44 Appendix G. Environmental fate and transport data gaps and uncertainties

................................ .................... 45 Appendix H. LOCATES output of listed species

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 47- Page 3 of 52

- 

## 1. Executive Summary

Boscalid is a synthetic carboxamide fungicide which is proposed for use as a seed treatment on rapeseed ( Brassica napus )

, including canola . The compound has demonstrated at least limited systemic activity and residues are persistent and stable to metabolism in plants. Boscalid has a moderate potential to reach aquatic environments, including surface and ground water, for

several months or more fo llowing terrestrial application. The available data indicate that boscalid is likely to dissipate to some extent through various mechanisms, including runoff, erosion, and leaching to ground water. Because boscalid degrades slowly in soil and aquatic

sys tems

, the compound may persist in soil, in water, and in benthic sediment , once transported or partitioned to these environmental compartments.

In aquatic ecosystems, although the octanol

- water partition coefficient values for boscalid

indicate that the c ompound does not have a strong affinity for sediment, the compound's relatively slow degradation rate increases the likelihood that partitioning will occur over time. Boscalid adsorbed to soil may also enter the benthic compartment through sedimentation

p rocesses, although dissipation through other routes ( e.g. , leaching prior to and following sedimentation) will reduce the fraction of adsorbed boscalid available for transport. Overall, there is high confidence in the data that show little or no degradati on of boscalid residues in soil and aquatic systems. However, the presence of unidentified, unextracted residues in the aerobic soil metabolism study creates some uncertainty about the extent of persistence of boscalid in soil. In the absence of clarifyi ng data, this screening

- level assessment makes the conservative assumption that unidentified residues are parent boscalid

, thereby increasing estimates of persistence.

Previous assessments have identified that boscalid is moderately

- to

- highly toxic to fis h and aquatic invertebrates, but practically non

- toxic to mammals, birds, and terrestrial invertebrates, following acute exposure. Chronic effects have been observed in both terrestrial and aquatic organisms exposed to boscalid, and toxic effects have bee n noted in registrant

- submitted studies with aquatic and terrestrial plants. Ecotoxicity data gaps exist with respect to potential effects on

sediment

- dwelling organisms, acute effects on freshwater invertebrates and passerine birds, and potential chronic effects on estuarine/marine organisms. Additional uncertainties surround the actual measured concentrations associated with effects in various aquatic studies, although the toxicity of boscalid appears to be limited by its solubility.

Beekeepers have reported incidents involving honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) mortality and adverse effects on honey bee brood (larval) development, associated with the use of boscalid. Although

these incidents have not been associated with the Coronet ® 

### Fungicide ( 18.0 % boscalid and 9.0% pyraclostrobin ) end

- use product proposed for the new seed treatment use, some of them have

been associated with another co

- formulated product (Pristine ® 

### Fungicide, 25.2% boscalid and 12.8% pyraclostrobin). The reported incidents have been associated with foliar applications of

boscalid

- containing products and not with seed treatment uses. The level of boscalid and/or pyraclostrobin that honey bees and other terrestrial invertebrates could be exposed to as a result of the proposed seed tre atment use is uncertain.- Page 4 of 52

- 

### Based on estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) and the available ecotoxicity data, the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed may result in chronic risk to terrestrial vertebrates, including birds (re ptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians) and mammals that consume treated seed. Acute risk to listed species of birds cannot be precluded, based on sublethal effects observed in a subacute dietary test, but frank mortality of birds is not expected. Despi te the uncertainties regarding the ecotoxicity profile of boscalid, the proposed new use is considered unlikely to result in acute or chronic risk to aquatic organisms. The potential for adverse effects on aquatic and terres trial plants is considered low. There is uncertainty regarding the potential for adverse effects to larval honey bee s from the use of boscalid products co

formulated with the fungicide pyraclostrobin; nonetheless, the likelihood of exposure from seed

treatments is uncertain because, al though boscalid demonstrates some systemic activity, the extent to which the compound may be translocated to nectar and pollen from a treated seed is unknown. Exposure of ground

- nesting bees and wasps may be more likely than exposure of honey bees, given that the compound is expected to persist in soil and on organic matter.

The potential for direct and indirect effects to listed non

- target organisms for which risk is assessed as a result of the proposed new use of boscalid is summarized in Table 1.1 . Th is screening level assessment does not evaluate risk to terrestrial invertebrates.

Table 1

. 1

. Potential effects to federally listed taxa associated with the proposed new use of boscalid.

Listed Taxon Direct Effects Indirect Effects from Risk to Other Taxa

Yes/No Acute/Chronic Yes/No Through ...

Terrestrial and semi

aquatic plants

– monocots and dicots No NA Yes Acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on birds, chronic effects on mammals, when required for pollination or seed dispersal.

Birds Yes Acute sublethal 1

and Chronic Yes Chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey; acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on reptiles and amphibians that serve as prey.

Terrestrial

- phase amphibians Yes Acute sublethal 1

and Chronic Yes Chronic effects on mammals which provide critical habitat ( e.g. , burrows) and serve as

prey.

Reptiles Yes Acute sublethal 1

and Chronic Yes Chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey; acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on birds, reptiles, and amphibians that serve as

prey.

Mammals Yes Chronic Yes Acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on birds, reptiles, and amphibians that serve as prey;

chronic effects on mammals that serve as

prey.
Aquatic plants No NA No NA

Freshwater fish No NA No NA

Aquatic

- phase amphibians No NA Yes Acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on

terrestrial

- phase amphibians.

Freshwater invertebrates No NA No NA

Mollusc s No NA No NA

Marine/estuarine fish No NA No NA- Page 5 of 52

- Marine/estuarine

invertebrates No NA No NA

NA Not applicable.

1 Acute risk of sublethal effects in listed species of birds, and therefore in reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians, could not be precluded based on the submitted ecotoxicity data.



## 2. Problem Formulation

2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor

Boscalid is in the carboxamide family of fungicides (FRAC Group 7). The chemical’s mode of action is the inhibition of mitochondrial ATP production in fungal cells. Specifically, boscalid

inhibits the succinate

- ubiquinone oxidoreductase system in Complex II of the mitochondrial electron transfer chain (proposed label and Wharton 2010). This mode of action is shared with the pesticide active ingredients carboxin (CAS Number 5234

- 68

- 4 ) and flutolanil (CAS Number

66332

- 96

- 5 )

.

Coronet ® 

### Fungicide, the boscal id end

- use product associated with the petition for new use as a seed treatment on rapeseed, is co

- formulated with the pesticide active ingredient pyraclostrobin ( 18.0 % boscalid and 9.0% pyraclostrobin ). Pyraclostrobin (CAS Number 175013

- 18

- 0 ) is a

strobi lurin fungicide that inhibits electron transfer in mitochondria by disrupting the ubiquinone (Q) cycle at the outer binding site of the cytochrome bc 1 

### complex ( i.e. , quinone outside inhibitor, FRAC Group 11) (proposed label and Wharton 2010).

2.2. Stressor Sou rce and Distribution

Boscalid is a fungicide associated with eight formulated end

- use products

, labeled for use s on food crops (including seed treatments)

, cotton, ornamentals, and turf. Outside of the registered

use s
, boscalid has been used in California , Minnesota, and South Dakota under Section 18 emergency exemptions. Estimates of the total current usage of boscalid are unavailable.

For the proposed use as a seed treatment on rapeseed, the boscalid end

- use product Coronet ® 

### will be applied to seeds as a water

- based slurry or mist. The proposed label does not indicate how treated seeds will be planted or applied to the field. Based on publicly available agricultural extension documents for canola, used as a surrogate for ra peseed throughout this assessment, it is

assumed that treated seeds will be broadcast

- applied and may be chained in (Boyles et al. 2007). The proposed label states 0.12 lb a.i./100 lbs seed as the maximum use rate on rapeseed seed

treatment. The maximum s eeding rate is 10 lb seed per acre (Boyles et al . 2007). Therefore the maximum application rate is calculated as 0.012 lbs a.i./A (boscalid).- Page 6 of 52

- 

### 2.3. Receptors

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor ( US EPA 1998). For this

assessm ent, the receptor includes terrestrial and aquatic animals inhabiting fields where boscalid treated seeds are planted and non

- target areas to where boscalid is transported (via runoff or leaching to groundwater ). Consistent with the process described in t he Overview Document (USEPA 2004), the risk assessment uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of

boscalid. T oxicological data generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxono mic groups, are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings.

2.4. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value that is to be protected, defined b y an ecological entity (species, community, or other entity) and its attributes (EPA 1998). For boscalid, the ecological entities may include birds, mammals, freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, terrestrial plants, i nsects, and aquatic plants and algae. The attributes evaluated for each of these entities may include growth, reproduction, and

survival.

2.5. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically

si gnificant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental trans port medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure.

A conceptual model provides a written description and visual representation of the predicted relationships between boscalid (used as a seed treatment), the potent ial routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for each assessment endpoint. A conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk hypothesis and the conceptual diagram (EPA 1998).

2.5.1. Risk Hypothesis

For boscalid, the following ecological risk hy pothesis is employed for this risk assessment:

B oscalid has slight to moderate mobility in soil and can move to surface water through spray drift

, runoff , and erosion; it also has limited potential to leach to ground water. Based on previous assessments and the compound’s persistence, boscalid is expected to pose a chronic risk to small birds, terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles and to all size classes of mammals. In addition, boscalid may produce adverse effects on su rvival, growth, and/or fecundity of aquatic animals. There is also uncertainty regarding the potential risk to benthic invertebrates, given boscalid’s persistence in water and sediment

. Although not expected to pose a risk to aquatic plants or to monoco tyledonous terrestrial- Page 7 of 52

- 

### plants , there is uncertainty regarding its potential effects through runoff on dicotyledonous

terrestrial plants

.

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram

The environmental fate properties of boscalid indicate that runoff represents a potential transpor t
mechanism of boscalid to aquatic habitats where non

- target organisms may be exposed. It is expected that non

- target terrestrial organisms can be exposed to boscalid through consumption of treated seeds. These transport mechanisms ( i.e ., sources) are dep icted in the conceptual models below ( Figures 1 and 2 ) along with the receptors of concern and the potential attribute changes in the receptors due to exposures of boscalid

. Dotted lines represent transport pathways that are

assumed to have a low likeliho od of occurring and/or of contributing to ecological risk.

Figure 1. Conceptual model for potential boscalid seed treatment effects on aquatic organisms. 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Boscalid

- treated seeds applied to use site

Fish/aquatic

- phase amphibians Eggs

Larvae

Juveniles / Adults

Individual organisms

Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in algae Reduction in prey Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover Community change Surface water/

Sediment Runoff

Aquatic Animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates 

### Exposure

Media

Uptake/gills or integument

Ingestion Ingestion Wet/dry deposition Soil Groundwater

Uptake/gills or integument

Aquatic Plants

Non

- vascular

Vascular Uptake/cell,
roots, leaves Riparian plant

terrestrial

exposure pathways see

Figure 2- Page 8 of 52

- Figure 2. Conceptual model for potential boscalid seed treatment effects on terrestrial organisms.



### 2.6. Analysis Plan

The analysis plan is the final step in Problem Formulation. During this step, an assessment design is developed, the scope of the assessment is outlined, the methods for conducting the assessment are determined, measurements of effects and exposure to evaluate the risk hypothesis being delineated, and initial data gaps and assumptions required to address them are identified.

2.6.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

Previously this year, EFED completed a review of the Section 3 request for new uses of boscalid on alfalfa (Endura ® 

### : 70.0 % a.i. , and Pristine ® 

### : 25. 2% a.i. plus 12.8% pyraclostrobin ) and citrus (Pristine ® 

### ) (DP Barcode D363523). The proposed maximum single application rates for boscalid new uses were 0.48 lbs a.i./A (1.44 lbs a.i./A seasonally) on alfalfa and 0.29 lbs a.i./A (1.17 lbs

a.i./A seasonall y) on citrus. The results of the assessment indicated a potential for direct adverse

effects to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Specifically, the application of boscalid according to the proposed label specifications was expected to result in acute ri sk to listed freshwater fish and

to estuarine/marine molluscs

. C hronic risk was identified for freshwater fish and for mammals. In addition, reports of honey bee “brood effects” associated with the application of boscalid, especially as the Pristine ® 

### for mulation, suggested a potential for adverse effects on terrestrial 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Boscalid

- treated seeds applied to use site

Direct application

Birds / Terrestrial

phase amphibians / reptiles /

mammals Seeds

Individual organisms

Reduced survival

Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in prey Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover Community change Terrestrial/riparian plants grasses/forbs, fruit, terrestrial

invertebrates Runoff

Mammals 

### Exposure

Media Soil

Ingestion Ingestion

Ingestion Ingestion Dermal uptake/Ingestion

Root uptake

Wet/dry deposition

Birds / Amphibians

Ingestion- Page 9 of 52

- 

### invertebrates. Although boscalid may reach groundwater, estimated concentrations in groundwater for the previously proposed uses indicated that likelihood of adverse effects on

non

- targe t organisms from groundwater exposure was low. Acute risk to birds and mammals and chronic risk to birds did not exceed the Agency’s level of concern (LOC).

Ecotoxicity data gaps previously resulted in the presumption of acute risk to freshwater

inverteb rates and acute (listed species) and chronic risks to estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates. Risks to terrestrial dicotyledonous plants (dicots) from spray drift could not be precluded based on the available data. However, potential risk to terrestria l monocotyledonous plants (monocots) and to dicots exposed to runoff alone did not exceed the Agency’s LOC.

2.6.2. Identification of Data Gaps and Uncertainties

Data gaps and uncertainties in the assessment of the proposed boscalid seed treatment use for

rapese ed remain the same as those identified in the previous new use assessment for alfalfa and citrus (DP Barcode D363523). The absence of and deficiencies in particular ecotoxicity and

environmental fate studies are discussed in detail in that assessment and in the associated transmittal memo of the previous assessment (19 February 2010).

The largest uncertainty in the environmental fate data for boscalid pertains to the unidentified, unextracted residues in the aerobic soil metabolism and anaerobic aquatic m etabolism studies. In this assessment, the unidentified, unextracted residues are conservatively assumed to be the parent compound. As described in the previous assessment (DP D363523), revision of the

aerobic soil metabolism half

- life values to reflect the uncertainty regarding unextracted residues resulted in higher aquatic PRZM/EXAMS modeling EECs

PRZM/EXAMS may overestimate aquatic EECs for persistent compounds, because peak concentrations are not independent. EXAMS uses a standard pond with a stati c water body of fixed volume and no outlet. The model simulates the impact of daily weather on the field over a period of thirty years. The pesticide is washed

- off into the water

- body by the rainfall and runoff events. The persistence of boscalid result s in accumulation in the water

- body, which results in a yearly peak concentration that is correlated to each previous year’s peak concentration. In a natural environment, over the course of thirty years, some loss of the bioavailable fraction of the

compo und would be expected due to sediment burial and other dissipation processes.

2.6.3. Measures of Exposure

Screening

- level assessments are intended to be prote ctive of wildlife on a national level

, as opposed to being a regionally

- or locally

- specific. Therefore, t his assessment is not intended to

represent a s patially

- or t emporally

- specific analysis. Maximum application rates for seed

treatment on canola, as a surrogate for all proposed rapeseed uses, are used for modeling

environmental concentrations. M easures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models

that calculate estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) using labeled application rates and

methods. Exposure modeling assumes that the seed treatment use will not result in spray drift. Particulate drift, which may occur from abrasion of treated seeds during field application, is not assessed in the screening level exposure models. Groundwater is also assessed due to the- Page 10 of 52

- 

### moderate leaching po tential of boscalid. T here are currently no monitoring data for boscalid for comparison to model

- generated EECs.

Surface water EECs are calculated using the Pesticide Root Zone Model ( v3.12.2, May 2005 ) coupled with the Exposure Analysis Model System (EXA MS, v2.98.4.6, April 2005 ) and using

the input shell, pe5.pl ( Aug ust 200 6 ) (USEPA 2006 a ). Groundwater concentrations are estimated using SCIGROW (Screening Concentration in Ground Water), incorporating the same

method of calculation used in the PRZM and E XAMS modeling. The Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model (T

- REX, version 1. 4 .1, 12/ 11 /200 8 ) is used to derive terrestrial EECs on food items (USEPA 200 8 ) for terrestrial vertebrates . The TerrPlant model (version 1.2.2, 12/26/2006)

is used to derive runoff E ECs for estimating exposures to terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and

semi

- aquatic areas (USEPA 2006b) . These models are parameterized using relevant use and environmental fate data according to EFED input parameter guidance.

2.6.4. Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant

- submitted guideline studies which were conducted with a limited number of surrogate species. The test species are not intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were selected ba sed on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. For example, toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish ( > 2000 species ) and bird s ( > 680 species ) identified in the U.S. In addition, t he ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was

searched in November 2010 to provide more ecological effects data for boscalid (CAS 188425

- 85

- 6 ) ; however, n o additional data were located.

The acute measures of effect used i n this screening level assessment include the median lethal dose ( LD 50 

### )

, median lethal concentration ( LC 50 

### )

, and the median effect concentration ( EC 50 

### ). These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of effect are the No Observed Adverse Effects

Concentration (NOAEC ) and the No Observed Adverse Effects Level ( NOAEL). Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and

inv ertebrates, aquatic and terrestrial plants, birds, mammals and honey bees. The measurement endpoints used for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwent review and were classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically sound ) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results are scientifically sound ).

2.6.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological

effects on non

- target species. For the screening

- level assessment of boscalid , the deterministic, risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ method involves dividing EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA 2004). These criteria are used to indicate if applications of boscalid , as directed on the label, have the potential to cause

adverse e ffects to non

- target organisms.- Page 11 of 52

- 

### Although risk is often de scribed in terms of the likelihood and magnitude of adverse effects, the risk quotient

- based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood or magnitude of an adverse effect, bu t rather provides a “yes” or “no” answer depending upon whether or not

LOCs are exceeded. For example, although a chronic RQ value equal to 4 exceeds the chronic LOC and indicates that an EEC is 4 times the highest test concentration where no adverse effe cts were observed in a chronic study; however, this does not imply that adverse effects are 4 times more likely to occur.



## 3. Analysis

3.1. Use Characterization

Boscalid is a fungicide active ingredient (a.i.) included in multiple

, formulated end

- use products

, and is registered for use on food crops (including seed treatments), cotton, ornamentals and turf.

I t was first registered by USEPA in 2003. The seed treatment of Coronet ® 

### Fungicide is a dual

active ingredient formulation containing 18.0 % boscalid and 9. 0% pyraclostrobin. Coronet ®



### seed treatment is registered for use on cole crops ( Brassica sp. ; not including rapeseed/canola), bulb vegetables, cotton, cucurbits, legume vegetables, soybean, and sunflower seeds

. Application of the fungicide to seeds can b e accomplished through water

- based slurry, using standard slurry or mist

- type seed treatment application equipment. The current seaso nal rates are

0. 015

– 0.12 lbs a

. i

. / 100 lbs seed (cwt) based on all previous labels and depending on crop.

This ecological risk assessment evaluates the use of boscalid as a fungicide ( Coronet ® 

### ) to control fungal diseases ( e.g ., Rhizoctonia solani

, Phoma lingam

, Cladosporium spp., and Penicillium

, ssp.) of rapeseed, including canola and crambe. Throughout this asse ssment, canola is used as a surrogate for all proposed rapeseed uses. The proposed label for the new use on rapeseed allows a maximum application of 0.12 lbs a.i. per 100 lbs of seed (cwt). Canola seed is planted at 4 to 10 lbs seed per acre (Boyles et al . 2007), which corresponds to a maximum application rate of 0.012 lbs a.i./A (0.013 kg ai/ha) 1 

### . This maximum application rate is used as the basis of screening

- level calculations for aquatic and terrestrial exposure.

3.2. Exposure Characterization

3.2.1. Environm ental Fate and Transport

The environmental fate and transport properties of boscalid and a description of the total toxic residue (TTR) modeling approach employed in this assessment are discussed in detail in the

1 At maximum seeding rate of 10 lbs seed/Acre and the maximum seed treatment rate of 0. 0 12 lbs ai/A: 10 lbs/A x 0.12 lbs

a.i./100 lbs seed = 0.012 lbs ai/A ( equivalent to 0.013 kg ai/ha) ; at the maximum seeding rate of 10 lbs seed/A and the minimum

seed treatment rate of 0.015 lbs ai/100 lbs seed: 10 lbs/A x 0.015 lbs ai/100 lbs seed= 0.0015 lbs ai/A (0.0 0 17 kg ai/ha) ; at the low seeding rate of 4 lbs seed/A and the minimum seed treatment rate of 0.015 lbs ai/100 lbs seed: 4 lbs/A x 0.015 lbs ai/10 0 lbs

seed= 0.0006 lbs ai/A (0.0007 kg ai/ha)

. 2 EFED 2009 updated input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm- Page 12 of 52

- 

### recent assessment for proposed new uses on alfalfa and citrus (DP Barcode D363523). Table

3. 1 summarizes the physicochemical and environmental fate properties of boscalid, which are utilized according to the Input Parameter Guidance 2 

### in aquatic and terrestrial exposure modeling. Overall, b oscali d is slowly biodegradable with slight to moderate mobility in most soils ( K
oc 

### ranges from 507 to 1

, 110 mL/g) . The primary degradation pat hway is aerobic soil metabolism. Unextracted, unidentified residues in the aerobic soil metabolism study resulted in uncertainty and suggest that the half

- lives may be as long as 848 to 2,553 days, when it is presumed that these residues are parent compound. A half

- life of 182 to 578 days is calculated with only the identified parent compound. Given its persistence and moderate mobility , transport of boscalid to

surface water via runoff of dissolved or sediment

- bound residues (erosion) is probable. A higher potential for leaching into ground water exists for the compound in soils which are low er in organic matter ; howev er, the K d 

### values (3.3 to 28 mL/g) suggest that this may occur only infrequently. The solubility of boscalid has been listed at 6 mg/L in previous assessments (DP Barcode D342975, D337648, and D336599); however, a secondary product chemistry review analys is of the available data indicates the correct solubility value is 4.64 mg/L at 20oC (DP Barcode D285692). The vapor pressure value, which has been listed as 7.5 x 10 - 8 

### torr at 25oC in previous assessments (DP Barcode D342975, D337648, and D336599). Accor ding to a secondary product chemistry review (DP Barcode D285692), the correct value should have been reported as 1.5 x 10 - 8 

### torr at 25oC. This assessment uses these updated values.

The degradates of boscalid include 2

- chloronicotinic acid (M510F47), 2

- hy droxy

- N

- (4'

- chlorobiphenyl

- 2

- yl)

- nicotinamide (M510F49), p

- chloro

- benzoic acid (M510F64), an unknown (M510F50) and carbon dioxide. M510F47 and M510F50 are classified as minor degradates. M510F49 is classified as a major degradate but was only observed at recoveries greater than 10% of the applied parent in one soil; it was a minor degradate in the rest (MRID 45405208 and 45643802). An additional study provided for the degradate M510F49 reported an aerobic soil

metabolism half

- life of 1.7 days. Therefore there are no environmental degradates of concern in this ecological risk assessment. (MARC Memo 2003). More information about boscalid degradates is provided in Appendix A

.

Table 3

. 1 Chemical properties an d environmental fate parameters of boscalid.

Parameter Value Reference

Nomenclature

Chemical name Boscalid

- IUPAC 2

- chloro

- N

- (4'

- chlorobiphenyl

- 2

- yl)nicotinamide -

CAS RN 188425

- 85

- 6

- Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass 343.2 g/mol

- Vapor pressure (25 **°** C) 1 .5 x10
- 8 Torr DP 285692 Water solubility (20 **°** C) 4.64 mg/L DP 285692

Octanol

- water partition coefficient ( log K OW ) 2.96 DP 285692

Persistence Hydrolysis half

- life pH 5
( 25 **°** C) pH 7 pH 9 Stable MRID 45405205

Aqueous photolysis half

- life Stable MRID 45405206 Soil photolysis half

- life Stable MRID 45405207

Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life 848 days (clay loam) 1 MRID 45643802- Page 13 of 52

- 1,000 days (silt loam) 1

1,609 days (clay loam) 1

2,553 days ( l oam) 1
Aerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life Stable MRID 45405214 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life Stable MRID 45405213 Mobility Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K OC ) 507

– 1,110 mL / g OC 772 mL / g OC (mean) MRID 45405216

MRID 45405217

1 Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life calculated with the unidentified unextracted residues.



### Bioconcentration factors (BCF) from two studies with rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) exposed to boscalid in water were 36

- 44X, 84

- 105X, and 57

- 70X for the edible, non

- edible, and whole fish tissues, respectively. Boscalid depurates rapidly from the tissues when exposure ceases. Boscalid is metabolized in fish tissues to form the metabolite M510F01, the oxygenated

form o f the compound, and is conjugated with cysteine to form M510F05.

3.2.2. Aquatic Exposure

Because boscalid may be transported from crop sites to adjacent surface water and persists once partitioned to sediment (mean K

oc 

### = 772 mL/g, stable to anaerobic aquatic metabolism)

, estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in both surface water and pore water were generated based on maximum labeled use rates ( Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 ) using PRZM and EXAMS in tandem with the inp ut shell pe5v0 (Nov 15, 2006).

Table 3

. 2 Input parameters used as surface and pore water exposure modeling (PRZM/EXAMS).
Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Vapor pressure ( 25oC ) 1 .5 x10
- 8

Torr DP Barcode D 285692

-

Henry's law constant

- Not determined Did not use as a n input parameter

Water solubility 4.64 mg/L DP Barcode D285692 pH 5

- 7, 20oC

Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (K

oc ) 772 mL/g

oc MRID 45405216

MRID 45405217 Calculated m ean K

oc

Aerobic soil metabolism ( t 1/2 ) 2

, 073 1 days MRID 45405208

MRID 45405209

MRID 45643802 90 th percentile of the upper

confidence bound on the mean

half

- life of four soils.

Aerobic aquatic metabolism ( t 1/2 ) 4

, 146 days Input Parameter

Guidance 2 Double the ae robic soil

metabolism half

- life input

parameter

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism ( t 1/2 ) 0 days MRID 45405213 No significant degradation

Hydrolysis ( t 1/2 ) 0 days MRID 45405205 No significant degradation

Photolysis in water ( t 1/2 ) 0 days MRID 45405206 No significant degradation

Foliar degradation rate 0 d

- 1 Input Parameter

Guidance 2 Default- Page 14 of 52

- 1 Aerobic soil metabolism half

- life value was recalculated in DP Barcode D367184 to include unidentified, unextractable

residues

2 EFED 2009 updated input p arameter guidance is located at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm



### Modeling inputs were selected according to EFED’s Inpu t Parameter Guidance and the IPM Crop Profile for Canola in Minnesota

. Rapeseed is planted from late April through early May; aquatic exposure modeling was based on an application date of April 30 th 

### . Optimal seeding depth is between 0.5 and 1 inch at a rate of 4 to 10 lbs of seeds per acre (based on canola, Boyles

et al. 2007). The seeds are typically broadcast and then chained in. NDcanolaSTD was selected as the most representative scenario for t he proposed seed treatment use on rapeseed. A value of 1 was assigned to represent the disposition of foliar residues because the seed treatment is

surface

- applied. Similarly, the Chemical Application Method (CAM) value for seed applications

is 1 because it is surface applied and chained in. Seed application was assumed to have 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift. The K

oc 

### value was used instead of the K d 

### value for both models because boscalid partitioning is correlated with organic carbon cont ent. The

coefficient of variation for K

oc 

### (0.30) is less than that for K d 

### (0.90).

Table 3

. 3 Aquatic e xposure modeling i nputs for b oscalid e cological risk a s s essment (PRZM/EXAMS).

Input Parameter Value Sourc e Comment
Application rate 0.013 kg a.i./ha 3

0.012 lbs a.i./A Proposed label, Reg. 7969

- 274 Label directions

Application per season 1 Proposed label, Reg. 7969

- 274 Label directions

Date of first application MN canola: April 30 th USDA agricultural crop profiles information 1 Application dates are specific

to factors from the listed

source
Reapplication intervals N/A Proposed label, Reg. 7969

- 274 Label directions

Chemical Application Method (CAM) 1

- Surface applied (broadcast, not incorporated) - See text

Disposition of foliar

residues 1 USDA agricultural crop profiles information 1 Seed treatment is surface applied

Spray Drift Fraction 0.0

– Seed treatment (Chained in) - See text

Application Efficiency 1.0

- Seed treatment (Chained in) - See text

Scenario NDcanolaSTD Scenario parameters See explanation below

1 USDA Crop Profiles information is located at: http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/CP_form.cfm

. 2 EFED 2009 updated input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

3 Equivalent application rate based on maximum seeding rate of 10 lbs seed/Acre and the maximum seed treatment rate of 0.12 lbs ai/A: 10 lbs/A

x 0.12 lbs a.i./100 lbs seed = 0.012 lbs ai/A ( equivalent to 0.013 kg ai/ha)



### Boscalid may dissipate through multiple pathways and is expected to have a moderate potential to leach into ground water. The regression

- based Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI

- GROW v2.3, Jul. 29, 2003) model, was used to calculate boscalid concentrations in a shallow, unconfined aquifer under sandy soils, i.e., the ground water scenario expected to be- Page 15 of 52

- 

### most vulnerable to pesticide contamination . The calculated concentration s from SCI

- GROW are driven by the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) , which is a function of aerobic soil

metabolism and the soil

- water partition coefficient (K d 

### ), and the application rate and methods for the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed. SCI

- GROW input parameter

values are summarized in Table 3. 4

. Table 3

. 4 . Input parameters for estimated concentrations of boscalid in ground water (SCI

- GROW).

Input Parameter Value Source Comment
Application rate 0.012 lbs a.i./A Proposed label, Reg. 7969

- 274 Label directions

Application per season 1 Proposed label, Reg. 7969

- 274 Label directions

Organic carbon normalized partition coefficient (K

oc , L/kg

oc ) 716 MRID 45405216 Input Parameter Guidance 2 Median K

oc for six soils

Aerobic soil

metabolism half

- life (t 1/2 , days) 1,305 MRID 45643802 Input Parameter Guidance 2 Median of four values in the acceptable study

1 Value represents total toxic residues which include parent and unextracted residues (DP367184, September 2009).

2 EFED 2009 updated input parameter guidance is located at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.h tm



### Aquatic e xposure endpoints in this assessment are determined using yearly peak concentrations. However, i n the case of persistent compounds such as boscalid , the yearly peaks are not independent ; they are correlated to the previous year’s peak concentration. This is because the standard pond modeled with EXAMS is a static water body of fixed volume with no outlet. Therefore, the estimated concentration of boscalid in water is expected to increase over time because of the slow degradation rate, and a 1

- in

- 10 year pe ak EEC does not necessarily or exclusively reflect meteorological conditions at that time ( i.e. , a peak water column EEC is not necessarily associated with a “hundred year” storm). PRZM/EXAMS may overestimate aquatic EECs, as, over the course of thirty yea rs, some loss of boscalid would be expected due to sediment burial and other dissipation processes. There is also uncertainty in the degradation rate, which is effected by the assumption that the unidentified, unextracted residues are parent compound and t hat they are available to biological receptors.

The EECs in Table 3. 5 reflect maximum 1

- in

- 10 year surface water and pore water

concentrations

, based on dissolved and unidentified/unextracted residues presumed to be parent boscalid, from maximum proposed application rates for treated rapeseed (using the canola scenario as a surrogate for all proposed rapeseed uses)

. Pore water EECs represent the estimated

concentration of boscalid that are present in the pore water of the benthic sediment phase of a stati c water body ( e.g. , pond), where benthic organisms are expected to inhabit. Because the standard pond has no outlet

, there i s an accumulation of boscalid in the pond th roughout the 30 year simulation period.- Page 16 of 52

- Table 3

. 5 Tier II surface water and pore water estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of boscalid from seed treatment on rapeseed Proposed

Use App Rate (lbs a.i./A) (Formulation) Scenario (Weather) App

Method Compartment EECs (μg/L)

Peak 1

- in

- 10

- yr 21

- d avg 1

- in

- 10

- yr 60

- d avg

Canola 0.012 (Coronet ® ) NDcanolaSTD (w24013) Seed

treatment Surface water 0.72 0.72 0.72

Pore water 0.71 0.71 0.71

Abbreviations: App

- Application. Avg

- Average. d

- Day. yr

- Year.



### The estimated ground water concentrations reported in Table 3.6 represent concentrations that might be expected in shallow

, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils , which are expected to be

m ost vulnerable to pesticide contamination.

Table 3

. 6 Summary of Tier I estimated concentrations of boscalid residues in ground water.

Use Use/Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) EECs (μg/L)

Acute and Chronic

Canola Seed treatment/0.012 x 1 applications; annual total of 0.012 0. 01



### 3.2.3. Terrestrial Exposure

T

- REX is used to calculate dose

- based EECs of boscalid for birds and mammals that consume treated seeds. Seeding rates for canola (Boyles et al. 2007 ) , as a surrogate for all proposed rapeseed uses, and the maximum application rate according to the proposed label are used to

calculate dose

- based EECs (Nagy dose) and the mass of boscalid per unit area (mg ai/ft 2 

### ) available for consumption by birds and mammals ( Table 3.7)

.

Table 3

. 7 . Avian and mammalian dose

- based EECs calculated for the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed, based on seeding rate for canola (T

- REX).

Use A pp R ate (lbs a

. i

. / 100

lbs seed ) Seeding

Rate 1

(lbs

s eed/ A ) App Rate (lbs a

. i

. /A) Seed App Rate (mg a

. i

. / kg seed) Nagy Dose (mg a

. i

. /kg

- bw/day) Spatial (available a.i. per unit area) (mg a

. i

. / ft 2 ) Birds Mammals

Canola 0.12 10 0.012 (0.013 kg ai/A) 1200 304 254 0.13

Abbreviations: App Application. cwt Hundred weight (100 lbs seed).

1 Reference: Boyles et al . (2007)

.



### TerrPlant is used to calculate EECs for non

- target plants that inhabit dry and semi

- aquatic areas

. In this assessment, exposure to non

- target plants is calculated based on the potential runoff of boscalid following the broadcast application of treated seeds on the field ( Table 3.8 ). Potential exposure resulting from spray drift is not calculated bec ause any spray drift of boscalid associated with the seed treatment use is expected to be negligible. TerrPlant does not account for particulate drift.- Page 17 of 52

- Table 3

. 8 . Terrestrial plant EECs for nontarget plant s exposed to boscalid through runoff, based on the proposed use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed (TerrPlant). Canola is used as a surrogate for all proposed rapeseed uses.

Use Single Max. Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) Runoff EECs (lbs a.i./A)

Dry Areas Semi

- Aquatic Areas

Canola 0.012 <0.001 0.001



### 3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

3.3.1. Ecotoxicity Data

A detailed description of the available ecotoxicity data for boscalid is provided in the most recent risk assessment for proposed new uses on alfalfa and citrus (DP Barcode D363523). No new ecotoxicity data have been submitted. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for the proposed use of boscalid as a seed treatment on canola are shown in

Table 3. 9 and Table 3. 10 . These endpoints represent the most sensitive endpoints available from suitable, guideline toxicity studies. A sear ch of the ECOTOX database in November 2010 returned no other acceptable ecotoxicity studies for boscalid.

Based on the available data, b oscalid is moderately toxic to freshwater fish and at least moderately toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis, at concentrations approaching its water solubility limit; however, the submitted acute test with freshwater invertebrates (MRID 45405001) is not used quantitatively for risk estimation because it may have overestimated the actual exposure concentrations of the test organisms and thus underestimated the toxicity endpoint (see DP Barcode D363523 for discussion). Non

- definitive toxicity endpoints indicate that boscalid is moderately toxic to benthic invertebrates,

estuarine/marine fish and to non

- molluscan estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. However, i t is highly toxic to estuarine/marine molluscs based on reductions in shell growth

.

Chronic tox icity has been demonstrated for freshwater fish based on reduced survival and for freshwater invertebrates ( i.e. , waterflea) based on reduced survival and growth (decreased length and dry weight) and impaired reproduction (reduced number of young). Acceptable chronic toxicity data for other aquatic animals, including benthic freshwater invertebrates and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, are unavailable. Specifically, the chronic study for benthic freshwater invertebrates ( i.e. , midge) was ina dequate because sediment was not spiked. However, the available supplemental data indicate that boscalid can reduce emergence and development in the midge and reduce growth (decreased dry weight) in the freshwater amphipod.

No chronic studies were submitte d for estuarine/marine fish or invertebrates.

Exposure of aquatic vascular plants ( Lemna gibba ; duckweed) to boscalid at 3.9 mg/L did not result in sufficient inhibition of frond growth or biomass to estimate an IC 50 

### ; exposure of nonvascular plants, i.e

., green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) to boscalid resulted in a 50% inhibition of cell growth at 1.34 mg/L.- Page 18 of 52

- Table 3

. 9 Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for aquatic org anisms exposed to

boscalid residues. Aquatic Animals Acute Toxicity Study Type Species Endpoints 1
(mg a.i./L) Toxicity Classification (MRID)

Acute toxicity to freshwater fish Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) LC 50 = 2.7 Moderately toxic (45404927)

Subacute sediment toxicity to

freshwater invertebrates Freshwater amphipod ( Hyalella azteca ) EC 50 > 1.066

NOAEC = 0.298

(pore water) Moderately toxic (454050 09 )

Acute toxicity to

estuarine/marine fish Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinidon variegatus ) LC 50 > 3.86 Moderately toxic (4540500 4 )

Acute toxicity to

estuarine/marine invertebrates Mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia formerly Mysidopsis

bahia ) LC 50 > 3.81 Moderately toxic (454050 02 )

Toxicity to estuarine/marine

molluscs

– shell deposition Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) EC 50 = 1.02 (2.14, 0.89

- 3.39) Highly toxic (454050 03 )

Chronic Toxicity Study Type Species NOAEC & LOAEC (m g a.i./L) Effects (MRID)

Early life stage toxicity to

freshwater fish Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 0.116 & 0.241 Mortality (45405006)

Chronic toxicity to freshwater

invertebrates Waterflea ( Daphnia magna ) 0.79 & 1.54 Reduced number of young (463514 06)

Chronic toxicity to sediment

dwelling invertebrates (spiked water) Freshwater midge ( Chironomus riparius ) 2.0 & 4.0 nominal (overlying water) Reduced emergence (454050 08 )

Aquatic Plants Study Type Species Endpoints (mg a.i./L) Effect s ( MRID)

Toxicity to vascular aquatic plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) I C 50 > 3.9

NOAEC = 0.99 Frond number, necrosis ( 45405013 )

Toxicity to nonvascular aquatic plants Freshwater alga ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) I C 50 = 1.34

NOAEC = 0.49 Growth rate, biomass ( 45405017 )

1 Dose

- response slope values for the estuarine/marine mollusc are indicated in parentheses (value, 95% confidence interval). For other studies, where slope data are not available, the default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to derive the probability of an individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).



### Based on the available data, boscalid is practically non

- toxic to terrestrial invertebrates ( e.g. , adult honey bees

, Apis mellifera ) on both an acute contact and acute oral exposure basis, to birds on both an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis, and to mammals on an a cute oral exposure basis. However, adverse effects on honey bee larval development have been reported in incident data following application of boscalid, specifically as the Pristine ® 

### formulation, to almonds and other unspecified crops.- Page 19 of 52

- 

### In birds and mamm als, chronic exposure to boscalid was associated with reproductive and growth effects, including reduced number of eggs and embryo mortality in bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) and reduced F 2 

### body weight in rats ( Rattus norvegicus )

. Based on the

resu lts of the Tier II terrestrial plant studies, cabbage ( Brassica oleracea ) appears to be particularly sensitive to boscalid exposure, while other dicot species and all tested monocots are relatively insensitive to boscalid exposure.

Table 3

. 10 Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial organisms exposed

to boscalid.

Terrestrial Animals Acute Toxicity Study Type Species Endpoints 1

(LD 50 mg a.i./kg bw) (LC 50 mg a.i./kg diet) Toxicity Classification (MRID)

Acute oral toxicity to upland game birds Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) L D 50 > 2000 Practically nontoxic ( 454049 22)

Subacute dietary toxicity to upland game birds and

waterfowl Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus )

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) LC 50 > 5 000 Practically nontoxic (454049 23 ) ( 454049 24)

Acute oral toxicity to

mammals 2 Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) LD 50 > 5000 Practically nontoxic ( 45404814 )

Acute contact and oral toxicity to honey bees Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) LD 50 > 166 μg/bee (oral)

LD 50 > 200 μg/bee ( contact) Practically non

- toxic ( 45405019 )

Toxicity to soil dwelling invertebrates (14

- day) 3 Earthworm ( Eisenia foetida ) LD 50 > 1000 mg a.i./kg dry weight soil (nominal) NA (45405020)

Chronic Toxicity Study Type Species NOAEC (mg a.i./kg diet)

NOAEL (mg a.i./kg bw) Effects (MRID)

Avian reproduction with upland game birds Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) NOAEC = 300

NOAEL = 25 N umber of eggs laid, fertility rate, embryo mortality, and number of

14

- day survivors

(454049 25 ) Chronic toxicity to mammals 2

– two

- g eneration reproduction Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) NOAEC = 100

NOAEL = 11.2 Decreased F2 body weight (454049 06 )

Terrestrial Plants Study Type Most Sensitive Species IC 25 & NOAEC (lbs a.i./A) Effect s ( MRID)

Tier II seedling emergence (Emerald, 69.9% a.i.) Monocot : Corn

Dicot : Cabbage > 0.576 & 0.275

0.44 & 0.275 Seedling emergence Dry weight ( 47627401 ) Tier II vegetative vigor (Emerald, 69.9% a.i.) Monocot : Corn

Dicot : Cabbage > 0.626 & 0.035

< 0.035 & < 0.035 Shoot length Dry weight ( 4762740 2)

1 Slope data were not available from the acute terrestrial studies. The default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to derive the probability of an individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986).

2 Mammalian toxicity data provided and re viewed by OPP Health Effects Division (USEPA).- Page 20 of 52

- 3 The submitted earthworm study was labeled as an acute test, although the duration (14 days) was considerably longer than most acute toxicity tests. The guideline

- recommended duration for a chronic test wit h earthworms is 28 days.- Page 21 of 52

- 

### 3.3.2. Incident Reports

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS)

, which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for

boscalid. Because of limitations in the incident reporting system, the lack of additional incident reports cannot be construed as the absence of incidents from the registered use of boscalid

. At the time of the search, EIIS contained information on incidents repo rted through December 2008.

Based on a search of EIIS conducted in October 2010, one ecological incident with honey bees was reported for boscalid (USEPA 2010)

. Communications from the registrant (BASF 2008) indicate further concern on the part of beekee pers for potential effects on honey bee brood development. Although no acute toxicity to adult honey bee s has been demonstrated in laboratory studies with boscalid, individual beekeepers have reported honey bee “brood effects” following the application of boscalid, specifically as the Pristine ® 

### formulated product (25.2% boscalid and 12.8% pyraclostrobin) , to nearby crops (BASF 2008). For example, a California beekeeper reported that “brood effects” were observed within ten days of the application of

Prist ine ® 

### (application rate and target crop unspecified; BASF 2008; USEPA 20 10 ). Other beekeepers reported concerns to the registrant regarding “improper [brood] development” 17 days after application of Pristine ® 

### to almonds (BASF 2008). Additionally, “advers e effects” on larval development were noted after queen bees were fed almond pollen from Pristine ® 

### treated crops, but the nature and magnitude of these effects were not reported (BASF 2008). The mechanism of these alleged effects is likewise unknown. Som e data have been presented to suggest that carboxamide pesticides, including boscalid, may interfere with hormonally

regulated development in juvenile honey bees ( eg

. Mussen 2009, Frazier et al . 2008, Ladurner et
al . 2005, Mussen et al . 2004, Atkins and Ke llum 1986). However, this hypothesis has not been rigorously tested.

The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) reported one incident associated with a putative misuse of boscalid in Utah (Stone 2010). Application rates were unknown, but the

repo rt indicated that products were likely tank mixed. The incident report described dead bees, lost hives, and hives in poor health with no honey crop despite fall feedings; observations of adverse effects were made from June through December 2009. Laborato ry tests confirmed the presence of boscalid residues (149 ng a.i./g wax) and residues of other pesticide active ingredients, including pyraclostrobin, chlorothalonil, 2,4

- dimethylphenyl formamide, chlorpyrifos, cyprodinil, diflubenzron, and tebuconazole. Aerial spray applications of Bravo ®



### (chlorothalonil) flowable concentrate and Elite ® 

### (tebuconazole) dry flowable fungicide were identified in the report as well. The report has not been verified, although laboratory results of residue analysis have been s ubmitted.

The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS), a database maintained by the American Bird Conservancy (2010), was searched in October 2010 and returned no incidents related to the use

of boscalid.- Page 22 of 52

- 

## 4. Risk Characterization

Toxicity data and exposure estimates for boscalid are used to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects on non

- target species. This screening

- level ass essment employs a deterministic risk estimation method, based on risk quotient (RQ) values, t o provide a metric of potential risks ( Section 4.1 )

. The potential for risk is characterized further in the Risk Description ( Section 4. 2 ) based on the risk estimation results and other relevant information about toxicity, incidents, ecosystems potentiall y at risk, and the environmental fate and transport characteristics of boscalid. In cases where an RQ value exceeds the listed species LOC, the potential for risk to listed species is characterized in greater detail in Section 5

. The LOCATES database is queried to identify listed species that may co

- occur within potential use areas for the proposed action,

i.e. , areas where rapeseed (including canola and crambe) is grown and where the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment may occur.

4.1. Risk Est imation

U nitless RQ value s are compared to the Agency’s LOCs to identify taxonomic groups potentially at risk of acute or chronic effects associated with the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed.

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

RQ value s are c alculated for acute and chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates, including molluscs, where the submitted ecotoxicity data are sufficient to use in risk estimation. As shown

in Table 4.1 , none of the RQ values calculated either approach or exceed the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) for acute or chronic risk to listed or nonlisted species of aquatic organisms, nor do they exceed LOCs for risk to nonvascular aquatic plants ( e.g. , algae) or to listed vascular aquatic plants.

The submitted data are insufficient to calculate RQ values for (1) acute risk to freshwater invertebrates, (2) acute and chronic risk to benthic invertebrates, (3) acute and ch ronic risk to

estuarine/marine fish and non

- molluscan invertebrates, and (4) risk to nonlisted species of vascular aquatic plants. These data gaps and uncertainties are described in more detail in the recent assessment of boscalid proposed uses on alfalfa and citrus (DP Barcode D363523).

Further characterization of t he potential for adverse effects to aquatic organisms, based on the available data, is provided as part of the R isk D escription in Section 4.2.1

.- Page 23 of 52

- Table 4. 1

. Acute and c hronic RQ values for aquatic organisms e xposed to b oscalid i n surface water following seed treatment use on rapeseed, based on seeding rate for canola

.

Use App

Rate

lbs a.i./A

(#app) App

Method EECs (μg/L) Toxicity Endpoints RQ Values

Peak 21

- d 60

- d Aquatic Animals Acute Chronic

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment 0.72 0.72 0.72 Freshwater Fish

LC 50 =2.7 mg/L NOAEC=0.116 mg/L < 0.00 1 0.006

Freshwater Invertebrate

EC 50 =NA NOAEC=0.79 mg/L NA 1 0.001

Estuarine/Marine Mollusc

EC 50 =1.02 mg/L

NOAEC= NA 0.00 1 NA 2

Peak Aquatic Plants Listed Nonlisted

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment 0.72 Vascular Plants

I C 50 > 3.9 mg/L NOAEC = 0.99 mg/L 0.001 NA 3

Nonvascular Plants

I C 50 = 1.34 mg/L

NOAEC = 0.49 mg/L 0.002 0.001

1 An acute freshwater invertebrate study was submitted (MRID 45405001); however, the results are not used in risk estimation because they may underestimate toxicity (see DP Barcode 363523 for discussion). Potential acute

risks to freshwater invertebrates are discussed as part of the Risk Description (Section 4.2).

2 Chronic toxicity data for molluscs have not been submitted.

3 An RQ value for risk to nonlisted species of vascular aquatic plants is not calculated because the most sensitive toxicity endpoint ( IC 50 ) is a non

- definitive value.

NA Not available.



### 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

RQ values are not calculated for acute risk to birds or mammals in this assessment because the acute toxicity endpoints for boscalid are nondefinitive, i.e. , the LD 50 

### values are greater than the limit dose. RQ values for chronic risk to birds and mammals, based on the proposed use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed (maximum application rate = 0.12 lbs a.i./cwt or 1,200 mg a.i./kg seed), are calculated as foll ows:

RQ = Exposure (mg a.i./kg seed) / NOAEC (mg/kg diet)

The resulting RQ values exceed the Agency’s LOC for chronic risk to birds and mammals (RQ > 1) by factors of 4 and 12, respectively ( Table 4.2 ). For birds, this screening calculation indicates

th at a bird that consumes 1 kg of treated seed over an unspecified time period will have been exposed to a dietary concentration of boscalid that is 4 times the chronic NOAEC. Similarly, a mammal that consumes 1 kg of treated seed will have been exposed to a dietary concentration of

boscalid that is 12 times the chronic NOAEC. The amount of time it would take a small bird or mammal to consume 1 kg of seed would depend upon the physiology, life history, and energy requirements of the individual.- Page 24 of 52

- 

### For terrest rial plants, RQ values are calculated based on the most sensitive toxicity endpoints from the submitted seedling emergence test, but not from the vegetative vigor test, because foliar exposure of non

- target plants is considered unlikely to result from the proposed seed treatment use ( Table 4.2 ). RQ values for listed monocots and for listed and nonlisted dicots are all <0.1 and therefore are below the Agency’s LOC (RQ>1). RQ values are not calculated for risk to

non

- listed monocot plants because the IC 25 

### v alue for monocots is outside the range of

concentrations tested.

Table 4.2. RQ values for birds, mammals, and terrestrial plants exposed to boscalid residues following seed

treatment use on rapeseed, based on seeding rate for canola.

Use App

Rate

lbs a.i.

/A (#app) App

Method EECs Toxicity Endpoints RQ Values

Spatial (mg a.i.

/ft 2 ) Nagy

Dose (mg a.i. /kg

- bw

/d) Chronic (mg a.i. /kg seed) Animals Acute Chronic

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment 0.13 304 1,200 Birds

L D 50 >2,000 mg/ kg

- bw

LC 50 >5,000 mg/ kg diet NOAEC=300 mg/kg diet NOAEL=25 mg/kg

- bw NA 1 4.0 3

254 1,200 Mammals

L D 50 >5,000 mg/ kg

- bw

NOAEC= 100 mg/ kg diet NOAEL=11.2 mg/kg

- bw NA 1 12 3

Runoff (lbs a.i./A) Plants Listed Non

listed

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment Dry Areas

<0.001 Monocot

I C 25 > 0.576

NOAEL = 0.275 <0.1 NA 2

Dicot

I C 25 = 0.44

NOAE L = 0.275 <0.1 <0.1

Semi

- Aquatic Areas

0.001 Monocot

I C 25 > 0.576

NOAEL = 0.275 <0.1 NA 2

Dicot

I C 25 = 0.44

NOAE L = 0.275 <0.1 <0.1

1 RQ values for acute risk to birds and mammals are not calculated because the most sensitive acute toxicity endpoints (LD 50 ) are greater than the tested limit dose.

2 RQ values for risk to nonlisted species of terrestrial monocot plants are not calculated be cause the most sensitive toxicity endpoint (IC 25 ) is a nondefinitive value that is greater than the highest concentration tested.

3 Exceeds chronic risk LOC (RQ > 1.0)

NA Not available.



### Although the Agency does not typically quantify risk to non

- target terr estrial invertebrates using the RQ method, acute toxicity studies with the young adult honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) indicate that boscalid is practically non

- toxic to young adult honey bees on an acute oral and an acute contact exposure basis (LD 50 

### >11 μg a. i./bee).- Page 25 of 52

- 

### The potential for risk to non

- target aquatic and terrestrial organisms, associated with the proposed use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed, is discussed further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

4.2. Risk Description and Conclusions

Boscalid is a synthetic carboxamide fungicide (FRAC Group 7) that inhibits mitochondrial respiration and the subsequent production of ATP in fungal cells, which inhibits spore germination, mycelial growth, and sporulation of the fungus on the surface of le aves (proposed label and Wharton 2010). Boscalid is persistent, is stable to most environmental degradation and plant metabolism processes, and has demonstrated at least some systemic activity. This assessment evaluates the potential for ecological risks associated with the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed, including canola. The end

- use product (Coronet ®


### Fungicide) in the petition includes two active ingredients (18.0% boscalid and 9.0% pyraclostrobin); however, risk estimation in this assessment ( Section 4. 1 ) focuses on potential effects associated with boscalid alone. Where available, information about similarly formulated

end

- use products is included in the discussion of incident reports.

4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms

The proposed use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed, including canola, results in acute

and chronic surface water EECs that are at least two orders of magnitude lower than EECs for the most recently assessed uses on alfalfa and citrus (DP Barcode D363523). Therefore, despite uncertainties regarding the toxicity of boscalid to some aquatic organisms at concentrations near

its limit of solub ility in water, the likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic organisms is expected to be low, based on the low potential for surface water exposure following the proposed seed treatment use. Acute and chronic RQ values are <0.01 and are therefore far belo w the listed and

non

- listed species acute (RQ > 0.05 ) and chronic risk (RQ > 1.0) LOCs for all assessed aquatic organisms. Risk to listed and nonlisted aquatic plants is not expected to exceed the Agency’s LOC (RQ > 1).

The potential for risk to benthic org anisms exposed to pore water is also considered, using the conservative assumption that the h ighest concentration tested in the amphipod study represents the endpoint ( i.e ., acute: EC 50 

### = 1.066 mg a.i. / L pore water; Table 4.3 ). In this estimation, the RQ value for acute risk to benthic invertebrates (RQ<0.01) is similar to the RQ values for fish and invertebrates in the water column, and it does not exceed the listed or non

- listed species

LOCs.- Page 26 of 52

- Table 4 .3. RQ value calculated from the no n

- definitive endpoint for benthic freshwater invertebrates, based on mean measured pore water concentrations in a spiked sediment study with the amphipod.

Use Application

Rate

lbs a.i./A

(#app) Application

Method EEC (μg/L) Characterization

Benthic Invertebrate RQ

E C 50 > 1.066 mg a.i. /L

Peak Acute

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment 0.71 0.00 1



### In addition to potential surface water exposure, aquatic and amphibious organisms may be exposed to ground water through ground water discharge into surface systems or in unique and sensitive ground water ecosystems, such as caves, montane gravels, etc . B ecause boscalid has moderate mobility to ground water and degrades only slowly, primarily through aerobic soil metabolism, estimated concentrations in shallow ground water were calculated (see Table 4. 4 ). Estimated concentrations of boscalid residues in g round water (EEC=0.01 μg/L) are lower than estimated concentrations in surface water (EEC=0.72 μg/L). Therefore, adverse effects to aquatic organisms exposed to boscalid residues in ground water are unlikely.

Table 4 .4 RQ values for aq uatic animals exposed to boscalid residues in shallow ground water

.

Use App

Rate

lbs a.i./A

(#app) App

Method EECs (μg/L) Toxicity Endpoints Ground Water RQ Values

Peak 21

- d 60

- d Aquatic Animals Acute Chronic

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment 0.01 0.01 0.01 Freshwater Fish

LC 50 =2.7 mg/L NOAEC=0.116 mg/L <0.001 <0.001

Freshwater Invertebrate

EC 50 =NA NOAEC=0.79 mg/L NA 1 <0.001

1 An acute freshwater invertebrate study was submitted (MRID 45405001); however, the results are not used in quantitative risk estimation because they may underestimate toxicity (see DP Barcode 363523 for discussion).

Potential acute risks to freshwater inver tebrates are discussed as part of the Risk Description (Section 4.2).

App Application. NA Not available.



### Finally, laboratory tests resulted in a maximum bioconcentration factor (BCF) of 105x (nonedible tissues of rainbow trout) under test conditions. Boscalid in fish tissues depurated rapidly after exposure ceased, with a modeled half

- life of 0.8

– 1 days. Sublethal behavioral effects (lethargy and loss of equilibrium) were noted during the study and physiological effects (darkened livers and gall bladders and a discolored gastrointestinal tract) were noted at necropsy in fish exposed to boscalid at 200 μg/L . Sublethal effects ( lethargy, narcosis, and extended yolk

sacs ) were observed at a similar concentration (241 μ g a.i. /L) in the early life stage test with rainbow trout, beginning approximately one week after termination of hatch (day 35)

. However,

the concentrations associated with chronic effects in both studies are far greater than chronic EECs for the proposed new use of boscalid (0.72 μ g a.i. /L in surface water, 0.01 μ g a.i. /L in ground water).- Page 27 of 52

- 

### 4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

Although the available data indicate that the likelihood for adverse effects on aquatic organisms as a result of the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed is very low, greater uncertainty surrounds the potential for risk to terrestrial organisms. Acute RQ valu es are not calculated in the Risk Estimation for birds and mammals because the necessary toxicity endpoints (LD 50 

### /LC 50 

### ) were determined to be greater than the limit dose in the submitted studies. Therefore, although boscalid is classified as practically n on

- toxic to birds and mammals on an acute exposure basis, the nature and potential dose

- response relationship of any effects of boscalid at exposure levels above the limit dose are unknown. The potential for acute risk is

characterized in Table 4.5 , using the conservative assumption that the limit dose represents the toxicity endpoint (LD 50 

### ), which is then adjusted for the body weight (bw) of the test specimens (default bw=178 g for bobwhite quail, 350 g for Norway rat) and compared to the estimated

exposu re per unit area (mg a.i./ft 2 

### ) and per daily dose of treated seed ( i.e. , Nagy dose; mg a.i./kg bw/day).

Table 4 .5. Characterization of potential risk to terrestrial birds and mammals, assuming that the limit dose

tested in effects stud ies is the definitive toxicity endpoint.

Use App

Rate

lbs a.i.

/A (#app) App

Method EECs Toxicity Endpoints Characterization

Terrestrial RQ Values

Spatial (mg a.i./ft 2 ) Nagy Dose (mg a.i./kg

- bw /d) Animals Acute Spatial Acute

Dose

Based

Canola 0.012 (1 ) Seed

Treatment 0.13 304 Birds

L D 50 >2,000 mg/ kg

- bw

LC 50 >5,000 mg/ kg diet NOAEC=300 mg/kg diet NOAEL=25 mg/kg

- bw 0.21 <0.01

254 Mammals

L D 50 >5,000 mg/ kg

- bw

NOAEC= 100 mg/ kg diet NOAEL=11.2 mg/kg

- bw 0.02 <0.01



### The available data indicate that acute risk to mammals is unlikely to exceed the Agency’s LOC. No mortality was observed in any of the submitted limit dose tests, and boscalid is not expected to cause frank mortality in birds. However, acute risk of sublethal effects to listed species of

bird s (and therefore to listed reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians) cannot be precluded. The Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed species of birds is based on the determination that the

LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### value is at least 10 times greater than the EEC ( i.e. , LO C = 0.1). However, the submitted limit tests only establish that the LD 50 

### /ft 2 

### value for bobwhite quail is at least five times greater than the spatial EEC for the proposed new use as a seed treatment on rapeseed. This uncertainty, coupled with the absenc e of data for acute effects on passerine birds, results in an incomplete understanding of the potential effects of boscalid exposure from seed treatment uses on avian species.

The low potential for acute risk to listed species of birds can be further char acterized by considering how foraging ecology affects the potential for exposure. To consume a mass of- Page 28 of 52

- 

### boscalid equivalent to the limit dose in the submitted study with bobwhite quail, a 20

- g bird would have to consume 28.8 mg a.i., equivalent to 24 g (0. 053 lbs) of rapeseed treated at the maximum proposed application rate (0.12 lbs a.i./cwt). This is considered an unlikely, though not impossible, scenario for most species. Smaller, migrating birds that eat seeds are expected to be at the highest risk of exposure, since they have higher surface area

- to

- body weight ratios and they must rapidly refuel energy reserves exhausted during migration (Klassen & Lindstrom 1996). In a short period of time ( e.g. , one day or less), these birds may consume larger amou nts of seeds, relative to body size, in proportions that approach or exceed their own body weight. Nonetheless, given that no adult mortality was observed in avian tests, frank mortality would be unlikely to result if a bird did consume the large amount o f rapeseed necessary to be exposed to

the limit dose.

As the foraging efficiency of a seed predator (granivore) decreases, the area of exposure ( i.e.

, treated field) necessary to trigger the LOC increases. For example, assuming conservatively that

the li mit dose in the submitted studies represents the LD 50 

### value for birds, a 20

- g, seed

- eating bird with 100% foraging efficiency ( i.e. , that eats all seeds within a given area) would consume enough boscalid in a 23

- ft 2 

### area to exceed the Agency’s LOC for list ed species of birds. Using the same assumption, a 20

- g bird would consume enough boscalid to trigger the acute risk LOC for listed birds if it displayed 50% foraging efficiency in a 46

- ft 2 

### foraging area, or if it displayed 10% foraging efficiency within a 231

- ft 2 

### foraging area. The actual foraging area necessary to result in mortality to birds at a level equivalent to an LD 50 

### ( i.e. , mortality of 50% of exposed birds) is likely much greater given that no mortality was observed at the limit dose.

As with b irds and mammals, acute laboratory tests with terrestrial invertebrates ( i.e. , honey bee) have demonstrated no adverse effects to young adults exposed to boscalid at the limit dose. However, multiple ecological incidents have been reported wherein boscali d use was associated with adverse effects on managed honey bees (see Section 3.3.2 ). Bee keepers have reported adverse honey bee brood effects, particularly following the use of the formulated product

Pristine ® 

### (25.2% boscalid and 12.8% pyraclostrobin) on almonds (BASF 2008, US EPA 2010), which require active pollination by managed honey bees or other pollinators. The m aximum single application rate for the proposed seed treatment use of boscalid on rapeseed (0.012 lbs a.i./A) is much lower than the maxim um labeled rate for use on almonds (0.234 lbs a.i./A,

Pristine ® 

### ); additionally, the difference in application method ( i.e., foliar spray to almonds versus seed treatment to rapeseed) suggests a reduced potential for honey bee exposure for the proposed

new use

. A lthough boscalid demonstrates some systemic activity, the extent to which the compound may be translocated to nectar and pollen from a treated seed is unknown. Exposure

of ground

- nesting bees and wasps may be more likely than exposure of honey bees, given that the compound is expected to persist in soil and on organic matter.

Following another incident of adverse effe cts on honey bees, not yet verified by EPA, residue analysis confirmed the presence of boscalid (149 ng a.i./g wax) and pyraclostrobin (141 ng a.i./g wax) in hive samples (Stone 2010). Multiple other pesticides were also detected. Unlike the previous inc idents, both adult bee mortality and hive effects were reported, and the report indicated that pesticide misuse may have occurred. Nonetheless, boscalid residues detected in the samples were at the upper bound of the laboratory’s historical boscalid detec tion range (16.9- Page 29 of 52

- 

### – 154 ng a.i./g wax) and were considerably higher than the average residue level (70.4 ng a.i./g wax) detected in laboratory samples through 2008.

Finally, the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment is not expected to result in risk to

non

- target terrestrial plants exposed through runoff from a field where treated seeds are planted. RQ values for listed plants (monocots and dicots) and for nonlisted dicot plants are less than 0.1, and potential risk to nonlisted monocot plants i s not expected to exceed risk to listed monocot plants. However, the proposed new use is on a Brassica crop (rapeseed), and the most sensitive terrestrial plant in both seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests was also a Brassica species (cabbage). Risk estimates are not calculated for labeled crop species, but the potential adverse

effects on Brassica sp. emergence would not be expected to trigger concern (LOC = 1) for crop species because the calculated application rate (0.012 lbs a.i./A) is less t han one

- twentieth of the seedling emergence NOAEC value (0.275 lbs a.i./A).

4.2.3. Conclusions

The physico

- chemical properties of boscalid indicate that the fungicide has a moderate potential to reach aquatic environments, including surface and ground water, fo r several months or more following application of treated seeds. Although the available ecotoxicity data demonstrate that boscalid is acutely toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause chronic effects, including effects linked to reproduction and sublethal behavioral effects in some aquatic test species, the aquatic exposure levels (EECs) that result from the proposed new use as a seed treatment on rapeseed are relatively low. Therefore, the potential for direct acute or chronic effects on aquatic organisms

, including fish, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic

- phase amphibians, and aquatic plants is low.

Terrestrial vertebrates may be exposed to boscalid by contact with or ingestion of treated rapeseed. Seed

- eating (granivore) birds and mammals may be exposed to boscalid as a result of the seed treatment use. This assessment concludes that the proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed will result in chronic risk to mammals, birds, reptiles, terrestrial

phase amphibians, and mammals that exceed s the Agency’s LOC. Acute risk to mammals and to

non

- listed birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase amphibians does not exceed the Agency’s LOC. Likewise, risk to non

- target terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants does not exceed the LOC.

The submitted avian tests show that boscalid is practically non

- toxic to birds at the limit dose on an acute exposure basis. However, uncertainty surrounds the potential for adverse effeects in listed species of birds because (1) the avian toxicity tests did not establish w hether effects might occur at threshold exposure levels (higher than the limit dose) for listed species determinations ( i.e. , ten times the EEC for the proposed new use), (2) sublethal effects were observed in one subacute dietary study, and (3) no data ha ve been submitted for potentially sensitive passerine species. Therefore, acute risk of sublethal effects in listed species of birds, and therefore in listed species of reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians, cannot be precluded. Nonetheless, the

abse nce of mortality at the limit dose suggests that frank mortality is unlikely, and no ecological incidents with birds have been reported for boscalid.

This assessment does not assess risk to terrestrial invertebrates. However, ecological incidents of adverse effects on honey bees indicate a potential for adverse effects to terrestrial- Page 30 of 52

- 

### invertebrates. The effects on honey bee brood reported in several in cidents would not be captured in current guideline toxicity studies with young adult honey bees.



## 5. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2), requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous listed species, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for listed wildlife and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that ma y affect listed species or their designated critical habitat. Each federal agency is required under the Act to ensure that any action it authorize s , fund s , or carr ies out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihoo d of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02).

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (subsection (a)(2 )), the Office of Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a proposed registration action may directly or indirectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing th e reproduction, numbers,

or distributi on of any listed species (USEPA 2004). After the Agency’s screening level risk assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency’s listed species LOCs are exceeded for either direct or indirect effects, an analysis is con ducted to determine if any listed or candidate species

may co

- occur in the area of the proposed pesticide use or areas downstream or downwind that could be contaminated from drift or runoff/erosion. If listed or candidate species may be present in the pro posed action area, further biological assessment is undertaken. The extent to which listed species may be at risk is considered, which then determines the need for the development of a more comprehensive consultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

The federal action addressed herein is the proposed registration of a new use for boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed, including canola. It is expected that the new use s of boscalid could occur nationwide; however, according to the USD A National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 200 7 census, the proposed new seed treatment uses for canola are likely to predomina n tly occur in the states of North Dakota

, Minnesota

, Idaho , and Washington (USDA

200 9 ; www.agcensus.usda.gov ; searched on 25 October 2010 ). Based on the reported crop acreage harvested per state, other varieties of rapeseed are expected to be grown primarily in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (USDA 200 9).

5.1. Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected directly or indirectly by boscalid use and not merely the immediate area where boscalid is applied. At the initial sc reening

- level, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomic groups and conservatively assumes that listed species within those broad groups are- Page 31 of 52

- 

### co

- located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that the listed species are located within an assumed area, which ha s the relatively highest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with distance from the

treatment area

. Section 5.2 o f this risk assessment presents the proposed pesticide use sites that

are used to establish initial co

- location of species with treatment areas.

5.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

If the assumptions associated with the screening

- level action area result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made wit h respect to listed species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated w ith direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the l ocations of these species, and the locations of use sites are considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These subsequent refinement steps will consider how this inform ation would impact the action area for a particular listed organism and potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual models addressing the propose d new

boscalid use , and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for the boscalid screening

- level risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3

. The assessment endpoints used in the screening

- level risk assessment include those defined operationall y as reduced survival and reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival, reproduction, and growth of nontarget aquatic and terrestrial plant species from exposure via

runoff . These assessment endpoints address the st andard set forth in the Endangered Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any action it authorize s does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQ value s) integrating exposure and effects are calculated for broad

- based taxonomic groups in the screening

- level risk

assessment and are presented in Section 4

.

Both acute listed species and chronic risk LOCs are considered in the screening

- level risk assessment to identify direct and indirect effects to taxa of listed species. This section identifies

direct and indirect effect concerns, by taxa, that are triggered by exceeding l isted LOCs in the screening

- level risk assessment ( Table 5.1 ). When applicable, probit dose response analysis to

used to evaluate the probability of individual acute effects for exposures that occur at the

established listed species LOC ( Section 5.2.1 )

. Data on exposure and effects collected under- Page 32 of 52

- 

### field (when available) and laboratory conditions are evaluated to make determinations on the predictive utility of the direct effect screening assessment findings to listed species.

Table 5

. 1 Potential effects to federally listed taxa associated with the proposed new use of boscalid.

Listed Taxon Direct Effects Indirect Effects from Risk to Other Taxa

Yes/No Acute/Chronic Yes/No Through ...

Terrestrial and semi

aquatic plants

– monocots and dicots No NA Yes Acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on birds, chronic effects on mammals, when required for pollination or seed dispersal.

Birds Yes Acute sublethal 1

and Chronic Yes Chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey; acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on reptiles and amphibians that serve as prey.

Terrestrial

- phase amphibians Yes Acute sublethal 1

and Chronic Yes Chronic effects on mammals which provide critical habitat ( e.g. , burrows) and serve as

prey.

Reptiles Yes Acute sublethal 1

and Chronic Yes Chronic effects on mammals that serve as prey; acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on birds, reptiles, and amphibians that serve as

prey.

Mammals Yes Chronic Yes Acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on birds, reptiles, and amphibians that serve as prey;

chronic effects on mammals that serve as

prey.
Aquatic plants No NA No NA

Freshwater fish No NA No NA

Aquatic

- phase amphibians No NA Yes Acute sublethal 1 and chronic effects on

terrestrial

- phase amphibians.

Freshwater invertebrates No NA No NA

Mollus c s No NA No NA

Marine/estuarine fish No NA No NA

Marine/estuarine

invertebrates No NA No NA

NA Not applicable.

1 Acute risk of sublethal effects in listed species of birds, and therefore in reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians, could not be precluded based on the submitted ecotoxicity data.



### 5.2.1. Probit Dose

- Response Analysis

The Agency uses the probit dose

- response relationship as a tool for providing additional information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and to terrestrial

and aquatic animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA 2004).
However, t he proposed new use of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed results in RQ values that do not exceed the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed species of freshwater fish or estuarine/marine molluscs. Despite uncerta inties in the ecotoxicity profile of boscalid, the available data further indicate that acute risk to mammals and other aquatic organisms is not expected to exceed the Agency’s LOC for listed or nonlisted species. Although acute risk of

sublethal effects in listed species of birds, and therefore in listed reptiles and terrestrial

- phase- Page 33 of 52

- 

### amphibians, cannot be precluded, probit dose

- response analysis is not conducted for these taxa because no mortality was observed at the limit dose in the submitted acute avi an studies. Potential risks to listed species of birds and to other taxa are characterized in Section 4.2 (above).

5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence with Proposed New Use of Boscalid

A preliminary analysis of the co

- occurrence of listed species and the proposed new uses of boscalid was conducted using OPP’s LOCATES database (v. 2.10.4 ). The goal of the analysis

for co

- location is to determine whether sites of pesticide use are geographically associated with known locations of listed species. The objective is t o provide insight into the potential for exposure of listed species and to identify those areas, crop uses, and listed species that warrant further attention. The LOCATES database uses location information for listed species at the county level and compar es it to agricultural census data ( from 2002) for crop production at the same county level of resolution. The product is a listing of federally

- listed species that are located within counties known to produce the crops upon which the pesticide will be use d. Appendix H provides a species listing by s tate for those listed species that may potentially be impacted by the proposed new use s of boscalid.

A tabulation of the number of unique listed species in each state that may co

- occur with the proposed new us e of boscalid as a seed treatment on rapeseed is provided in Table 5.2

. Although this assessment does not evaluate risk to terrestrial invertebrates, adverse effects on honeybees, associated with the use of boscalid, have been reported. Terrestrial inver tebrates are included in the tabulation of species that may co

- occur with areas of boscalid use. Secondary effects may occur in predatory birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals that rely on mammals, birds, reptiles, or terrestrial amphibians as prey. L OCATES does not currently differentiate between different feeding guilds or identify those plant species that require particular interactions

for pollination or seed dispersal . Therefore, the number of potentially affected listed mammals,

birds (also rept iles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians) , and terrestrial plants may be overestimated and include species that are not likely to be indirectly affected if they do not (1) rely on mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, or seeds as prey or (2) require mammals o r birds for pollination or seed dispersal. Additionally, in cases where a listed amphibian species with an aquatic phase does not also have a terrestrial phase or use terrestrial habitat, the number of potentially affected amphibian species may be overest imated.

Based the results of the LOCATES database query, there are a total of 123 listed species of terrestrial plants, birds, reptiles, terrestrial and aquatic

- phase amphibians, mammals, and

terrestrial invertebrates associated with counties where boscalid may be used nationwide on rapeseed, including canola

. It is expected that the actual total number of potentially affected listed species would be less than 123 because there are redundancies where a given species is

listed in more than one state. A total of 23 states have listed species that are potentially affected by direct or secondary effects of boscalid exposure and are associated with rapeseed crops where

boscalid may be used. California has the highest number (25) of listed species in the identified

taxa that may co

- occur with the proposed boscalid use s on rapeseed , followed by Oregon (12), Michigan (11) and Georgia (10).- Page 34 of 52

- 

### This preliminary analysis indicates that there is a potential for boscalid use to overlap with listed species and that a more refined assessment is warranted. The more refined assessment should involve clear delineation of the action area associated with proposed uses of boscalid and the best available information on the temporal and spatial co

- location of listed species with respect to the action area. This analysis has not been conducted for this screening level assessment.

Table 5

. 2

. Tabulation by s tate and t axonomic g roup of l isted s pecies at potential risk of direct or secondary

effects of boscalid u se as a seed treatment, in a reas where rapeseed (including canola and crambe) is grown.

StateAmphibiansAquatic MammalsBirdsCrustaceansDicotPlantsFernsOtherInvertebratesMammalsMonocotPlantsReptilesTotal perState

Alabama 1 2 2 5

Alaska 0

Arizona 0

Arkansas 1 1

California 2 1 2 11 1 4 1 3 25

Colorado 2 1 2 1 6

Connecticut 0

Delaware 0

Florida 0 Georgia 2 2 3 1 1 1 10

Hawaii 0

Idaho 1 3 2 2 8

Illinois 1 1

Indiana 1 1

Iowa 0

Kansas 3 1 1 5 Kentucky 1 2 3

Louisiana 0

Maine 1 1 1 3 Maryland 0

Massachusetts 0 Michigan 2 3 2 2 2 11

Minnes ota 1 1 1 3 Mississippi 0

Missouri 0

Montana 3 1 2 6

Nebraska 0

Nevada 0 New Hampshire 0 New Jersey 0

New Mexico 0

New York 0

North Carolina 1 1 2

North Dakota 3 1 4

Ohio 1 1 2

Oklahoma 0 Oregon 3 7 2 12- Page 35 of 52

- StateAmphibiansAquatic MammalsBirdsCrustaceansDicotPlantsFernsOtherInvertebratesMammalsMonocotPlantsReptilesTotal perState

Pennsylvania 1 1

Rhode Island 0

South Carolina 0

South Dakota 3 1 1 5

Tennessee 0

Texas 0

Utah 1 1

Vermont 0 Virginia 0 Washington 1 2 1 4 West Virginia 0

Wisconsin 2 1 1 4 Wyoming 0

Total Number of Species 4 1 29 2 37 1 9 26 10 4 123



## 6. References

Atkins, E.L. and D. Kellum. 1986. Comparative morphogenic and toxicity studies on the effect of pesticides on honeybee brood. Journal of Apicultural Research 25 (4): 242

- 255.



### Boyles, M.C., T.F. Peeper, and C.R. Medlin. 2007. Winter Canola Planting Gui de for the Southern Great

Plains

. Publication PSS

- 2131. Oklahoma State Cooperative Extension Service. Available online

at http://pss.okstate.edu/publications/publications/canola/PSS

- 2131.pdf

.

Burkle, L. 2009. Food and Fungi: the combined effects of food supplementation and Varroa mite control on honey

bee health. North American Pollinator Protection Campaign International Conference, Washington, DC.

Domagalski, .L., and K.M. Kuivila. 1993. Distributions of pesticides and organic contaminants between water and suspended sediment, San Francisco Bay, California. Estuaries 16 (3A): 416

– 426.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellesse n, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food

- chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383

- 1391.

Frazier, M., C. Mullin, J. Frazie r, and S. Ashcraft. 2008. American Bee Journal 148 (6): 521

- 523.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment . In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9

- 28.

Jordan, T.J., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller. 1997. Relating nutrient discharges from wat ersheds to land use and streamflow variability. Water Resources Research 33 (11): 2579

– 2590.- Page 36 of 52

- Klaassen

, M. and A. Lindstrom. 1996. Departure fuel loads in time

- minimizing migrating birds can be explained by the energy costs of being heavy. J ournal of Theor etical Biol ogu 183: 29

– 34.

Ladurner, E., J. Bosch, W.P. Lemp, and S. Maini. 2005. Assessing delayed and acute toxicity of five formulated fungicides to Osmia lignaria Say and Apis mellifera . Apidologie 36: 449

- 460.

Mussen, E.C. 2009. Honey bees and fungicides. Unpublished report. University of California

– Davis.

Mussen, E.C., J.E. Lopez, and C.Y.S. Peng. 2004. Effects of selected fungicides on growth and development of larval honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hy menoptera: Apidae). Environmental Entomology 33 (5): 1151

- 1154.

Scott, G.I., M.H. Fulton, G.T. Chandler, P.B. Key, J.W. Daugomah, D. Bearden, K.W. Chung, E.D. Strozier, M. DeLorenzo, S. Sivertsen, A. Dias, M. Sanders, J.M. Macauley, L.R. Goodman, M.W. La Croix, G.W. Thayer, and J. Kucklick. 2002. Toxicological studies in tropical ecosystems: An ecotoxicological risk assessment of pesticide runoff in South Florida estuarine ecosystems. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50 (15): 4400

– 4408.

Ur ban, D.J., and N. Cook. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9

– 85

- 001. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Accessed on 4

December 2009. Available online at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov

.

-- 2006. Crop profile for citrus (major) oranges/grapefruit in Florida. Available online at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLcitrus(major).pdf

.

-- 2002. Crop profile for alfalfa in Texas. Available online at

htt p://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/txalfalfa.pd f



### .

-- 2000. Crop profile for alfalfa in Minnesota. Available online at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/mnalfalfa.pdf

.

-- 2000. Crop profile for canola in Minnesota. Available online at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/mncanola.pdf.

U.S. Department of State. 2008. West Palm Beach weather. Country Studies . Available online at http://countrystudies.us/united

- states/weather/florida/west

- palm

- beach.htm

.

U.S. Environme ntal Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010a. Environmental Fate and Ecological Ris k Assessment for Boscalid New Uses on Alfalfa and Citrus (Group 10). DP 363523. Environmental Fate an d Effects Division, Office of P esticide Programs, Washington, D.C.

-- 2003. BAS 510F in/on Various Plant and Animal Commodities. HED Metabolism Assessme nt Review Committee (MARC) Decision Memo. PP# 1F06313. Memo from Maxie Jo Nelson, Henri Bietlot and Alan Levy to Yan Donovan. 9 January 2003. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.

-- 2010b. Boscalid Section 3: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Uses on Alfalfa and Citrus (Group 10). DP 363523. Memo from Catherine Aubee and David Lieu to Bryant Crowe and Tony Kish. 19 February 2010. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.

-- 2009a. Pesticides; Dat a Requirements for Conventional Chemicals, Technical Amendments, and Data Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final Rule. FR 72(207):60933

- 60988.

-- 2009b. Water models. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

.- Page 37 of 52

- -- 2009c. ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed on 16 November 2009. Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

.

-- 2009d. Ecological Incident Information System, v. 2.1 . Accessed on 13 October 2009. Description online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.

-- 200 9e . Input Parameter Guidance. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

-- 2008. Science Advisory Panel (SAP): Selected Issues Associated with th e Risk Assessment Process for Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C.

-- 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Asses sment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Avai lable

online a t http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk

- overview.pdf

.

-- 2003. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of BAS 510 F (Nicobifen). DP Barcodes D278387, D278390, D278418. Environmental Fate an d Effects Division, Office of P esticide Programs, Washington, D.C.

-- 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R

- 95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April, 1998.

-- 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R

- 13/187a. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.

Van Engelsdorp, D., J.D. Evans, C. Saegerman, C. M ullin, E. Haubruge, B.K. Nguyen, M. Frazier, J. Frazier, D.

Cox

- Foster, Y. Chen, R. Underwood, D.R. Tarpy, and J.S. Pettis. 2009. Colony collapse disorder: A descriptive study. PloS ONE 4 (8): e6481.

Van Engelsdorp, D., and M.D. Meixner. 2010. A hist orical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103: S80

- S95.

Wharton, P.S., Michigan State University. May 1, 2010. Michigan Potato Diseases websi te. Available online at http://www.potatodiseases.org/pdf/Fungicide

- Resistance

- Management.pdf

Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 100: 23

- 73.

Wilson, C., B. Boman, E. Stover, J. Bargar, and J. Hebb. 2006. Flatwoods citrus Best Management Practice: Minimizing direct deposition of pesticides into waterways. SL235. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Available online at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SS/SS45400.pdf.- Page 38 of 52

- 

## Appendix A . Chemical names and structures of boscalid and its degradates

IUPAC Name: 2

- c hloro

- N

- (4’

- chlorobiphenyl

2

- yl)

- nicotinamide

CAS Name: 2

- chloro

- N

- (4’

- chloro[1,1

- biphenyl

- 2

- yl)

- 3

- pyradinecarboxamide

CAS Number: 188425

- 85

- 6 Synonyms: 2

- chloro

- N

- (4’

- chlorobiphenyl

- 2

- yl)

- nicotinamide, BAS 510 F, boscalid,

nicobifen M510F47 2

- chloronicotinic acid

- [pyridine

3

- 14 

### C]

M510F49 (2

- hydroxy

- N

- (4’

- chlorobiphenyl

2

- yl)

- nicotonamide)

[Diphenyl

- U

14 

### C]

- labeled BAS 510 F M510F64 ( p

- chloro

- benzoic acid)

[Pyridine

- 3

- 14 

### C]

- labeled BAS 510 F M510F50 Unknown 2- Page 39 of 52

- 

## Appendix B . PRZM/EXAMS file names and sample input/output data

PRZM/EXAMS file names
Electronic files available as a compressed attachment.

Surface water : NDcanolaSTD.out Benthic segment: NDcanolaSTDben.out



### PRZM and EXAMS s ample i nput/ o utput d ata for broadcast application of treated seeds

a djacent to the Standard Farm Pond

Chemical: Boscalid

PRZM environment: NDcanolaSTD.txt modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:40 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w24013.dvf modified Tueday, 26 A ugust 2008 at 06:15:40 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.002435 0.002394 0.00225 0.002047 0.001959 0.0009865

1962 0.04269 0.04193 0.03977 0.03774 0.03626 0.0219

1963 0.08478 0.08401 0.08071 0.07654 0.076 11 0.05823

1964 0.1538 0.1521 0.1474 0.1439 0.1422 0.1135

1965 0.1587 0.1584 0.1575 0.1565 0.1562 0.1485

1966 0.1886 0.1877 0.1845 0.1802 0.1791 0.1697

1967 0.195 0.1945 0.1929 0.1905 0.1894 0.1845

1968 0.2385 0.2376 0.2344 0.2299 0.2279 0.2091

1969 0.2378 0.2374 0.2363 0.2343 0.2333 0.2281

1970 0.2849 0.2839 0.2811 0.2762 0.274 0.256

1971 0.3759 0.3737 0.366 0.3583 0.3543 0.3049

1972 0.3418 0.3417 0.3414 0.3409 0.3408 0.3397

1973 0.3644 0.3639 0.362 0.3607 0.3596 0.3481

1974 0.3998 0.3988 0.395 0.3904 0.3879 0.3734

1975 0.4303 0.4291 0.4266 0.4245 0.4238 0.4054

1976 0.4281 0.4279 0.427 0.4261 0.4254 0.4229

1977 0.5001 0.4986 0.4941 0.487 0.4857 0.4628

1978 0.5313 0.5301 0.5273 0.5215 0.5205 0.5046

1979 0.5706 0.5691 0.5639 0.5562 0.5527 0.5341

1980 0.58 03 0.5791 0.5752 0.5738 0.5737 0.5545

1981 0.5856 0.5851 0.5834 0.5807 0.5805 0.5741

1982 0.6265 0.6261 0.6242 0.6215 0.62 0.599

1983 0.6404 0.64 0.6387 0.637 0.6357 0.6233

1984 0.6986 0.6975 0.6913 0.6821 0.6777 0.6571

1985 0.717 0.7157 0.7116 0.7087 0.70 84 0.6919

1986 0.7165 0.7162 0.7148 0.7134 0.7125 0.7092

1987 0.7946 0.7922 0.7836 0.7713 0.766 0.7302

1988 0.7568 0.7564 0.7554 0.7538 0.7526 0.7502

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.0344827586206897 0.7946 0.7922 0.7836 0.7 713 0.766 0.7502

0.0689655172413793 0.7568 0.7564 0.7554 0.7538 0.7526 0.7302

0.103448275862069 0.717 0.7162 0.7148 0.7134 0.7125 0.7092

0.137931034482759 0.7165 0.7157 0.7116 0.7087 0.7084 0.6919- Page 40 of 52

- 0.172413793103448 0.6986 0.6975 0.6913 0.6821 0.6777 0.6571

0.206896551724138 0.6404 0.64 0.6387 0.637 0.6357 0.6233

0.241379310344828 0.6265 0.6261 0.6242 0.6215 0.62 0.599

0.275862068965517 0.5856 0.5851 0.5834 0.5807 0.5805 0.5741

0.310344827586207 0.5803 0.5791 0.5752 0.5738 0.5737 0.5545

0.344827586206897 0.5706 0.5691 0.5639 0.5562 0.5527 0.5341

0.379310344827586 0.5313 0.5301 0.5273 0.5215 0.5205 0.5046

0.413793103448276 0.5001 0.4986 0.4941 0.487 0.4857 0.4628

0.448275862068966 0.4303 0.4291 0.427 0.4261 0.4254 0.4229

0.482758620689655 0.4281 0.4279 0.42 66 0.4245 0.4238 0.4054

0.517241379310345 0.3998 0.3988 0.395 0.3904 0.3879 0.3734

0.551724137931034 0.3759 0.3737 0.366 0.3607 0.3596 0.3481

0.586206896551724 0.3644 0.3639 0.362 0.3583 0.3543 0.3397

0.620689655172414 0.3418 0.3417 0.3414 0.3409 0.3408 0. 3049

0.655172413793103 0.2849 0.2839 0.2811 0.2762 0.274 0.256

0.689655172413793 0.2385 0.2376 0.2363 0.2343 0.2333 0.2281

0.724137931034483 0.2378 0.2374 0.2344 0.2299 0.2279 0.2091

0.758620689655172 0.195 0.1945 0.1929 0.1905 0.1894 0.1845

0.793103448275 862 0.1886 0.1877 0.1845 0.1802 0.1791 0.1697

0.827586206896552 0.1587 0.1584 0.1575 0.1565 0.1562 0.1485

0.862068965517241 0.1538 0.1521 0.1474 0.1439 0.1422 0.1135

0.896551724137931 0.08478 0.08401 0.08071 0.07654 0.07611 0.05823

0.931034482758621 0.0426 9 0.04193 0.03977 0.03774 0.03626 0.0219

0.96551724137931 0.002435 0.002394 0.00225 0.002047 0.001959

0.0009865

0.1 0.72098 0.72022 0.71886 0.71744 0.71651 0.7113 Average of yearly averages: 0.391997017857143- Page 41 of 52

- 

## Appendix C . SCI

- GROW sample input /output data

SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:Boscalid on Rapeseed

time is 8/16/2010 14:58: 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.012 1.0 0. 012 7.16E+02 1305.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.02E

- 02

************************************************************************

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical: Boscalid on Turf

time is 8/16/2010 14:59:15

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolis m (days)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.350 6.0 2.100 7.16E+02 1305.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb ) = 1.78E+00

************************************************************************- Page 42 of 52

- 

## Appendix D

. Example T

- REX (v. 1.4.1) input and output data- Page 43 of 52

- 

## Appendix E

. Example TerrPlant (v. 1.2.2) input and output data- Page 44 of 52

- 

## Appendix F

. Ecotoxicity data gaps and uncertainties

Guideline (MRID) Study T ype Classification and

Issues

72

- 1c (45404927) Acute t oxicity to freshwater fish (r ainbow

t rout

, Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Supplemental

No measured concentrations.

72

- 1a (45404928) Acute toxicity to freshwater fish ( bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus ) Supplemental Water quality; uncertainty with measured

concentrations.

72

- 4a (45405006) Early l ife

- s tage t oxicity to freshwater fish (r ainbow t rout

, Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Supplemental Water quality; uncertainty with measured

concentrations.

72

- 2 (45405001) Acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates (waterflea, Daphnia magna ) Supplemental Precipitate not filtered/centrifuged; water quality; uncertainty with measured concentrations. Data not suitable for quantitative use in risk assessment.

72

- 4b

850.1300 (46351406) Chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates (waterflea, Daphnia magna ) Acceptable

Use of a solvent and treatment of water samples not specified.

N/A (45405009) Acute sediment t oxicity to freshwater invertebrates (a mphipod, Hyalella azteca ) Supplemental

Non

- guideline species; boscalid recoveries varied substantially based on analytical method; solvent controls sig. different from negative controls.

850.1735 ( 45405008 ) Chronic toxicity to sediment

- dwelling freshwater invertebrates (midge, Chironomus riparius ) Supplemental

Non

- guideline species; sediment not spiked; measured concentrations not p rovided.

72

- 3 (45405004) Acute toxicity to estuarine/marine fish (s heepshead m innow, Cyprinodon variegatus ) Acceptable Ratio of highest concentration tested to EEC not high enough to evaluate risk to listed species.

72

- 3b (45405002) Acute t oxicity to estuarine/marine invertebrates (m ysid, America n

mysis bahia ) Acceptable Ratio of highest concentration tested to EEC not high enough to evaluate risk to listed species.

123

- 2 (45405017) Toxicity to nonvascular aquatic plants (green alga, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) Supplemental Study conditions poorly described.

71

- 2a (45404923) Subacute dietary toxicity to upland game birds (bobwhite quail, Colinus virginianus) Supplemental Poor rearing conditions; small sample size.

71

- 2b (45404924) Subacute dietary toxicity to waterfowl (m allard d uck

, Anas platyrhynchos L.

. Supplemental Poor rearing conditions; small sample size.

850.6200 (45405020) 14

- day toxicity to soil

- dwelling invertebrates (e arthworm

, Eisenia fetida ) Supplemental Insufficient acclimation period; measured concentrations and stability unreported; 28

- day study recommended.

850.4250 (47627402) Terrestrial plant toxicity

– Tier II vegetative vigor Supplemental Concentrations too high to establish definitive endpoints f or cabbage (dicot).- Page 45 of 52

- 

## Appendix G

. Environmental fate and transport data gaps and uncertainties

Guideline (MRID) Study T ype Classification and

Issues

162

- 1

835.4100 (45405208) Aerobic soil metabolism Supplemental Foreign soil, high moisture content, no replicates for degradates, combined data from 2 radiolabel

studies to determine half

- life of parent compound.

162

- 1

835.4100 (45405209) Aerobic soil metabolism Supplemental Info on degradate, 2

- chloronicotinic acid only.

162

- 1

835.4100 (45405210) Aerobic soil metabolism Unacceptable

Half

- lives were extrapolated beyond range of data and no replicates. Interim report samples will be up to 360 days post treatment.

162

- 1

835.4100 (45643802) Aerobic soil metabolism Acceptable Replicate data not obtained for all sampling intervals to determine variability.

162

- 1

835.4100 (46715226) Aerobic soil metabolism Supplemental Not stated that samples incubated in darkness and material balance decreased steadily during study. Info on deg chloronicotinic acid and not parent.

162

- 2

835.4200 (45405211) Anaerobic soil metabolism Unacceptable

Half

- lives were extrapolated beyond range of data and no replicates. Incorrect application prep protocol. Foreign soil, not analyzed by phase but

whole system. Study not required because acceptable anaerobic aquatic metabolism study has been submitted (MRID 45405213).

162

- 2

835.4200 (45405212) Anaerobic soil metabolism Unacceptable

Half

- lives were extrapolated beyond range of data and no replicates. Inco rrect application prep protocol. Foreign soil, not analyzed by phase but whole system. Study not required because acceptable anaerobic aquatic metabolism study has been submitted (MRID 45405213).

162

- 4

835.4300 (45405214) Aerobic aquatic metabolism Supplemental System was flooded and incubated prior to treatment with parent. Should be done simultaneously. Foreign soil. Compound was stable and provides useful info. Additional study was not required at that time.

163

- 1

835.1230 &

835.1240 (45405216) L eaching adsorption/desorption Supplemental Material balances not reported for all test

concentrations.

163

- 1

835.1230 &

835.1240 (45405217) Leaching adsorption/desorption Supplemental Material balances not reported for all test

concentrations.- Page 46 of 52

- Guideline (MRID) Study T ype Classification and

Issues

164

- 1

835.6100 (45405218) Soil field dissipation Supplemental Major degradate from aerobic metabolism study

not monitored.

164

- 1

835.6100 (45405221) Soil field dissipation Acceptable Note data variability at both sites makes reported DT50s of questionable value.

164

- 1

835.6100 (45405222) Soil field dissipation Supplemental Foreign study site. Half

- lives at all 3 sites are questionable due to temporal and inter

- replicate data variability at all sites and insufficient sampling intervals.- Page 47 of 52

- 

## Appendix H

. LOCATES output of listed species

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LISTING BY STATE WITH USE CRITERIA

All medium types; m inimum of 1 Acre.

Crops: Canola, rapeseed, crambe. Taxa (dispersed species included): Mammal, marine mammal, bird, amphibian, r eptile,

crustacean, g astropod, arachnid, insect, dicot, monocot, ferns, conifer, coral, lichen.



### Alabama ( 5) species: Taxa

Woodpecker, Red

- cockaded Endangered Bird No Critical Habitat

(Picoides borealis) Terrestrial

Bladderpod, Lyrate Threatened Dicot No

(Lesquerella lyrata) Terrestrial

Clover, Leafy Prairie Endangered Dicot No

(Dalea foliosa) Terrestrial

Bat, Gray Endangered Mammal No

(Myotis grisescens) Subterraneous, Terrestrial

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial



### Arkansas ( 1) species: Taxa

Tern, Interior (population) Least Endangered Bird No Critical Habitat

(Sterna antillarum) Terrestrial



### California ( 25) species: Taxa

Salamander, California Tiger Endangered Amphibian No Critical Habitat

(Ambystoma californiense) Terrestrial, Vernal pool

Toad, Arroyo Southwestern Endangered Amphibian Yes

(Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)) Freshwater, Terrestrial

Rail, Yuma Clapper Endangered Bird No

(Rallus longirostris yumanensis) Terrestrial

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Threatened Crustacean Yes

(Branchinecta lynchi) Vernal pool

Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool Endangered Crustacean Yes

(Lepidurus packardi) Vernal pool

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin Threatened Dicot No

(Pseudobahia peirsonii) Terrestrial

Bird's

- beak, Palmate

- bracted Endangered Dicot No

(Cordylanthus palmatus) Terrestrial

Checker

- mallow, Keck's Endangered Dicot Yes

(Sidalcea keckii) Terrestrial

Clover, Fleshy Owl's Threatened Dicot Yes

(Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta) Vernal pool Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley Endangered Dicot No

(Dudleya setchellii) Terrestrial

Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's Endangered Dicot No

(Pseudobahia bahiifolia) Terrestrial

Grass, Hairy Orcutt Endangered Dicot Yes

(Orc uttia pilosa) Vernal pool

Jewelflower, California Endangered Dicot No

(Caulanthus californicus) Terrestrial

Milk

- vetch, Pierson's Threatened Dicot Yes- Page 48 of 52

- (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii) Terrestrial



### California ( 25) species: Taxa

Pussypaws, Mariposa Threatened Dicot No Critical Habitat

(Calyptridium pulchellum) Terrestrial

Woolly

- threads, San Joaquin Endangered Dicot No

(Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii) Terrestrial

Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Threatened Insect Yes

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) Terrestrial

Fox, San Joaquin Kit Endangered Mammal No

(Vulpes macrotis mutica) Terrestrial

Kangaroo Rat, Fresno Endangered Mammal Yes

(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) Terrestrial

Kangaroo Rat, Giant Endangered Mammal No

(Dipodomys ingens) Terrestrial

Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn Endangered Mammal Yes

(Ovis canadensis) Terrestrial

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Threatened Monocot Yes

(Orcuttia inaequalis) Vernal pool

Lizard, Blunt

- nosed Leopard Endangered Reptile No

( Gambelia silus) Terrestrial

Snake, Giant Garter Threatened Reptile No

(Thamnophis gigas) Freshwater, Terrestrial

Tortoise, Desert Threatened Reptile Yes

(Gopherus agassizii) Terrestrial



### Colorado ( 6) species: Taxa

Crane, Whooping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Grus americana) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Owl, Mexican Spotted Threatened Bird Yes

(Strix occidentalis lucida) Terrestrial

Butterfly Plant, Colorado Threatened Dicot Yes

(Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) Terrestrial

Ferret, Black

- footed Endangered Mammal No

(Mustela nigripes) Terrestrial

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Threatened Mammal Yes

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) Terrestrial

Ladies'

- tresses, Ute Threatened Monocot No

(Spiranthes diluvialis) Terrestrial 

### Georgia ( 10) species: Taxa

Salamander, Flatwoods Threatened Amphibian No Critical Habitat

(Ambystoma cingulatum) Freshwater, Vernal pool, Terrestrial

Salamander, Reticulated flatwoods Endangered Amphibian No

(Ambystoma bishopi) Terrestrial

Stork, Wood Endangered Bird No

(Mycteria americana) Terrestrial

Woodpecker, Red

- cockaded Endangered Bird No

(Picoides borealis) Terrestrial

Amphianthus, Little Threatened Dicot No

(Amphianthus pusillus) Freshwater

Dropwort, Canby's Endangered Dicot No

(Oxypolis canbyi) Te rrestrial, Freshwater

Pondberry Endangered Dicot No

(Lindera melissifolia) Terrestrial- Page 49 of 52

- 

### Georgia ( 10) species: Taxa

Quillwort, Black

- spored Endangered Ferns No Critical Habitat

(Isoetes melanospora) Vernal pool

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial

Snake, Eastern Indigo Threatened Reptile No

(Drymarchon corais couperi) Terrestrial



### Idaho ( 8) species: Taxa

Crane, Whooping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Grus americana) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Catchfly, Spalding's Threatened Dicot No

(Silene spaldingii) Terrestrial

Four

- o'clock, Macfarlane's Threatened Dicot No

(Mirabilis macfarlanei) Terrestrial

Howellia, Water Threatened Dicot No

(Howellia aquatilis) Freshwater

Snail, Bliss Rapids Threat ened Gastropod No

(Taylorconcha serpenticola) Freshwater

Snail, Snake River Physa Endangered Gastropod No

(Physa natricina) Terrestrial

Bear, Grizzly Threatened Mammal No

(Ursus arctos horribilis) Terrestrial

Caribou, Woodland Endangered Mammal No

(Rangifer tarandus caribou) Terrestrial



### Illinois ( 1) species: Taxa

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes Critical Habitat

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial



### Indiana ( 1) species: Taxa

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes Critical Habitat

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial



### Kansas ( 5) species: Taxa

Crane, Whooping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Grus americana) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Plover, Piping Endangered Bird Yes

(Charadrius melodus) Terrestrial

Tern, Interior (population) Least Endangered Bird No

(Sterna antillarum) Terrestrial

Beetle, American Burying Endangered Insect No

(Nicrophorus americanus) Terrestrial

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera praeclara) Terrestrial



### Kentuck **y** ( 3) species: Taxa

Warbler, Bachman's Endangered Bird No Critical Habitat

(Vermivora bachmanii) Terrestrial

Bat, Gray Endangered Mammal No

(Myotis grisescens) Subterraneous, Terrestrial

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial



### Maine ( 3) species: Taxa

Lousewort, Furbish Endangered Dicot No Critical Habitat- Page 50 of 52

- (Pedicularis furbishiae) Terrestrial

Lynx, Canada Threatened Mammal No

(Lynx canadensis) Terrestrial

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera leucophaea) Terrestrial 

### Michigan ( 11) species: Taxa

Plover, Piping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Charadrius melodus) Terrestrial

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Endangered Bird No

(Dendroica kirtlandii) Terrestrial

Goldenrod, Houghton's Threatened Dicot No

(Solidago houghtonii) Terrestrial

Monkey

- flower, Michigan Endangered Dicot No

(Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Thistle, Pitcher's Threatened Dicot No

(Cirsium pitcher i) Terrestrial Butterfly, Karner Blue Endangered Insect No

(Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Terrestrial

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Endangered Insect No

(Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) Terrestrial

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial

Lynx, Canada Threatened Mammal No

(Lynx canadensis) Terrestrial

Iris, Dwarf Lake Threatened Monocot No

(Iris lacustris) Terrestrial

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera leucophaea) Terrestrial



### Minnesota ( 3) species: Taxa

Plover, Piping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Charadrius melodus) Terrestrial

Lynx, Canada Threatened Mammal No

(Lynx canadensis) Terrestrial

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera praeclara) Terrestrial



### Montana ( 6) species: Taxa

Crane, Whooping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Grus americana) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Plover, Piping Endangered Bird Yes

(Charadrius melodus) Terrestrial

Tern, Interior (population) Least Endangered Bird No

(Sterna antillarum) Terrestrial

Catchfly, Spalding's Threatened Dicot No

(Silene spaldingii) Terrestrial

Bear, Grizzly Threatened Mammal No

(Ursus arctos horribilis) Terrestrial

Ferret, Black

- footed Endangered Mammal No

(Mustela nigripes) Terrestrial- Page 51 of 52

- 

### North Carolina ( 2) species: Taxa

Woodpecker, Red

- cockaded Endangered Bird No Critical Habitat

(Picoides borealis) Terrestrial

Manatee, West Indian Endangered Marine mml Yes

(Trichechus manatus) Saltwater



### North Dakota ( 4) species: Taxa

Crane, Whooping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Grus americana) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Plover, Piping Endangered Bird Yes

(Charadrius melodus) Terrestrial Tern, Interior (population) Least Endangered Bird No

(Sterna antillarum) Terrestrial

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera praeclara) Terrestrial



### Ohio ( 2) species: Taxa

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes Critical Habitat

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera leucophaea) Terrestrial 

### Oregon ( 12) species: Taxa

Murrelet, Marbled Threatened Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) Freshwater, Terrestrial, Saltwater

Owl, Northern Spotted Threatened Bird Yes

(Strix occidentalis caurina) Terrestrial

Plover, Western Snowy Threatened Bird Yes

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Terrestrial

Catchfly, Spalding's Threatened Dicot No

(Silene spaldingii) Terrestrial

Checker

- mallow, Nelson's Threatened Dicot No

(Sidalcea nelsoniana) Terrestrial

Daisy, Willamette Endangered Dicot No

(Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens) Terrestrial

Four

- o'clock, Macfarlane's Threatened Dicot No

(Mirabilis macfarlanei) Terrestrial

Lomatium, Bradshaw's Endang ered Dicot No

(Lomatium bradshawii) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Lupine, Kincaid's Threatened Dicot No

(Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii)) Terrestrial

Thelypody, Howell's Spectacular Threatened Dicot No

(Thelypodium howellii spectabilis) Terrestrial

Butterfly, Fender's Blue Endangered Insect No

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) Terrestrial

Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Threatened Insect Yes

(Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Terrestrial 

### Pennsylvania ( 1) species: Taxa

Bat, Indiana Endangered Mammal Yes Critical Habitat

(Myotis sodalis) Subterraneous, Terrestrial- Page 52 of 52

- 

### South Dakota ( 5) species: Taxa

Crane, Whooping Endangered Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Grus americana) Terrestrial, Freshwater

Plover, Piping Endangered Bird Yes

(Charadrius melodus) Terrestrial Tern, Interior (population) Least Endangered Bird No

(Sterna antillarum) Terrestrial

Beetle, American Burying Endangered Insect No

(Nicrophorus americanus) Terrestrial

Ferret, Black

- footed Endangered Mammal No

(Muste la nigripes) Terrestrial



### Utah ( 1) species: Taxa

Primrose, Maguire Threatened Dicot No Critical Habitat

(Primula maguirei) Terrestrial 

### Washington ( 4) species: Taxa

Owl, Northern Spotted Threatened Bird Yes Critical Habitat

(Strix occidentalis caurina) Terrestrial

Catchfly, Spalding's Threatened Dicot No

(Silene spaldingii) Terrestrial

Howellia, Water Threatened Dicot No

(Howellia aquatilis) Freshwater

Rabbit, Pygmy Endangered Mammal No

(Brachylagus idahoensis) Terrestrial



### Wisconsin ( 4) species: Taxa

Locoweed, Fassett's Threatened Dicot No Critical Habitat

(Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea) Terrestrial

Thistle, Pitcher's Threatened Dicot No

(Cirsium pitcheri) Terrestrial

Lynx, Canada Threatened Mammal No

(Lynx canadensis) Terrestrial

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Threatened Monocot No

(Platanthera leucophaea) Terrestrial

11/18/2010 9:05:29 AM Ver. 2.10.4