UNITED STATES ENVIRONRIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMiCAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION 

PC ~dde:' 125701 

DP Barcode: D374783, ~37478/8, D374790 

D374791, ~374791, D374796 

Date: Jbe 9,2010 

SUBJECT: Revised Section 3 Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assbssment of 

Flurprimidol Proposed for New Uses on Turf grasses and Orn4entals. 

TO: Tony ash, Product Manager I 

Bryant Crowe, Risk Manager Reviewer 

Registration Division (750 

FROM: Stephen Carey, Biologist 

James K. Wolf, Ph.D., Env 

Environmental Risk Branch 111 

THROUGH: James A. Hetrick, Ph.D., senior ~~i~~ti~tJ+/ 2#* ''/Ia 

Pamela Hurley, Ph.D., Se 

Dana Spatz, Branch Chie ~j(d 

Environmental Risk Br 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) I 

This Section 3 ecological risk assessment was conducted for the proposed labeled usesfor 

outdoor -and residential use in right-of-ways, industrial, golf resorts, and athletic 

commercial, municipal and residential turf using the active ingredient, 

growth regulator to control growth of turf grasses, ornamentals, and a 

flowering, bulb crop, perennial, and woody landscape plants. 

This risk assessment was revised to update the terrestrial exposure analysis for banded 

application to ground surfaces. In the previous assessment, the inputs for banded applidations 

modeled in T-REX reflected agricultural practices where a band application is made beltween 

rows of an acre field rather than around the perimeter of an area or building; thus, the rhvised 

RQs for "banded" applications occurring on the edge of a site are adjusted using broad ast 

applications with the understanding that the entire acre will not be completely treated 4 hen 

"banded" applications are applied as little as six inches wide on the ,edge/perimeter of $ area. 

TEXT SEARCHABLE DOCUMENT - 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I . Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4 

A .. Nature of the Chemical Stressor .................................................................................................................. 4 

B Potential Risk to Non-target Organisms .. ..................................................................................................... 4 

C . Conclusions - Exposure Characterization .................................................................................................. 5 

D . Conclusions - Ecological Effects Characterization .................................................................................... 6 

E . Listed Species ................................................................................................................................................ 6 

I1 . Problem Formulation ....................................................................................................................... 7 

A . Stressor Source and Distribution ................................................................................................................. 7 

1 . Nature of Stressor ......................................................................................................................................... 7 

2 . Mode of Action ............................................................................................................................................. 9 

3 . Overview of Pesticide Usage ................................................................................................................... 9 

B . Receptors .................................................................................................................................................. 11 

1 . Aquatic Effects ........................................................................................................................................... 11 

2 . Terrestrial Effects .................................................................................................................................... 11 

3 . Ecosystem at Risk ....................................................................................................................................... 11 

C . Assessment Endpoints ............................................................................................................................... 12 

D . Conceptual Model ....................................................................................................................................... 14 

1 . Risk Hypotheses ........................ I................................................................................................................ 14 

2 . Conceptual Model Diagram ..................................................................................................................... 14 

E . Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 16 

1 . Identification of Data Gaps ........................................................................................................................ 17 

2 . Measures of'Exposure ................................................................................................................................ 18 

3 . Measures of Effect ..................................................................................................................................... 19 

4 . Integration of Exposure and Effects ............................................................................................................ 19 

I11 . ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 20 

A . Use Characterization ................................................................................... ; ............................................. 20 

B . Exposure Characterization ............................................................................................................. 2i.i ......... 20 

1 . Environmental Fate and Transport$haracterization .........!.. .............................................................. 20 . . 2 . Measures of Aquatic Exposure ................................................................................................................... 24 

3 . Aquatic Exposure Monitoring and Field Data ............................................ : ........................................... 28 

4 . Measures of Terrestrial Exposure ............................................ .............................. ............................. 28 

IV . Ecological Effects Characterization ....................................................... , ........................................ 34 

A Aquatic . Effects Characterization .................................................................................................. ......... 34 

B . Terrestrial Effects Characterization ....................................................................................................... 35 

V . RISK CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................................... 36 

A+ Risks to Aquatic Organisms and Plants .................................................................................................... 36 

1 . Freshwater Fish 1 Invertebrates .......................... :.... ................................................................................. 37 

2 . ~stuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates ............................................................................................... 37 

3 . Aquatic Plants ............................................................................................................................................. 37 

B ... Risks to Terrestrial Animals ...................................................................................................................... 39 

1 .. Birds and Mammals .................................................................................................................................. 39 

2 . Terrestrial-phase Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................................................... 46 

3 . Beneficial Insects ........................................................................................................................................ 46 

4 . Soil-dwelling Invertebrates (Earthworm) ............................................................................................... 46 

C . Terrestrial Plants ........................................................................................................................................ 46 

1 . Non-Listed and Listed Terrestrial Plants ................................................................................................ 47 

VI . RISK DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 48 

A . Risks to Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants ................................................................... ................. 48 

1 . Aquatic Organisms .................................................................................................................................... 49 

2 . Aquatic-phase Amphibians ...................................................................................................................... 49 

3 . Aquatic Plants ............................................................................................................................................ 49 

B . Risks to Non-target Terrestrial Animals and Plants ................................................................................ 49 

1 . Birds ............................................................................................................................................................ 50 
2 . Terrestrial-phase Amphibians and Reptiles ......................................................................................... 5 1 

3 . Mammals ................................................................................................................................................ 52 

4 . Soil-Dwelling Invertebrates ...................................................................................................................... 57 

5 . Beneficial Insects ....................................................................................................................................... 57 

6 . Terrestrial Plants .................................................................................................................................. 57 

C . Review of Incident Data ............................................................................................................................. 57 

D . Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program .................................................................................. 1............... 58 

E . Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species Concerns: ...................................... .............. 58 

1 . Action Area ............................................................................................................................................. 59 

2 . Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk .................................................................................................... 59 

3 . Indirect Effects Analysis ................................. ;......................................................................................... 60 

4 . Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................................... ,......... 60 

5 . Direct Effect Co-occurrence Analysis ...................................................................................................... 61 

6 . Indirect Effect Co-occurrence Analysis ............................................................................................... 62 

VII . Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths, and Data Ga~s ........... 63 

A . Use Pattern .................................................................................................................................................. , . 63 

B . Environmental Fate and Transport ..................................................................................................... 64 . . C . . . Aquatic Exposure Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 64 

D . Terrestrial Exposure Estimates ............................................................................................................. 64 

E . Ecological Effects .................................................................................................................................... 65 

APPENDIX A: GENEEC EECs ................................................................................................ .,....... ; .... 69 

APPENDIX B . PRZM /EXAMS EEC and Output ..................................... ;. ........................... i ............. 72 

APPENDIX C: T-REX EECs I ..................................................................................................... .,............ 90 

APPENDIX D: Terrestrial Chronic Exposure Estimates for Granular Applications of ~~{r~rimidol 

(Earthworm Fugacity Model) ................................................................................................................ 106 

APPENDIX E: TERRPLANT EECs .......................................................................................... /. ......... 111 

APPENDIX F: LOCATES - Direct Effect Co-occurrence Analysis .................... : ............................ 116 
I. Executive Summary 

A. Nature of the Chemical Stressor 

Flurprimidol (RS)-2-methyl- 1 -pyrimidin-5-yl- 1 -(4-trifluoromethoxypheny1)propan- 1-0 1, a plant 

growth regulator, was developed to reduce internode elongation of plants through the inhibition 

of gibberellin biosynthesis. Reduced plant growth improves the management and quality of 

perennial cool and warm seasons turf grasses on golf courses, athletic fields, commercial, 

municipal, and residential turf and perennial landscape and container grown ornamental plants. 

There are five active products for flurprimidol considered in this assessment: Reg. No.67690-15, 

Cutless 50W Turf Growth Regulator; Reg. No. 67690-46, SP5075 Turf Growth Regulator; Reg. 

No. 67690-19, Turf ~ertilizer - Contains Cutless 0.5%; Reg. No. 67690-44, Turf Fertilizer - 

Contains Cutless 0.17% ,and Reg. No. 67690-13, Cutless 0.33G Landscape Growth Regulator. 

These products are labeled for terrestrial outdoor and residential sites as a non-crop use. The 

products are appliedvia ground boom-type and backpacker sprayers, and granular spreaders. 

B. Potential Risk to Non-target Organisms 

Based on all available data, including the submission of new studies, potential chronic risk from 

the proposed new uses of flurprimidol on turf grasses and ornamentals is expected for birds and 

mammals. Acute risks to mammals are presumed. The potential for risks to aquatic non-vascular 

plants is minimal; however, risks to aquatic vascular and terrestrial plants are expected since 

flurprimidol is a plant growth regulator. Minimal acute and chronic risks to aquatic organisms 

and minimal acute risk to birds are presumed. 

Table 1-1 presents the Risk Quotients (RQs) and use patterns used to determine the potential 

risks to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and plants exposed to flurprimidol. 
Table 1-1. Summary of Risk Quotient Calculation for Flurprimidol Exposures to 1 

Terrestrial and Aquatic organisms and Plants.* 

- 

Species - 

Flnrprimidol RQs and Use Patterns 

Broadcast Spray I Banded Spray ( Broadcast ] Banded I Granular I Granular 

Chronic RQs: ~0.1 - 0.13 

Invertebrates 

All Chronic RQs: <0.1 

plants I Listed Plant RQs: 1.76 - 4.59 / Listed Plant RQs: 4.65 - 8.42 ITerrestrial Animals and Plants , I

..- . 1 AcuteRQs: NC 1 I Acute RQs: NC ( 

Aquatic Organisms and Plants 

All Acute RQs: <0.01 

Aquatic Nonvascular plants 

1 ~kds I Chronic RQs: I Acute RQs: NC [ Chronic RQs: I Acute RQs: NC I 

Fish 

All Non-Listed Plant RQs: 0.14 - 0.16 

All Listed Plant RQs: 0.42 - 0.49 

All Acute RQs: <0.01 

Aquatic Vascular / Non-Listed Plant RQs: 0.18 - 0.48 1 Non-Listed Plant RQs: 0.34 - 0.88 

Mammals 

L 

I Terrestrial 

C. Conclusions - Exposure Characterization 

Monocots . 

Dicots 

Based on all acceptable and supplemental data, the major routes of dissipation for flurp~imidol 

are expected to be leaching and runoff, plant uptake because the compound is a systemic plant 

growth regulator, and photolysis in aqueous systems. Flurprimidol is stable to hydrolysig and 

resistant to degradation in both aerobic and anaerobic terrestrial environments and is asslumed to 

be similarly persistent in both aerobic and anaerobic aquatic environments. Flurprimidol is 

highly mobile in soil, is of moderate solubility in sterile water, has a low potential for 

bioaccumulation based on its bioconcentration factors (BCF) and r'apid depuration, and is not 

expected to volatilize. 

<O. 1-1.6 

Acute RQs: 

<O. 1-0.3 

Chronic RQs: 

<O. 1-30 

Given this profile, the main routes of exposure from use of flurprimidol are expected to be runoff 

and spray drift and direct ingestion of assessed feed items and granules. Given the low & of this 

plant growth regulator, transport with and accumulation in sediment are not expected to be 

significant routes of exposure. Typically, EFED evaluates the potential for aquatic exposure to 

pesticides through an assessment of available surface water and groundwater monitoring data 

and modeling. For flurprimidol, no monitoring data were available for use in this assessment; 

therefore, potential exposure to flurprimidol in water was evaluated through modeling. Ror this 

assessment, EFED relied on Tier I and I1 modeling using GENEEC2 and PRZM/EXAMS, 

respectively, for aquatic exposure concentrations (Appendices A and B). Terrestrial residues 

* Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance 

NC - RQs not calculated since toxicity was greater than the highest doses tested; potential risk is presumed 

minimal 

Listed Plant RQs: <O. 1 - 10 

Non-Listed Plant RQs: 0.24 - 32 

Listed Plant RQs: <0.1 - 125 

Acute RQs: 

0.01 - 0.31 

Listed Plant RQs: <O. 1 - 40 

Non-Listed Plant RQs: 0.57 - 87 

Listed Plant RQs: €0.1 - 341 

Non-Listed Plant RQs: <0.1 - 2.7 Non-Listed Plant RQs: ~0.1 - 11 I 

<O. 1 

Acute RQs: 

0.06 - 1.3 

Chronic RQs: 

<O. 1 

Acute RQs: 

0.03 - 0.67 
were predicted using T-REX version 1.3.1 (Appendix C) and earthworm fugacity model 

(Appendix D). TerrPLANT version 1.2.2 (Appendix E) was modeled for terrestrial plants. 

D. Conciusions - Ecological Effects Characterization 

Laboratory toxicity data suggest that flurprimidol is slightly toxic on an acute basis to freshwater 

animals, with fish and invertebrate LC5Os ranging from 12-18 mg a.i./L. There are no acute 

toxicity data available to characterize acute effects to their estuarinelmarine counterparts; 

however, based on data for freshwater animals, flurprimidol is assumed to be, at most,slightly 

toxic to estuarinelmarine organisms. Chronic toxicity data indicate reductions in fry survival, 

length, and weight of freshwater fish and reductions in days of first brood, young per adult, and 

adult length of invertebrates, with fish and invertebrate NOAECs ranging from 0.939 to 2.95 mg 

a.i./L. Toxicity data for aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants identified EC5Os of less than 1 

mg a.i./L. 

Acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity tests suggest that flurprimidol is practically nontoxic to 

birds. Flurprimidol is slightly toxic to mammals on an acute oral basis, with an LD50 of 709 mg 

a.i./kg-bw. Chronic toxicity data with birds indicate reductions in egg production, embryo 

survival, and hatchability as low as 309 mg a.i./kg-diet. A two-generation chronic mammalian 

(rat) toxicity study demonstrated decreased mating, fertility, and fetal survival (stillbirths) in both 

generations at flurprimidol levels of 1000 mg a.i./kg-diet (equivalent to 74 mg a.i./kg-bwlday) 

and a reproductive NOAEL of 100 mg a.i./kg-diet (equivalent to 7.3 mg a.i./kg-bwlday). 

E. Listed Species 

The listed species exposed through direct effects or indirect effects resulting from the proposed 

use of flurprimidol where turf grass and ornamentals are grown and conclusions are presented in 

Table 1-2. As a result, this ecological risk assessment for use of flurprimidol on turf grasses and 

ornamentals indicates direct effects LOC exceedances for birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, 

reptiles, mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic vascular plants. Therefore, there is a potential for 

indirect effects to listed animal and plant taxa that depend on those taxa directly at risk when 

exposed to flurprimidol as pollinators or seed dispersers, mammal or reptile burrows for habitat, 

feeding, or cover requirements, and for survival, growth, or reproduction. 
Table 1-2. Potential Listed Species Risks Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects Due to Outdoor and 

Residential Uses with Flurprimidol 

- - 

Aquatic 

- 

Listed Taxon 

1 Marinelestuarine invertebrates 1 No 1 NO I No I I 

Aquatic non-vascular plants 

Aquatic vascular plants 

( Freshwater invertebrates 

Direct Effects fkom 

Acute Exposures 

No 

Yes 

No 

Freshwater fish 

Marinelestuarine fish 

Terrestrial I 

Direct Effects from 

Chronic Exposures 

Aquatic-phase amphibians I No 

I Semi-aquatic plants - rnonocots ( Yes I NIA I yes 1 

Indirect Effects 

I 

NIA 

NIA 

No 

No 

No 

1 Semi-aquatic plants - dicots I Yes 1 NIA 1 yes I 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

- - 

Terrestrial plants - monocots Yes NIA Yes 

No 

NO 

Yes 

p~ 

Yes 

No 

1 ~nsects I No . ( NIA ( yes 1 

Terrestrial plants - dicots ( yes ( NIA 

1 Birds 1 No 1 yes 1 yes 1 

Yes 

Reptiles I No 1 yes I yes , . 

-- - 

Terrestrial-phase amphibians 

1 Mammals 1 yes 1 yes 1 yes 1 -p - - 

N/A - indicates that this exposure route is not assessed. 

No 

11. Problem Formulation 

The purpose of this problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the ecological risk 

assessment being conducted for the proposed use of flurprimidol as a plant growth reguiator on 

turf grasses and ornamentals. The problem formulation for flurprimidol articulates the pprpose 

and objectives of the risk assessment, evaluates the nature of the problem, and provides ii plan 

for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA, 1998). 

Yes 

A. Stressor Source and Distribution 

1. Nature of Stressor 

- -- 

Yes 

This ecological risk assessment addresses the potential ecological risks associated with the 

proposed new uses of flurprimidol, a plant growth regulator, on turf grasses and ornamental 

plants grown nationwide. Given that turf grasses and ornamentals are grown across the cpuntry 

and there are currently no geographic restrictions on the proposed label, the potential market for 

this product is large. As a policy, when conducting an ecological risk assessment for new uses, 

EFED assumes that the stressor has the potential to be applied anywhere the turf grasses and 

ornamentals are grown and does not consider predicted sales, market trends, etc. 
A summary of selected physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties of flurprimidol is 

presented in Table 11-1. Overall, the dominant dissipation mechanism for flurprimidol is 

expected to be via leaching due to its mobile nature, plant uptake because the compound is a 

plant growth regulator that is taken up by the plant and by photolysis in aqueous systems. 

Flurprimidol is stable to hydrolysis and resistant to degradation in both aerobic and anaerobic 

terrestrial systems. Field dissipation data suggest that much more rapid dissipation was found 

that might be expected from the laboratory studies; however, the registrant postulates that this 

could be due to a number of factors not tracked in the study including plant uptake and 

volatilization. Consequently, given that when applied to bareground sites, flurprimidol was very 

persistent and because of the low volatility of this compound, it appears that plant uptake may be 

the dominant route of removal from the field. 

The chemical structure of flurprimidol is shown in Figure 1. 

F > .- Figure 1. Flurprimidol Structure _I _ 

Selected chemical and physical properties of flurprimidol are summarized below in Table 11-1. . 

Table 11-1. Summary of Chemical and Physical Properties of Flurprimidol 

Common Name: 

Empirical Formula: 

Chemical Name: 

(IUpAC) 

Chemical Abstracts #: 

PC Code 

Chemical Class: 

Molecular Weight: 

-- - 

Flurprimidol 

C15H15F3N202. 

56425-91-3 

125701 

Pyrimidinyl carbinol 

312.3 g/mol 
Water Solubility (20" C): 

Vapor Pressure (25' C): 

Octanollwater Partition Coefficient: 

(Kow) 

Environmental Fate Properties 

Hydrolysis Stable at pHs 5,7, and 9 

Aqueous Photolysis T1,2: 1.4 days 

Soil Photolysis TlI2: No data 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 482 days 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism No data 

Soil Sorption Coefficient Koc: 268 to 535 mugoc 

Kd: 0.12 to 4.9 mWg 

It should be noted that the carbon in the 1-position in the propane moiety (the carbinol C) is a 

chiral molecule. However, EFED has no records of the discussion of the stereo chemistry of the 

molecule or possible differences in environmental fate properties or ecotoxicity betweep isomers. 

Based upon the Confidential Statement of the Formula's silence on the chirality questians, EFED 

is assuming the technical flurprimidol is a racemic mixture, with two isomers being of equal 

activity 

2. Mode of Action 

Flurprimidol is a turf growth regulator, which reduces leaf blade length and stem internode 

elongation in turf grass. It also is a systemic landscape growth regulator which suppresses 

terminal growth in established woody ornamental and perennial ground covers. Growth 

regulation results from suppression of gibberellic acid biosynthesis. 

3. Overview of Pesticide Usage 

Flurprirnidol is a plant growth regulator for use on turf grass in golf courses; on a variety of 

bedding, flowering, perennial, and woody landscape plants in nurseries, greenhouses, and 

shadehouses; and on trees and plants in forest, industrial, and rights-of-way areas. Uses include 

golf course turf, forest trees, ornamentals, and a variety of bedding, flowering, bulb cron, 

perennial, and woody landscape plants. The proposed product labels are adding athletic fields, 

commercial, municipal and residential turf to the current registration, including edgingqanding 

applications for landscape beds, sidewalks, perimeter of lawns, curbs, parking lots, driverways, 

posts, mailboxes, building structures, graves tones, fences, and other similar areas. 

Application information for current registered uses and proposed new uses for flurprimidol is 

summarized in Table 11-2. Flurprimidol is formulated as a wettable powder (10% - 50% active 

ingredient), soluble/solid concentrate (99.3% a.i.), liquid (0.38% - 13.26% a.i.), liquid - ready to 

use (48.1% a.i.), granule (0.17% - 0.5% a.i.), and as well as impregnated (93.6% a.i.) on 
granular fertilizer producing granular formulation products. Application equipment includes 

spreader, backpack sprayer, low-pressure hand wand, ground boom sprayer, injection 

equipment, by hand, drencher, drip irrigation, tank-type sprayer or sprinkler irrigation. 

Application is via foliar treatment, spot treatment, chemigation, tree injection or implant 

treatment, drench, edging treatment, or band treatment. Single application rates for treatment 

range from 0.26 to 3.0 pounds active ingrediedacre (lbs a.i./A) and seasonal application rates 

are up to 3.008 lbs a.i./A. Chemigation is not allowed in the States of New York and California. 

The current registered uses and proposed new uses for flurprimidol are'presented in Table 11-2. 

r Turfgrasses 

Table II-2. Current Registered Use and Proposed New Use Patterns for Flurprimidol 

Turfgrasses 

and 

Ornamentals 

Turfgrasses 

Uses 

Turfgrasses 1 and 

' Ornamentals 

Maxixnum 

Single 

rate 

(Ib ailA) 

Turfgrasses 

Product - 

Maximum 

yearly rate 

(lb ai/A) 

Application 

Method 

Proposed New Uses 

Minimum 

# of 

Intervals 

SP5075 Turf Grow 

~egulator'~~ 

I 

Turf Fertilizer ~utless~'~ 

Cutless SOW Turf Plant 

~egulator~'~ 

Cutless 0.33G Plant 

Growth ~egulator~'~ 

Current Registered Uses 

#of 

Applications 

per Season 

Woody 

Ornamentals 

Broadcast 

- (Spray) 

EdgeBand 

(Spray) 

Broadcast 

(Granular) 

Ornamentals 

(Granular) 

Spot 

&Treatment 

(Granular) 

Turf Grass 

(Spray) 

Edgernand 

(Spray) 

Broadcast 

-- 

(Granular) 

Broadcast 

(Granular) 

3.0 8 weeks 2 

TopFlor Ornamental 

Plant Growth 

0.26 

0.69 

0.75 

1 .O 

.3.0 

0.75 

1.5 

Turf Fertilizer ~utless~'~ 

Drench, 

Chemigation, 1 P -7. 

3.0 

3 .O 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

Ornamentals 

(Granular) 

Broadcast 

(Granular) 

EdgeB and 

(Granular) 

Ornamentals 

(Granular) 

0.75 3 weeks 4 

0.3626 

2 weeks 

8 weeks 

3 weeks 

2 months 

3 weeks 

2 weeks 

8 weeks 

1 .O 

1.5 

1 .O 

1.5 

1.5 

11 

4 

4 

3 

1 

4 

2 

1.08 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

5 days 

3 weeks 

2 months 

'3 weeks 

8 weeks 

8 weeks 

3 

3 

2 

3 

2 

2 
' 67690-46 SP5075, Turf Grow RegulatorEC (13.26 % ai); density = 1.10 lb ailgallon; 0.00859 Ib ailfl. oz. 

'67690-19, Turf Fertilizer Cutless 0..5%/G(0.5 % ai); density = 0.005 Ib aiflb of product 

67690-15, Cutless 50W Turf Plant Rcgulator (SO % ai); density = 0.5 Ib aillb of product 

467690-13, Cutless 0.33G Plant Growth ReglG (0.33 % ai); density =0.0033 Ib ai/lb of product 

67690-44, Turf Fertilizer Cutless/G (0.17 % ai); density =0.017 lb aillb of product 

67690-20, Topflor Ornamental Plant Growth Regulator (0.38 % ai); density = 15 g ailgallon of product 

67690-16 Cutless Technical 

Bulb Crops, 

Bedding 

Plants, 

Flowering & 

Foliage 

Potted Plants, 

and Bedding 

Plant Plugs 

B. Receptors 

Assessment endpoints are explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be 

protected. Assessment endpoint selection is based on valued entities or ecological receqtors, the 

ecosystems potentially at risk, pesticide migration pathways, and routes by which ecological 

receptors may be exposed to the stressor. Endpoints for baseline ecological risk assessdents 

typically include survivorship and sublethal parameters for aquatic and terrestrial species that ' 

may be exposed to a given stressor. Although assessment endpoints typically focus on individual 

toxicity of surrogate species, depending on the magnitude of an effect it may be possible to make 

risk predictions regarding indirect effects on species in higher or lower trophic levels. 

0.145 

1. Aquatic Effects 

The toxicity of flwprimidol to aquatic organisms and plants is assessed using acute and chronic 

1aboratory.studies submitted by the registrant to the Agency. With the recent submissiod of 

aquatic toxicity data with duckweed, fish early-life-stage study with fathead minnow, Ad lifecycle study with daphnids, the aquatic toxicity profile is updated (Table IV-1). In additipn, 

freshwater fish acts as a surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibian when data are not available on 

amphibians. 

0.435 

2. Terrestrial Effects 

The effect of flurprimidol to terrestrial organisms and plants is assessed from acute, subacute and 

chronic studies submitted by the registrant to the Agency. With the recent submission of 

terrestrial toxicity data on avian reproduction, seedling emergence, and vegetative vigor,^ the 

terrestrial toxicity profile is updated (Taljle IV-2). Also, birds act as surrogates for reptilbs and 

terrestrial-phase amphibians when data on those species are not available. 

5 days 

3. Ecosystem at Risk 

3 

The terrestrial ecosystem typically at risk includes the treated area and areas adjacent to treated 

area that might receive spray drift, runoff, or wind-erosion of soil particles. Aquatic ecosystems 
typically at risk include water bodies receiving runoff andfor drift from treated sites. Because 

flurprimidol has the potential to be used anywhere there are turfgrass and ornamentals, the 

ecosystems potentially at risk are national in scope. 

C. Assessment Endpoints 

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

is to be protected." Defining an assessment endpoint involves two steps: 1) identifying the 

valued attributes of the environment that are considered to be at risk; and 2) operationally 

defining the assessment endpoint in terms of an ecological entity (i.e., a community of fish and 

aquatic invertebrates) and its attributes (i.e., survival and reproduction). Therefore, selection of 

the assessment endpoints is based on valued entities (i.e., ecological receptors), the migration 

pathways of pesticides, and the routes by which ecological receptors are exposed to pesticiderelated contamination. The selection of clearly defined assessment endpoints-is important 

because they provide direction and boundaries in the risk assessment for addressing risk 

management issues of concern. 

A summary of the assessment and measurement endpoints selected to characterize potential 

ecological risks associated with exposure to flurprimidol are summarized in Table 11-3. The 

ecological relevance of selecting these assessment endpoints is as follows: 1) complete exposure 

pathways exist for these receptors, 2) the receptors may be potentially sensitive to pesticides in 

affected media and in residues on plants, seeds, and insects, and 3) the receptors could 

potentially inhabit areas where pesticides are applied or areas where runoff andlor drift may 

impact the sites. 

This ecological risk assessment considers maximum application rates on vulnerable soils, 

maximum number of applications (as well as single applications), and minimum intervals 

between applications for representative uses to estimate exposure concentrations. Exposure 

scenarios are developed to evaluate potential risks to non-target wildlife and plant from 

flurprimidol treatments on turfgrasses and ornamentals. Six exposure scenarios were estimated 

for the proposed new uses of flurprimidol: four broadcast spray application at 0.75 lb a.i.lA with 

a 2 week reapplication interval, twelve applications at 0.26 lb a.i./A with a 2 week intervals, five 

banded (6 inch bandwidth) spray application at 0.69 Ib a.i./A, four broadcast application of 

granules at 0.75 lb a.i./A, one broadcast application of granules at 3.0 lb a.i./A, and two banded 

(6 inches) application of granules at 1.5 lb a.i./A. 

This assessment is not intended to represent a site or time-specific analysis. Instead, this 

assessment is intended to represent high-end exposures at a national level. Likewise, the most 

sensitive toxicity endpoints are used from surrogate test species to estimate treatment-related 

direct effects on acute mortality and chronic reproductive, growth and survival assessment 

endpoints. Toxicity tests are intended to determine effects of pesticide exposure on birds, 

mammals, fish, terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and plants. These tests include short-term 

acute, subacute, and reproduction studies and are typically arranged in a hierarchical or tiered 

system that progresses from basic laboratory tests to applied field studies. The toxicity studies 

are used to evaluate the potential of a pesticide to cause adverse effects, to determine whether 

further testing is required, and to determine the need for precautionary label statements to 
minimize the potential adverse effects to non-target animals and plants (40 CFR 8158.202, . 

2002). 

In order to protect threatened and endangered species, all assessment endpoints, are measured at 

the individual level. Measurfng endpoints at the individual level also provides insight qbout risks 

at higher levels of biological organization (e.g. population and communities). For exdple, 

pesticide effects on individual survivorship have important implications for both popul~tion 

growth increase and habitat carrying capacity. 

Maximum reqidues on 

LD5dsqft (grhular 

Honeybee acute contact LDS0 

measurements 
' If species listed in this table represent most commonly encountered species from submitted studies, risk assessment 

indicates most sensitive species tested within taxonomic group are to be used for baseline risk assessments. 

'~irds represent surrogates for amphibians (terrestrial phase) and reptiles. 

Freshwater fish may be surrogates for amphibians (aquatic phase). 

4~ased on GENEEC2 and PRZM/EXAMS estimates of aquatic EECs. 

 our species of two families of monocots - one is corn, six species of at least four dicot families, of which one is 

soybeans. 

* LD50 = Lethal dose to 50% of the test population; NOAEC = No observed adverse effect concentration; LOAEC = 

Lowest observed adverse effect concentration; LCs0 = Lethal concentration to 50% of the test population; EC5&C25 = 

Effect concentration to 50%/25% of the test population. 

D. Conceptual Model 

1. ' Risk Hypotheses 

Risk hypotheses are specific assumptions about potential adverse effects (i.e., changes in 

assessment endpoints) and may be based on theory and logic, empirical data, mathematical 

models, or probability models (USEPA, 1998). For this assessment, the risk is stressor-linked, 

where the stressor is the release of flutriafol to the environment. The following risk hypothesis is 

presumed for this baseline assessment. 

The use offlurprimidol as a plant growth regulator for terrestrial and residential outdoor uses 

will result in exposure to terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants. Based on the persistence 

and mobilhy offlurprimidol, the mode of action, the application methods, and food-web of the 

target terrestrial ecosystems, jlurprimidol has the potential to ca2se reduced survival, and 

reproductive and growth impairments for both terrestrial and aquatic animals and plant species. 

2. Conceptual Model Diagram 

The conceptual model is used to depict the potential routes of exposure from flurprimidol when 

used as a plant growth regulator on turfgrasses and ornamentals in terrestrial and residential 

outdoor settings. All potential routes of exposure are considered and presented in the conceptual 

model (Figures 2 and 3 for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, respectively). The conceptual 

model generically depicts the potential source of flurprimidol, release mechanisms, abiotic 

receiving media; biological receptor types, and effects endpoints of potential concern. 

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

biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a 

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

ecological exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, an environmental transport 

medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. The 

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

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

routes (e.g., ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact). 
Potential exposure pathways by which flurprimidol may inadvertently affect non-target plant and 

animal populations in aquatic areas are drift (from spray application) and runoff/leaching of 

contaminated water from treated areas to untreated areas. In terrestrial areas, the exposure routes 

are drift (from spray application), runoff events (off-site movement of contaminated water), 

leaching, wind erosion of contaminated soil particles, and direct ingestion of granules, aquatic 

animals, and earthworms. There may be exposure to non-target terrestrial plants adjacent to 

treated areas via drift and runoff from transitional sites or wetlands that may be dry during 

certain periods, or via wind-blown treated soil particles from those pathways for aquatic species. 

Exposure through aquatic media will mainly be to the parent compound since flurprimidol is , 

persistent in the environment. 

Stressor I Liquid and Granule Applications of Flurprirnidol to Turfgrasses and Ornamentals 'j2 1 

** Route of exposure includes only ingestion of terrestrial invertebrates 

1 - Dashed line represents unlikely exposure pathways; bold line represents likely exposure pathways 

2 - Spray drift and atmospheric transport is not a concern for granule applications 
Stressor liquid and Granule Application of Flurprimidol to Turfgrasses and Ornamentals ''[ 

& 

Source 1 ~u~off Soil Leaching to 

+ Grouqdwater 

. - I I Exposure 4 

Surface water1 

Media Sediment I 

7 

Wetldry deposition +.-.-.m=mmm,Z 

9 Uptakelcell, Uptakelgills roots, leaves Riparian plants 

or integument terrestrial 

exposure Uptakelg'lls quati: Animals Aquatic :lants Receptors or integument pathways see Invertebrates Non-vascular Figure 2 

Vertebrates Vascular 

t 

Ingestion 

v + v v 

Food chain Habitat integrity 

Reduction in algae and Reduction in primary 

vascular plants productivity Change I organisms I 1 Reduction in prey I reduced cover I 

Reduced survival Modification of PCEs Community change Reduced growth related to prey availability Modification of PCEs related to 

Figure 3. Aquatic Environmental Risk Assessment 

"* Route of exposure includes only ingestion of fish and aquatic invertebrates 

1- Dashed fine represents unlikely exposure pathways; bolded line representslikely exposure pathways 

2 - Spray drift and atmospheric transport is not a concern for granule applications 

E. Analysis Plan. 

In order to address the risk hypothesis, the potential for adverse effects on non-target aquatic and 

terrestrial animals and plants is estimated. In the following sections, the use, environmental fate, 

and ecological effects of flurprimidol are characterized and integrated to assess the risks. This is 

accomplished using risk indices (ratio of exposure concentration to effects concentration) 

approach. Although risk is often defined as the likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological 

effects, the risk quotient- and LDso per square foot-based approaches do not provide a 

quantitative estimate of likelihood andlor magnitude of an adverse effect. Such estimates may be 

possible through a more refined, probabilistic assessment; however, they are beyond the scope of 

this baseline assessment. This analysis provides the basis for estimating and describing risks, 

identifying uncertainties in the risk hypothesis, and recommendations for new data collection if 

needed to fill the data gaps. 

This assessment only considers the potential effects of the exposure as a result of the currently 

proposed uses. The Agency does not routinely include an evaluation of mixtures of active 

ingredients, either those mixtures of multiple active ingredients in product formulations or those 

in the applicator's tank. In the case of the product formulations of active ingredients (that is, a 
registered product containing more than one active ingredient), each active ingredient is subject 

to an individual risk assessment for regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on a 

particular use site. If effects data are available for a formulated product containing the active 

ingredient, they may be used qualitatively or quantitatively in accordance with the Agency's 

Overview Document and the Services' Evaluation Memorandum (USEPA 2004; USF%VS/NMFS 

2004). 

For this baseline ecological risk assessment, estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) for 

aquatic and terrestrial systems were calculated using exposure scenarios for turfgrasses and 

ornamental use according to label information. EECs were calculated using T-REX (version 

1.4.1) and GENEEC2 (version 2.0) (USEPA, 200 1) and linked PRZM (Suarez, 2006) and 

EXAMS (Burns, 2004) models. Baseline terrestrial and aquatic concentrations represent values 

for a representative use grown in a generic location which have been chosen to represent all uses. 

EECs, and the resulting risk quotients from the TerrPlant model (version 1.2.2) for terrestrial 

plants growing in dry and semi-aquatic environments, are generated by using the seedling 

emergence and vegetative vigor toxicity information at the maximum proposed application rate. 

In addition, because flurprimidol has a low potential to bioaccumulate as demonstrated by its 

relatively low &, and low BCF factors in bluegill sunfish, the KABAM model is excluded from 

the assessment since minimum exposure is expected for piscivorous birds and mammals from 

ingesting bioconcentrated aquatic organisms with flurprimidol residues. 

Also, EFED has no standard methodology for assessing chronic risk to terrestrial animdls from 

ingesting granules. In order to estimate chronic risks for terrestrial animals, the estimate of 

flurprimidol concentrations accumulated in the tissues of earthworms was used to asses's the 

chronic exposure estimates for terrestrial animals. Then, the earthworm residues (mgtkg-soil) are 

compared to terrestrial animal NOAEC values (mg a.i./kg) to estimate the potential for chronic 

risk to birds or mammals associated with direct ingestion of earthworms. This analysis assumes 

that 100% of the diet that birds and mammals consume is comprised of terrestrial soil I 

invertebrates. However, it is unclear whether other routes of granular flurprirnidol exposure (i.e., 

direct consumption of granules, ingestion of granules that adhere to soil invertebrates, 

partitioning of dissolved flurprimidol to on-site sources of wildlife drinking water, derqal 

exposure of granules released to surrounding soil, and on-site puddles) or combined routes of 

exposure would result in chronic risk concerns for birds. I 

1. Identification of Data Gaps I 

The environmental fate and ecological toxicity databases for flurprimidol are essentially 

complete. With the recent submission of new studies, the available data are generally sufficient 

for risk assessment purposes of the parent compound. I I 

There are no toxicity studies with estuarinelmarine organisms available; however, it wad agreed 

that the studies are not requested at this time by the Agency due to minimal risk to their ) 

freshwater counterparts. Also, there are no acute toxicity data for passerine birds; however, the 

Agency is not requiring the studies at this time because both acute oral studies with bobwhite 

quail and mallard duck did not observe any mortality or sublethal effects; thus, it s likelj for 

passerine birds to have similar results with the quail and duck. 
2. Measures of Exposure 

Aquatic Animals and Plants 

Tier I and Tier I1 models were used to estimate flurprimidol concentrations in aquatic 

environment. 

The Tier I simulation model GENEEC2 (Version 2.0; USEPA, 2001) is'used to generate 

estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of the active ingredient that are not expected to 

be exceeded 90% of the time in surface water bodies adjacent to application sites. The predicted 

peak, 21-day, and 60-day concentrations are used to estimate acute and chronic risks to aquatic 

animals inhabiting shallow-water aquatic communities that receive runoff during rainfall events 

andlor drift of the active ingredient from adjacent use sites. 

GENEEC2 assumes application of the active ingredient to a 10-hectare agricultural field, planted 

solely in a generic crop, that drains into an adjacent 1-hectare water body, 2 meters deep (20,000 

m3 volume) with no outlet. This generic agricultural scenario is representative of flutriafol use 

on apples and soybeans, and is likely to result in conservative estimates of exposure. GENEEC2 

considers adsorption of the active ingredient to soil or sediment, direct deposition of spray drift 

into the water body, and degradation of the pesticide in soil before runoff and within the water 

body. It is a single event model, meaning that it assumes one single large rainfalvrunoff event 

from,a standard size field to a standard size ecological pond. 

The Tier I1 models were also used to predict aquatic EECs for aquatic plant exposure assessment. 

The Tier I1 models used are the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM; Suarez, 2006) coupled with 

the Exposure Analysis Model System (EXAMS; Burns, 2004). These models areparameterized 

using relevant reviewed registrant-submitted environmental fate data. 

PRZM (v3.12.2) and EXAMS (v2.98.4.6) are screening simulation models coupled with the 

input shell PE5.pl (Aug 2007) to generate daily exposures and 1-in-10 year EECs of flurprimidol 

that may occur in surface water bodies adjacent to application sites receiving flurprimidol 

through runoff and spray drift. PRZM simulates pesticide application, movement and 

transformation on an agricultural field and the resultant pesticide loadings to a receiving water 

body via runoff, erosion and spray drift. EXAMS simulates the fate of the pesticide and resulting 

concentrations in the water body. The standard scenario used for ecological pesticide 

assessments assumes application to a 10-hectare agricultural field that drains into an adjacent 1- 

hectare water body, 2-meters deep (20,000 m3 volume) with no outlet. PRZM/EXAMS was used 

to estimate screening-level exposure of aquatic organisms to flurprimidol. The measure of 

exposure for aquatic species is the 1-in-10 year return peak or rolling mean concentration. The 1- 

in-10 year peak is used for estimating acute exposures of direct effects to aquatic plants. 

Terrestrial Animals and Plants 

The pote'ntial exposure pathways for terrestrial plants and animals include deposition from spray 

applications, runofflleaching from treated areas, spray drift, and wind erosion of soil particles 
resulting in residues on non-target species as well as residues on food items and granules for 

non-target species. As part of the terrestrial assessment, EFED used the models T-REX (ver. 

1.3.1 .; USEPA, 2001), earthworm fugacity model, and TerrPlant (ver. 1.2.2; USEPA, 2006) to 

estimate exposure concentrations of flutriafol to non-target birds, mammals and plants. 

T-REX assumes application of the active ingredient to a one-acre agricult,wal field that settles on 

food items of avian and mammalian species (short and tall grass, broadleaf forage, large and 

small insects, fruits, pods, and seeds) and granules with flurprimidol residues within thle field. 

The earthworm fugacity model assumes concentrations of flurprimidol in earthworm tiissues. 

TerrPlant assumes application of the active ingredient to a one-acre agricultural field that drifts 

and/or is subject to runoff off site to adjacent fields of non-target plants. 

For soil-dwelling invertebrates, soil EECs are estimated by converting the application $ate of 

1bIA to mglkg soil, using a soil density of 1.3 g/cm3. 

3. 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 (Tables 11-4 and 11-3). The test Species 

are not intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were select~d based 

on their ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk 

assessment utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (880+) 

species in the U.S. 

The acute measures of effect used in this baseline assessment are the median lethal dosq (LD50), 

median lethal concentration (LCso) or the median effect concentration (EC50). These are; 

measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisqns. The 

endpoints for chronic measures of effect are the No Observed Adverse Effects Concentdation 

(NOAEC) and the No Observed Adverse Effects Level (NOAEL). The measurement en points 

used for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwent review and w ! re 

classified as "acceptable" (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be I 

scientifically sound) 01 "supplemental" (conditions deviated from guidelines but the resblts are 

scientifically sound). 

4. Integration of Exposure and Effects 

Available exposure and toxicity data are compared in order to evaluate the risks of adveqse 

ecological effects on non-target species. For this baseline assessment, the risk indices (ThQ and 

~~~~/ft~) are used to compare exposure and toxicity values. The risk indices involve diviiding 

EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs and ~~5~/ft's are then compared 

to the Agency's levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA, 2004). These criteria are used to indicate if 

applications of flurprimidol, as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse (effects 

to non-target organisms. Although risk is often defined as the likelihood and magnitude of 

adverse effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate! of 

likelihood and/or magnitude of an adverse effect, but rather provides a "yes" or "no" answer 

depending upon whether or not LOCs are exceeded. 
LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: (1) acute risk - when a risk 

index is greater than the LOC of 0.5 to animals, (2) acute restricted use - when a risk index is 

greater than the LOC of 0.2 and 0.1 for terrestrial and aquatic animals, respectively, (3) acute 

endangered species - when a risk index is greater than the LOC of 0.1 and 0.05 for terrestrial 

and aquatic animals, respectively, (4) chronic risk - when a risk index is greater than the LOC 

of 1.0 to animals, and (5) non-listed and listed plant risk - when a risk index is greater than the 

LOC of 1.0 to plants. 

111. ANALYSIS 

A. Use Characterization 

This risk assessment focuses exclusively on the use patterns of flurprimidol as a plant growth 

regulator on turfgrasses and ornamentals. Use patterns tabulated in Table 111-1 below serve as 

the basis for selecting the appropriate application rates and methods used as part of the input 

parameters needed to obtain EECs with simulation models. 

B. Exposure Characterization 

1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization 

Overall, the dominant dissipation mechanism for flurprimidol is expected to be via leaching due 

to its mobile nature, plant uptake because the compound is a plant growth regulator that is taken 

up by the plant, and by photolysis in aqueous systems. Flurprimidol is stable to hydrolysis and 

resistant to degradation in both aerobic and anaerobic terrestrial systems. Field dissipation data 

for cropped turf plots suggest that much more rapid dissipation was found that might be expected 

from the laboratory studies; however, the registrant postulates that this could be due to a number 

of factors not tracked in the study including plant uptake and volatilization. Field dissipation 

data on bareground sites yields much longer dissipation times comparable to laboratory estimates 
which suggest that the presence of plant material is influencing the dissipation in the field. No 

data was available to suggest how available flurprimidol is in plant residues and how 

flurprimidol residues in this compartment might influence overall exposures. Finally, 

flurprimidol is not expected to be volatile, has a moderate solubility in water, and a low potential 

to bioaccurnulate as demonstrated by its relatively low KO, and low BCF factors in bluegill 

sunfish. 

In an acceptable hydrolysis study (MRID 001 17921), flurprimidol was studied in three solutions 

buffered at pH5, pH7, and pH9 at a test concentration of 1 ppm. The solutions were iqcubated in 

the dark at 25OC and sampled for 3 1 days. Flurprimidol was stable to hydrolysis undet all three 

test conditions. 

An initial aqueous photolysis study (MRIDs 00142917; 40401006) was submitted for 

flurprimidol. However, these studies were rejected due to concerns about the nature ofi the 

artificial light source, the inability to control volatilization, and poor recoveries. The r4gistrant 

responded to these concerns (MRID 40858503) however, the additional data did not change the 

conclusions and the study was deemed unacceptable. In response, the registrant submitted a new 

aqueous photolysis study (MRID 001 17922) which provided supplemental data. The study was 

classified as supplemental because a material balance was not provided, degradates wete not 

identified, the artificial light source was not compared to natural light, and the test solutions were 

not buffered. However, the study did provide supplemental data which indicates that , 

flurprimidol applied at 1 ppm to an unbuffered aqueous solution at pH of 7.1 degraded tapidly 

with a half life of 3 to 4 hours. Subsequently, the registrant submitted a new study (M~ID 

41228001) in which the aqueous photolysis half life of flurprimidol was found to be 1.4 days in a 

pH solution of 7 at 25'C and sampled for 5 days. Material balance ranged from 97% to 102% 

and there were six photodegradates detected. Two of the degradation products achieved totals of 

greater than 10% of the applied but were not identified. 

In an acceptable aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 001-17918), flurprimidol was studied in 

sandy loam, silt loam, and clay loam incubated at 75% of 0.33 bar at 20-25OC and sampled for 26 

weeks. Regression analysis suggests a half life of 68.8 weeks; however, this value is suspect 

because it is extrapolated beyond the end of the study. Analysis revealed that over 30 

degradation products were formed but none of these by-products exceeded 2% of applield. At 26 

weeks post treatment, degradates totaled 12.6-19.4% of applied radioactivity in soil, and 3.4- 

4.4% were unextractable. 

In an anaerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 40858504), flurprimidol was found to be 

extremely stable under anaerobic soil conditions. Flurprimidol was studied at 3 ppm in $andy 

loam, silt loam, and clay loam soils that were incubated for 8 weeks under flooded anaeqobic 

conditions in the dark following 4 weeks of aerobic conditioning. In the three soils, flurprimidol 

comprised 91% to 93% of the recovered radioactivity immediately prior to the establishment of 

anaerobic conditions. Flurprimidol also accounted for roughly 90% of the radioactivity present 

after 4 weeks and 8 weeks of anaerobic conditions and is therefore considered stable to Anaerobic 

metabolism. Material balances ranged from 93% to 103% prior to establishing anaerobic 

conditions. 
Transformation Products 

Because of the resistance of flurprimidol to degradation by hydrolysis and soil metabolism, 

information on transformation products of flurprimidol is limited. In an aqueous photolysis study 

(MRID 41228001), flurprimidol degraded readily with a half-life of 1.4 days. Six 

photodegradates were detected, with two of the photoproducts formed at greater than 10% of the 

applied radioactivity; the photoproducts were simple rearrangements where the pyrimidine ring 

being substituted either ortho or meta onto the phenoxy ring. 

In an acceptable adsorption/desorption study (MRID 00142919), flurprimidol was studied using 

both batch equilibrium and aged leaching column methods. In the batch equilibrium portion of 

the study, flurprimidol was applied at 0.20 to 25 yglml in two sand soils, three sandy loam soils, 

one clay loam soil, and two loam soils. Freundlich Kd values ranged from 0.12 to 4.9 'while Koc 

values ranged fro 140 to 535 with corresponding 1/N values of 0.737 to 0.904. At 0.2 to 800 

yglml, flurprimidol was mobile with Freundlich Kd values of 2.56 in a sandy loam soil and 9.35 

mL/g in a loam soil with corresponding KO, values of 369 and 404 mL/go,. Flurprimidol was 

also studied in both aged and unaged leaching columns. The aged leaching column study was 

not considered acceptable because the incubation period of 7 days was not considered sufficient. 

In the unaged study, between 0.74% and 1.04% of applied flurprimidol was found in the 

leachate. An additional supplemental study (MRID 001 17919) was submitted which provided 

data on the potential adsorptionldesorption of flurprimidol. Flurprimidol applied at 0.0142 to 

1.68 glml was studied in a single sandy loam soil and found to have a Freundlich & of 1.7 mLIg. 

Finally, an additional supplemental aged leaching study (MRID 001 17920) was submitted which 

indicated that flurprimidol residues in soil aged for 30 days on sandy loam indicated 7.3% of 

radioactivity was present in leachate. The study was classified as supplemental because 

degradates were not analyzed for in this study. 

In an acceptable terrestrial field dissipation study (MRID 40184403) flurprimidol dissipation was 

studied on turf covered sites in Florida, Tennessee, and Indiana. Flurprimidol was applied at 

between 0.75 and 1.5 1bs a.i.1acre and degraded from the upper 6 inches (soil, thatch, and grass) 

with half lives between 5 and 23 days. Flurprimidol was not detected in the 6 to 12 inch or 12 to 

18 inch depths and was below the detection limit (0.01 ppm) in the control plots. Flurprimidol 

did not degrade during transport with recoveries between 102% and 116% of the fortified 

amount. Flurprimidol was stable to storage for 3 months with greater than 96% remaining in 

frozen samples, however did degrade to 77% after 9 months. Reportedly, all field samples were 

analyzed within two months of collection. The registrants suggest that the rapid dissipation of 

flurprimidol from the sites was due to a combination of factors including uptake, metabolism, 

photolysis, microbial degradation and possibly volatilization. 

In a supplemental soil dissipation study (MRID 40401007), flurprimidol was applied to a 

bareground sites in Indiana and Mississippi at 1.75 lbs a.i./acre. At the Indiana site, flurprimidol 

dissipated with a half life of approximately 9 months in the 0 to 3 inch depth with a calculated 

(regression analysis) half life of 80.6 weeks was calculated although this value is suspect because 

it exceeds the duration of the study (which was terminated at 37 weeks due to destruction of the 

site). At the Mississippi site, flurprimidol dissipated with an approximate half life of 4 to 9 

months. The purpose of the study was to determine if flurprimidol was likely to leach and the 
data suggest that the compound has a moderate potential to leach when applied to bare soil. The 

results of this study, viewed in conjunction with the results of the previous field dissipation study 

(MRID 40401007) suggest that the presence of plants in the field will drive the removal of 

flurprimidol from soil. However, what is not clear from the results of these studies is how much 

flurprimidol remains in the plant and what effect incomplete plant coverage might haqe on 

dissipation in the field. 

In an acceptable bioconcentration factor study (MRID 40401001) flurprimidol was found to 

19.3~ inedible tissues, 52.3~ in nonedible tissues, and 6.2~ in whole fish. Specifically, juvenile 

bluegill sunfish were exposed to flurprimidol at 0.425 pprn for 28 days under flow-thrqugh 

conditions. Maximum mean residue levels were 8.2 pprn in edible tissues, 22.4 ppm iq 

nonedible tissues, and 14.9 pprn in the whole fish. After 28 days of exposure, flurpriaidol 

comprised 52% and 55% of total radioactivity in the edible and nonedible tissues resp ctively. 'i Two major degradates identified were approximately 20% of applied. Several minor dcgradates 

were also detected. Water concentrations ranged from 0.410 pprn to 0.455 ppm. After1 16 days 

of depuration, flurprimidol residues were 0.05 pprn in edible tissues, 0.15 pprn in nonefible 

tissues, and 0.09 pprn in the whole fish I 

Vapor pressure (25 "C) 3.64 x 10-7 mm Hg 

Persistence 

pH 5 - stable 

pH 7 - stable 

pH 9 - stable 

Photolysis tin in water 1.4 days 00142917,4040~006, 

40858503,41228001, 

Photolysis tllz on soil No data 

Soil metabolism aerobic tl,z 482 days 

Soil metabolism anaerobic tl~ 

Aquatic metabolism aerobic tl/z No data 

Aquatic metabolism anaerobic No data 

Mobility/Adsorption-Desorption 

Batch equilibrium - unaged Soil Textural Kd Koc 00142919,00117919, 

Classification 00 1 17920 

sand 3.09 535 

sandy loam 1.86 268 
sandy loam 0.89 

sandy loam 3.46 

Laboratory volatility 

Field Dissipation 

Terrestrial field dissipation 5 to 23 days-cropped 

80 weeks-bare soil 

Aquatic field dissipation 

Bioaccurnulation 

Accumulation in fish, 19.3~ - edible tissues 

maximum BCF 52.3~ - nonedible tissues 

2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

Aquatic exposure modeling follows a tiered approach in order to efficiently allocate resources to 

assessment efforts of varying complexities. Tier I aquatic exposure modeling aims to provide an 

upper-bound (or high-end) Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) by modeling a site 

that is highly vulnerable to runoff or leaching. Consequently, if these conservative EECs yield 

risk quotients that fall below the Agency's Level of Concern (LOC) for aquatic organisms, actual 

risk to aquatic organisms may be unlikely. If a Tier I EEC yields a risk quotient higher than an 

LOC, the assessment must be refined to be more reflective of actual use site conditions. 

a. GENEEC2 Exposure Modeling 

Tier 1 aquatic exposure modeling relies on GENEEC~' (Generic Estimated Environmental 

Concentration) (USEPA, 2001), a screening model that is non-specific to crop and use-site. The 

model estimates upper-bound pesticide exposure in surface water using basic chemical 

properties, proposed application rates and methods, adsorption of the pesticide to soil or 

sediment, direct deposition of spray drift into the water body, and degradation of the pesticide in 

soil before runoff and within the water body. The GENEEC2 model estimates upper-bound 

pesticide surface water concentrations in a generic farm pond scenario by incorporating the 

following conservative assumptions: 

Input values for application rate and number of applications are the labeled maxima. 

The entire watershed is cropped and treated with the pesticide, and the 10-hectare 

watershed area is high relative to the 20,000-liter volume of the water body. 
Thereis no buffer between the pond and the treated field. 

Runoff is a 6-inch rainfall event over a 24-hour period. 

The geographic location of use is representative of high-end potential for pesticide runoff 

and is not necessarily representative of runoff conditions for the labeled use. 

EFED has developed a tiered approach for modeling aquatic exposures. This tiered system is 

designed to minimize the amount of analysis which is required to evaluate any given chemical. 

Each of the tiers is designed to screen out pesticides by requiring higher, more complex levels of 

investigation only for those that have not passed the previous tier. Each tier screens out a 

percentage of pesticides from having to undergo a more rigorous pre-registration review. 

'Passing' a given assessment tier indicates that there is a low possibility of risk to the aquatic 

environment. 'Failing' an assessment tier, however, does not mean the chemical is likeily to 

cause environmental problems,but that the assessment should continue on to the next higher 

assessment tier. The end result of this tiered modeling system will ideally be as thorough an 

analysis as is necessary for each pesticide and will focus greatest resources and efforts toward 

areas of greatest potential ecological threat. OPP does not take significant regulatory action 

based upon the results of screening models. 

For flurprimidol, EFED has conducted a Tier I screening level modeling effort (Appendix A). 

In doing so, EFED has relied on the GENeric Estimated Exposure Concentration model version 

2 (GENEEC2) to estimate flurprimidol concentrations in surface water. GENEEC2 was 

designed to mimic a much more sophisticated PRZMIEXAMS simulation but requires far fewer 

inputs and much less time and effort to use. The model uses a candidate chemical's basic use and 

application information, its soiuwater partition data and its degradation rate values to estimate 

high level exposure values in the same EFED "standard agricultural fieldlfann pond soenario as 

used with PRZMIEXAMS simulations. The program is generic in that it does not consider 

differences in climate, soils, topography or crop in estimating potential pesticide exposure. 

GENEEC2 is also simpler in its treatment of hydrology. The linked PRZM and EXAMS models 

simulate the impact of daily weather on the treated agricultural field over a period of thirty-six 

years. During this time, pesticide is washed-off of the field into the water-body by twenty to 

forty rainfalllrunoff events per year. Each new addition of pesticide to the water-body adds to the 

pesticide which has arrived earlier either through previous runoff events or through spray-drift 

and begins degradation on the day it reaches the water. GENEEC2, one the other hand, is a 

single event model. It assumes one single large rainfalVrunoff event occurs and removed a large 

quantity of pesticide from the field to the water all at one time. Longer-term, multiple-dhy 

average concentration values are calculated based on the peak day value and subsequent values 

considering degradation processes. 

Exposure concentrations of flurprimidol in aquatic ecosystem assessments were estimated using 

the Tier I GENEEC2 model. Model input parameters were selected according to standard input 

guidance and are tabulated in Table 111-2. 
Table 111-2. GENEEC2 Input Parameters for Flurprirnidol for Aquatic Ecological 

Model Parameter 1 Value 1 comments1 I Source 

vazn - See Table 111-1 

I Spray Drift by Scenario ground - 1 %; granular - 0% Default Assumption 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism (t %) 

Aerobic Aquatic 

Degradation (t K) stable' 

Product Labels 

3 x a single aerobic 

soil metabolism half MRID 00117918 

life of 482 days 

no data 

MRID 00142917, 

40401006,40858503, 

single value 41228001,001 17922 

I Hydrolysis pH 7 - stable MRID 00 1 1792 1 

. MRTD 00142919, 

average I(d 001 17919,001 17920 

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of 

Pesticides, Version 2.1. 

b. GENEEC2 Modeling Results 

Aquatic EECs generated from GENEEC2 for the labeled uses of flurprimidol on terrestrial 

outdoor and residential sites are listed in Table 1113. These results represent peak and 4-, 21-, 

60-, and 90-day average estimates of surface water concentrations in the standard farm pond for 

use as acute and chronic exposure endpoints. The results for the maximum exposure scenarios, 

appropriate for use in calculating baseline risk quotients, are presented in bold; other values are 

provided for characterization purposes. Model output files for these estimates are in Appendix 

A. 

Estimated Using GENEEC2 

0.69~ -~hraj 5 56 138.32 134.08 126.31 

Turfgrasses and 0.75 -Spray 4 14 126.97 123.08 115.96 

Ornamentals 0.75 -Granular 4 21 116.99 113.34 106.71 

1.5- Granular 2 56 117.19 113.53 106.89 

3.0 -Granular 1 N/ A 118.76 115.06 108.33 

"Twelve applications at 0.26 lb a.i./A exceeds the annual label limit of 3.08 lb a.i.lA per year. 

Five applications at 0.69 1b a.i.lA exceeds the annual label limit of 3.08 1b a.i.lA year. 
c. PRZMtEXAMS Exposure Modeling 

Tier I1 PRZMIEXAMS~ modeling was conducted to address aquatic exposure issues for aquatic 

vascular plants. Input parameters for PRZMBXAMS modeling are shown in Table IIP-4. These 

results represent the 1 in 10 year peak and 4-, 21-, 60-, and 90-day average estimates af surface 

water concentrations in the standard farm pond for use as acute and chronic exposure tjndpoints. 

Aqueous Photolysis Half-Life 

' USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pedticides, 

Version 2.1. 

I 

d. PRZMIEXAMS Modeling Results 

Aquatic EECs generated from PRZMEXAMS for the labeled uses of flurprimidol on tarrestrial 

outdoor and residential sites are listed in Table 111-5. PRZM/EXAMS models provide a 1-in-10 

year peak and 4-, 21-, 60-, and 90-day average estimates of surface water concentrations in the 

standard farm pond for use as acute and chronic exposure endpoints. However, because RQs for 

aquatic plants are based on the aquatic plant toxicity and peak EECs, only the peak EECs are 

tabulated in Table 111-5. Model output files for these estimates are in Appendix B. I 

Fate Property 

Molecular Weight 

Input Value 

312.3 g/mol 

Comments MRDD (4r source) 

Product Chebnistry 
I Table 111-5. Scenario, Date of First Application, Application Rate, Number of 

Applications, Reapplication Interval,Formulations, and Peak EECs Considered in Limit 

PRZM/EXAMS Modeling, 

Scenario - 

State Use Site 

( MINursery 1 03-08 1 3.00 1 1 1 n/a 1 Granular (1) 1 29.19 1 

I 

FL Nursery 

1 MI Nursery ( 03-08 1 1.50 1 2 1 60 1 Granular (1) 1 41.40 1 

Date of 1st 

application 

(month-day) 

08-08 , 

( NJ Nursery 1 05-20' 1 0.75 1 4 1 21 1 Ground Spray (2) 1 58.13 1 

Application 

Rate 

(lb ailae) 

I I I I - I I 

3.00 

No. of 

Applications 

NJ Nursery 

NJ Nursery 

PA turf 

PA turf 

3. Aquatic Exposure Monitoring and Field Data 

1 

4 

PA turf 

For flurprimidol, no monitoring data were available for use in this aquatic exposure assessment. 

Therefore, potential exposure of non-target organisms to flurprimidol in surface water was 

evaluated through modeling. 

Reapplication 

Interval 

03-07 2 1 1 Ground Spray (2) 1 40.83 

05-08 

05-07 

06-05 

4. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 

nla 

0.75 

For granular formulations: spray drift was assumed to be 0% and application efficiency was assumed to be 100%; for ground 

spray drift was assumed to he 1 % and application efficiency was assumed to be 99% (USEPA, 2009) 

CAM.is Chemical application method and is an input parameter in the PRZM model. 

05-05 

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

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

are considered as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians as well as reptiles. For exposure to 

terrestrial wildlife, such as birds and small mammals, pesticide residues on food items or ground 

surfaces are estimated, based on the assumption that animals are exposed to a single pesticide 

residue in a given exposure scenario. 

 orm mu la ti on' 

(CAM)' 

0.75 

0.75 

0.26 

For flurprimidol spray applications applied to foliar surfaces, estimation of pesticide 

concentrations in wildlife food items (mg alikg diet) focuses on quantifying possible dietary 

ingestion of residues on vegetative matter and insects. For granular and liquid formulations 

applied to ground surfaces, estimation of pesticide concentrations on the ground (mg ailsq ft) 

focuses on quantifying possible dietary ingestion of residues on the ground. 

Peak EEC 

(pg a.i.iL) 

Granular (1) 

0.26 

a. Birds and Mammals 

74.94 

4 

4 

12' 

No field residue data or field study information is available for flurprimidol; therefore, the 

residue estimates were based on a nomogram that relates food item residues to pesticide 

12 

21 

2 1 

14 

14 

Ground Spray (2) 

Ground Spray (2) 

Ground Spray (2) 

58.47 

24.43 

18.19 

Ground Spray (2) 15.70 
application rate. The residue EECs were generated from a spreadsheet-based model (T-REX 

version 1.4.1; USEPA, 2001) that calculates the decay of a chemical applied to foliar surfaces for 

single or multiple applications, and is based on the methods of Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) as 

modified by Fletcher et al. (1994). EECs were calculated using a foliar dissipation default halflife of 35 days (Willis and McDowell, 1987). Uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily 

associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces. TREX does not differentiate between backpack sprayer, spot treatment, and ground boom 

applications, the method of application is not considered; thus, these methods are not evaluated. 

Acute exposures from granular and liquid formulations applied to ground surfaces are ~stimated 

using the LD5O/sq ft analysis in T-REX. Estimation of pesticide concentrations (mg ai/ft2) for 

granules and liquid focuses on quantifying possible dietary ingestion of residues on grqund 

surfaces. The equation used to calculate mg a.i./ft2 EECs is presented below for broadaast -. 

granular and liquid appliciltions to ground surfaces. Acute exposure from "banded" apblications 

is uncertain since T-REX does not have the capability to assess risk to terrestrial animals from 

"banded" applications that are applied around the perimeterledge of lawns, sidewalks, parking 

lots, and building structures; thus, EECs for "banded" applications will be calculated uking the 

same equation below assuming that a "banded" application is equivalent to a broadcast 

application. However, this assumption leads to an overestimation of the EECs since thd entire 

acre will not be completely treated when "banded" applications are applied solely on the edge of 

an area. 

Broadcast granularhiquid applications to ground surfaces: mg a.i./ft2 = (application rate x % 

a.i. x 453,590 mg/lb)/43,560 ft2/acre 

To provide potential maximum exposures to non-target birds and mammals based on proposed 

label uses of flurprimidol on turfgrasses and ornamentals, residue EECs were calculated using 

six pesticide exposure scenarios: four broadcast spray application at 0.75 lb a.i.lA with Zweek 

reapplication intervals, twelve broadcast applications at 0.26 lb a.i./A with 2-week intervals, five 

broadcast spray application at 0.69-1b a.i./A with 8-week intervals, four broadcast appli4ation of 

granules at 8.75 lb a.i./A with 3-week intervals, one broadcast application of granules at 3.0 lb 

a.i./A, and two broadcast application of granules at 1.5 lb a.i./A with 8-week intervals. 

The active ingredient EECs on terrestrial food items and granules may be compared directly with 

dietary toxicity data or converted to an oral dose. The residue concentration is converted to daily 

oral dose based on the fraction of body weight consumed daily as estimated through allometric 

relationships. The risk assessment for flurprimidol uses upper bound predicted residues ps the 

measure of exposure; however, mean EECs are also presented for characterization purposes. 

Tables III-6,III-7, and 111-8 provide dietary- and dose-based EECs for broadcast spray 

applications to foliar surfaces, Table 111-9 provides intermediate EECs for "banded spaay 

applications to ground surfaces, Table 111-10 provides intermediate EECs for broadcast granular 

applications to ground surfaces, and Table 111-11 provides intermediate EECs for "banded" 

granular applications to ground surfaces. 
2 week intervals 

2 week intervals 

Used to further evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects to non-target species. 

0.75 lb ailA with 2 

week intervals 

0.26 Ib ai/A with 2 

0.75 Ib aifA with 2 

week intervals 

0.26 Ib aifA with 2 

week intervals 
Used to further evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects to non-target species. 
I Table III-9. Terrestrial EECs (mg ailft2) Following Flurpimidol "Banded" Spray Applications to 

, Ground ~urfaces'" 

Turf grass and 

Ornamentals 

Ground ~urfaces'~ 

Uses ( # of App. x App. Rate I Intermediate Calculations 1 EEC 

EEC 

N/A , 

Table 111-10. Terrestrial EECs (mg ai/f?) Following Flurprimidol Broadcast Granular Applications to 

Ground Surfaces 

One (broadcast) Turf grass and application of granules at Ornanientals 1.5 Ib ai/A 

Intermediate Calculations 

# rows acre-1 : 

Uses 

T-REX does not have the capability to calculate EECs based on "banded" applications in a residential setting; therefore, EECs are 

based on broadcast applications. 

Accounts only for a single application, not multiple applications 

One (broadcast) spray 

application at 0.69 lb aj/A 

row length (ft): 

lb ai/1000 ft row: 

bandwidth (ft): 

# of App. x App. Rate 

EEC 

N/ A 

NIA 

N/A 

N/ A 

7,8 1 

NIA 

NIA 

N/ A 

N/ A 

31.24 

I mg ai/ft2 (EEC): 15.62 

T-REX does not have the capability to calculate EECs based on "banded" applications in a residential setting; therefore, EECs are 

row length (ft): 

lb ai/1000 ft row: 

bandwidth (ft): 

mg ai/ft2 (EEC): 

Intermediate Calculations 

# rows acre-1 : 

row length (ft): 

lb ail1000 ft row: 

bandwidth (ft): 

mg ai/ft2 (EEC): 

# rows acre-1 : 

row length (ft): 

lb ail1000 ft row: 

bandwidth (ft): 

mg ai/ft2 (EEC): 

Uses 

Turf grass and 

Ornamentals 

based on broadcast applications, 2 Accounts only for a single application, not multiple applications 

N/ A 

N/ A 

NIA 

7.18 

# of App. x App. Rate 

One broadcast application 

of granules at 0.75 lb ai1A 

One broadcast application 

of granules at 3.0 lb ai/A 

Chronic exposures from flurprimidol granules are estimated using the earthworm fugacity model. 

Estimation of pesticide concentrations in earthworms (mglkg-earthworm) focuses on quantifying 

possible dietary ingestion of residues bioaccumulated in earthworms (Table 111-12). Then, the 

bioconcentrated earthworms (mgtkg-earthworm) are compared to terrestrial animal NOAEC 

values (mg a.i./kg) to estimate the potential for chronic risk to birds or mammals associated with 

direct ingestion of earthworms. Equation used to calculate the concentration of flurprimidiol in 

the tissues of earthworm is presented below. More information on the equation can be found in 

Appendix D. Table 111-12 presents the highest exposure scenario of the proposed use scenarios. 
a Food Intake = (0.648 x BW"~~' I 1-W) / (BWassessed); BW =body mass of bird or mammals in grams, 

W = % water & food. b Dose-based Earthworm EECs = Food Intake x Dietary-based ~arthworm EEC / BW 1 

I 

1, b. Soil-Dwelling Invertebrates 

Soil EECs for soil-dwelling invertebrates are estimated by converting the application rake of lb/A 

to mglkg soil, using a soil density of 1.3 g/cm3. The highest exposure scenario of all prqposed 

use scenarios is presented in Table 111-13. 

I 

C. Terrestrial Plants 

Table III-13. Soil EECs (mg ailkg-soil) Following Flnrprimidol Granular I 

Applications 

TerrPlant (USEPA, 2006), a Tier I model, predicts EECs for terrestrial plants located in by and 

semi-aquatic areas adjacent to the treated field. The active ingredient EECs are based oni the 

application rate, soil incorporation, runoff fraction, drift fraction and solubility of the pedticide in 

water and drift characteristics, which depend on ground and aerial applications. The ambunt of 

flurprimidol that runs off is a proportion of the application rate and is assumed to be 5% based on 

flurprimidol solubility of 130 mg ai/L in water. Drift from ground and granular applicatipns are 

assumed to be 1% and 0%, respectively, of the application rate. TerrPlant does not differpntiate 

between banded or broadcast applications; thus, the only method of application considered in this 

model is ground unincorporated application. 

Uses 

Turf grass and 

Ornamentals 

Application Rate 

3.0 lb ai/A 

Soil Density 

1.3 g/cm3 

EECS (mg/kg-so)) 

8.57 1 

I 
For a standard scenario on an agricultural field when applications are occurring on land, EFED's 

runoff scenario for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry areas adjacent to a field is characterized as 

"sheet runoff' (one treated acre to an adjacent acre: a 1: 1 ratio) and inhabiting semi-aquatic or 

wetland areas adjacent to a field is characterized as- "channelized runoff" (10 treated acre to a 

distant low-lying acre: a 10: 1 ratio). Details of the TerrPlant model and EECs are presented in 

Table 111-14 and in.~ppendix E. 

) Granules ) 0.0375 0.375 None I 

1 3.0ibaiIA Granules . 1.5 

0.26 Ib ai/A 

1.5 lb ai/A 

EEC = Channelized Runoff + Drift (1% for ground; 0% for granules) 

EEC for ground (appl. rate x 1 % drift); for granules (appl. rate x 0% drift) 

EEC for Unincorporated Ground Spray Application 

IV. Ecological Effects Characterization 

Spray 

Granules 

With the submission of new ecological toxicity data on avian reproduction, seedling emergence, 

vegetative vigor, aquatic vascular plant, freshwater fish early life-stage, and freshwater 

invertebrate life cycle, the ecological effects profile for flurprimidol has been updated. A more 

robust discussion of acute toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial animals can be found in the previous 

risk assessment (D292874, D310484, D315363, and D3 15836). The key toxicity endpoints used 

in this assessment are summarized in Tables IV-1 and IV-2 below. 

A. Aquatic Effects Characterization 

0.0156 

0.075 

 able IV-1 presents the most sensitive toxicity endpoints used to estimate risk to aquatic 

receptors from exposure to flurprimidol. 

0.1326 

0.75 

0.0026 

None 
B. Terrestrial Effects Characterization 

Table IV-1. Hurprimidol Toxicity Profile for Aquatic Animals and Plants 

Table IV-2 presents the most sensitive toxicity endpoints used to estimate risk to terrestrial 

receptors from terrestrial exposures of flurprimidol. 

MRID 1 

Classification 

001 17925 

(acceptable) 

47459602 

(acceptable) 

Toxicity 

Category 

Slightly toxic 

Not 

Table I IV-2. Hurprimidol Toxicity Profile for Terrestrial Animals and Plants 

Toxicity Value 

LC5(, = 17.2 mg ai/L 

NOAEC = 0.939 mg ain 

LoAEC = 1.75 mg 

Reductions in fry survival, 

length, and weight. 

Most Sensitive 

Species Tested 

Bluegill Sunfish 

Lepomis rnacrochirus 

Fathead minnow 

Pimephales promelas 

Estuarine1 

Marine Fish 

Freshwater 

Invertebrates 

Estuarine1 

Marine 

Invertebrates 

Vascular 

plant 

Non- 

- vascular 

plant 

Taxon 

Freshwater 

Fish 

IMRTD 

Reference 

00117932 

(acceptable) 

I 

00162770 

Acute 

Acute 

Chronic 

Acute 

Acute 

Acute 

Exposure 

Duration 

Acute 

Chronic 

Not required at this time 

Mammals 

Most Sensitive 

Species Tested 

Rat 

Raftus norvegicus 

Rat 

Rattus norvegicus 

Exposure 

Duration 

Acute 

Chronic 

00 1 17927 

(acceptable) 

47459601 

(acceptable) 

Water Flea 

Daphnia magna 

Water Flea 

Daphnia magna 

Toxicity Value 

LD50 = 709 mg aikg bw 

NOAEL = 100 mg ailkg diet 

(7.3 mg ailkg-bwlday) 

LOAEL = 1000 mg ailkg diet 

Decreased mating, fertility, and 

fetal survival (stillbirths) in both 

generations and increased 

incidence of persistent vaginal 

estrous and no corpora lutea. 

EC5()= 11.8 mg a* 

NOAEC = 2.95 mg a& 

LOAEC = 5.70 mg ain 

Reductions of young per 

adult and adult length, as 

well as significant 

difference in day of first 

. brood when compared to 

control 

Not required at this time 

Toxicity 

Category 

Slightly toxic 

N~~ applicable 

Slightly toxic 

Not applicable 

47472101 

(supplemental) 

40401011 

(acceptable) 

Duckweed 

Lemna gibba 

Green algae 

Selenastrum 

capricornuturn 

Ec50 = 8.5 pg fi 

NOAEC = 0.89 pg ain 

Reduction in # of fronds 

EC5(, = 0.84 mg ain 

NOAEC = 0.28 mg aiiL 

Reduced biomass 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 
Acute Oral Bobwhite quail LDSo >2000 mg ailkg bw . Practically Colinus virginianus nontoxic ' (acceotable) 00117928 / 

Table IV-2. Flurprimidol Toxicity Profile for Terrestrial Animals and Plants 

Exposure 

Duration 

Nonpasserine 

Birds 

Most Sedsftive 

Sbecies Tated 

Passerine 

Bird 

V. RISK CHARACTERIZATION 

Acute 

Dietary 

Chronic 

Beneficial 

Insects 

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates 

Terrestrial 

Plants - 

Seedling 

Emergence 

Terrestrial 

Plants - Vegetative 

Vigor 

To evaluate the potential risk to non-target organisms from the proposed use of flurprimidol, risk 

quotients (RQs) or ~Dsdft~ are calculated from the ratio of estimated environmental 

concentrations (EECs) to ecotoxicity values. RQs and ~D~dft~ are hen compared to the 

Agency's levels of concern (LOCs) used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non-target 

organisms. LOCs are the Agency's interpretive policy and are used to analyze potential risk to 

non-target or listed organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. These criteria are used 

to indicate when a pesticide's use as directed on the label has the potential to cause adverse 

effects on non-target or listed organisms. In the following risk characterization, when 

appropriate, the RQs for applications to foliar surfaces are calculated first then the ~D~~lft~s for 

applications to ground surfaces are calculated afterwards. 

Toxicity Value 

Acute 

A. Risks to Aquatic Organisms and Plants 

Bobwhite quail 

Colinus virginianus 

Mallard duck 

Anas platyrhynchos 

Acute 

Acute 

Survival 

and 

growth 

For this baseline risk assessment with aquatic organisms and plants, acute and chronic RQs 

(Table V-1) are derived based on ecological toxicity data for the active ingredient and then 

3 6 

Toxicity 

Category 

No data 

MRID 

Reference 

LC50 >43 10 mg ailkg diet 

NOAEC = 309 mg ailkg diet 

LOAEC = 642 mg. ailkg diet 

Reductions in egg production, 

embryo survival, and 

Honey Bee 

Apis mellifera 

Earthworm 

Lumbricus terrestris 

Ryegrass (monocot) 

Lolium perenne 

Cucumber (dicot) 

Cucumis sativa 

Ryegrass (monocot) 

Lolium perenne 

Lettuce (dicot) 

Lactuca sativa 

hatchability 

No data 

Practically 

nontoxic 

Not applicable 

LDSO >I00 yg a.i./bee 

LDSo >I00 mg ai/kg 

ECz = 0.14 Ib ai/A 

NOAEC = 0.038 lb ai/A 

Reduced shoot length 

EC25 = 0.012 lb ai/A 

NOAEC = 0.0044 lb ai/A 

Reduced shoot length 

EC25 = 0.42 lb ai/A 

NOAEC = 0. I1 lb ai/A 

Reduced shoot length 

EC25 = 0.01 1 lb ai/A 

NOAEC = 0.046 lb ai/A 

Reduced shoot length 

00117929 

(supplemental) 

47459603 

(acceptable) 

Not determined No data ~ 

Relatively 

nontoxic' 

Practically 

nontoxic 

N/A 

NIA 

4040 1004 

(acceptable) 

00117931 

(supplemental) 

47459606 

(acceptable) 

47459607 

(acceptable) 
compared to the EECs generated from GENEEC2. The peak EEC is used to calculate the acute 

RQs and the 21-day and 60-day average concentrations (EECs) are used to calculate chronic RQs 

for invertebrates and fish, respectively. Details of the acute and chronic GENEEC2 EEC 

calculations for aquatic animals and plants are provided in Section 111.2. The potential risks to 

aquatic animals and plants are described further in the Risk: Description section. 

1. Preshwater Fish / Invertebrates 

Minimal acute and chronic risks are expected for freshwater fish and invertebrates because no 

acute or chronic LOCs are exceeded (Table V-2) when flwprimidol is applied at the highest 

exposure among of a suite of use scenarios. Therefore, EFED expects minimal risk from 

maximum applications at other use scenarios, because aquatic EECs resulting from maximum 

applications to those scenarios are lower than the highest exposure scenario of five applications 

at 0.69 lb ai/A with a 56-day reapplication interval. 

Table V.2. Riik Quotients for Freshwater Animals for Proposed FIurprimidol Use as Plant Growth qegulator '" 

1 Freshwater Fish ' I Freshwater ~nhrtebrate 

(LC5,, = 17.2 mg a.iJL ; I (ECe = 11.8 4 a.ii ; I # of App. x App. Rate x Interval I NOAEC = 0.939 mg a.iJL) NOAEC = 295 k a.i./L) I 

- -- - 

LOC exceedances are bolded (Endangered Species LOC = 0.05; Acute Restricted LOC = 0.1; Acute Risk = 0.5 and ~hkonic LOC = 1). 

Turf grass / 

Ornamentals 

' Tier I EECs from Table 111-3. 

Freshwater fish acute RQ = Peak EEC + LC5,; chronic RQ = 60-day EEC t NOAEC 

4.~reshwater invertebrate acute RQ = Peak EEC + ECS0; chronic RQ = 21-day EEC + NOAEC 

2. Estuarinemarine Fish and Invertebrates 

5 apps x 0.69 lb ai/A x 8 wks 

intervals (spray) 

RQs are not calculated for estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates because there are no toxicity 

data available. However, data on estuarine/marine organisms are not needed at this time as it is 

unlikely that they would be sufficiently more sensitive than their freshwater counterparts such 

that Agency levels of concern would be exceeded. 

3. Aquatic Plants 

I. Tier I EECs 

Acute 

<0.01 

Based on all exposure scenarios and peak GENEEC EECs, risks are expected for aquatic 

vascular plants because the non-listed and listed plants LOCs are exceeded (Table V-3) for 

vascular plants when flurprimidol is applied at the maximum application rates listed on the 

product label. 

Of all exposure scenarios and GENEEC EECs, minimal risk is assumed for aquatic non-vascular 

plants from maximum application rates listed on the product label. 

Chronic 

0.13 

Acute 

<0.01 

Chronic 

0.04 
11. Tier I1 EECs 

Table V-3. Risk Quotients for Aquatic Plants for Proposed Flurprimidol Uses as Plant Growth Regulator If 

Since the Tier I EECs for aquatic vascular plants yieM risk quotients higher than Agency's LOC, 

the assessment must be refined to be more reflective of actual use site conditions. Based on 

selected exposure scenarios and peak PRZM/EXAMS EECs, risks are expected because the 

listedplant LOC is still exceeded (Table V-4) for vascular plants when flurprimidol is applied at 

the maximum application rates listed on the product labels. 

' LOC exceedances are bolded (Non-listed Plant LOC >I; Listed Plant LOC > 1). 

Tier I EECs from Table 111-3. 

Non-listed vascular RQ = Peak EEC + EC.50; listed vascular RQ =Peak EEC + NOAEC 

Non-listed non-vascular RQ = Peak EEC + EC.50; listed non-vascular RQ = Peak EEC + NOAEC 

Use 

Turf grass / 

Ornamentals 

> 

Non-Vascular Aquatic Plant 

(ECS0 = 0.84 mg am; 

NOAEC = 0.28 mg sin) 

Table V4..Risk Quotients for Aquatic Plants for Proposed FIurprimidol Uses as Plant Growth Regulator 

192 

# of App. x App. Rate x 

Interval 

$ apps x 0.69 lb ai/A x 8 wks 

intervals (spray) 

12 apps. x 0.26 lb ai/A x 2 wks 

intervals (spray) 

4 apps x 0.75 1b ai/A x 2 wks 

intervals (spray) 

2 apps x 1.5 lb ai/A x 8 wks 

intervals (spray) 

1 app x 3.0 lb ai/A (granule) 

2 apps x 1.5 lb ai/A x 8 wks 

intervals (granule) * 

4 apps x 0.75 Ib ai/A x 3 wks 

intervals (granule) 

Non-Listed 

0.16 

0.15 

0.15 

0.15 

0.14 

0.14 

0.14 

Vascular Aquatic Plant 

(ECS0 = 0.085 mg ai/L; 

NOMC = 0.0089 mg a%) 

Use 

Turf grass / 

Ornamentals 

Listed 

0.49 

0.46 

0.46 

0.46 

0.42 

0.42 

0.42 

Non-Listed 

1.6 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.4 

1.4 

1.4 

Listed 

16 

14 

14 

14 

13 . 

13 

13 

FL Nursery 

MI Nursery 

MI Nursery 

NJ Nursery 

NJ Nursery 

NJ Nursery 

PA turf 

PA turf 

App* "" ' 

No' of Apps' 1 Intervals 

3 / 1 / 0 

3 / 1 / 0 

1.5 / 2 / 60 

0.75 / 4 / 21 

0.75 / 4 / 21 

0.75 / 4 / 21 

0.75 / 4 / 21 

0.26 / 12 1 14 

Application 

Method 

granular 

granular 

granular 

ground spray 

ground spray 

ground spray 

ground spray 

ground spray 

Peak EECs 

(pg a.i&) 

74.94 

29.19 

41.40 

40.83 

58.13 

58.47 

24.43 

18.19 

Vascular Aquatic Plant 

@CJo = 0.085 mg sin; 

NOAEC = 0.0089 mg a%) 

Non-Listed 

0.88 

0.34 

0.49 

0.48 

0.68 

0.69 

0.29 

0.21 

Listed 

8.42 

3.28 

4.65 

4.59 

6.53 

6.57 

2.74 

2.04 
Tier I1 EECs from able 111-5. 

Non-listed vascular RQ = Peak EEC s EC50; listed vascular RQ,= Peak EEC t NOAEC 

Non-listed non-vascular RQ = Peak EEC + EC50; listed non-vascular RQ = Peak EEC + NOAEC 

PA turf 

B. Risks to Terrestrial Animals 

For this baseline assessment with terrestrial animals, acute and chronic risk indices for 

applications to foliar surfaces are derived based on ecological toxicity data for the active 

ingredient (ai), and then compared to the EECs generated from the T-REX model. Acute and 

chronic RQs are calculated by comparing the acute and chronic toxicity values of the A1 to TREX EECs generated based on spray applications to foliar surfaces, while acute L~~o/ft~s are 

calculated by comparing the acute toxicity values of the A1 to T-REX EECs generated based on 

application to ground surfaces. With no methodology available for assessing chronic risk to birds 

and mammals from granular consumption, chronic ~~~dft~s are calculated by comparing the 

chronic toxicity values of the A1 to the highest EEC of flurprimidol in earthworm tissue. 

Terrestrial EECs (dose-based, dietary-based, or mg ai/ft2) were derived for the use of 

flurprirnidol based on the six exposure scenarios developed for this baseline assessment. The 

potential risks to terrestrial animals are described further in the Risk Description section. 

LOC exceedances are bolded (Non-listed Plant LOC >1; Listed Plant LOC >'I). 

I 0.26 I 12 / 14 

1. Birds and Mammals 

In this subsection, two types of risk quotients for broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces 

(e.g., short grass, broadleaves, and seeds) are calculated to evaluate the risks to birds and 

mammals based on the estimated dietary residue concentrations determined from the Kdnaga 

nomogram: (1) dietary-based RQs; and (2) dose-based RQs. RQ calculations (Table V-5) are ' 

based on an adjusted LDso and exposure value (mg ailkg-bw or mg ai/kg-diet). These RQs are 

not equivalent. Dietary risk quotients are calculated by directly comparing the concentration of a 

pesticide administered (or estimated to be administered) to experimental animals in the diet in a 

toxicity study to the concentration estimated to be on selected food items. These risk qyotients 

do not account for the fact that smaller-sized animals need to consume more food relative to their 

body weight than larger animals or those differential amounts of food are consumed depending 

on the water content and nutritive value of the food. The dose-based risk quotients do account 

for these factors. The dose-based RQs incorporate the ingestion rate-adjusted exposure from the 

various food items to the different weight classes of birds and mammals and the weight classscaled toxicity endpoints. 

ground spray 

However, for spray and granular applications to ground surfaces, T-REX only allows Lq5dft2s 

"dose-based RQs" calculations to evaluate only the acute risk to birds and mammals; thus, the 

"dietary-based RQs" and chronic risk were not calculated and excluded from the assessflent for 

spray application and granular products. The ~~~dft~ method modeled by T-REX is used to 

estimate the magnitude by which the LD50 is exceeded for a bird or mammal occupying me 

square foot of the treated area subjected to all routes of exposure. The ~~solft~ methoddoes not 

capture feeding behaviors of the animals that would increase exposure, such as incidental granule 

ingestion with soil, as birds may consume soil at a rate of 2 to 14% of daily diet (USEPA, 1993), 

15.70 0.18 1.76 
active consumption of granules due to their resemblance to grain seeds, or efforts to collect grit 

to assist in food breakdown. Since the granules are not incorporated in the ground, EFED assume 

that 100% of the granules applied will remain uncovered on the surface, available for 

consumption by terrestrial animals. ~~~~lfi~ calculations (Table V-6) are based on an adjusted 

LDso and exposure value (mg ai/ft2). Terrestrial animals may be exposed to granular pesticides 

ingesting granules when foraging for food or grit. Other routes also may expose them, such as 

by walking on exposed granules or direct ingestion of earthworm. The numbers of lethal doses 

(LDSos) that are available within one square foot immediately after application (~~~~slft~) is used 

as the risk index for spray application and granular products applied to ground surfaces. 

~~~~slfi~s are calculated by comparing the gg a,i./ft2 to three separate weight class of birds: 1000 

g (e.g., waterfowl), 100 g (e.g., upland gamebird), and 20 g (e.g., songbird) and three separate 

weight class of mammals: 1000 g, 35 g, and 15g. 

Table V-5. Formulas used to calculate dose- and dietafy-based risk quotients for spray 

applications to foliar surfaces. 

Before the risk indices are calculated for birds and mammals, the EECs and toxicity values are 

adjusted based on food intake and body weight differences so that they are comparable for a 

given weight class of animal. The size classes assessed for birds are small (20-gram), medium 

(100-gram), and large (1000-gram), while the size classes assessed for mammals are small (15- 

gram), medium (35-gram), and large.(1000-gram). However, extrapolation from one size class to 

another needs to consider differences in the scaling of toxicity for differences in body weight. 

For birds, only acute values (LDsos) are adjusted because dose-based risk quotients are not 

calculated for the chronic risk estimation, while only chronic values are adjusted for mammals 

because dietary-based risk quotients are not calculated for the acute risk estimation. 

Table V-6. Formula used to calculate dose-based ~~sdft's for applications to ground 

surfaces. 

For birds, the bobwhite quail LDSo of >2000 mag-bw is adjusted for birds of various sizes 

based on the following formula, recommended by Mineau et al. 1996: 

Equation 

Acute Daily Exposure (mglkg-bw) / adjusted LDS0 (mgkgbw) 

Kenaga EEC (mglkg-food item) I LCSo (mg/kg-diet) 

EEC (mgkg-bw) I Adjusted NOAEL (mgkg-bw) 

EEC (mgkg-food item) / NOAEC (mglkg-diet) 

Duration 

Acute 

Chronic 

Adj. LDS0 = LDS0 (AWITW) (a-1) 

Equation 

EEC (mglft2) I adjusted LDsO (mgkg-bw) 

Duration 

Acute 

only 

Dose or 

Dietary RQ 

Dose-based 

Dietary-based 

Dose-based 

Dietary-based 

Surrogate 

Organism 

Birds and 

mammals 

Birds only 

Mammals only 

Birds and 

mammals 

Dose or 

Dietary RQ 

Dose-based 

only 

Surrogate 

Organism 

Birds and 

mammals 
where adj. LDso is the median 50% lethal dose for the species being assessed, LDso is the median 

lethal dose in the test organism, AW is the body weight of the assessed organism, TW is the 

body weight for the test organism, and a is the slope of the regression line for estimating the 

assessed species LDS0 from the test species LD50 (EFED default value of 1.15). Adjusted LDsos 

are calculated for small (20-gram), medium (100-gram), and large (1000-gram) birds. The test 

organism is a bobwhite quail with an average body weight of 0.178 kg (178 grams). For 

mammals using similar methodology to that employed for birds, the rat LDsO and NOAEL of 709 

mg/kg-bw and 7.3 mg/kg/day/bw, respectively, are adjusted for mammals of various sizes based 

on the following formula: 

Adj. LDso or NOAEL = LDSO or NOAEL (TW~AW)~.~~ 

LDSO, TW, and AW were previously defined. Adjusted LDsos and NOAELs are calcul ted for 

small (15-gram), medium (35-gram), and large (1000-gram) mammals. The test organ r sm is a 

rat with a reference body weight of 350 grams. I 

I 

The resulting adjusted LDsos and NOAEL are in Table V-7 below. 

a. Potential Risks to Birds via Broadcast Spray ~pplicat{ons to 

Poiiar Surfaces 

Acute RQs - Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Suqaces 

Available acute toxicity data for birds suggest that flurprimidol is practically non-toxic tb birds 

on acute oral and dietary bases. Study results indicate that the acute toxicity thresholds are 

greater than the highest concentrations tested (acute LDso >2000 mg aikg-bw and subacpte 

dietary LCso >43 10 mg al/kg-diet). Since definitive acute toxicity thresholds were not 

established, acute avian RQS (dose- and dietary-based) were not estimated, and the poteqtial risk 

and uncertainties to birds (surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) from gray 

applications to foliar surfaces are described qualitatively in the Risk Description section. 

Chronic RQs - Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Sut$aces 

Available-reproductive toxicity data for birds indicated that flurprimidol caused significant 

reductions of egg production, embryo survival, and hatchability as low as 642 mg aifkg-diet, 

establishing the no-effect concentration at 309 mg ailkg-diet. Assuming the maximum exposure 

scenario for broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces at 0.75 lb ai/A applied four times with 
2-week reapplication intervals, as well as the maximum predicted EECs; with an NOAEC of 309 

mg ai/kg-diet, the chronic RQ is 1.6, which does exceed the LOC of 1.0 for birds consuming 

short grass only (Table V-8). ow ever, assuming the lower scenario for broadcast spray 

applications to foliar surfaces at 0.26 lb ai1A applied twelve times with a Zweek reapplication 

interval, the highest RQ is 0.8 which does not exceed the chronic LOC for any of the assessed 

feed items. 

The exceedance indicates avian species that consume short grass may be at risk for adverse 

effects to growth and reproduction from chronic exposure to flurprimidol as a result of broadcast 

spray application to foliar surfaces and will be discussed in the Risk Description section. 

Table V-8 presents the chronic RQ calculations for birds exposed to flurprimidol via broadcast 

spray applications to foliar surfaces. 

I Table V-8. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary-Based Risk Quotients for Broadcast 1 

Spray Applications to Foliar Surfaces 3 

b. Potential Risks to Birds via Banded. Spray Applications to 

Ground Surfaces 

Scenario 

4 apps at 

0.75 lb aiJA 

intervals 

12 apps at 

0.26 lb aiJA 

with 2-week 

intervals 

Acute LDsdft2 - Banded Spray Applications to Ground Surj6aces 

Available acute toxicity data for birds suggest that flurprimido1.i~ practically nontoxic to birds 

on acute oral basis. Study results indicate that the acute toxicity thresholds are greater than the 

highest concentrations tested (acute LDsos >2000 mg alkg-bw). Since definitive acute toxicity 

thresholds were not established, acute avian ~~so/ft*s were not estimated, and the potential risk 

and uncertainties to birds (surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) from banded 

spray applications to ground surfaces are described qualitatively in the Risk Description section. 

c. Potential Risks to Mammals via Broadcast Spray Applications 

to Foliar Surfaces 

I with 2-week ) 1 498 1 1.6* 1 228 1 0 7 1 280 1 0.9 1 31 1 0.1 1 

NOAEC 

(mg amdiet) 

*Balded entry indicates exceedance of the Chronic Risk and Endangered Species LOC (LOC >1) 

309 

Acute RQs - Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Su?$aces 

To evaluate acute risk to mammals, dose-based RQs are calculated using the rat LDso of 709 mg 

ailkg-bw from the acute oral study with rats. Assuming the highest exposure scenario for 

EECs and RQs 

248 

Short Grass 

--- 

0.8 

EEC 

Tall Grass 

RQ EEC 

114 

RQ 

Broadleaf Plants/ 

Small Insects' 

I-p 

16 

EEC 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

0.4 0.05 

RQ EEC RQ 

140 

P 

0.5 
broadcast sprays to foliar surfaces (application rate at 0.75 lb ai/A applied three times with 2- 

week reapplication intervals), as well as the maximum predicted EECs for spray applications; the 

acute restricted use LOC of 0.2 and the endangered species LOC of 0.1 are exceeded for 15g and 

35g mammals consuming short grass and the endangered species LOC is exceeded for 15g and 

35g mammals consuming short grass, tall grass, and broadleaf plants and is also exceeded for 

1000 g mammals consuming short grass. However, for the lower exposure scenario (12 

applications of 0.26 lb ai/A with 2-week intervals), the endangered species LOC is narrowly 

exceeded for 15g and 35g mammals foraging on short grass. These exceedances indicdte that 

herbivorous and insectivorous mammals of all weight classes may be at risk for adversle effects 

to survival from acute exposure to flurprirnidol as a result of spray applications to foliar surfaces 

and will be discussed in the Risk Description section. 

Dietary-based RQs are not estimated for mammals since acute dietary mammalian toxicity 

studies are not available. 

restricted use and endangered species LOCs; and *exceeds the endangered species LOC) 

Table V-9 presents the acute RQ calcu1ations for mammals exposed to flurprimidol via 

broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces. 

Chronic RQs - Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Suqaces 

To evaluate the chronic risk to mammals, dose-based and dietary-based RQs for broadcsrst spray 

applications to foliar surfaces are calculated using the rat NOAEL of 7.3 mg aikg bwldiy and 

NOAEC of 100 mg allkg-diet, respectively, from the two-generation study. Assuming mlaximum 

and minimum residue levels of the spray application scenarios, the dose-based RQs greatly 

exceed the chronic LOC of 1 for mammals. The chronic LOC is exceeded for herbivorods and 

insectivorous mammals of all weight classes consuming all grass, broadleaf plants, and shall 

insects and exceeded for 15g and 35g mammals consuming fruits and large insects with 

maximum residues. Granivorous mammals were not affected when foraging on the assesbed feed 

' lb ai/A with2- 

wks interval 

- - 

items with maximum and minimum flurprimidol residues. 

35 1 1260.80 1 163.71 1 0.13* 1 75.04 1 0.06 1 92.09 1 0.07 1 10.23 1 0.01 1 2.27 1 0.00 

1000 1 545.33 1 37.96 1 0.07 1 17.40 ) 0.03 1 21.35 ) 0.04 [ 2.37 1 0.00 1 0.53 1 0.00 

Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance (***exceeds the acute risk, restricted use, and endangered species LOCs; **exceeds the 
The dietary-based RQs also exceeded the chronic LOC for mammal consuming all the assessed 

feed items except fruitsllarge insects. 

These exceedances indicate that mammals may be at risk for adverse effects to reproduction and 

growth from acute and chronic exposure to flurprimidol as a result of broadcast spray 

applications to foliar surfaces and will be discussed in the Risk Description section. 

Tables V-10 and V-11 present the chronic RQ calculations for mammals exposed to 

flurprimidol via broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces. 

Table V-10. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients for Broadcast Spray 

Applications to Foliar Surfaces 

EECs and RQs 

Broadleaf FruiWPods/ 

Scenario Adjusted Short Grass Tall Grass Plants1 . Granivores Large Small Insects Insects 

P 

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ 

4 apps x 0.75 Ib , 16.04 474.94 29.60 217.68 13.57 267.16 16.65 29.68 1.85 6.60 0.41 

*Balded entries indicate exceedance of the Chronic Risk and Endangered Species LOC (LOC >1) 

Table V-11. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients for Broadcast 

Spray Applications to Foliar Surfaces 

c. Potential Risks to Mammals via Banded Spray Applications to 

Ground Surfaces 

Scenario 

4 apps x 0.75 

lb ailA with 2- 

wks interval 

12 apps x 0.26 

lb ailA with 2- 

wks interval 

Acute L,~=jdft~- Banded Spray Applications to Ground Su6aces 

To evaluate acute risk to mammals, ~~solft's are calculated using the rat LD50 of 709 mg ai/kgbw from the acute oral study with rats. Assuming the exposure scenario for "banded" sprays to 

ground surfaces at 0.69 lb ai/A (Table V-12) as well as the maximum predicted EECs; the acute 

NOAEC 

(mg aikdiet) 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

*Balded entries indicate exceedance of the ChronicRisk and Endangered Species LOC (LOC >1) 

100 

EECs and RQs 

248.45 

Short Grass 

2.48 

EEC 

498.15 

RQ 

4.98 

Tall Grass 

113.87 

EEC 

228.32 

RQ 

2.28 

Broadleaf Plants1 

Small Insects 

1.14 

EEC 

280.21 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

RQ 

2.80 

EEC 

31.13 -. 

139.75 

RQ 

0 31 

1.40 15.53 0.16 
restricted use LOC of 0.2 and the endangered species LOC of 0.1 are exceeded for 15 g and 35 g 

mammals inhabiting those areas exposed to flurprimidol residues. These exceedances indicate 

that small- and medium-sized mammals may be at risk for adverse effects to survival from acute 

exposure to flurprimidol as a result of "banded" spray applications to ground surfaces and will be 

discussed in the Risk Description section. 

Table V-12. Mammal LD50 per Square Foot for "Banded" Spray - - 1 

Applications to Ground surfaces - 1 

Scenario 

and endangered species LOCs; **exceehs the restricted use and endangered : 

species LOCs; and *exceeds the endangered species LOC) ' T-REXdoes not have the capability to calculate EECs (mglsq ft) based on 

"banded" applications occurring on the edge of a site; therefore, EECs are based 

on broadcast applications. 

0.69 lb ailA 

d. Potential Risks to Birds via Broadcast and Banded Granular 

Applications to Ground Surfaces 

Size 

(grams) 

Acute LD~&- Broadcast and Banded Granular Applications to Ground Su~aces 

Since definitive acute toxicity thresholds were not established, acute avian ~~501ft~ was not 

estimated, and the potential risk and uncertainties to birds (surrogate for reptiles and temestrialphase amphibians) from broadcast and banded granular applications to ground surfaces are 

described qualitatively in the Risk Description section. 

Broadcast' Adjusted 

LD50 mgfsq. ft LDSOIsq. ft 

Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance (***exceeds the acute risk, restricted use, 

15 

35 

1000 

e. Potential Risks to Mammals via Broadcast and Banded 

Granular Applications to Ground Surfaces I 

Acute L.~~dft~- Broadcast and Banded Granular Applications to Ground Surj%ces 

Based on the available terrestrial ecotoxicity information and the predicted direct ingestion 

exposures (from the T-REX model); the acute ~~roslft~sor all exposure scenarios (Tables V-13 

and V-14) exceed the acute LOCs for 15 g and 35 g mammals. These exceedances indidate that 

small- and medium-sized mammals may be at risk for adverse effects to survival from acute 

exposure to flurprimidol as a result of granular applications to ground surfaces and will be 

discussed further in the Risk Description section. 

1558 

1261 

545 

7.18 

Table V-13. Mammalian LD50 per Square Foot for Direct Ingestion of 

Broadcast Granular Applications on Ground Surfaces 

0.31"" 

0.16" 

0.01 

Scenario 

0.75 lb ai/A 

sue 

Class 

(grams) 

15 

35 

Adjusted 

LD50 

1558.26 

1260.80 

Broadcast 

mg/~q. ft 

7.81 

LDSdsq. ft 

0.33"" 

0.18% 
Table V-14. Mammalian LD50 per Square Foot for Direct Ingestion of 

"Banded" Granular Applications on Ground Surfaces 

Scenario I--- 

0.01 

1.34""" 

0.71""" 

0.06 

Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance (***exceeds the acute risk, restricted use, 

and endangered species LOCs; **exceeds the restricted use and endangered species 

LOCs; and *exceeds the endangered species LOC) 

3.0 lb ai/A 

545.33 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.3'3 

1000 

15 

35 

1000 

Class 

(grams) 

15 

I I 

Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance (***exceeds the acute risk, restricted use, 

and endangered species LOCs; **exceeds the acute restricted use and endangered 

species LOCs) 

T-REX does not have the capability to calculate EECs (mglsq ft) based on 

"banded" applications occurring on the edge of a site; therefore, EECs are based on 

broadcast applications. 

31.24 

Clnnn 

(g---, , 

15 1 

2. Terrestrial-phase Amphibians and Reptiles 

Adjusted 

LDso 

1558.26 

EFED currently uses surrogate data (birds) for terrestrial amphibians and reptiles. Risks to 

terrestrial amphibians and reptiles from spray and granular applications to both foliar and ground 

surfaces are qualitatively discussed in the Risk Description section. 

1 Adjusted 

1558.26 

3. Beneficial .Insects 

 road cast' 

EFED does not quantify risk to terrestrial non-target insects; however, available toxicity data 

indicate flwprimidol is practically non-toxic to honeybees (LD50 >I00 pg ai,). Potential risks 

to beneficial insects from spray and granular applications are qualitatively discussed in the Risk 

Description section. 

mg/sq. ft 

I road cast' 

4. Soil-dwelling Invertebrates (Earthworm) 

LDdsq. ft 

1 0.67""" 

Available acute toxicity data for earthworm suggest that flurprimidol is practically non-toxic to 

soil-dwelling invertebrates on acute basis. Study results indicate that the acute toxicity threshold 

is greater than the highest concentrations tested (acute LDS0 >I00 mg aikg). Since definitive 

acute toxicity threshold was not established, the acute RQ was not estimated, and the potential 

risk to soil-dwelling invertebrates from spray and granular applications are described 

qualitatively in the Risk Description section. 

I 

1 0.67""" 

C. Terrestrial Plants 

For this baseline assessment with terrestrial plants, RQs are derived based on ecological toxicity 

data for the formulation end-use product, CUTLESS 50W containing 54.89% of the active 

46 
ingredient, and then compared to the EECs generated from the TerrPLANT model. RQs are 

calculated by comparing the toxicity values of the A1 in the end-use product to TerrPLANT 

EECs generated based on spray and granular applications. Terrestrial EECs were derived for the 

use of flurprimidol based on the four scenarios developed for this baseline assessment. 

TerrPLANT does not have the capacity of generating EECs from banded applications and the 

risks to plants from banded applications will be evaluated based on broadcast applications. The 

potential risks to terrestrial plants are described further in the Risk Description section. 

1. Non-Listed and Listed Terrestrial Plants I 

Terrestrial plant toxicity studies with monocots and dicots indicate that seedling emergence and 

vegetative vigor are impacted by exposure to flurprimidol. For the proposed new uses bf 

flurprimidol and the maximum EECs of the use scenarios, the noh-listed and listed plapt LOCs 

were all exceeded for dicots inhabiting dry and semi-aquatic areas adjacent to treated qeas as a 

result of runoff from broadcast spray and granular applications. In addition, the listed $ant LOC 

was exceeded for dicots inhabiting areas adjacent to treated areas as a result of spray drift from 

one broadcast spray application at 0.75 Ib ai1A (Table V-15). 

For monocots, the LOCs were not exceeded for all use scenarios as a result of spray drift; 

however, for some of the use scenarios especially for those that inhabit in semi-aquatic areas, the 

non-listed and listed LOCs were all exceeded as a result of runoff. 

The results indicate that monocots and dicots inhabiting terrestrial and semi-aquatic arqas would 

be at risk for adverse effects to growth and development when exposed to flurprimidol as a result 

of the spray and granular application of flurprimidol to the proposed new uses. 
1 able V-15. Terrestrial Plant Risk Quotient Summary for P111rprimidol'~'~~ 

' Ground 

Monocot 10.32 12.73 1<0.1 11.18 110.07 / 0.2 

Dicot 13.75 131.88 10.68 / 10.23 ~ 186.93 11.63 

Broadcast Granular ~pplication (1 application at 0.75 lb ai/A) 

Ground 

Scenario 

Monocot 10.27 12.68 1 <0.1 10.99 / 9.87 1 <0.1 

Dicot +' / 3.13 131.25 / <o. 1 18.52 185.23 / <0.1 

Broadcast Granular Application (1 application at 3.0 lb ai/A) 

Gmmnd - . - - -. . - . 1 Monocot 1.07 10.71 39.47 <0.1 

Dicot 1 12.5 1 125 (<0.1 134.09 1340.91 1 <0.1 

'~etailedcalculations for RQs and TerrPlant Ver. 1.2.2 input and output are provided in Appendix E. 

Broadcast Spray (1 applicatii 

Ground 0 Monocot 0.11 0.95 3.49 <o. 1 

Dicot 11.3 111.05 / 0.24 1 3.55 130.14 10.57 

Broadcast Spray (1 application= 

Non-listed RQs 

Terrestrial I Semi-aquatic 1 

Adjacent area Adjacent area Drift 

2~on-listed toxicity thresholds (EC25) were 0.14 Ib ai/A, 0.012 Ib ai/A, 0.42 Ib ai/A, and 0I0l llb ai/A for seedling 

emergence inonocot, seedling emergence dicot, vegetative vigor monocot, and vegetative vigor dicot, respectively. 

Listed toxicity thresholds (NOAEC) were 0.038 lb ai/A, 0.0044,0.11,0.0046 Ib ai/A for seedling emergence 

monocot, seedling emergence dicot, vegetative vigor dicot And vegetative vigor monocot, respectively, 

Listed RQs 

Terrestrial Semi-aquatic 

Adjacent area 1 Adjacent area 1 Drift 

VI. RISK DESCRIPTION 

The risk hypothesis states that the use of flurprimidol as a plant growth regulator has the 

potential to compromise survivorship, reproduction, and/or growth of non-target aquatic and 

terrestrial animals and plants, including Federally-listed endangered and threatened species. 

Based on the available ecotoxicity data and predicted environmental exposui-es, this ecological 

risk assessment supports the presumption of acute and chronic risks to mammals foragingthe 

assessed feed items with flurprimidol residues and the risk from ingestion of granules. In 

addition, risk is presumed for terrestrial dicots and monocots and aquatic vascular plants 

inhabiting areas adjacent to the treated areas exposed to flurprimidol as a result of runoff and 

spray drift. In contrast, the presumption of acute and chronic risks to birds, terrestrial-phase 

amphibians, reptiles, insects, soil-dwelling invertebrates, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic 

non-vascular plants (green algae) are not supported by the results of this baseline risk 

assessment. 

A. Risks to Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants 

In the conceptual model, spray drift and surface mnoff/leaching to adjacent bodies of water were 

predicted as the most likely sources of exposure of flurprimidol to non-target aquatic animals and 

plants. Risks to aquatic organisms and plants were assessed based on modeled estimated 

environmental concentrations (EECs) and available toxicity data. Aquatic EECs for the 
ecological exposure to flurprimidol were estimated using GENEEC2 (Table 1113) and 

PRZMEXAMS (Table 111-5). 

1. Aquatic Organisms 

There are no acute or chronic LOC exceedances for fish and invertebrates based on the: most 

conservative aquatic exposure scenario among a suite of use scenarios assessed; thus, fish and 

invertebrates, including Federally-listed endangered and threatened species, there are no 

indication of adverse effects to survival, reproduction, andor growth for fish and inve~ebrates 

from acute and chronic exposure to flurprimidol as a result of the labeled uses. 

2. Aquatic-phase Amphibians 

EFED currently uses surrogate data (freshwater fish) for non-target aquatic-phase amphibians. 

There we're no LOC exceedances for acute or chronic risk to freshwater fish; thus, there is no 

indication of adverse effects to survival, reproduction, and/or growth for aquatic-phase) 

amphibians from exposure to flurprimidol as a result of the labeled uses. 

3. Aquatic Plants 

There is only one aquatic non-vascular plant study out of four aquatic non-vascular plapt studies 

available for flurprimidol; the green algae study indicates that flurprirnidol affects biomass. The 

aquatic vascular plant study with duckweed indicates that flurprimidol affects all endpdints with 

frond density the most affected. Based on the use scenarios assessed and the available toxicity 

information, the non-listed and listed plant LOCs (LOC >1) were exceeded for duckweed (RQs 

range from 1.4 to 16) but not exceeded for green algae (RQs range from 0.14 to 0.49; Table VI1). There is some uncertainty regarding the potential risk specifically to aquatic vascul4 plants 

because flurprimidol regulates plant growth without killing the plants as seen in the toxicity 

studies with duckweed and green algac. Thus, it is possible that flurprimidol is not lethal to 

aquatic plants. It is uncertain of the impact on endangered and threatened aquatic vascular plants 

inhabiting water bodies adjacent to treated areas when exposed to flurprimidol as a result of 

spray drift and runoff. However, when those non-target plants come into contact with , flurprimidol, it is anticipated that reduced growth or a delay in growth will be observed,l but it is 

uncertain how flurprimidol will affect one's ability to survive, grow, and reproduce. 

B. Risks to Non-target Terrestrial Animals and Plants 

In the conceptual model, ground deposition of liquid and granular formulations, spray drift, and 

wind erosion of soil particles with resulting residues on foliage and on flowers and seeds, 

including granules on the ground are the most likely sources of flurprimidol exposure to nontarget terrestrial animals, including listed species. Risks to terrestrial animals and plants were 

assessed based on modeled EECs and available toxicity data. As part of the terrestrial 

assessment, exposure concentrations of flurprimidol to non-target terrestrial plants and animals 

were modeled according to the labeled application rates for ornamentals and turfgrasses. For 

terrestrial birds and mammals, estimates of upper-bound levels of flurprimidol residues on 

various food items and granules, which may be contacted or consumed by wildlife, were 
determined using the Fletcher nomogram followed by a first order decline model TREX 1.4.1. 

Risk to soil-dwelling invertebrates was determined by estimating the amount of flurprimidol 

residues in soil. Likewise, the TerrPlant 1.2.2 model was used to estimate exposure to non-target 

plants. 

1. Birds 

a. Potential Acute Risks from Broadcast and Banded Spray 

Applications to Foliar and Ground Surfaces and Direct Ingestion 

of Granules 

Since definitive acute oral and dietary toxicity thresholds were not established in the submitted 

studies, acute avian RQs were not estimated for birds (surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-phase 

amphibians). Flurprimidol is categorized as practically non-toxic on an oral and dietary basis to 

two avian species (acute LDso >2000 mg aiikg-bw; >43 10 mg allkg-diet). 

Because acute avian RQs were not estimated due to non-definitive acute toxicity thresholds, to 

be certain the "greater than" concentrations were tested high enough in the acute avian studies to 

be protective of non-listed and listed species, these acute values for birds were compared with an 

exposure value to determine if the EEC is greater than l/loth or Yi of the highest concentrations 

tested. The highest T-REX dosed-based EEC for birds is 567 mg/kg bw for short grass consumed 

by a 20 g bird selected from the maximum exposure scenario following four spray applications at 

0.75 lb ai/A with a 14-day interval. A comparison of the adjusted LD50 for 20 g birds of >I440 

mg ai/kg-bw with the T-REX dose-based EEC (567 mgkg) indicates a 2.5-fold difference 

between the highest EEC and the concentrations which produced a lethal effect on 50% of the 

birds species. For that reason, there is an uncertainty for listed bird s ecies (the LOC for listed z bird species is 0.1) because the dose-based EEC is greater than 1/10 of the highest dose tested 

in the studies. Also, a comparison of the dietary LC50 with the highest dietary-based EEC 

indicates a 8.5-fold difference and because the dietary-based EEC is greater than 1110~ of the 

highest dose tested, the uncertainty for listed birds also exists on a dietary basis. None of the 

dose- or dietary-based EECs was greater than half of the highest doses tested; thus, there are no 

concerns for non-listed bird species (the LOC for non-listed bird species is 0.5). 

With an uncertainty for listed bird species, risk is expected to be minimal for birds foraging any 

of the selected food items, earthworms, or granules with flurprimidol residues; avian species are 

likely not at risk for adverse effects to survival from acute oral or dietary exposures to 

flurprimidol as a result of the labeled uses. 

b. Potential Chronic Risks from Broadcast and Banded Spray 

Applications to Foliar and Ground Surfaces. 

For broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces using the maximum (four applications at 0.75 

lb ai/A with a two-week reapplication interval) and minimum (twelve applications at 0.26 Ib ai/A 

with a two-week reapplication interval) exposure scenarios with upper bound EECs and an 

NOAEC of 309 rng ai/kg-diet, the chronic LOC is exceeded only when the maximum scenario is 

assumed. With four broadcast spray applications at 0.75 lb ai/A, the RQ of 1.6 for birds feeding 

on short grass exceeds the chronic LOC of 1. However, there are no LOC exceedances for birds 
feeding on the other assessed feed items for the maximum scenario and for birds feeding on all 

the assessed feed items when the minimum exposure scenario is assumed. Although there is an 

exceedance of the chronic LOC based on the maximum exposure scenario, the potential risk for 

adverse effects to growth and reproduction is based on the assumption that birds occupy the area 

permanently and are feeding on short grass exclusively within the treated areas where turfgrasses 

are grown. To the extent that those birds do not reside permanently within the treated area, 

exposure will be less and risk is presumably less. In addition, there are no LOC exceedances for 

both scenarios when the mean EECs are assumed. 

Chronic risks to birds from banded spray applications to ground surfaces are not estimated due to 

model limitations; given that banded sprays are applied along the perimeter of lawns, landscape 

beds, sidewalks, curbs, parking lots, driveways, posts, mailboxes, building structures, and other 

similar areas where turfgrasses are grown rather than on an one-acre field as T-REX aslsumes; 

exposure to birds from banded applications will be lower than broadcast applications; thus, risk 

will be presumably less but not ruled out since the LOC was exceeded for broadcast agplications. 

c. Potential Chronic Risks from Direct Ingestion of Gran4les 

EFED has no standard methodology for assessing chronic risk to birds from granular 

applications. The following chronic exposure estimation and risk characterization for Zjirds 

considers granular routes of exposure including direct ingestion of soil invedebrates th4t have 

bioconcentrated pesticide residues of granules in soil; thus, EFED has taken further steds to 

characterize the potential for chronic risk to avian species exposed to flurprimidol gran$les. 

Based on the highest EEC of flurprimidol in earthworm tissue (35 yg a.i./kg) and lowe$ avian 

NOAEC of 309 mg a.i./kg-diet, the chronic LOC is not exceeded (Table VI-2) and is 8B00x 

lower than the modeled EEC for insectivorous birds exposed to flurprimidol granules via 

ingestion of earthworms at the maximum application rate of 3.0 lb a.i./A (see endid id D). For 

birds, direct consumption of granules and dose-based risk quotients for directc~nsum~tjonf 

earthworm are not calculated for the chronic risk estimation, the risks are unknown. 

I 

Table VI-2. Dietary-based Chronic RQ for Insectivorous Birds 

1 I I I 

a Chronic RQ =Earthworm EEC / NOAEC. I 

I 

Application Rate 

3.0 Ib a.i./A 

2. Terrestrial-phase Amphibians and Reptiles 

a. Potential Acute Risks from Broadcast and Banded Sprby 

Applications to Foliar and Ground Surfaces and ~ireci 

Ingestion of Granules 

EFED currently uses data on surrogate species (birds) to assess non-target terrestrial-phabe 

amphibians and reptiles. Based on the evaluation of potential acute risks to birds, potential acute 

risks to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are also lower than the Agency's listed ipecies 

level of concern. Thus, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians would not be at risk for adverse 

Body Weight 

(g) 

All 

Earthworm EEC 

(mg/kg-earthworm) 

0.035 

NOAEC 

(mg a.iJkg) 

309 

Chrdnic RQa 

k0. 1 
effects on survival from granular or foliar consumption. However, the evaluation also indicates 

there is an uncertainty for listed reptiles and amphibians because the upper bound EECs were. 

higher than l/loth of the highest doses tested in the acute oral and dietary studies with birds. 

b. Potential Chronic Risks from Broadcast Spray Applications to 

Foliar and Ground Surfaces. 

Based on the evaluation of potential chronic risks to birds from foliar sprays, potential chronic 

risks to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are also higher than the Agency's listed species 

level of concern. Thus, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians would be at risk for adverse 

effects on reproduction and growth from foliar consumption. Similar to birds, exposure to 

reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians from banded applications to ground surfaces will be 

lower than broadcast applications; thus, risk will be presumably less but not ruled out. 

I c. Potential Chronic Risks from Direct Ingestion of Granules 

Based on the evaluation of potential chronic risks to birds from ingestion of soil invertebrates as 

one of the granular routes, potential chronic risks to reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are 

also lower than the Agency's listed species level of concern. Thus, reptiles and terrestrial-phase ' 

amphibians would not be at risk for adverse effects on reproduction and growth from indirect 

granule (soil invertebrate) consumption with flurprimidol residues. However, the chronic risk 

from direct granule consumption is unknown. 

3. Mammals 

a. Potential Acute Risks from Broadcast Spray Applications to 

Foliar Surfaces 

Acute RQs - Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690-15, Cutless 

SOW Turf Growth Regulator) 

Based on the maximum exposure scenario (four broadcast spray applications of 0.75 lb ai/A with 

a reapplication interval of 2 week) using Cutless SOW Turf Growth Regulator (Reg. No. 67690- 

15) and maximum predicted EECs, the acute mammalian dose-based risk quotients for broadcast 

spray applications to foliar surfaces exceed the acute restricted use and endangered species LOCs 

for 15 g and 35 g mammals consuming short grass and the endangered species LOC is exceeded 

for 1000 g mammals consuming short grass and for 15 g and 35 g mammals consuming tall 

grass, broadleaves and small insects. In addition, there is an exceedance of the endangered 

species LOC for 15g mammals consuming short grass when mean predicted EECs are assumed. 

A closer look of the terrestrial assessment indicates that for 15 g mammals feeding on short 

grass, the endangered species LOC is exceeded if flurprimidol is applied at least once and for 35 

g mammals feeding on short grass, it requires two or more applications to exceed the LOC. It 

requires three or more applications for potential risk to 1000 g mammals feeding on short grass 

with residues of the active ingredient. 

For the lower (minimum) exposure scenario (12 broadcast spray applications of 0.26 lb ai/A with 

a reapplication interval of 2 week) and maximum predicted EECs, the endangered species LOC 
is exceeded for 15g and 35g mammals consuming short grass. However, there are no LOC 

exceedances with mean predicted EECs. 

b. Potential Acute Risks from Banded Spray Applications to 

Ground Surfaces 

Acute L,D5df8- Banded Spray Applications to Ground Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690-46, SP5075 

Turf Growth Regulator) 

Based on the maximum exposure scenario for banded spray applications to ground sullfaces 

using the SP5075 Turf Growth Regulator product and intermediate EECs, the acute mhalian 

~~~~/ft~ exceed the acute restricted use and endangered species LOCs for 15 g rnammgls while 

the endangered species LOC is exceeded for 35 g mammals inhabiting the treated are& where 

flurprimidol is applied to the ground. The RQs ranged from 0.01 to 0.3 1 for a banded qpray 

application to ground surface at 0.69 lb a.i./A, respectively, with small-sized mammals; affected 

the most when exposed. 

c. Potential Acute Risks from Direct Ingestion of Grandles 

Acute L,DsdftZ- Broadcast Granular Applications to Ground Surfaces (Reg. No. 67490-19, 

~urf ~eitilizer - Contains Cutless 0.5% and Reg. No. 67690-13, Cutless 0.336 ~abdsca~e 

Growth Regulator) 

Based on one broadcast application of granules at 3.0 lb a.i./A using either the turf fertilizer 

(Reg. No. 67690-19) or landscape regulator (Reg. No. 67690- 13) product and intermediate 

EECs, the acute risk, restricted use, and endangered species LOCs are exceeded for 15 /g and 35 

g mammals inhabiting the treated areas. However, for broadcast applications of granulqs to 

ground surfaces at 0.75 Ib a.i./A and 3-week intervals, the restricted use and endangered species 

LOCs are exceeded for 15 g mammals and the endangered species LOC is exceeded fo+ 35 g 

mammals . I 

Acute LD~&- Banded Granular Applications to Ground Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690t44, Turf 

Fertilizer - Contains Cutless 0.17% and Reg. No. 67690-13, Cutless 0.336 ~andsc+~e 

Growth Regulator) I 

I 

Based on banded applications of granules at 1.5 Ib a.i./A and %week intervals using ei er the 

turf fertilizer (Reg. No. 67690-44) or landscape regulator (Reg. No. 67690-13) product nd 

intermediate EECs, the RQ of 0.67 for 15 g mammals exceed the acute risk, restricted se, and 

endangered species LOCs, the RQ of 0.35 for 35 g mammals exceed the acute restricte use and 

endangered species LOCs, and the RQ of 0.03 for 1000 g mammals does not exceeded y of the 

LOG. E 

d. Number of Granules Needed to be Consumed by a ~abmal to

Achieve Toxicity Thresholds 

To better characterize the risks to mammals, this baseline risk assessment also estimates, the 

minimum foraging area (square feet) needed to allow for direct ingestion of sufficient mass of 

flurprimidol granules to achieve a dose that exceeds the adjusted LDso by assuming that a 

mammal consumes 100%, 50% or 10% of the available granules depending on mammal's weight 
class. In order to derive a first approximation of acute exposure and risk to granular flurprimidol 

for mammals that may directly consume granules, the TREX model takes into account that 100% 

of mammal's diet is comprised of granules. Therefore, EFED has taken further steps to 

characterize the potential for acute risk to mammalian species by evaluating how much area 

would need to be foraged to achieve the amount of flurprimidol granules necessary to trigger the 

Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs). Tables VI-3, VI-4, and VI-5 calculate the number of 

granules and minimum foraging area needed to exceed Agency's LOCs at 0.75 lb a.i./A, 1.5 lb 

a.i./A, and 3.0 lb a.i.1A granular flurprimidol. 

Table VI-3. Estimates of the number of granules, and minimum area foraged needed for a 15g, 35g, and 

1000g mammal to achieve the EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the adjusted LDSO, acute risk 

LOC (0.5), and endangered species risk (0.5) levels of concern (LOCs) based on an application rate of 0.75 

Ib a.iJA 

Mammal Size (grams) 

15 35 I 1000 

No. of Consumed Granules Required to Reach 

the Specified LOC 

In Table VI-3 above, it was estimated that it would take a 15g mammal to consume 3 granules 

that would result in an ex~eedance of the endangered species LOC. Based on the application rate 

of 0.75 lb/A, this number of granules could be gleaned from 0.3,0.6, or 3 square feet (within the 

treated band) when assuming a loo%, 50%, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. To achieve 

an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the endangered species LOC, a 

lOOOg mammal would have to consume 55 granules. It was estimated that this number of 

granules could be consumed in an area of 7, 14, or 70 square feet when assuming a 100%' 50%, 

or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. 

Area of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to 

Achieve the Endangered Species LOC Based 

on ApplicationRate of 0.75 lb/A.* 

Table VI-4 calculates the number of granules and minimum foraging area needed to exceed 

Agency's LOCs at the minimum application rate of 1.5 1bIA granular flurprimidol. 

Adjusted LD5,, 

Acute RiL LOC (0,5) 

Endangered Species LOC (0.1) 

Table VI-4. Estimates of the number of granule$, and minimum area foraged needed for a 15g, 35g, and 

lOOOg mammal to achieve the EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the adjusted LD50, acute risk 

LOC (0.5), and endangered species risk (0.5) levels of concern (LOCs) based on an application rate of 1.5 

* Immediate EEC = 7.81 mglsquare feet (excluding row spacing, bandwidth, and # of rows input parameters) 

Assuming a 100% Feeding 

Efficiency 

~~~~~i~~ a 50% ~~~di~~ ~ffi~i~~~~ 

Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 

24 

12 

3 

I 1 Adiusted LDqn 1 24 1 44 1 545 ! 

0.3 

0.6 

3.0 

IbIA 

Mammal Size (grams) 

44 

22 

5 

15 

545 I 

273 

55 

0.6 

1 

6 

35 I 1000 1 

No. of Consumed Granules Required to Reach 

the Specified LOC 

Area of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to 

Achieve the Endangered Species LOC Based 

- 

7 

14 

70 

AcuteRiskpp -" 

Endangered Species LOC (0.1) 

Assuming a 100% Feeding 

Efficiency 

12 

3 

0.15 

22 

5 

0.28 

273 

55 

4 
1 ( Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 1 1.5 1 2.83 1 35 

* Immediate EEC = 15.62 mglsquare feet (excludipg row spacing, bandwidth, and # of rows input parameters) 

on Application Rate of 1.5 lblA.* 

In Table VI-4 above, it was estimated that it would take a 15g mammal to consume 3 granules 

that would result in an exceedance of the endangered species LOC. Based on the applkcation rate 

of 1.5 IblA, this number of granules could be gleaned from 0.15,0.3, or 1.5 square feet (within 

the treated band) when assuming a loo%, 5096, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. To 

achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the endangered species 

LOC, a 1000g mammal would have to consume 55 granules. It was estimated that thisnumber of 

granules could be consumed in an area of 4,7, or 35 square feet when assuming a 100@,50%, or 

10% fedding efficiency, respectively. 

Table VI-5 calculates the number of granules and minimum foraging area needed to epceed I 

Agency's LOCs at the minimum application rate of 3.0 1blA granular flurprimidol. 

Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 

Table VI-5. Estimates of the number of granules, and minimum area foraged needed for a 15g, 35g, and 

lOOOg mammal to achieve the EEC that would trigger an exceedance of the adjusted LDSO, acutj risk 

LOC (0.5), and endangered species risk (0.5) levels of concern (LOCs) based on an application rqte of 3.0 

I 0.3 

I lb/A I 

0.57 

/ Adiusted LD5" 

No. of Consumed Granules Required to Reach 

the S~ecified LOC 

In Table VL-5 above, it was estimated that it would take a 15g mammal to consume 3 granules 

that would result in an exceedance of the endangered species LOC. Based on the appli4ation rate 

of 3.0 IblA, this number of granules could be gleaned from 0.07,0.15, or 0.75 square febt (within 

the treated band) when assuming a loo%, 50%, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively\ To 

achieve an EEC equivalent dose that would result in an exceedance of the endangered s ecies I' LOC, a lOOOg mammal would have to consume 55 granules. It was estimated that this number of 

granules could be consumed in an area of 1.75,3.5, or 17.5 square feet when assuming 1 loo%, 

50%, or 10% feeding efficiency, respectively. 

7 

Endangered Species LOC (0.1) 

Assuming a 100% Feeding 

e. Potential Chronic Risks from Broadcast Spray Applicttions to 

Foliar Surfaces I 

Mammal Size (grams) 

- - I I I 

Chronic RQs - Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690-15, Cutless 

50W Turf Growth 'Regu.lator) 

15 

24 

Acute Risk LOC (0.5) 

3 

35 

44 

5 

0.07 Area of Field to be Foraged (square feet) to 

1000 

545 

12 273 

I * Immediate EEC = 3 1.24 mglsquare feet (excluding row spacing, bandwidth, and # of rows input parameters) 

55 

I 0.14 , ! 

0.15 0.28 I 

1.4 

Achieve the Endangered Based 

on Application Rate of 3.0 lb/A.* 

22 

1.75 

3.5 

17.5 

Assuming a 50% Feeding Efficiency 

Assuming a 10% Feeding Efficiency 0.75 
Based on the maximum exposure scenario (four broadcast spray applications of 0.75, lb ai/A with 

a reapplication interval of 2 week) using Cutless 50W Turf Growth Regulator (Reg. No. 67690- 

15) and maximum predicted EECs, the chronic mammalian dose-based risk quotients for 

broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces exceed the Chronic LOC for mammals of all 

weight classes consuming all the assessed feed items except for 1000 g mammals consuming 

fruits, seeds, and large insects. In addition, there is an exceedance of the Chronic LOC for 

mammals of all weight classes consuming all assessed feed items except fruits, seeds, and large 

insects when mean predicted EECs are assumed. 

A closer look of the terrestrial assessment indicates that for 15 g, 35 g, and 1000 g mammals 

feeding on any of the assessed feed items except fruits, seeds, and large insects, the chronic LOC 

is exceeded after one application of flurprimidol. 

For the lower (minimum) exposure scenario (12 broadcast spray applications of 0.26 lb ai/A with 

a reapplication interval of 2 week) and maximum predicted EECs, the Chronic LOC is exceeded 

for mammals of all weight classes consuming all the assessed feed items except for fruits, seeds, 

and large insects. However, the mean predicted EECs did not remove the LOC exceedances for 

mammals of all weight classes consuming short grass, tall grass, broadleaves, and small1 insects. 

f. Potential Chronic Risks from Banded Spray Applications to 

Ground Surfaces 

Chronic ~~~df8- Banded Spray Applications to Ground Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690-46, 

SP5075 Turf. Growth Regulator) 

Chronic risks to mammals from banded spray applications to ground surfaces are not estimated 

due to model limitations; given that banded sprays are applied along the perimeter of lawns, 

landscape beds, sidewalks, curbs, parking lots, driveways, posts, mailboxes, building structures, 

and other similar areas where turfgrasses are grown rather than on an one-acre field as T-REX 

assumes; exposure to mammals from banded applications will be lower than. broadcast 

applications; thus, risk will be presumably less but not ruled out since the RQs were high for: 

broadcast applications. 

g. Potential Chronic Risks from Direct Ingestion of Granules 

Similar to birds, EFED has no standard methodology for assessing chronic risk to mammals from 

granular applications. The following chronic exposure estimation and risk characterization for 

mammals considers granular routes of exposure including direct ingestion of soil invertebrates 

that have bioconcentrated pesticide residues of granules in soil; thus, EFED has taken further 

steps to characterize the potential for chronic risk to mammalian species exposed to flurprirnidol 

granules. Based on the highest EEC of flurprimidol in earthworm tissue (35 pg a.i./kg) and 

lowest mammalian NOAEC of 100 mg a.i./kg-diet, the chronic LOC is not exceeded (Table VI6) and is 2860x lower than the modeled EEC for insectivorous mammals exposed to flurprimidol 

granules via ingestion of earthworms at the maximum application rate of 3.0 lb a.i./A (see 

Appendix D). Similar to birds, direct consumption of granules and dose-based risk quotients for 

direct consumption of earthworm are not calculated for the chronic risk estimation, the risks are 

unknown. 
Table VI-6. Dietary-based Chronic RQ for Insectivorous Mammals 

1 I I I 

a Chronic RQ = Earthworm EEC I NOAEC. 

4. Soil-Dwelling Invertebrates 

Application Rate 

3.0 lb a.i./A 

Since a definitive acute toxicity threshold was not established in the submitted earthw4rm study, 

acute soil invertebrates RQs were not estimated for earthworm. Flurprimidol is categotized as 

practically non-toxic on an acute basis to earthworms (acute LDso >I00 mg a@). ~isk is 

expected to be minimal for soil-dwelling invertebrates burrowing soils with flurprimidbl 

residues; soil-dwelling invertebrate species are not at risk for adverse effects to survivil from 

acute exposure to flurprimidol as a result of the labeled uses. 

5. Beneficial Insects 

Body Weight 

(g) 

All 

The available terrestrial insect toxicity data, based on tests with honeybees, suggest thqt 

flurprimidol is practically non-toxic to bees on an acute contact basis. The LDS0 value was >I00 

pg aihee. Risk to beneficial insects in the direct treatment area exposed to the A1 is expected to 

be minimal; consequently, precautionary labeling for honeybee protections is not requited at this 

time. 

6. Terrestrial Plants 

Earthworm EEC 

(mgtkg-earthworm) 

0.035 

Based on the use scenarios assessed and the available toxicity information, the non-list$d and 

listed plant LOCs (LOC >1) were exceeded for terrestrial plants exposed to flurprimiddl (Table 

V-16), depending on which label is used. For instance, spray drift is not a concern for 

flurprimidol except when a 0.75 lb a.i./A foliar spray is applied. The listed plant LOC was 

exceeded for all use scenarios with the exception of monocots in dry areas based on one 

broadcast foliar application at 0.26 lb ai/A and one broadcast application of granules at 0.75 lb 

ai/A. There is some uncertainty regarding the potential risk to terrestrial plants because ' 

flurprimidol regulates plant growth without killing the plants as seen in the seedling em rgence P and vegetative vigor toxicity studies with monocots and dicots. Thus, it is possible that 1 

flurprimidol is not lethal to terrestrial plants. It is uncertain of the impact on endangered, and 

threatened plants inhabiting areas adjacent to treated areas when exposed to flurprimid 1 as a 

result of spray drift and runoff. However, when those plants come in contact with flurp 1 imidol, it 

is anticipated that reduced growth or a delay in growth will be observed, but it is uncertbin how 

flurprimidol will affect one's ability to survive, grow, and reproduce. 

C. Review of Incident Data 

NOAEC 

(mg a.iJkg) 

1 00 

A search of the EIIS (Environmental Incident Information System) database for ecological 

incidents (searched on April 5, 2010) reported no adverse ecological incidents. 

Chronic RQa 

<O. 1 
D. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

As required under FFDCA section 408(p), EPA has developed the Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP) to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active 

and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by 

a "naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may 

designate." The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine related effects caused by the substance, and 

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect. 

Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA is issuing test ordersldata call-ins for the first 

group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. 

This list of chemicals was selected based on the potential for human exposure through pathways 

such as food and water, residential activity, and certain post-application agricultural scenarios. 

This list should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors. 

Flurprimidol is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be 

screened under the EDSP. Under FFDCA sec. 408(p) the Agency must screen all pesticide 

chemicals. Accordingly, EPA anticipates issuing future EDSP test ordersldata call-ins for all 

pesticide active ingredients. 

For further Information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 

chemicals, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website: 

http://www .epa.gov/endo/. 

E. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species Concerns 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2), requires all federal 

agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or result in 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 likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by 

reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 CFR 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 direct or indirectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of both 

the survival and recovery of a listed species (USEPA, 2004.). After the Agency's baseline risk 

assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency's listed species LOCs are exceeded for either 
direct or indirect effects, an analysis is conducted to determine if any listed or candidate species 

could be contaminated from runoff/erosion or direct ingestion of granules. If listed or candidate 

species may be present in the proposed action area, further biological assessment is undertaken. 

The extent to which listed species may be at risk is considered, which then determined the need 

for development of a more comprehensive consultation package, as required by the Endangered 

Species Act. 

The federal action addressed herein is the proposed registration for nationwide use of 

flurprimidol on turf grass and ornamentals. According to the USDA National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) 2002 census, the proposed uses are likely to found everywhere in the 

States, especially golf courses and athletic fields. 

1. Action Area 

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected 

directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the 

action. At the initial baseline, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomic groups 

and so conservatively assumes that listed species within those broad groups are 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 animals and plants 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 that has the relatively highest potential exposure to 

the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with distance from the treatment area. 

At this time EFED cannot make a "no effect" or "may effect" determination if the assumptions 

associated with the baseline action area result in RQs that are below or above the listedspecies 

LOCs since the Service(s) has not identified which listed species and critical habitat are. 

potentially implicated. Furthermore, if RQs are below the listed species LOCs for a given 

taxonomic group, this may indicate a "no concern" for indirect effects upon listed species that 

depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a resource. However, in situations 

where the baseline assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given 

tagonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion could exist and may be associated 

with 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 locations of these species, md the 

locations of use sites could be considered along with available information on the fate and 

transport properties of the pesticide to determine the extent to which baseline assumptiohs 

regarding an action area apply to a particular listed animal. These subsequent refinement steps 

could consider how this information would impact the action area for a particular listed animal 

and may potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of th$ 

pesticide use site. 

2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk 

The baseline risk assessment for listed species indicates these following taxonomic groups are 

potentially at risk when exposed to flurprimidol (Table 1-1). 
Chronic risk to birds from foraging on short grass with flurprimidol residues 

following four broadcast sprays of 0.75 lb a.i.1A with a two-week reapplication 

interval; 

Acute and chronic risks to mammals from foraging on assessed feed items 

following any of the broadcast and banded spray applications; 

Acute risk to 15 g and 35 g mammals from ingestion of granules following any of 

the broadcast and banded granular applications; 

Risks to seedling emergence and vegetative vigor of monocots and dicots when 

exposed to flurprimidol as a result of runoff and spray drift following any 

application; and 

Risks to aquatic vascular plants when exposed to flurprimidol as a result of runoff 

and spray drift following any application. 

a. Discussion of Risk Quotients 

The Agency's LOC for endangered birds (surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and 

reptiles), mammals, and terrestrial and aquatic vascular plants is exceeded for the use of 

flurprimidol as outlined in previous sections. Should estimated exposure levels occur in 

proximity to listed resources, the available baseline information may suggest a potential concern 

for direct effects on listed species within these taxonomic groups listed above associated with the 

currently supported uses of flurprimidol. 

3. Indirect Effects Analysis 

Modeled exposures for the following taxonomic groups indicate LOC exceedances for birds and 

mammals; consequently, there is a potential for indirect effects to listed species dependent upon 

birds and mammals for food, pollination or seed dispersal, or using burrbws or cover 

requirements for shelter and breeding habitat. In addition, since birds serve as the surrogate for 

terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles, there is concern for potential indirect effects to listed 

species dependent on listed terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 

In addition, the listed plant LOC was exceeded for terrestrial and aquatic vascular plants; there is 

a concern for potential indirect effects to listed species dependent on terrestrial andlor aquatic 

vascular plants for habitat, feeding, or cover requirements. 

4. Critical Habitat 

In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the 

physical and biological features (constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the U.S 

Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services as essential to the conservation of a 

listed species and which may recjuire special management considerations or protection. The 

evaluation of impacts for a baseline pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological features 

that are constituent elements and is accomplished using the baseline taxonomic analysis (risk 

quotients, RQs) and listed species levels of concern (LOCs) that are used to evaluate direct and 

indirect effects to listed animals. 
The baseline risk assessment has identified potential concerns for indirect effects on listed 

species for those animals and plants dependant upon birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, reptiles, 

mammals, terrestrial plants, and aquatic vascular plants. In light of the potential for indirect 

effects, the next step for EPA and the Service(s) is to identify which listed species and critical 

habitat are potentially implicated. Analytically, the identification of such species and critical 

habitat can occur in either of two ways. First, the agencies could determine whether the action 

area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range of any listed species. If so, EPA would 

examine whether the pesticide's potential impacts on non-listed species would affect the listed 

species indirectly or directly affect a constituent element of the critical habitat. Alternatively, the 

agencies could determine which listed species depend on biological resources, or have 

constituent elements that fall into, the taxa that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the 

pesticide. Then EPA would determine whether use of the pesticide overlaps the critical habitat 

or the occupied range of those listed species. At present, the information reviewed by FA does 

not permit use of either analytical approach to make a definitive identification of specits that are 

potentially impacted indirectly or critical habitats that is potentially impacted directly by the useof the pesticide. EPA and the Service(s) are working together to conduct the necessary analysis. 

This baseline risk assessment for critical habitat provides a listing of potential biological features 

that, if they are constituent elements of one or more critical habitats would be of potenqial 

concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern for indirect 

effects and include the following: birds, reptiles, terrestrial-phase amphibians, mammals, aquatic. 

vascular plants and terrestrial plants. This list should serve as an initial step in probleq 

formulation for further assessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, should adbitional 

work be necessary. 

5. Direct Effect Co-occurrence Analysis 

For the proposed uses of flurprimidol, LOCATES was run for all listed birds, reptiles, terrestrialphase amphibians, mammals, terrestrial plants, and aquatic vascular plants to determine the 

potential for co-occurrence of listed animal and plant species located within areas of expected 

pesticide use. When baseline assessment information suggests that a listed species occurs in 

counties where a pesticide is used, there is a potential for a direct effect from flwprimidol use, 

should exposure actually occur. The taxa that reside in those areas, and the basis for the 

designation, are in Table VI-7 and Appendix F. Additional analysis of listed animal and plants 

locations, refinement of the action area associated with flwprimidol regulatory decisions, and the 

biology of the potentially affected species would be needed before an effects determination can 

be made for any of the co-located species identified by this assessment. 

LOCATES is used to preliminarily identify areas where listed animals and plants couldbbe 

located within the counties in USA where the proposed uses for flurprimidol are labeled. 

However, LOCATES does not include county-level location information for non-crop qses, the 

preliminary analysis was not performed to identify those areas. Consequently, based on the 

information available at this step in the assessment process, it is presumed that all listed bird, 

terrestrial-phase amphibian, reptile, mammals, terrestrial plant, and aquatic plant species are 

potentially directly affected from flurprimidol uses for where turf grasses and ornamentals are 
grown. Such potential concerns are limited by the true potential for exposures of critical 

resources to modeled flurprimidol levels. LOCATES identified >I200 endangeredlthreatened 

bird, terrestrial-phase amphibian, reptile, mammals, terrestrial plant, and aquatic plant species 

located in areas where turf grasses and ornamentals are grown. Consequently, based on the 

information available, it is presumed listed species reside in areas cif expected pesticide use 

(Table VI-7). 

6. Indirect Effect Co-occurrence Analysis 

Table VI-7. Number of Listed Species Located Where Turf Grass and 

Ornamentals are Grown in the United States of America. 

In accordance with established procedures, such findings suggest a potential concern for indirect es - effects to listed animal and plant species with both narrow (i.e., species that are obligates or have 

very specific habitat or feeding requirements) and general dependencies (i.e., cover type 

requirements) on plants or animals as a resource or important habitat component. This analysis 

considered all animal and plant taxonomic groups (i.e., mammal, bird, amphibian, reptile, fish, 

crustacean, mollusks, arachnid, insect, dicot, monocot, ferns, conflcycds, and lichen) that depend , 

on those listed animal species; terrestrial and aquatic plants that require birds as pollinators or 

seed dispersers; species that require reptile burrows for shelter or breeding habitats; and aquatic 

animals and plants that require cover requirements. Again, no county-level analysis was 

performed for the non-crop uses. The animal and plant species that reside in those areas and the 

basis for the designation are summarized in Table VI-8, below. Such potential concerns are 

limited by the true potential for exposures of critical animal and plant species resources to 

modeled flurprimidol levels and the relationship between 'directly affected' listed species and 

'indirectly affected' listed species. Consequently, additional analysis of listed species locations, 

refinement of the action area associated with flurprimidol regulatory decisions, and the biology 

of the potentially affected species would be needed before an effects determination can be made 

for any of the co-located species identified by this assessment for potential indirect effects. 

Non-crop 

Turf grass and ornamentals 

No. of Affected States 

All 

No. of Species 

> 1200 
Table M-8. Listed Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk for Direct or Indirect Effects as a Result of 

Flurprimidol Applications (Applications are for Terrestrial and Residential Outdoor Uses where Turf Grass 

Terrestrial and SemiAquatic Plants lYes I 

and ornament& are grown Nationwide) 

All 

Listed Taxon 

. VII. Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths, and Data Gaps 

Direct 

Effects 

r 

Beneficial Insects 

Limitations of available methods of assessing risk and gaps in submitted data lead to u$certainty 

in risk conclusions. In assessing risk from flurprimidol use, major uncertainties arise from lack 

of tools to estimate exposure from limited residential use patterns in urban areas and oqtdoor use 

patterns in golf resorts, forestry, right-of-way, and industrial areas. Assumptions have kherefore , 

been made which are expected to lead to conservative estimates of risk. 

A. Use Pattern 

Use of Direct Effects 

Concern 

No 

Flurprimidol is'labeled for outdoor and residential uses only and application rates are expressed 

as pounds active ingredient per gallon. Quantifying risk, then, requi'res that assumptions be 

made about volume applied so that rates can be determined in terms of the amount of active 

ingredient applied per unit area, expressed as lbs a.i./A. This may not be representative of the 

small-scale residential and outdoor uses for which some flurprimidol products are inteaded. 

Additionally, the maximum number of applications allowed is not specified, and so an upper 

bound was estimated based on the length of the growing season and the minimum application 

interval. This led to an assumption of multiple applications per year, which is likely to be greater 

Birds, Reptiles, Terrestrialphase Amphibians1 

Mammals 

Aquatic Vascular Plants 

Freshwater Fish and 

Aquatic-phase Amphibians2 

Freshwater Crustaceans 

Freshwater Mollusks 

Estuarinelmarine Fish 

Es tuarinelmarine 

Crustaceans 

Estuarinelmarine Mollusks 

Aquatic Nonvascular Plants 

Indirect 

Effects 

None 

Use of Indirect Effects 

Concern 

yes3.4.5.6 

1 Birds are used as surrogate species for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles; therefore, potential dbect and 

indirect effects to endangered avian, terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptilian species are consideredequivalent. 

2 Fish are used as a surrogate for aquatic phase amphibians; therefore, potential direct and indirect effedts to 

endangered fish and aquatic-phase amphibian species are considered equivalent. 

3 Potential indirect effects on a taxon attributable to direct effects on birds, terrestiial-phase amphibian? and reptiles. 

4 Potential indirect effects on a taxon attributable to direct effects on mammals. 

5 Potential indirect effects on a taxon attributable to direct effects on terrestrial dicots and monocots. 

6 Potential indirect effects on a taxon attributable to direct effects on alga and diatoms. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

All 

All 

All 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

P 

yes3.4,5,6 

~es~~~,~ 

yes3s475 

yes5g6 

No 

No 

No 

~~~3~4~5~6 

All 

All 

All 

All 

All 

41 

Nope 

Nope 

~obe 

A (1 
than in typical use. For modeling purposes, it is assumed that flurprimidol is applied at this rate 

over the entire field considered by modeling applications. These assumptions about use and 

application are conservative and expected to lead to overestimation of risk. 

B. Environmental Fate and Transport 

The environmental fate database for parent flurprimidol is largely complete. The primary data 

gaps are in identifying degradates and characterizing their fate. Several major degradates have 

not been identified. Understanding of the fate properties of the major degradates is limited due 

to lack of fate studies for these compounds and deficiencies in studies of the parent compound. 

C. Aquatic Exposure Estimates 

. Aquatic exposure estimates were developed using GENEEC2, a Tier I screening level model 

designed to estimate high level potential exposure in vulnerable environments. The model uses a 

chemical's label application information, its soillwater partition data and its degradation kinetics 

to estimate exposure values in a standard agricultural field 1 farm pond scenario. The program is 

generic in that it does not consider differences in climate, soils, topography or crop in estimating 

potential pesticide exposure. The standard pond scenario assumes that rainfall onto a treated, 10 

hectare agricultural field causes pesticide-laden runoff into a one hectare; 20,000 cubic meter 

volume; 2.00 meter deep water-body. The farm pond represents a well mixed, static water body 

which has no flow through and so does not account for pesticide removal through flow through 

or water releases. The standard runoff scenario assumes uniform soils and agronomic 

management practices across the standard 10 hectare field. 

This standard pond scenario is designed to represent agricultural uses and may not be 

representative of residential uses llke those of flurprimidol. The model requires assumptions 

about the use pattern for flurprimidol, as described above, which are expected to lead to 

overestimates of exposure. The model also cannot account for some factors specific to 

residential uses such as banded or spot treatments. Default assumptions about spray drift are 

likely to be conservative for the hose-end and tank-type sprayers used for application of 

flurprimidol. Residential areas include both pervious and impervious surfaces; pesticides are 

usually applied to pervious surfaces with some reaching impervious surfaces through overspray. 

Tier I modeling does not account for the different runoff characteristics of these surfaces. The 

assumption that the entire 10-ha area is treated with flurprimidol is will outweigh any of these 

uncertainties. 

Due to these uncertainties, estimates of risk to aquatic organisms are likely to be overprotective, 

but these estimates didnot result in LOC exceedances for any risk categories for which there 

were toxicity data available. 

- D. Terrestrial Exposure Estimates 

The TREX model was used to estimates potential exposure to terrestrial animals. The model 

assumes a default half-life of 35 days for residues on food items. Based on the rapid photolysis 

observed in flurprimidol fate studies, it is possible that this half-life is over conservative. The 
model also assumes that birds and mammals are feeding exclusively within areas where 

flurprimidol is used. Given the small-scale nature of the use, it is unlikely that animals will 

obtain all dietary items within the treated area. Additionally, terrestrial exposure estimates rely 

on the same conservative assumptions about application rates as discussed above. Some 

underestimation of exposure is possible due to the fact that estimates are based primarily on 

dietary consumption of foliar residues and do not account for ingestion of residues by pnimals in 

drlnking water or contaminated grit, ingestion through preening activities, or uptake though 

inhalation or dermal absorption by terrestrial animals. Along with the other conservative 

assumptions used, though, estimates of terrestrial exposure are still expected to be 

overprotective. 

E. Ecological Effects 

Species Selection and Sensitivity 

There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the terrestrial and the aquatic animal risk 

assessments that could potentially cause an underestimation of risk. Use of toxicity data on 

representative species does not provide information on the potential variability in susceptibility 

to acute and chronic exposures. For baseline terrestrial risk assessments, a generic bird or 

mammal is assumed to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving the pesticide at 

a rate commensurate with the treatment rate on the field. The actual habitat requiremehts of any 

particular terrestrial species are not considered, and it is assumed that species occupy, 

exclusively and permanently, the treated area being modeled. This assumption leads to a 

maximum level of exposure in the risk assessment. 

Although the baseline risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most 

sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoint^ reflect 

sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of 

the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the 

overall variability among species to a particular chemical. In the case of listed species, there is 

uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive 

species tested. 

Surrogates were used to predict potential risks for species with no data (i.e., reptiles and 

amphibians). It was assumed that the use of surrogate effects data is sufficiently conservative to 

apply to the broad range of species within taxonomic groups. If other species are more or less 

sensitive to flurprimidol than the surrogates, risks may be under- or overestimated, respectively. 

In addition, since terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles do not produce eggs in the same 

manner as birds, EFED is uncertain how the observed adverse effects in avian reproduqtion 

studies will affect reproduction in terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 

Age class and 'sensitivity of effects thresholds 

Scientists generally recognize that the age of the test animal may have a significant effect on the 

observed sensitivity to a toxicant. In a baseline assessment of acute toxicity in fish, data are 

collected on juveniles weighing 0.1 to 5 grams. For aquatic invertebrates, the recommended 

acute testing is performed on immature age classes (e.g., first instar for daphnids, second instar 

for amphipods, stoneflies and mayflies, and third instar for midges). Similarly, acute dietary 
testing with birds is also performed on juveniles, with mallard ducks tested at 5-10 days of age 

and quail at 10-14 days of age. 

Testing of juveniles may overestimate the toxicity of direct acting pesticides in adults. As 

juvenile animals do not have fully developed metabolic systems, they may not possess the ability 

to transform and detoxify xenobiotics equivalent to the olderladult animal. The baseline risk 

assessment has no current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts for this 

uncertainty. In so far as the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information 

with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage information as the 

conservative baseline endpoint. 
VIII. Literature Cited 

Bums, L. A. 2004. EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System) Version 2.98.04. 

Environmental Research Laboratory. (04/25/05) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Athens, GA 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluatiion of the 

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on 

plants. Environ. Tox. Chem. 13:1383-1391. 

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. 

Suarez, L.A., 2006. PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop 

Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.12.2. EPN600lR-051111 

September 2006, revision a. 

Suarez, L.A., 2006. PRZM-3. A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop 

Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.12.2. EPN600lR-051111 

September 2006, Revision A. 

USDA. 2002. National. Agricultural Statistics Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 

Available online at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/. 

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of 

Research and Development, Washington, D.C. EPN63W-951002F. April 1998. 

USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of 11. EPN600/R-931187a. 

Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C. 20460. 

USEPA. 2001. (Gen)eric (E)stimated (E)nvironmental U o on cent ration Model (GENEEC2). 

Version 2.0 August 1, 2001. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Arlington, VA 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington DC. 100 pp. January 23, 

2004. 

USEPA. 2006. User's Guide: ~err~lant version 1.2.2. United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. December 26,2006. 
USEPA. 2008. User's Guide: T-REX Version 1.4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model). 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

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

December 11,2008. 

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and 

Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1, [10/22/09]. United States Environmental Protection 

Agency Office of Pesticide ~io~rams, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

Arlington 

Willis, G. H., and L. L. McDowell, 1987. Pesticide Persistence on Foliage. 

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 10023-73. 
APPENDIX A: GENEEC EECs 

RUN NO. 5 FOR 690-46 ON 0.46 12 * INPUT VALUES * ------------------------------------------------------------------bRATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP 

ONE (MULT ) INTERVAL Kd (PPM ) (%DRIFT) ZONE (FT) (INP .................................................................... I 

.260( 3 -008) 12 14 2.8 130.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .O .O 

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS) .................................................................... 

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINFD 

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) ( POND) ( POND) 

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 22001 .................................................................... 

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY 

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC 

RUN No. 1 FOR 690-46 ON 0.69 * INPUT VALUES * .................................................................... 

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCOqP 

ONE (JYULT) INTERVAL Kd (PPM ) (%DRIFT) ZONE (FT) (IN) ------------------------------------------------------------------2- 

.690 ( 3.272) 5 56 2.8 130.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .O .O 

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES CDAYS) .................................................................... 

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBIN~D 

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) ( POND ) POND)^ ................................................................... I - 

1444.00 0 N/A 1.40- 173.60 -00 173.60' 

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 20011 _____--_____---_---------------------------------------------------#- 

PEAK MAX 4 DAY i'4h.X 21 DAY MAX 6O.DAY MAX 90 DAY 

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC ~ -------------------------------------------------------------------,- 

138.32 137.69 134.08 126.31 120; 78 

RUN NO. 3 FOR '690-19 ON .75 * INPUT VALUES * .................................................................... 
RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP 

ONE (MULT) INTERVAL Kd (PPM) (%DRIFT) ZONE (FT) (IN) .................................................................... 

.750( 2.955) 4 21 2.8 130.0 GRANUL( .O) .O .O 

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS) .................................................................... 

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED 

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF .(POND) (POND-EFF) ( POND ( POND) 

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001 .................................................................... 

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY 

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC .................................................................... 

116.99 116.43 113.34 106.71 102.00 

RUN No. 8 FOR 67690-19 ON 3 1 app * INPUT VALUES * .................................................................... 

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP 

ONE (MULT) INTERVAL Kd (PPM) (%DRIFT) ZONE (FT) (IN) 

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS) .................................................................... 

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED 

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) ( POND) ( POND) .................................................................... 

1444.00 0 N/ A 1.40- 173.60 .OO 173.60 

GENERIC EECS (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001 .................................................................... 

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY 

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC .................................................................... 

118.76 118.19 115.06 108.33 103.54 

RUN No. 14 FOR 690-17 ON 1.5 by 3 5 * INPUT VALUES * .................................................................... 

RATE (#/AC) NO-APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL ,APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP 

ONE (MULT) INTERVAL Kd (PPM) (%DRIFT) ZONE (FT) (IN) .................................................................... 

1.500( 2.960) 2 56 2.8 130.0 GRANUL( .O) .O .O 

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS) .................................................................... 

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED 
(FIELD) . RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) ( POND- EFF ) ( POND ) ( POND) .................................................................... 

1444.00- 0 N/A 1.40- 173.60 .OO 173.60 

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001 .................................................................... 

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY 

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC 

.................................................................... 

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO-SPRAY INCORP 

ONE (MULT ) INTERVAL Kd (PPM ) (%DRIFT) ZONE (FT) (IN) 

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS) .................................................................... 

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED 

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND-EFF) ( POND ) ( POND ) 

.................................................................... 

1444.00 0 N/A 1.40- 173.60 .OO 173.60 

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001 .................................................................... 

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY 

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC .................................................................... 

126.97 126.39 123.08 115.96 110.89 
APPENDIX B. PRZM /EXAMS EEC and Output 

stored as FLnlG.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: FLnurserySTD-V2.txt modified Tueday, 27 May 2008 at 11:22:34 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w12839.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:20 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 

1961 19.2 19.03. 18.37 

1962 40.84 40.52 39.38 

1963 27.71 27.52 26.89 

1964 34.65 34.38 33.36 

1965 27.15 26.99 26.72 

1966 18.39 18.29 17.88 

1967 65.79 65.29 64.01 

1968 53.32 52.92 51.72 

1969 34.24 34.06 33.3 

1970 22.17 22.06 21.57 

1971 14.7 14.6 14.27 

1972 15.44 15.32 14.88 

1973 45.37 45.16 44.27 

1974 77.59 76.96 74.75 

1975 51.54 51.18 50.05 

1976 36.28 36.12 35.16 

1977 28.86 28.69 28.4 

1978 19.27 19.16 18.7 

1979 13.89 13.82 13.67 

1980 43.53 43.27 42.4 

1981 42.34 . 42.18 41.1 

1982 26.69 26.53 25.84 

1983 16.92 16.8 16.63 

1984 50.84 50.41 49.95 

1985 109 109 106 

1986 67.86 67.44 65.7 

1987 36.17 36.01 35.58 

1988 75.73 75.1 73.48 

1989 52.28 51.92 50.65 

1990 45.53 45.27 44.44 

Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 

0.032258064516129 109 

0.064516129032258 1 77.59 

0.0967741935483871 75.73 

0.1290322580645 16 67.86 

0.161290322580645 65.79 

0.193548387096774 53.32 

0.22580645 1612903 52.28 

0.258064516129032 51.54 

0.290322580645161 50.84 

0.32258064516129 45.53 45.27 

0.354838709677419 45.37 

0.387096774193548 43.53 

0.419354838709677 42.34 

0.451612903225806 40.84 

0.483870967741936 36.28 

0.516129032258065 36.17 

0.548387096774194 34.65 

0.580645161290323 34.24 

60 Day 

17.02 

37.28 

25.46 

3 1.24 

25.75 

16.98 

60.07 

48.7 

31.6 

20.59 

13.66 

14 

42.26 

70.41 

47.51 

33.22 

27.15 

17.72 

13.21 

39.59 

38.63 

24.35 

15.96 

46.86 

99.46 

61.93 

33.73 

68.63 

47.91 

42.07 

60 Day 

109 

76.96 

75.1 

67.44 

65.29 

52.92 

5 1.92 

51.18 

50.41 

44.44 

45.16 

43.27 

42.18 

40.52 

36.12 

36.01 

34.38 

34.06 

90Day Yearly 

16.17 5.679 

35.5 18.07 

24.37 20.29 

29.81 19.08 

24.76 19.27 

16.32 14.1 

57.27 26.28 

46.69 35.39 

30.38 26.52 

19.8 17.23 

13.16 11.32 

13.4 9.437 

40.33 . 19.35 

67.3 36.97 

45.44 38.33 

31.8 26.66 

26.05 20.59 

17.04 14.98 

12.69 10.43 

37.62 17.46 

36.78 25.33 

23.32 19.93 

15.38 13.13 

44.47 21.07 

94.69 48.2 

59.25 45.62 

32.33 26.41 

65.04 34.25 

45.77 37.1 

40.38 30.13 

90 Day Yearly 

106 99.46 94.69 48.2 

74.75 70.41 67.3 45.62 

73.48 68.63 65.04 38.33 

65.7 61.93 59.25 37.1 

64.01 60.07 57.27 36.97 

51.72 48.7 46.69 35.39 

50.65 47.91 45.77 34.25 

50.05 47.51 45.44 30.13 

49.95, 46.86 44.47 26.66 

42.26 40.38 26.52 

44.27 42.07 40.33 26.41 

42.4 39.59 37.62 26.28 

41.1 38.63 36.78 25.33 

39.38 37.28 35.5 21.07 

35.58 33.73 32.33 20.59 

35.16 33.22 31.8 20.29 

33.36 31.6 30.38 19.93 

33.3 31.24 29.81 19.35 

72 
0.1 74.943 74.334 72.702 67.96 64.461 38.207 

Average of yearly averages: 23.6202 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: FLnlG 

Metfile: w12839.dvf 

PRZM scenario: FLnurserySTD-V2.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 312.3 glmol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mgL 

Kd Kd . 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 3.36 kglha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1.00 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 08-08 ddlmm or ddlmmm or dd-mm or dd-rnmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 

UPTW 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as MInlG.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: MInurserySTDV2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 23:05:00 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w14840.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:06 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

1961 11.26 11.19 10.96 10.43 9.988 6.402 

1962 10.69 10.68 10.47 10.09 9.801 7.558 

1963 13.33 13.3 13.04 12.38 11.88 8.666 

7 3 
Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.032258064516129 . 

0.0645161290322581 

0.0967741935483871 

0.129032258064516 

6.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

0.225806451612903 

0.258064516129032 

0.29032258064516 1 

0.32258064516129 21.66 

0.354838709677419 

0.387096774193548 

0.419354838709677 

0.45 1612903225806 

0.483870967741936 

0.516129032258065 

0.548387096774194 

0.580645161290323 

0.612903225806452 

0.645161290322581 

0.67741935483871 14.56 

0.709677419354839 

0.741935483870968 

0.774193548387097 

0.806451612903226 

0.838709677419355 

0.870967741935484 

0.903225806451613 

0.935483870967742 

0.967741935483871 

13.12 

14.51 

18.38 

14.23 

12.81 

18.92 

11.27 

14.92 

18.08 

11.35 

13.88 

14.4 

28.13 

30.4 

34.44 

26.55 

16.63 

16.65 

26.27 

28.85 

25.36 

19.88 

21.04 

21.38 

18.68 

15.58 

26.93 

21 Day 

34.9 

31.08 - 29.22 

28.89 

27.57 

26.98 

26.64 

25.47 

22 

21.53 

20.34 

19.11 

19.04 

18.9 

18.31 

16.99 

16.92 

15.79 

15.4 

14.89 

14.55 

14.5 

14.27 

13.42 

13.33 

13.09 

1 1.47 

11.4 

11.26 

10.69 

28.778 

12.67 

13.83 

17.82 

13.63 

12.3 

18.12 

1 1.02 

14.13 

17.52 

11.1 

13.5 

13.77 

26.73 

28.85 

33.5 

25.45 

16.16 

15.85 

25.52 

28.01 

24.63 

19.3 

20.32 

20.43 

18.07 

15.32 

25.95 

60 Day 

34.77 

30.93 

29.05 

28.74 

27.38 

.26.85 

26.59 

25.45 

2 136 

21.04 

20.23 

19.03 

18.92 

18.79 

18.28 

16.94 

16.85 

15.71 

15.31 

14.8 

14.4 

14.43 

14.19 

13.34 

13.3 

13.05 

11.43 

11.37 

11.19 

10.68 

27.882 

12.23 

13.3 

17.2 

13.13 

11.87 

17.45 

10.86 

13.62 

16.94 

11.02 

13.08 

13.26 

25.62 

27.63 

32.37 

24.62 

15.86 

15.25 

24.65 

27.26 

23.85 

18.67 

19.67 

19.79 

17.37 

14.97 

25.03 

90 Day 

34.44 

30.4 

28.85 

28.13 

26.93 

26.55 

26.27 

25.36 

21.38 

.20.32 

19.88 

18.92 

18.68 

18.38 

18.08 

16.65 

16.63 

15.58 ' 

14.92 

14.51 

13.77 

14.23 

13.88 

13.12 

13.04 

12.81 

1 1.35 

11.27 

10.96 

10.47 

27.096 

9.182 

9.997 

12.46 

10.47 

9.223 

12.55 

9.149 

10.21 

12.66 

9.441 

9.9 

10.12 

17.63 

20.52 

23.96 

19.69 

13.33 

11.82 

17.72 

20.31 

18.54 

14.83 

14.93 

15.4 

13.67 

11.95 

17.88 

Yearly 

33.5 

28.85 

28.01 

26.73 

25.95 

25.52 

25.45 

24.63 

20.43 

19.67 

19.3 

18.12 

18.07 

17.82 

17.52 

16.16 

15.85 

15.32 

14.13 

13.83 

13.26 

13.63 

13.5 

12.67 

12.38 

12.3. 

11.1 

11.02 

10.43 

10.09 

20.248 

74 
Average of yearly averages: 13.3389333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: MInlG 

Metfile: w14840.dvf 

PRZM scenario: MInurserySTD-V2.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 3 12.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mg/L 

Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 3.36 kgha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1 .OO fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 08-03 ddlmm or ddlmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as MIn2G.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment MInurserySTD-V2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 23:05:00 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w14840.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:06 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 ; 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

Peak 96 hr 

13.88 13.78 

15.23 15.13 

16.21 16.12 

16.72 16.61 

26.44 26.31 

22.83 22.7 

19.32 19.25 

18.2 18.1 

20.56 20.47 

17.61 17.51 

26.16 26 

26.76 26.6 

21.29 21.19 

24.27 24.14 

23.58 23.49 

27.12 26.96 

28 27.84 

43.59 43.39 

21 Day 

13.54 

14.96 

15.92 

16.44 

25.95 

22.52 

19.13 

17.78 

20.25 

17.38 

25.84 

26.31 

20.8 1 

23.92 

23.25 

26.44 

27.57 

42.35 

60 Day 

12.92 

14.41 

15.35 

15.84 

24.97 

21.89 

18.46 

17.22 

19.61 

16.91 

24.76 - 

25.29 

20.11 

23.14 

22.38 

25.18 

26.51 

40.16 

'90 Day Yearly 

12.45 7.507 

13.92 11.01. 

1.4.87 12.02 

15.33 12.31 

24.03 17.24 

21.24 17.87 

17.88 ! 15.27 

16.66 13.89 

19.06 15.42 

16.42 13.82 

23.79 17.55 

24.52 20.05 

19.49 17.07 

22.32 17.54 

21.67 17.9 

24.31 19.97 

25.63 21.38 

38.65 28.96 

75 
Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 

0.032258064516129 52.83 52.54 

0.064516129032258 1 43.59 43.39 

0.0967741935483871 41.5 41.27 

0.129032258064516 40.48 40.29 

0.161290322580645 35.17 35.07 

0.193548387096774 33.11 32.95 

0.225806451612903 32.15 32.03 

0.258064516129032 '31.94 31.76 

0.290322580645161 28 27.84 

0.32258064516129 27.87 27.76 27.31 

0.354838709677419 27.12 26.96 

0.387096774193548 26.88 26.72 

0.419354838709677 26.76 26.6 

0.451612903225806 26.44 26.31 

0.483870967741936 26.16 26 

0.516129032258065 25.55 25.4 

0.548387096774194 25.51 25.39 

0.580645161290323 24.27 24.14 

0.612903225806452 24.25 24.13 

0.645161290322581 23.58 23.49 

0.67741935483871 22.83 22.7 22.52 

0.709677419354839 21.29 21.19 

0.741935483870968 20.56- 20.47 

0.774193548387097 19.32 19.25 

0.806451612903226 18.2 18.1 

0.838709677419355 17.61 17.51 

0.870967741935484 16.72 16.61 

0.903225806451613 16.21 16.12 

0.935483870967742 15.23 15.13 

0.967741935483871 13.88 13.78 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: MIn2G 

Metfile: w14840.dvf 

PRZMscenario: MInurserySTD-V2.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value 

Molecular weight mwt 3 12.3 dm01 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/ 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mg/L 

90 Day Yearly 

51.35 48.74 

42.35 40.16 

40.93 39.17 

39.75 37.94 

34.64 33.73 

32.49 31.15 

31.59 30.65 

31.27 29.84 

27.57 26.51 

26.08 25.16 

26.44 25.41 

26.44 25.29 

26.31 25.18 

25.95 24.97 

25.84 24.76 

25.09 24.37 

24.83 23.89 

23.94 23.14 

23.92 23 

23.25 22.38 

21.89 21.24 

20.81 20.11 

20.25 19.61 

19.13 18.46 

17.78 17.22 

17.38 16.91 

16.44 15.84 

15.92 15.35 

14.96 14.41 

13.54 12.92 

37.61 28.935 

Average of yearly averages: 

Units Comments 

'mol 
Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc %a 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm 

ApplicationRate: TAPP 1.68 kgha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1 .OO fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 08-03 dd/mm or ddfmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 60 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 1 .apprate 1.68 kglha 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 . 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as NJn4GS37.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: NJnurserySTD-V2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 23:05:00 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w93730.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

Peak 

17.03 

24.4 

26.97 

32.61 

22 

19.02 

31.94 

38.72 

30.38 

24.66 

22.79 

22.3 1 

22.62 

28.26 

41.02 

33.75 

32.56 

39.15 

24.1 

25.76 

3 1.55 

22.61 

30.76 

41.68 

33.27 

44.22 

36.99 

27.35 

32.58 

30.08 

21 Day 

16.63 

24.08 

26.32 

31.87 

21.65 

18.65 

3 1.49 

37.6 

29.97 

24.13 

22,4 

21.77 

22.09 

27.74 

40.03 

33.23 

32.1 

38.05 

23.49 

25.25 

30.71 

22.18 

29.84 

40.36 

32.69 

43.55 

36.38 

26.87 

3 1.59 

29.25 

60 Day 

16.28 

23.39 

25.47 

31.55 

21.02 

18.22 

30.72 

36.24 

29.2 

23.3 

21.8 1 

21.21 

21.78 

26.92 

.38.5 

32.01 

3 1.08 

36.03 

22.77 

24.95 

29.83 

21.55 

28.44 

38.16 

3 1.79 

42.57 

35.99 

26.45 

30.45. 

27.86 

90 Day 

15.91 

22.68 

24.73 

30.72 

20.37 

17.62 

29.99 

35.2 

28.28 

23.22 

21.12 

20.94 

21.51 

26.07 

37.08 

3 1.03 

30.25 

34.76 

22.1 

24.63 

28.96 

20.94 

27.87 

37.26, 

3 1 

41.83 

35.58 

25.93 

29.4 

26.81 

Yearly 

10.95 

17.24 

19.32 

23 

17.62 

14.24 

21.52 

27.42 

23.27 

19.33 

16.96 

16.95 

16.7 

19.84 

26.56 

25.13 

24.67 

26.96 

19.42 

19.28 

22.11 

18.01 

20.47 

29.1 

25.36 

30.38 

28.71 

21.62 

21.57 

21.19 

77 
Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.032258064516129 

0.0645161290322581 

0.0967741935483871 

0.129032258064516 

0.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

0.225806451612903 

0.258064516129032 

0.290322580645 16 1 

0.32258064516129 32.58 

0.354838709677419 

0.387096774193548 

0.419354838709677 

0.45 1612903225806 

0.483870967741936 

0.5 16129032258065 

0.548387096774194 

0.580645161290323 

0.612903225806452 

0.645161290322581 

0.67741935483871 24.66 

0.709677419354839 

0.741935483870968 

0.774193548387097 

0.806451612903226 

0.838709677419355 

0.870967741935484 

0.903225806451613 

0.935483870967742 

0.967741935483871 

21 Day 

44.22 

41.68 

41.02 

39.15 

38.72 

36.99 

33.75 

33.27 

32.61 

32.38 

32.56 

3 1.94 

3 1.55 

30.76 

30.38 

30.08 

28.26 

27.35 

26.97 

25.76 

24.54 

24.4 

24.1 

22.79 

22.62 

22.61 

22.3 1 

22 

19.02 

17.03 

60 Day 

43.92 

41.45 

40.76 

38.93 

38.5 

36.78 

33.55 

33.08 

32.39 

31.87 

32.36 

3 1.72 

31.35 

30.57 

30.19 

29.9 

28.1 

27.22 

26.8 

25.63 

24.13 

24.26 

23.97 

22.67 

22.49 

22.48 

22.18 

21.87 

18.95 

16.93 

90 Day 

43.55 

40.36 

40.03 

38.05 

37.6 , 

36.38 

33.23 

32.69 

32.1 

31.08 

31.59 

31.49 

30.71 

29.97 

29.84 

29.25 

27.74 

26.87 

26.32 

25.25 

23.39 

24.08 

23.49 

22.4 

22.18 

22.09 

21.77 

21.65 

18.65 

16.63 

Yearly 

42.57 

38.5 

38.16 

36.24 

36.03 

35.99 

32.01 

3 1.79 

3 1.55 

30.25 

30.72 

30.45 

29.83 

29.2 

28.44 

27.86 

26.92 

26.45 

25.47 

24.95 

23.22 

23.3 

22.77 

21.81 

21.78 

21.55 

21.21 

2 1.02 

18.22 

16.28 

0.1 40.833 40.577 39.832 37.968 36.93 28.581 

Average of yearly averages: 21.4966666666667 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: NJn4GS37 

Metfile: w93730.dvf 

PRZM scenario: NJnurserySTDV2.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 312.3 glmol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mgL 

Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-11fe 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: ' pH 7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kglha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

78 
Application Date Date 7-3 dd/mm or ddtmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 2 1 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 1 apprate 0.84 kgiha 

Interval 2 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kglha 

Interval 3 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 3 apprate 0.84 kgha 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as PAturf4GS.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: PAturfSTD.txt modified Thuday, 23 February 2006 at 18:55:08 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w14751 .dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:00 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year 

1961. 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

Peak 96 hr 21 Day 

6.052 6.004 5.843 

6.896 6.853 6.679 

6.129 6.091 5.919 

6.671 6.627 6.453 

5.405 5.375 5.253 

28.73 28.52 27.66 

21.88 21.76 21.28 

21.81 21.65 20.99 

24.66 24.52 23.87 

17.96 17.96 17.95 

15.38 15.28 15.13 

11.51 11.46 11.24 

30.9 30.67 29.75 

22.33 22.23 21.81 

14.51 14.45 14.2 

9.176 9.122 8.899 

7.495 7.495 7.495 

5.326 5.325 5.323 

7.216 7.168 6.997 

7.109 7.064 6.888 

7.141 7.103 6.949 

5.484 5.483 5.48 

3.878 3.862 3.792 

3.633 3.611 3.522 

5.087 5.052 4.924 

7.192 7.149 6.981 

7.61 7.564 7.454 

5.893 5.86 5.726 

14.24 14.14 13.82 

10.95 10.9 10.69 

60 Day 

5.588 

6.328 

5.842 

6.152 

5.129 

25.84 

20.6 

19.79 

22.83 

17.94 

14.51 

10.93 

27.88 

20.88 

13.64 

8.46 

7.493 

5.318 

6.642 ' 

6.61 1 

6.893 

5.471 

3.636 

3.391 

4.673 

6.925 

7.08 

5.71 

13.32 

10.22 

Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 

0.0322580645 16129 30.9 30.67 

0.064516129032258 1 28.73 28.52 

0.0967741935483871 24.66 24.52 

0.129032258064516 22.33 22.23 

0.161290322580645 21.88 21.76 

0.193548387096774 21.81 21.65 

90 Day Yearly 

5.353 2.102 

6.164 4.79 

5.769 5.26 

5.908 5.093 

5.028 4.546 

24.69 9.883 

20.19 17.04 

19.09 ' 13.8 

22.01 17.14 

17.74 15 

14.01 11.29 

10.76 9.09 

26.68 12.05 

20.18 17.33 

13.23 10.8 

8.178 7.286 

7.387 6.229 

5.254 4.586 

6.392 4.298 

6.023 4.937 

6.751 5.852 

5.41 4.721 

3.521 3.188 

3.309 2.848 

4.542 3.086 

6.738 4.864 

6.803 5.342 

5.637 5.161 

12.83 7.124 

9.888 8.597 

90Day Yearly 

29.75 27.88 26.68 17.33 

27.66 25.84 24.69 17.14 

23.87 22.83 22.01 17.04 

21.81 20.88 20.19 15 

21.28 20.6 20.18 13.8 

20.99 19.79 19.09 12.05 

79 
0.1 24.427 24.291 23.664 22.635 21.828 16.836 

Average of yearly averages: 7.77776666666667 

Inputs generated by pe5,pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: PAturf4GS 

Metfile: w14751 .dvf 

PRZM scenario: PAturfSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description , Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 3 12.3 glmol 

Henry's Law Const.henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mglL 

Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 . cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kglha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 5-7 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate I apprate 0.84 kglha 

Interval 2 interval 2 1 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kglha 

Interval 3 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 3 apprate 0.84 kgha 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND I 
UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as NJn4GS52.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: NJnurserySTD-V2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 23:05:00 

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w93730.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 16: 14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 

1961 14.28 14.18 13.9 

1962 21.36 21.23 20.88 

1963 36.08 35.84 35.24 

1964 32.84 32.66 32.49 , 

1965 31.11 30.98 30.59 

1966 31.6 31.41 30.72 

1967 49.36 49.06 47.95 

1968 42.55 42.3 41.56 

1969 59.1 58.75 57.72 

1970 41.73 41.52 41.04 

1971 47.01 46.7 45.59 

1972 35.31 35.11 34.87 

1973 28.84 28.68 28.3 

1974 29.86 29.69 28.99 

1975 39.75 39.53 38.77 

1976 35.41 35.18 34.68 

1977 33.79 33.6 33 

1978 68.43 67.96 66.6 

1979 69.99 69.57 68.03 

1980 47.07 46.79 46.48 

1981 43.71 43.46 42.87 

1982 34.11 33.91 33.54 

1983 28.99 28.81 28.62 

1984 30.19 30.03 29.74 

1985 32.91 32.7 32.3 

1986 27.51 27.35 27.01 

1987 47.9 47.59 46.79 

1988 41.6 41.34 40.78 

1989 35.4 35.27 34.47 

1990 39.21 38.98 38.54 

Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.0322580645 16129 

0.0645 161290322581 

0.0967741935483871 

0.129032258064516 

0.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

0.22580645 1612903 

0.258064516129032 

0.290322580645 161 

0.322580645 16129 41.73 

0.354838709677419 

0.387096774193548 

0.419354838709677 

0.451612903225806 

0.483870967741936 

21 Day 

69.99 

68.43 

59.1 

49.36 

47.9 

47.07 

47.01 

43.71 

42.55 

41.52 

41.6 

39.75 

39.21 

36.08 

35.41 

60 Day 90 Day. Yearly 

13.3 12.76 6.039 

20.28 19.66 13.6 

33.71 32.84 23.16 

31.62 31.02 24.95 

29.61 28.85 23.45 

30.32 29.83 23.91 

45.45<* 43.52 28.98 

40.3 39.31 33.8 

54.76 52.54 36.18 

40.7 40.18 35.68 

44 42.56 32.5 

33.93 33.08 29.16 

27.23 26.37 22.77 

27.64 26.82 21.03 

36.98 '35.79 25.58 

33.27 32.41 27.32 

31.95 31.31 26.28 

65.48 63.37 41.09 

64.79 62.33 46.91 

46.02 45.52 41.56 

41.36 40.31 34.26 

32.67 31.93 28.08 

27.61 26.73 22.41 

28.83 28.17 22.28 

3 1 29.95 23.4 

26.61 26.08 21.53 

45.46 44.49 29.44 

39.07 37.62 31.06 

32.74 31.77 26.15 

37.16 35.89 28.14 

60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

69.57 68.03 65.48 63..37 46.91 

67.96 66.6 64.79 62.33 41.56 

58.75 57.72 54.76 52.54 41.09 

49.06 47.95 46.02 45.52 36.18 

47.59 46.79 45.46 44.49 35.68 

46.79 46.48 45.45 43.52 34.26 

46.7 45.59 44 42.56 33.8 

43.46 42.87 41.36 40.31 32.5 

42.3 41.56 40.7 40.18 31.06 

41.04 40.3 39.31 29.44 

41.34 40.78 39.07 37.62 29.16 

39.53 38.77 37.16 35.89 28.98 

38.98 38.54 36.98 35.79 28.14 

35.84 35.24 33.93 33.08 28.08 

35.27 34.87 33.71 32.84 27.32 

8 1 
0.1 58.126 57.781 56.743 53.886 51.838 40.599 

Average of yearly averages: 27.6899666666667 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: NJn4GS52 

Metfile: w93730.dvf 

PRZM scenario: NJn~rserySTD~V2.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 3 12.3 glmol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mgL 

Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc mg/L 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kglha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 20-5 ddmm or ddmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 1 apprate 0.84 kglha 

Interval 2 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kgka 

Interval 3 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 3 apprate 0.84 kgka 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as NJn4GS85.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: NJnurserySTD-V2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 23:05:00 

82 
EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w93730.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:16:14 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year 

1961s 

'1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976. 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

Peak 96 hr 

21.35 21.2 

41.66 41.42 

43.79 43.55 

41.13 40.89 

33.18 33.17 

58.96 58.54 

47.94 47.68 

39.04 38.81 

34.71 34.49 

34.15 33.96 

69.9 69.51 

59.19 58.89 

51.27 51 

45.64 45.33 

38.84 38.62 

52.73 52.41 

47.54 47.39 

40.24 40.24 

31.52 31.4 

30.61 30.41 

28.46 28.3 

24.75 24.63 

28.98 28.81 

26.94 26.78 

26.13 25.96 

30.14 29.97 

31.41 31.2 

31.6 31.41 

54.03 53.67 

48.02 47.76 

Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.0322580645 16129 

0.0645 161290322581. 

0.0967741935483871 

0.1290322580645 16 

0.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

0.22580645 1612903 

0.258064516129032 

0.290322580645161 

0.32258064516129 45.64 

0.354838709677419 

0.387096774193548 

0.419354838709677 

0.451612903225806 

0.483870967741936 

0.516129032258065 

0.548387096774194 

0.580645161290323 

0.612903225806452 

0.645161290322581 

0.67741935483871 31.52 

0.709677419354839 

0.741935483870968 

0.774193548387097 

21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 

20.57 20.04 19.52 5.854 

40.69 39.85 39.44 22.6 

42.83 42.71 42.34 34.45 

39.9 37.85 36.68 32.4 

33.16 32.57 31.6 27.2 

56.87 53.65 52.12 31.06 

46.61 45.11 44.24 37.92 

37.88 37.56 37.1 33.18 

33.7 33.2 32.16 28.07 

33.55 32.51 31.48 26.43 

68.1 65.51 63.31 37.09 

57.66 55.33 54.04 47.21 

49.89 47.54 45.96 39.3 

44.38 42.66 40.7 32.78 

37.92 36.56 35.66 31.07 

51.21 48.66 47.42 33.27 

46.69 45.43 43.98 39.06 

40.23 40.21 39.69 34.14 

30.78 30.07 29.58 25.94 

30.21 29.77 29.29 25.02 

28.25 27.75 26.93 23.77 

24.3 23.9 23.43 20.8 

28.16 27.5 27.13 20.55 

26.12 25.57 25.34 22.18 

25.71 25.15 25.04 20.99 

29.4 28.84 27.27 20.26 

30.45 29.12 28.79 24.68 

30.99 30.47 29.41 23.79 

52.34 50.72 49.92 30.52 

46.69 44.42 42.81 36.08 

21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

69.9 69.51 68.1 65.51 63.31 47.21 

59.19 58.89 57.66 55.33 54.04 39.3 

58.96 58.54 56.87 53.65 52.12 39.06 

54.03 53.67. 52.34 50.72 49.92 37.92 

52.73 52.41 51.21 48.66 47.42 37.09 

51.27 51 49.89 47.54 45.96 36.08 

48.02 47.76 46:69 45.43 44.24 34.45 

47.94 47.68 46.69 45.11 43.98 34.14 

47.54 47.39 46.61 44.42 42.81 33.27 

45.33 44.38 42.71 42.34 33.18 

43.79 43.55 42.83 42.66 40.7 32.78 

41.66 41.42 40.69 40.21 39.69 32.4 

41.13 40.89 40.23 39.85 39.44 31.07 

40.24 40.24 39.9 37.85 37.1 31.06 

39.04 38.81 37.92 37.56 36.68 30.52 

38.84 38.62 37.88 36.56 35.66 28.07 

34.71 34.49 33.7 33.2 32.16 27.2 

34.15 33.96 33.55 32.57 31.6 26.43 

33.18 33.17 33.16 32.51 31.48 25.94 

31.6 31.41 30.99 30.47 29.58 25.02 

31.4 30.78 30.07 29.41 24,68 

31.41 31.2 30.45 29.77 29.29 23.79 

30.61 30.41 30.21 29.12 28.79 23.77 

30.14 29.97 29.4 28.84 27.27 22.6 

83 
0.1 58.467 58.053 56.417 53.357 51.9 38.946 

Average of yearly averages: 28.9221333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: NJn4GS85 

Metfile: w93730.dvf 

PRZM scenario: NJnurserySTD-V2.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 312.3 glmol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mg/L 

Kd Kd 2.78 mgL 

Koc Koc 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPT 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.84 kglha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 05-08 ddlmm or ddlmrnm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 2 1 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 1 apprate 0.84 kglha 

Interval 2 interval 2 1 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kglha 

Interval 3 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 3 apprate 0.84 kg/ha 

Record 17: FILTR A 

IPSCND 1 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as PAtur28h5.out 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: PAturfSTD.txt modified Thuday, 23 February 2006 at 18:55:08 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08 

Metfile: w1475 1.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 15 .OO 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year Peak 96hr 21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 

1961 7.805 7.747 7.55 7.199 6.916 2.853 

1962 6.862 6.822 6.688 6.378 6.227 5.621 

1963 5.944 5.944 5.944 5.943 5.87 5.278 

1964 5.641 5.606 5.542 5.384 5.206 4.82 

84 
Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.0322580645 16129 

0.0645161290322581 

0.0967741935483871 

0.129032258064516 

0.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

0.225806451612903 

0.258064516129032 

0.290322580645161 

0.32258064516129 9.675 

0.354838709677419 

0.387096774193548 

0.419354838709677 

0.451612903225806 

0.483870967741936 

0.516129032258065 

0.548387096774194 

0.580645161290323 

0.612903225806452 

0.645161290322581 

0.67741935483871 6.779 

0.709677419354839 

0.741935483870968 

0.774193548387097 

0.806451612903226 

0.838709677419355 

0.870967741935484 

0.903225806451613 

0.935483870967742 

0.967741935483871 

21 Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 

19.39 19.26 18.81 17.85 17.2 11.9 

18.17 18.03 17.6 16.56 15.86 11.8 

15.87 15.76 15.35 14.58 14.09 11.09 

14.68 14.61 14.35 13.75 13.3 10.63 

14.14 14.06 13.75 13.32 13.06 10.46 

13.07 13 12.85 12.64 12.27 8.918 

12.98 12.91 12.68 12.21 11.98 8.816 

10.32 10.28 10.1 9.987 9.875 8.701 

10 10 9.998 9.7 9.404 7.324 

9.613 9.447 9.139 8.852 7.207 

9.359 9.306 9.097 8.644 8.411 7.09 

8.679 8.629 8.532 8.324 8.168 6.736 

8.091 8.091 8.089 8.085 7.969 6.474 

7.805 7.747 7.592 7.352 7.108 6.017 

7.741 7.702 7.55 7.276 7.07 5.861 

7.608 7.565 7.515 7.199 6.916 5.795 

7.506 7.462 7.284 7.004 6.902 5.682 

7.3 7.267 7.126 6.94 6.756 5.669 

7.216 7.176 7.056 6867 6.532 5.621 

6.862 6.822 6.773 6.654 6.463 5.579 

6.778 6.688 6.515 6.42 5.562 

6.778 6.74 6.652 6.378 6.227 5.536 

6.233 6.198 6.117 6.099 6.022 5.278 

6.201 6.16 6.054 5.943 5.87 5.142 

6.124 6.092 6.017 5.923 5.805 4.82 

5.944 5.944 5.944 5.778 5.626 4.487 

5.641 5.606 5.542 5.384 5.206 4.268 

5.262 5.239 5.144 4.953 4.918 4.218 

5.05 5.022 4.988 4.931 4.775 4.178 

4.84 4.811 4.694 4.488 4.436 2.853 

15.25 14.497 14.01 1 11.044 

Average of yearly averages: 6.7904 

85 
Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: PAtur28h5 

Metfile: w14751.dvf 

PRZM scenario: PAturfS'lD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comnents 

Molecular weight mwt 3 12.3 glmol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mg/L 

Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc mgk 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.291 kgha 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 5-5 ddmm or ddmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 1 apprate 0.291 kgha 

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 2 apprate 0.291 kglha 

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 3 apprate 0.291 kgha 

Interval 4interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 4 apprate 0.29 1 kg/ha 

Interval 5 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 5 apprate 0.29 1 kglha 

Interval 6 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 6 apprate 0.29 1 kgha 

Interval 7 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 7 apprate 0.29 1 kglha 

Interval 8 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 8 apprate 0.291 kgha 

Interval 9 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 9 apprate 0.291 kg/ha 

Interval 10 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 10 apprate 0.291 kgha 

Interval 11 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 11 apprate 0.160 kglha 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond 

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 

stored as PAtur28h6.out % 

Chemical: Flurprimidol 

PRZM environment: PAturfSTD.txt modified Thuday, 23 February 2006 at 18:55:08 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14.08 

Metfile: ~14751 .dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 15:OO 

86 
Water segm&t concentratic 

Year 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

Peak 96 hr 

5.422 5.383 

5.968 5.932 

5.718 5.688 

5.594 5.561 

4.83 4.811 

17.98 17.85 

14.34 14.27 

10.42 10.35 

10.43 10.37 

8.345 8.344 

8.704 8.648 

20.39 20.26 

23.11 22.96 

18.21 18.13 

18.01 17.91 

18.1 17.99 

15.82 15.82 

10.1 10.1 

9.145 9.099 

9.383 9.324 

8.543 8.54 

6.298 6.298 

5.037 5.014 

3.891 3.891 

6.421 6.376 

7.552 7.508 

7.615 7.568 

6.716 6.716 

8.089 8.04 

7.636 7.589 

Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.032258064516129 

0.0645 161290322581 

0.0967741935483871 

0.129032258064516 

0.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

, 0.225806451612903 

0.258064516129032 

0.290322580645161 

0.32258064516129 10.42 

0.354838709677419 

0.387096774193548 

0.419354838709677 

0.45 1612903225806 

0.483870967741936 

0.516129032258065 

0.548387096774194 

0.580645161290323 

0.612903225806452 

0.645161290322581 

0.67741935483871 6.716 

0.709677419354839 

0.741935483870968 

0.774193548387097 

0.806451612903226 

0.838709677419355 

21 Day 6ODay 90Day Yearly 

5.281 5.123 5.023 2.183 

5.85 5.794 5.708 4.53 

5.565 5.558 5.486 4.974 

5.484 5.38 5.314 4.955 

4.809 4.805 4.746 4.38 

17.4 16.47 15.85 7.245 

13.95 13.51 13.24 11.62 

10.14 9.846 9.739 8.843 

10.26 9.895 9.66 8.324 

8.343 8.338 8.242 7.385 

8.507 8.281 8.111 6.536 

19.79 18.86 -18.3 11.98 

22.41 21.49 20.88 14.96 

17.8 17.06 16.5 14.35 

17.51 16.84 16.34 11.77 

17.63 16.82 16.19 12.96 

15.81 15.78 15.55 12.46 

10.09 10.09 9.963 8.973 

8.99 8.809 8.567 7.221 

9.121 8.81 1 7.913 6.577 

8.528 8.369 8.124 7.139 

6.295 6.286 6.215 5.598 

4.921 4.713 4.561 3.988 

3.891 3.829 3.725 3.57 

6.271 6.117 6.016 3.902 

7.413 7.233 7.1 5.859 

7.481 7.327 7.289 6.214 

6.715 6.711 6.624 5.952 

7.922 7.744 7.731 5.574 

7.454 7.271 6.862 6.062 

% 

21 Day bODay 90Day Yearly 

23.11 22.96 22.41 21.49 20.88 14.96 

20.39 20.26 19.79 18.86 18.3 14.35 

18.21 18.13 17.8 17.06 16.5 12.96 

18.1 17.99 17.63 16.84 16.34 12.46 

18.01 17.91 17.51 16.82 16.19 11.98 

17.98 17.85 17.4 16.47 15.85 11.77 

15 82 15.82 15.81 15.78 15.55 11.62 

14.34 14.27 13.95 13.51 13.24 8.973 

10.43 10.37 10.26 10.09 9.963 8.843 

10.35 10.14 9.895 9.739 8.324 

10.1 10.1 10.09 9.846 9.66 7.385 

9.383 9.324 9.121 8.811 8.567 7.245 

9.145 9.099 8.99 8.809 8.242 7.221 

8.704 8.648 8.528 8.369 8.124 7.139 

8.543 8.54 8.507 8.338 8.111 6.577 

8.345 8.344 8.343 8.281 7.913 6.536 

8.089 8.04 7.922 7.744 7.731 6.214 

7.636 7.589 7.481 7.327 7.289 6.062 

7.615 7.568 7.454 7.271 7.1 5.952 

7.552 7.508 7.413 7.233 6.862 5.859 

6.716 6.715 6.711 6.624 5.598 

6.421 6.376 6.295 6.286 6.215 5.574 

6.298 6.298 6.271 6117 6.016 4.974 

5.968 5.932 5.85 5.794 5.708 4.955 

5.718 5.688 5.565 5.558 5.486 4.53 

5.594 5 561 5.484 5.38 5.314 4.38 

87 
0.1 18.199 18.116 17.783 17.038 16.484 12.91 

Average of yearly averages: 7.53613333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: PAtur28h6 

Metfile: w1475 1 .dvf 

PRZM scenario: PAturfSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.e~~ 

Chemical Name: Flurprimidol 

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments 

Molecular weight mwt 3 12.3 g/mol 

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.97e-09 atm-mA3/mol 

Vapor Pressure vapr 3.64e-07 torr 

Solubility sol 130 mgL 

Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L 

Koc Koc mgk 

Photolysis half-life kdp 1.4 days Half-life 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Haliife 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1444 days Halfife 

Hydrolysis: pH7 0 days Half-life 

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual 

Incorporation Depth: DEPl 0 cm 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.291 kgka 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond 

Application Date Date 5-6 dd/mm or dd~mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm 

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 1 apprate 0.291 kg/ha 

Interval 2 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 2 apprate 0.291 kglha 

Interval 3 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line 'for single app. 

app. rate 3 apprate 0.291 kgiha 

Interval 4 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 4 apprate 0.29 1 kglha 

Interval 5 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. , 

app. rate 5 apprate 0.29 1 kglha 

Interval 6 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 6 apprate 0.29 1 kgha 

Interval 7 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 7 apprate 0.29 1 kglha 

Interval 8 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 8 apprate 0.29 1 kg/ha 

lnterval9 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 9 apprate 0.29 1 kglha 

Interval 10 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

app. rate 10 apprate 0.291 kg/ha 

Interval 11 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete llne for single app. 

app. rate 11 apprate 0.160 kg/ha 

Record 17: FILTRA 

IPSCND 1 

UPTKF 

Record 18: PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 0.5 

/ APPENDIX C: T-REX EECs 

RESULTS- Upper Bound EECs and RQs for 4 Applications at 0.75 Ib 

ai/A with a 14-day Interval 

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation 

Chemical Name: 

Use: 

Formulation: 

Application Rate: 

Half-life: 

Application Interval: 

Maximum # AppsJYear: 

Length of Simulation: 

Endpoints 

LDSO (mgkg-bw) >2000 

Avian LC50 (mglkg-diet) >4310 

Mallard duck NOAEL(mg1kg-bw) 0.00 

Mallard duck NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 309 

1 AVIAN EECs and ADJUSTED LD50s 

Flurprimidol 

Turf Grass 1 Ornamentals 

Cutless 50W Turf Growth 

Regulator 

0.75 I bs ai/A 

35 days 

14 days 

4 applications 

1 year 

Dietary-Based EECs 

709 

0.00 

7.3 

100 

Mammals 

LD50 (mglkg-bw) 

LC50 (mgkg-diet) 

NOAEL (mglkg-bw) 

NOAEC (mglkg-diet) 

Mean EEC 

(mg ailkg) 

176.43 

74.72 

93.4 

14.5 

Food Items 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Sm. Insects, Broadleaf Plants 

Lg. Insects, Fruits, Pods 

Upper Bound EEC 

(mg ailkg) 

498.1 5 

228.32 

280.21 

31 .I 3 

% body wgt 

consumed 

114 

65 

29 

Ingestion 

(Fwet) 

(glday) 

23 

65 

291 

FI 

(kg-d ietlday) 

2.28E-02 

6.49E-02 

2.91 E-01 

Ingestion 

(g bwiday) 

5 

13 

58 

Avian Class 

Small 

Mid 

Large 

Body Weight 

(9) 

20 

1 00 

1000 
Avian Body 

Weight (g) 

20 

1 00 

1000 

MAMMALIAN EECs and ADJUSTED LD50s 

Adjusted LD50 

(mg/kg-bw) 

>1440.86 

>1834.29 

>2591 

Dose- based EECs (mglkg-~VV) 

Food items 

Mammalian 

Class 

Herbivores/ 

insectivores 

Granivores 

Avian Classes and Body Weights 

Mammalian 

Class 

Herbivores1 

insectivores 

Granivores 

small 

Upper Bound EEC (mglkg) 

Body 

Weight 

15 

35 

1 000 

15 

35 

1 000 

mid I large 

Body 

Weight 

15 

35 

1000 

15 

35 

1000 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Sm. Insects, Broadleaf Plants 

Lg. Insects, Fruits, Pods 

Ingestion 

(Fdr~) 

(g bwtlday) 

3 

5 

31 

3 

5 

33 

20 g I 100 g 

567.34 

260.03 

31 9.1 3 

35.46 

323.52 

148.28 

181.98 

20.22 

Adjusted 

LD50 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

1000 g 

144.84 

66.39 

81.48 

9.05 

Mean EEC (mglkg) 

Ingestion 

(Fwet) 

(glday) 

14 

23 

153 

3 

5 

34 

Adjusted 

NO~EL 

16.04 - 

12.98 

5.611 

16.b4 

12.88 

5.6v 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Sm. Insects, Broadleaf Plants 

Lg. Insects, Fruits, Pods 

% body wgt 

consumed 

95 

66 

15 

21 

15 

3 

200.93 

85.1 0 

106.38 . 

16.55 

FI 

(kg-dietlday) 

1.43E-02 

2.31 E-02 

1.53E-01 

3.1 8E-03 

$.13E-03 

3.40E-02 

1 14.58 

48.53 

60.66 

9.44 

51.30 

21.73 

27.1 6 

4.22 
Table C1. Upper Bound Kqnaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk ~uotients 

(4 Applications. @ 0.75 lb ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

Size Class Adjusted 

(grams) LD50 

100- 1 >1834.29 1 323.52 1 NIA 

1000 1 >2591.00 1 144.84 1 NIA 

-Bold value indicates LOC.exceedance 

Tall Grass Plants1 Seeds1 

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ 

260.03 NIA 319.13 NIA 35.46 NIA 

148.28 NIA 181.98 NIA 20.22 NIA 

66.39 NIA 81.48 NIA 9.05 NIA 

-N/A - Acute toxicity threshold was greater than the highest dose tested; risk is expected to be 

minimal; thus, RQs were not calculated 

Table C2. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 lb ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

EECs and RQs 

-Bold value indicates LOC exceedance 

-N/A - Acute toxicity threshold was greater than the highest dose tested; risk is 

expected to be minimal; thus, RQs were not calculated 

LC50 

>4310 

Short Grass Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants/ 

Small Insects 

-Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

EEC 

498.15 

F'ruitslPodsl 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

RQ. 

NIA 

EEC 

228.32 

RQ 

NIA 

EEC 

280.21 

RQ 

NIA 

EEC 

31.13 

RQ 

NIA 
Table C3. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 Ib ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

BroadIeaf l?ruits/Pods/ 

Short Grass Tall Grass Plants1 Seeds/ 

Small Insects Large Insects 

309 1 498.15 1 1.61 1 228.32 1 0.74 1 280.21 1 0.91 1 31.13 1 0.10 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients , 

Bold values indicate LOC exceedances 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Table C4. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 lb ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) I 

Table C6. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 Ib ailA with 14 Day Intervals) I 

EECs and RQs I 

I I I I i 

Size Class 

(grams) 

15 

35 

1000 

Bold values indicate LOC exceedances 

Adjusted 

LD50 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

Size Class 

(grams) 

EECs and RQs i 

Adjusted 

NOAEL 

Short Grass 

Short Grass 

EEC 

474.94 

328.25 

76.11 

Tall Grass 

RQ 

0.30 

0.26 

0.14 

Tall Grass 

EEC 

217.68 

150.45 

34.88 

RQ 

0.14 

0.12 

0.06 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

Broadleaf 

Plants/ 

Small Insects 

EEC 

267.16 

184.64 

42 81 

RQ 

0.17 

0.15 

0.08 

FFuitsmOlw Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

Fruits/Podsl 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

EEC 

29.68 

20.52 

4.76 

kranivores 

, Granivores 

1 

RQ 

0.02 

0.02 

0.01 

$EC 

5.60 

4.56 

1.06 

RQ 

0.001 

0.00 

0.00 
Mean EECs and RQs for 4 Applications at 0.75 Ib ai/A with a 14-day 

Interval 

Table C7. Mean Kenaga, Acute Avian ~ose-~ased Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 lb ailA with 14 Day Intervals) 

minimal; thus, RQs were not calculated 

Size Class 

(grams) 

20 

100 

1000 

Table C8. Mean Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Table C9. Mean Kenaga, 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Bold value indicates LOC exceedance 

N/A - Acute toxicity threshold was greater than the highest dose tested; risk is expected to be 

Adjusted 

LD50 

>1440.86 

>1834.29 

>2591.00 

EECs and RQs 

Fnlits/Podsl 

Seeds1 

Large 

EEC 

16.55 

9.44 

4.22 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

Short Grass 

RQ 

N/A 

N/A 

NIA 

EEC 

106.38 

60.66 

27.16 

EEC 

200.93 

114.58 

51.30 

Tall Grass 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

N/A 

RQ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EEC 

85.10 

48.53 

21.73 

RQ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 
Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Table C10. Mean Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 lb ailA with 14 Day IntervaIs) 

Size Class 

(grams) 

15 

35 

1000 

Table C12. Mean Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(4 Applications @ 0.75 lb ailA with 14 Day Intervals) 

EECs andRQs . I 

Broadleaf FruitsfPodsI 

Grass Tall Grass Plants1 Seeds/ 

(grams) NOAEL Large Gqnivores 

Small Insects 

P 

Insects I 

15 16.04 168.21 10.484 71.24 4.440 89.05 5.550 

Adjusted 

LD50 

-- 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

EECs and RQs 

35 

1000 

12.98 

5.61 

Short Grass Tall Grass 

EEC 

168.21 

116.26 

26.95 

Broadleaf 

Plants/ 

Small Insects 

116.26 

26.95 

Frui ts/Pods/ 

Large 

Insects 

EEC 

71.24 

49.24 

11.42 

RQ 

0.108 

0.092 

0.049 

EEC 

89.05 

61.55 

14.27 

G~anivores 

RQ 

0.046 

0.039 

0.021 

RQ 

0.057 

0.049 

0.026 

8.956 

4.801 

( EEC 

13.85 

9.57 

2.22 

49.24 

11.42 

0.009 

0.008 

0.004 

3.793 

2.033 

3.08 

2.13 

0.49 

61.55 

14.27 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

4.741 

2.541 

9.57 

2.22 

0.738 

0.395 

2.43 

0.49 

0.16 

0.09 
RESULTS- Upper Bound EECs and RQs for 12 Applications at 0.26 Ib 

ai/A with a 14-day Interval 

AVIAN EECs and ADJUSTED LD50s 

Dietary-Based EECs 

Food Items 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Sm. Insects, Broadleaf Plants 

Lg. Insects, Fruits, Pods 

Upper Bound EEC 

(mg ailkg) 

248.45 

11 3.87 

139.75 

15.53 

Avian Class 

Small 

Mid 

Large 

Avian Body 

Weight (g) 

20 

Mean EEC 

(mg ailkg) 

87.99 

37.27 

46.58 

7.25 

Ingestion 

(Fdr~) 

(g bwlday) 

5 

13 

58 

Body Weight 

(9) 

20 

1 00 

1000 

Adjusted LD50 

(mglkg-bw) 

>1440.86 

Ingestion 

(Fwet) 

(glda y) 

23 

65 

291 

% body wgt 

consumed 

114 

65 

29 

FI 

(kg-dietlday) 

2.28E-02 

6.49E-02 

2.91 E-01 
MAMMALIAN EECs and ADJUSTED LD50s 

Dose-based EECs (mglkg-bw) 

Food items 

Avian Classes and Body Weights 

Mammalian 

Class 

Herbivores1 

insectivores 

Granivores 

Mammalian 

Class 

Herbivores1 

insectivores 

Granivores 

small 

Upper Bound EEC (mglkg) 

Body 

Weight 

- 15 

35 

1 000 

15 

35 

1000 

Ingestion 

wry) 

(g bwtld ay) 

3 

5 

31 

3 

5 

31 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Sm. Insects, Broadleaf Plants 

Lg. Insects, Fruits, Pods 

Body 

Weight 

15 

35 

1000 

15 

35 

1000 

mid 

Ingestion 

(Fwet) 

(gtday) 

14 

23 

153 

3 

5 

34 

large 

20 g 

282.96 

129.69 

159.16 

17.68 

Adjusted 

LD50 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

1558.26 

1 260.80 

545.33 

% body wgt 

consumed 

95 

66 

15 

21 

15 

3 

Adjusted 

NOP+EL 

16.04 

12.98 

5.61 

16.04 

12.98 

5.6'1 

100 g 

161.36 

73.95 

90.76 

10.08 

Mean EEC (mglks 

FI 

(kg-dietlday) 

I .43E-02 

2.31 E-02 

1, .53E-01 

3.1 8E-03 

5.13E-03 

3.40E-02 

1000 g 

72.24 

33.1 1 

40.64 

4.52 

Short Grass 

Tall Grass 

Sm. Insects, Broadleaf Plants 

Lg. Insects, Fruits, Pods 

) 

100.21 

42.44 

53.05 

8.25 

57.1 5 

24.20 

30.25 

4.71 

25.59 

10.84 

13.55 

2.1 1 
-Bold value indicates LOC exceedance 

-N/A - Acute toxicity threshold was greater than the highest dose tested; risk is expected to be 

minimal; thus, RQs were not calculated 

Table C13. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 lb ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

Sue Class 

(grams) 

20 

100 

1000 

Table C14. Upper Bound Kenaga, Suhacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 lb ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

EECs and RQs 

>4310 1 248.45 1 NIA 1 113.87 1 NIA 1 139.75 1 NIA 1 15.53 1 NIA 1 

-Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Adjusted 

LD50 

>1440.86 

>1834.29 

>2591.00 

LC50 

-Bold value indicates LOC exceedance 

-N/A - Acute toxicity threshold was greater than tlie highest dose tested; risk is 

expected to be minimal; thus, RQs were not calculated 

Short Grass 

I I I 

EEC I RQ I EEC I RQ 1 EEC I RQ I EEC I RQ 

EECs and RQs 

Broadleaf 

Plantsf 

Small Insects 

Tall Grass 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

Short Grass 

EEC 

282.96 

161.36 

72.24 

Tall Grass 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

EEC 

129.69 

73.95 

33.1 1 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Broadleaf 

Plants/ 

Small Insects 

EEC 

159.16 

90.76 

40.64 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

EEC 

17.68 

10.08 

4 52 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 
Table C15. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 lb ailA with 14 Day Intervals) . 

EECs and RQs 

Table C17. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk 

Quotients (12 Applications @ 0.26 lb ailA with 14 Day Intervals) 

Broadleaf 

Short Grass Tall Grass Plantsf 

Small Insects 

Table C16. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications 0 0.26 Ib ailA with 14 Day Intervals) I 

I 

EECs and RQs I 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

Table CIS. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 lb ailA with 14 Day Intervals) 

EECs and RQs 

I 1 I 

EEC RQ EEC RQ 

309 248.45 0.80 113.87 0.37 139.75 0.45 15.53 0.05 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Bold values indicate LOC exceedances 

Short Grass 

Bold values indicate LOC exceedances 

I RQ I 

0.15 

0.13 

0.07 

EEC 

' 

Tall Grass 

1 

Granivores 

1 

15 

35 

1000 

EEC 

108.57 

75.04 

17.40 

I 

(3.29 

12.27 

10.53 

RQ 

0.07 

0.06 

0.03 

Broadleaf 

Plantsf 

Small Insects 

0.00' 

0.00 

0.00 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

' FruiWodd 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

EEC 

133.24 

92.09 

21.35 

236.88 

163.71 

37.96 

EEC 

14.80 

10.23 

2.37 

RQ 

0.09 

0.07 

0.04 

RQ 

0.01 

0.01 

0.00 
Mean EECs and RQs for 12 Applications at 0.26 Ib ai/A with a 14-day 

Interval 

minimal; thus, RQs were not calculated 

Table C19. Mean Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 Ib ailA with 14 Day Intervals) 

Size Class 

(grams) 

20 

100 

1000 

Table C20. Mean Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 Ib ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

EECs and RQs 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Bold value indicates LOC exceedance 

NIA - Acute toxicity threshold was greater than the highest dose tested; risk is expected to be , 

Adjusted 

LD50 

>1440.86 

>1834.29 

>2591.00 

Short Grass 

LC50 

>4310 

EECs and RQs 

Tall Grass 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

EEC 

87.99 

Short Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

RQ 

NIA 

EEC 

100.21 

57.15 

25.59 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

EEC 

37.27 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

N/A 

Tau Grass 

RQ 

NIA 

EEC 

42.44 

24.20 

10.84 

EEC 

46.58 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

RQ 

NIA 

EEC 

7.25 

EEC 

53.05 

30.25 

13.55 

Fruits/Podsl 

Seedsl 

Large 

Insects 

RQ - 

NIA 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

EEC 

8.25 

4.71 

2.11 

RQ 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 
Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Table C22. Mean Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(12 Applications @ 0.26 Ib ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) 

Table C24. Mean Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

(12 ~~plicati& @ 0.26 lb ai/A with 14 Day Intervals) - - 

Size Class 

(grams) 

15 

35 

1000 

Adjusted 

LDSO 

1558.26 

1260.80 

545.33 

EECs and RQs 

I 1 EECs and RQs 

Short Grass Tall Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

EEC 

83.89 

57.98 

13.44 

EEC 

35.53 

24.56 

5.69 

EEC 

44.41 

30.70 

7.12 

RQ 

0.054 

0.046 

0.025 

RQ 

0.023 

0.019 

0.010 

RQ 

0.029 

0.024 

0.013 

FruitslPodsl 

Large 

Insects 

EEC 

6.91 

4.77 

1.11 

Granivores 

RQ 

0.004 

0.004 

0.002 

EE]C 1 

1.34 

l.q6 

0.25 

RQ 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 
RESULTS- Intermediate EECs and LD50lSQ FT for 1 Banded Spray 

Application at 0.69 Ib ai/A 

INPUTS - LDSO/SQ FT Calculations 

Application Rate: 0.69 Ibs I acre 

% A.I.: 100.00% 

Avian LD50 (20g): >1440.86 mglkg bw 

(1 OOg) >I 834.29 

(1 OOOg) ~2591 .OO 

Mammalian LD50 

(15g): 1558.26 mglkg bw 

(35g) 1260.80 

(1 OOOg) 545.33 

Row Spacing: 0 inches 

Bandwidth: 0 inches 

Unincorporation: 100% 
RESULTS- Intermediate EECs and LD50lSQ FT for 1 Application of 

Granules at 0.75 Ib a.i./A 

INPUTS - LD50lSQ FT Calculations 

Application Rate: 0.75 Ibsl acre 

% A.I.: 100.00% 

Avian LD50 (20g): >1440.86 mglkg bw 

(1 009) >1834.29 

(1 OOOg) >2591 .OO 

Mammalian LD50 

(1 5g): 1558.26 mglkg bw 

(35g) 1260.80 

(1 OOOg) 545.33 

Row Spacing: 0 inches 

Bandwidth: 0 inches 

Unincor oration: 
RESULTS- Intermediate EECs and LD50lSQ FT for 1 Application of 

Granules at 3.0 Ib a.i.1A 

INPUTS - LD50/SQ FT Calculations 

Application Rate: 3.0 Ibs / acre 

% A.I.: 100.00% 

Avian LD50 (20g): >1440.86 mgikg bw 

(1 OOg) >1834.29 

(1 OOOg) >2591 .OO 

Mammalian LD50 

(1 5g): 1558.26 mglkg bw 

(35g) 1260.80 

(1 0009) 545.33 

Row Spacing: 0 inches 

Bandwidth: 0 inches 

Unincorporation: 100% 
RESU'LTS- Intermediate EECs and LD50lSQ FT for 1 Banded 

Application of Granules at 1.5 Iba.i.1A 

INPUTS - LD501SQ FT Calculations 

Application Rate: 1.5 Ibs I acre 

% A.I.: 100.00% 

Avian LD50 (20g): >1440.86 mglkg bw 

(1 OOg) >1834.29 

(1 0009) >2591 .OO 

Mammalian LD50 

(1 59): 1558.26 mglkg bw 

(35g) 1260.80 

(1 OOOg) 545.33 

Row Spacing: 0 inches 

Bandwidth: 0 inches 

Unincorporation: 100% 
APPENDIX D: Terrestrial Chronic Exposure Estimates for Granular Applications of 

Flurprimidol (Earthworm Fugacity Model) 

Flurprimidol exposure to terrestrial wildlife from non-granular applications is evaluated by 

estimating pesticide residues on food items including grasses, plants, insects, fruits, pods, and 

seeds. For granular applications, terrestrial EECs and acute risks were derived based on an 

estimation of loadings of pesticide per unit area (ft2). EFED has no standard methodology for 

assessing chronic risk to terrestrial animals from granular applications. The following chronic 

exposure estimation and risk characterization for terrestrial animals considers granular routes of 

exposure including direct ingestion of soil invertebrates that have bioconcentrated pesticide 

residues of granules in soil. 

Direct Ingestion of Soil Invertebrates 

An estimation of flurprimidol concentrations potentially accumulated in the tissues of 

earthworms was required to complete the exposure estimates for insectivorous birds and 

mammals. This estimation of earthworm concentration was calculated using a fugacity-based 

(equilibrium. partitioning) approach based on the work of Trapp and McFarlane (1995) and 

Mackay and Paterson (1981). Earthworms dwelling within the soil are exposed to contaminants 

in both soil pore water and via the ingestion of soil (Belfroid et al. 1994). The concentration of 

flurprimidol in earthworms was calculated as a combination of uptake from soil pore water and 

gastrointestinal absorption from ingested soil: 

where: 

Csoil is the concentration of chemical in bulk soil (note: a chemical concentration 

averaged over a 15-cm soil depth was used to reflect a concentration across the 

earthworm occupied area of soil) 

Zeaabworm is the fugacity capacity of chemical in earthworms = 

(lipid)(Kow)(~earthwom)m 

ZSoil is the fugacity capacity of chemical in soil = (Kd)(psoi$H 

ZW,, is the fugacity capacity of chemical in water = 1/H 

Csoil water is the concentration of chemical in soil water = Csoil/Kbw 

Kbw is the bulk soil-to-water partitioning coefficient = 

(psoil)(&)+e +(~-e)(Kaw) 

Kaw is the air-to-water partitioning coefficient = WRT 

H = Henry's Constant specific to flurprimidol(1.17E-4) 

R = universal gas constant, 8.3 1 ~oules-m~/mol-~~ 

T = temperature OK, assumed to be 298 OK 

Kd = soil partitioning coefficient for flurprimidol (2.8) 

ps0il = bulk density of soil, assumed to be 1.3 @m3 

8 = volumetric fraction of the soil, assumed to be 0.30 

E = volumetric total porosity of the soil, assumed to 0.50 

lipid = fraction of lipid in organism 0.01 (Cobb et al., 1995) 

&, = the octonal to water partitioning coefficient for flurprimidol(2.96) 
pmwm = the density of the organism, assumed to be 1 glhn 3 

Table D.l summarizes the estimated immediate post-treatment soil concentrations of 

flurprimidol, assuming 15 cm (3-inch) averaging depth, a soil density of 1.3 g/cm3, and granular 

application rates of flurprimidol at 3.0 lb ai/A. 

Table D.2 summarizes the model inputs and exposure estimates (i.e., earthworm concpntrations 

in ppm) for insectivorous birds and mammals, based on granular flurprimidol application rate of 

3.0 lb ai/A. 

Table D.1- Estimated Soil Concentrations for Flurprimidol 

(Immediately Post-treatment) 

Application Rate 

(lb aVA) 

3 .O 

Chronic Risk Characterization for Terrestrial Wildlife 

Soil Concentration 

(mg/kg-soil) ca 15 cm 

0.00718 

Table D.2 - Model Input Parameters and Dietary Exposure Estimates 

for Avian and Mammalian Receptors 

(for Soil Concentrations Immediately Post-treatment) 

Chronic risks for birds and mammals that consume terrestrial invertebrates as the majority of 

their diet were estimated based on comparison of the concentration of flurprimidol in earthworm 

tissue (Cearthwom) with chronic toxicity values for birds and mammals. Given that earthworms 

are llkely to be present in the top 6 inches of soil, a 15-cm soil depth was used to reflect a 

Parameter 

C, (mglkg @ 15 cm depth) 

Earthworm Concentration 

(mglkg) (Cearthworm) 

Kd (cm3/g) 

PSOII (g/cm3) 

3 

fearthworrn (glcm ) 

8 (unitless) 

E (unitless) 

Kaw (mT) 

Kbw ((~soll*Kd)+e+(~-e)(Kaw)) 

3.0 lb aVA 

0.00718 

0.0351 

2.8 

1.3 

1 

0.3 

0.5 

4.7E-08 

3.94 
concentration across the earthworm occupied area of soil to derive the Cearthwom. It is important 

to note that this estimation of risk assumes that 100% of the diet is comprised of terrestrial soil 

invertebrates. 

Insectivorous Birds 

Chronic risks for insectivorous birds were estimated by comparing the CearthWom in mgkg by the 

avian chronic NOAEC for flurprimidol(309 mgkg). Estimated earthworm residues for 

insectivorous avian receptors (0.04 mgkg) are less than the avian chronic endpoint (309 mgkg; 

based on reproductive effects) for granular flurprimidol application of 3.0 lb ai/A. Therefore, 

chronic risks to insectivorous birds associated with ingestion of terrestrial invertebrates (i.e., 

earthworms) that have bioaccumulated flurprimidol granules are not expected. However, it is 

unclear whether other routes of granular flurprimidol exposure (i.e., direct consumption of 

granules, ingestion of granules that adhere to soil invertebrates, partitioning of dissolved 

flurprimidol to on-site sources of wildlife drinking water, dermal exposure of granules released 

to surrounding soil, and on-site puddles) or combined routes of exposure would result in chronic 

risk concerns for terrestrial-phase amphibians. 

Insectivorous Mammals \ 

Chronic risks for insectivorous mammals were estimated by considering both dietary- and doserelated exposures and effects. In the dietary method, risks were estimated by comparing the 

Cearthwom bythe mammalian chronic NOAEC for flurprimidol(100 mgkg; based on reduction in 

body weight gain). In the dose method, the residue concentration in earthworms was converted 

to a daily oral dose based on the fraction of body weight consumed as e~timated'throu~h 

mammalian allometric relationships. The dose was then compared to the NOAEL (7.3 mgkgB Wlday) for mammalian receptors. 

Based on the dietary method and flurprimidol granular application rates of 3.0 lb ai/A, chronic 

LOCs are not exceeded for insectivorous mammals because the respective earthworm residue 

concentrations (0.04 mgkg) are less than the NOAEC (100 mgkg). Earthworm residue 

concentrations derived based on the dose method are first converted to a daily dose by 

multiplying the dietary CearthWom bythe percentage BW consumed for the small mammals (15g = 

95% B W). In addition, the NOAEL value (7.3 mgkg-B Wlday) is adjusted to account for the 

size of the mammals according to the following equation: 

Adjusted NOAEL = NOAEL (TW/A W) (0.25) 

where: 

TW = body weight of tested animal (350 g rat); and 

AW = body weight of assessed animal (15 g). 

As shown in Table D.3, estimated chronic doses for insectivorous mammals, based on the 

granular application of flurprimidol (3.0 lb ai/A) and adjusted NOAELs for small sized mammals 

does not exceed chronic LOC with a RQ of <0.1. The results of the assessment indicate that, 
when growth effect risks for mammals are assessed on the basis of daily ingested dietary dose, 

the accumulation of flurprimidol in terrestrial invertebrates may represent, by itself, a 

biologically significant pathway for exposure. Dose-based RQs are likely to provide more 

accurate estimates of risk to insectivorous mammals because they are based on earthworm 

residues that are consumed by a mammal in a given day and adjusted NOAEL values for three 

sizes of mammals, while the dietary-based RQs use no such adjustments to account for feeding 

behavior and varying size classes. 

Table D.3. Dose-based Chronic RO for Insectivorous Mammals 

I Application Rate Body Weight Dose-adjusted EEC, 

(rngJkg-BWlda~)~ 

chronic RQ = Dose-adjusted EEC, 1 Adjusted NOAEL. 

'Exceeds chronic risk level of concern (RQ 2 1.0). 

Adjusted NOAEL Chronic RQC 

(mg/kg-~~/day)b 

Uncertainties 

3.0 lb ai/A I 15 

There are a number of uncertainties associated with the fugacity model used to estimate 

flurprimidol concentrations in earthworm tissue and subsequent risks to insectivorous terrestrial 

animals. It may be possible to further refine this assessment with additional information 

addressing the following uncertainties: 

"Dose-adjusted EECw = Dietary EEC, (ppm) - (%BW consumed/100). 

Adjusted NOAEL = NOAEL (TW/AW)O 25. 

0.03 16.04 

A flurprimidol concentration averaged over a 15-cm soil depth was used to reflect 

a concentration across the earthworm occupied area of soil. However, it is 

possible that earthworms may be present at deeper soil depths, resulting in a lower 

concentration of flurprimidol in bulk soil and earthworm tissue. 

<O. 1 

The fugacity-based model assumes equilibrium partitioning between bulk soil and 

soil pore water. In addition, the model assumes a fixed value for soil density, 

earthworm density, temperature, pore space, organic carbon, and the lipid content 

of the earthworm. Resulting concentrations of flurprimidol in earthworm tissue 

may be either under- or over-estimated depending on the soil type, temperature, 

and sizeflipid content of the earthworm, at the time of exposure. This assessment 

considers only one route of exposure (i.e., ingestion of terrestrial invertebrates 

that have bioaccurnulated flurprimidol from granules in the soil) for insectivorous 

birds and mammals. In addition, it is assumed that 100% of the diet is comprised 

of terrestrial soil invertebrates. Given species-specific feeding habits and dietary 

requirements, this assumption may overestimate risks associated with ingestion of 

soil invertebrates that have accumulated flurprimidol, especially for terrpstrialphase amphibians, which have lower metabolic rates than birds. Other totential 

routes of exposure including direct ingestion of granules, ingestion of g~anules 

that adhere to soil invertebrates, partitioning of dissolved flurprimidol to sources 

of wildlife drinking water, and dermal exposure of granules released to 

surrounding soil and puddles) or combined routes of exposure were not 

considered. 
. References 

Belfroid, A., M. Slkkenk, W. Seinen, K.V. Gestel, J. Hermens. 1994. The toxicokinetic 

behavior of chlorobenzenes in earthworm (Eisenia andrei) experiments in soil. Environ. 

Toxicol. Chem. 13: 93-99 

Mackay, D. And S. Paterson. 1981. Calculating fugacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 1006- 

1014. 

Trapp, S. And J.C McFarlane (eds.). 1995. Plant Contamination Modeling and Simulation of 

Organic Chemical Processes. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida. 
APPENDIX E: TERRPLANT EECs 

11 Use ( Turf / Ornamental 11 

Chemical Name 

PC code 

flurprimidol 

125701 

Table €3. EECs for FJur riniidol. Units in Ibs aV4. 41 

A plication Method g 

Application Form liquid 

. . Dicot 0.01 2. 0.0044 0.01 1 ; 0.0046 

Solubility in Water (ppm) 130 mglL 

Description 

Runoff to dry areas 

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas 

Spray drift 

INC - inconclusive. 

Equation 

(A/I)*R 

(A/I)*R*10 

6 

A*D 

Total for semi-aquatic areas All *R*10 + A*D (( ) ) ( ) 0.1 326 

EEC 

0.01 3 

0.13 

O.OQ26 

I 
Chemical Name 

PC code 

Use 

Application Method 

Application Form 

Solubility in Water (ppm) 

flurprimidol 

125701 

Turf / Ornamental 

Ground 

liquid 

130 mg/L 
Monocot 0.1 4 0.938. 0.42 i 0.11 

Dicot 0.01 2 0.0044 0.01 1 1 0.0046 

Chemical Name 

PC code 

Use 

Application Method 

Application Form 

flurprirnidol I 

125701 

Turf / Ornamental 

Ground 

Granular 

I 
4. Granular ADDlication of 1.5 lbs ai/A to Turf / Ornamentals 

Chemical Name 

PC code 

Use 

Application Method - 

Application Form 

flurprirnfdoi 

125701 

Turf / Ornamental 

Ground 

Granular 
II Use 1 ~urf / Ornamental II 

Chemical Name 

PC code 

flurprirnidol 

125701 

11 Drift Fraction 1 D I o 1 none 11 

Application Method 

Application Form 

Ground 

Granular 
APPENDIX F: LOCATES - Direct Effect Co-occurrence Analysis 

Species Occurrence in Selected States and Selected Taxa 

No species were excluded 

All Medium Types Reported 

Mammal, Bird, Amphibian, Reptile, Dicot, Monocot, Ferns, Conf/cycds, Lichen 

AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, 

MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, IVV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, 

UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY 

Alabama ( 33) species: 

Amphibian 

Salamander, Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Freshwater, Vernal pool, No 

Terrestrial 

Salamander, Red Hills ' Phaeognathus hubrichti Threatened Freshwater, Terrestr~al No 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Terrestrial No 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Terrestrial No 

Dicot 

Amphianthus, Little Amphianfhus pusillus Threatened Freshwater No 

Barbara ~uifops, Mohr's Marshallia mohrii 

Bladderpod, Lyrate Lesquerella lyrata 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terresfrial No 

Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Endangered Terrestrial No 

Harperella ~tiiimnium nodosum Endangered Freshwater No 

Leather-flower, Alabama Clematis socialis Endangered Terrestrial ' No 

Leather-flower, Morefield's Clematis morefieldii Endangered Terrestrial No 

'. Pitcher-plant, Alabama Canebrake Sarracenia rubra alabamensis Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Pitcher-plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana Threatened Terrestrial No 

Ferns 

Fern, Alabama Streak-sorus . Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis Threatened Terrestrial No 

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. Threatened Terrestrial No 

americanurn 

Quillwort, Louisiana lsoetes louisianensis Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Mammal ' 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Mouse, Alabama Beach Peromyscus polionofus ammobates Endangered Terrestrial, Coastal Yes 

(neritic) 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 1 of 50 

116 
Mouse, Perdido Key Beach Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis 

Monocot 

Grass, Tennessee Yellaw-eyed Xyris tennesseensis 

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum 

Water-plantain, Kral's Sagittaria secundifolia 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kernp's ridley Lep7dochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermoche'lys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi 

Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus 

~urtle, Alabama Red-bellied Pseudemys alabamensis 

Turtle, Flattened Musk Sternotherus depressus 

~iaska 5) species: 

Bird 

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis 

Eider, Spectacled Somateria fischeri 

Eider, Steller's 

Ferns 

Polysticta stelleri 

Fern, Aleutian Shield Polystichum aleuticum 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Arizona ( 38) species: 

Amphibian 

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Rana chiricahuensis 

Salamander, Sonora Tiger Ambystoma tigrinurn stebbinsi 

Bird 

Bobwhite, Masked 

Condor, California 

Eagle, Bald 

Colinus virginianus ridgwayi 

Gymnogyps californianus 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis 

Flycatcher, southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus 

Owl, Mexican Spotted ' - Strix occidentalis lucida 

Pygmy-owl, Cactus Ferruginous Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum 

Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Coastal (neritic) Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater No 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial. Freshwater 

Freshwater, TerreStrial 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

- CH 

Terrestrial No 

Saltwater, Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial, Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater Yes 

- CH 

Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Vernal pool, Freshwater, No 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No. 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 2 of 50 
Dicot 

Blue-star, Kearney's Amsonia kearneyana Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. Terrestrial No 

arizonicus 

Cactus, Brady Pincushion Pediocactus bradyi Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Cactus, Cochise Pincushion Coryphantha robbinsorum 

Cactus, Nichol's Turk's Head Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. 

nicholii 

Cactus, Peebles Navajo Pediocactus peeblesianus 

peeblesianus 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Cactus, Pima Pineapple Coryphantha scheeri var. 

robustispina 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus 

(=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Cliffrose, Arizona Purshia (=cowania) subintegra 

Cycladenia,Jones Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis) 

Fleabane, Zuni Erigeron rhizoma tus 

Groundsel, San Francisco Peaks Senecio franciscanus 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Milk-vetch, Holmgren Astragalus holmgreniorum 

Milk-vetch, Sentry Astragalus cremnophylax var. 

cremnophylax 

Milkweed, Welsh's Asclepias welshii Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Umbel, Huachuca Water Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recunfa Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Mammal 

Bat, Lesser (=Sanbornls) Long-nosed Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Jaguar Panthera onca Terrestrial No 

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi 

tolteca 

Terrestrial No 

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Pronghorn, Sonoran Antilocapra americana sonoriensis 

Squirrel, Mount Graham Red Tamiasciurus hudsonicus 

grahamensis 

Vole, Hualapai Mexican Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis 

Monocot 

Ladies1-tresses, Canelo Hills Spiran thes delitescens 

Sedge, Navajo Carex specuicola 

Reptile 

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge-nosed Crotalus willardi obscurus 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizii Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 3 of 50 
Arkansas ( 9) species: 

Bird 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Bladderpod, Missouri Lesquerella filiformis 

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum 

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum 

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Bat, Indiana Myofis sodalis 

Bat, Ozark Big-eared Coynorhinus (=Plecotus) 

townsendii ingens 

California ( 232) species: 

Amphibian 

Frog, California Red-legged Rana aurora draytonii 

Frog, Mountain Yellow-legged Gopherus agassizii 

Salamander, California Tiger Ambystoma californiense 

Salamander, Desert Slender Batrachoseps aridus 

Salamander, Santa Cruz Long-toed ~rnbystoma macrodac2ylum 

Toad, Arroyo Southwestern 

Bird 

Condor, California 

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow 

Gnatcatcher, Coastal California 

Murrelet, Marbled 

Owl, Northern Spotted 

Plover, Western Snowy 

Rail, California Clapper 

Rail, Light-footed Clapper 

Rail, Yuma Clapper 

Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead 

Sparrow, San Clernente Sage 

Tern, California Least 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Bufo californicus (=microscaphus) 

Gymnogyps californianus 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

Polioptila californica californica 

Brachyramphus marmoratus 

marmoratus 

Strix occidentalis caurina 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

Rallus longirostris obsoletus 

Rallus longirostris levipes 

Rallus longirostris yumanensis 

Lanius ludovicianus rnearnsi 

Amphispiza belli clementeae 

Sterna antillarum browni 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Freshwater No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial, Subterl"aneous No 

Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No . 

Endangered Terrestrial, Vernal @ool No 

Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Endangered Freshwater, Vernallpool, No 

Terrestrial I 

Endangered Fr'eshivater, Terresqrial Yes 

Endangered. 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

~ndan~ered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Freshwater, TerrestHal, 

Saltwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Page 4 of 50 
Towhee, lnyo Brown 

Vireo, Least Bell's 

Conflcycds 

Cypress,'Gowen 

Pipilo crissalis eremophilus 

Vireo bellii pusillus 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Threatened Terrestrial 

Cypress, Santa Cruz 

Dicot 

Cupressus abramsiana Endangered Terrestrial 

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin Pseudobahia peirsonii 

Plagiobothrys strictus 

Ambrosia pumila 

Baccharis vanessae 

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis 

Berberis nevinii 

Galium califomicum ssp. sierr.-- 

Galium buxifolium 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Saltwater 

Allocarya, Calistoga 

Ambrosia, San Diego 

Baccharis, Encinitas 

Barberry, lsland 

Barberry, Nevin's 

Bedstraw, El Dorado 

Bedstraw, lsland 

Bird's-beak, Palmate-bracted Cordylanthus palmatus 

Bird's-beak, Pennell's Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris 

Bird's-beak, salt marsh Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. 

maritimus 

Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis Endangered 

Endangered 

Brackish, Saltwater 

Terrestrial 

Bird's-beak, Soft No 

Bladderpod, San Bernardino Yes 

Mountains 

Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina 

Bluecurls, Hidden Lake Trichostema austromontanum ssp. Threatened Terrestrial 

compactum 

c room, San Clemente lsland 

Buckwheat, Cushenbury 

Buckwheat, lone (incl. Irish Hill) 

Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum 

Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. 

prostratum) 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

No 

Buckwheat, Southern Mountain Wild Eriogonum kennedyi var. 

austromontanum 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Bush-mallow, San Clemente lsland 

Bush-mallow, Santa Cruz lsland 

Malacofhamnus clementinus Endangered 

Endan.gered 

Terrestrial 

Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. Terrestrial 

nesioticus 

Butterweed, Layne's 

Button-celery, San Diego 

Cactus, Bakersfield 

Ceanothus, Coyote 

Ceanothus, Pine Hill 

Ceanothus, Vail Lake 

Centaury, Spring-loving 

Checker-mallow, Keck's 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.104 

Senecio layneae Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Page 5 of 50 

Eryngium aristulatum. var. parishii 

Opuntia treleasei 

Ceanothus ferrisae 

Ceanothus roderickii 

Ceanothus ophiochilus 

Centaurium namophilum 

Sidalcea keckii 
Checker-mallow, Kenwood Marsh 

Checker-mallow, Pedate 

Clarkia, Pismo 

Clarkia, Presidio 

Clarkia, Springville 

Clarkia, Vine Hill 

Clover, Fleshy Owl's 

Clover, Monterey 

Clover, Showy Indian 

Coyote-thistle, Loch Lomond 

Crownbeard, Big-leaved 

Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley 

Daisy, Parish's 

Dudleya, Conejo 

Dudleya, Marcescent 

Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley 

Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island 

Dudleya, Santa Monica Mountains 

Dudleya, Verity's 

Dwarf-flax, Marin 

Evening-primrose, Antioch Dunes 

Evening-primrose, Eureka Valley 

Evening-primrose, San Benito 

Fiddleneck, Large-flowered 

Flannelbush, Mexican 

Flannelbush. Pine Hill 

Fringepod, Santa Cruz Island 

Gilia, Hoffmann's Slender-flowered 

Gilia, Monterey 

Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's 

Goldfields, Burke's 

Goldfields, Contra Costa 

Grass, Hairy Orcutt 

Grass, Sacramento Orcutt 

Grass, Slender Orcutt 

Gumplant, Ash Meadows 

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida 

Sidalcea pedata 

Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata 

Clarkia franciscana 

Clarkia springvil/ensis 

Clarkia imbricata 

Castilleja carnpestris ssp. 

Trifolium trichocalyx 

Trifolium amoenum 

Eryngium constancei 

Verbesina dissita 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior 

Erigeron parishii 

Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens 

Dudleya setchellii 

Dudleya nesiotica 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia 

Dudleya verityi 

Hesperolinon congestum 

Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii 

Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis 

Camissonia benitensis 

Amsinckia grandiflora 

Fremontodendron mexicanurn 

Fremontodendron californicum ssp. 

decumbens 

Thysanocarpus conchuliferus 

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii 

Gilia fenuiflora ssp. arenaria 

Pseudobahia bahiifolia 

Lasthenia burkei 

Lasthenia conjugens 

Orcuttia pilosa 

Orcuttia viscida 

Orcuttia fenuis 

Grindelia fraxino-pra fensis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool 

Terrestrial , 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened 

.. , 

:. Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Tefrestrial 

Vernal pool 

Vernal pool 

Vernal pool 

Terrestrial 

. No 

No 

No 

.No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No I 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

I 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 'Page 6 of 50 
Ivesia, Ash Meadows 

Jewelflower, California 

Jewelflower, Metcalf Canyon 

Jewelflower, Tiburon 

Larkspur, Baker's 

Larkspur, San Clernente lsland 

lvesia kingii var. eremica Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangerbd 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Caulanthus californicus 

Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus 

Streptanthus niger 

Delphinium bakeri 

Delphinium variegatum ssp. 

kinkiense 

Larkspur, Yellow 

Layia, Beach 

Delphinium luteum 

Layia carnosa 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial, Coastal No 

(neritic) 

Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. 

germariorum) 

Lessingia, San Francisco Endangered Terrestrial No 

Liveforever, Laguna Beach 

Liveforever, Santa Barbara lsland 

Lupine; Clover 

Lupine, Niporno Mesa 

Malacothrix, lsland 

Malacothrix, Santa Cruz lsland 

Mallow, Kern 

Manzanita, Del Mar 

Dudleya stolonifera Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Coastal (neritic) 

Coastal (neritic) 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

N'o 

No 

No 

Dudleya traskiae 

Lupinus tidestromii 

Lupinus nipomensis 

Malacothrix squalida 

Malacothrix indecora 

Eremalche kernensis 

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. 

crassifolia 

Arctostapl~ylos myrtifolia Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Manzanita, lone 

Manzanita, Morro 

Manzanita, Pallid 

Manzanita, Presidio (=Raven's) 

Manzanita, Santa Rosa lsland 

Meadowfoam, Butte County 

Meadowfoam, Sebastopol 

Milk-vetch. Braunton's 

Milk-vetch, Clara Hunt's 

Milk-vetch, Coachella Valley 

Arctostaphylos morroensis 

Arctostaphylos pallida 

Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii 

Arctostaphylos confertiflora 

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. 

Limnanthes vinculans 

Astragalus brauntonii , 

Astragalus clarianus 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. 

coachellae 

Milk-vetch, Coastal Dunes 

Milk-vetch, Cushenbury 

Milk-vetch, Fish Slough 

Astragalus tener var. titi 

Astragalus albens 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No' 

Yes 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. No 

piscinensis 

Milk-vetch, Lane Mountain 

Milk-vetch, Pierson's 

Milk-vetch, Triple-ribbed 

Milk-vetch, Ventura Marsh 

Astragalus jaegerianus Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Astragalus magdalenae var. 

Astragalus tricarinatus 

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. 

lanosissirnus 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 7 of 50 
Mint, Otay Mesa Pogogyne nudiuscula 

Mint, San Diego Mesa Pogogyne abramsii 

Monardella, Willowy Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 

Morning-glory, Stebbins Calystegia stebbinsii 

Mountainbalrn, Indian Knob Eriodictyon altissimum 

Mountain-mahogany, Catalina lsland Cercocarpus fraskiae 

Mustard, Slender-petaled Thelypodium stenopetalum 

Navarretia, Few-flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. 

pauciflora (=N. pauciflora) 

Navarretia, Many-flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. 

plieantha 

Navarretia, Spreading Na varretia fossalk 

Niterwort, Arnargosa Nitrophila mohavensis 

Oxytheca, Cushenbuly Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana 

Paintbrush, Ash-grey Indian Castilleja cinerea 

Paintbrush, San Cleniente lsland lndian Castilleja grisea 

Paintbrush, Soft-leaved 

Paintbrush, Tiburon 

Penny-cress, Kneeland Prairie 

Pentachaeta, Lyon's 

Pentachaeta, White-rayed 

Phacelia, lsland 

Phlox, Yreka 

Polygonum, Scott's Valley 

Potentilla, Hickman's 

Pussypaws, Mariposa 

Rock-cress, Hoffrnann's 

Rock-cress, McDonald's 

Rock-cress, Santa Cruz lsland 

Rush-rose, lsland 

Sandwort, Bear Valley 

Sandwort, Marsh 

Sea-blite, California 

Spineflower, Ben Lomond 

Spineflower, Howell's 

Spineflower, Monterey 

Spineflower, Orcutt's 

Castilleja mollis 

Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta 

Thlaspi californicum 

Pentachaeta lyonii , 

Pentachaeta bellidiflora 

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis 

Phlox hirsuta 

Polygonum hickmanii 

Poten tilla hickmanii 

Calyptridium pulchellum 

Arabis hoffmannii 

Arabis mcdonaldiana 

Sibara filifolia 

Helianthemum greenei 

Arenaria ursina 

Arenaria paludicola 

Suaeda californica 

Chorizanthe pungens var. 

hartwegiana 

Chorizanthe howellii 

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens 

Chorizanthe orcuftiana 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool, Terreistrial 

Terrestrial, Vernalpool . No 

Vernal pool No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Te~restrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 1 

Terrestrial ' 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

~reshwater, Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Page 8 of 50 
Spineflower, Robust 

Spineflower, Scotts Valley 

Spineflower, Slender-horned 

Spineflower, Sonoma 

Spurge, Hoover's 

Stickyseed, Baker's 

Stonecrop, Lake County 

Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly 

Taraxacum, California 

Tarplant, Gaviota 

Tarplant, Otay 

Tarplant, Santa Cruz 

Thistle, Chorro creek Bog 

Thistle, Fountain 

Thistle. La Graciosa 

Thistle, Suisun 

Thornmint, San Diego 

Thornmint, San Mateo 

Tuctoria, Green's 

Vervain, California 

Wallflower, Ben Lornond 

Wallflower, Contra Costa 

Wallflower, Menzie's 

Watercress, Garnbel's 

Woodland-star, San Clemente lsland 

WooBy-star, Santa Ana River 

Woolly-threads, San Joaquin 

Yerba Santa, Lornpoc 

Mammal 

Fox, San Joaquin Kit 

Fox, San Miguel lsland 

Fox, Santa Catalina lsland 

Fox, Santa Cruz lsland 

Fox, Santa Rosa lsland 

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta 

Chorizanthe robus ta var. hartwegii 

Dodecahema leptoceras 

Chorizanthe walida 

Chamaesyce hooveri 

Blennosperma bakeri 

Parvisedum leiocarpum 

Eriophyllum la tilobum 

Taraxacum californicum 

Deinandra increscens ssp. willosa 

Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens 

Holocarpha macradenia 

Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense 

Cirsium fontinale war. fontinale 

Cirsium loncholepis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Cirsium hydrophilum war. hydrophilum Endangered 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii 

Tuctoria greenei 

Verbena califomica 

Erysimum teretifolium 

Erysimum capita tum war. 

Elysimum menziesii 

Rorippa gambellii 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Lithophragma maximum Endangered 

Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Endangered 

Monolopia (=Lembetfia) congdonii Endangered 

Eriodictyon capitatum Endangered 

Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered 

Urocyon littoralis littoralis Endangered 

Urocyon littoralis catalinae Endangered 

Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Endangered 

Urocyon littoralis santarosae Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool 

Vernal pool 

Vernal pool 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Coastal (neritic),, 

Freshwater, Saltwater, 

Brackish 

Brackish, Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Brackish, 

Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 
Kangaroo Rat, Fresno 

Kangaroo Rat, Giant 

Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay 

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis 

Dipodomys ingens 

Dipodomysheermanni morroensis 

Dipodomys merriami parvus 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Terrestrial Yes 

Merriarn's . 

Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. 

cascus) 

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides 

Aplodontia rufa nigra 

Perognathus longimembris 

Reithrodontomys raviventris 

Sylvilagus bachmani riparius 

Ovis canadensis 

Ovis canadensis californiana 

Sorex orna tus relictus 

Microtus californicus scirpensis 

Neotoma fuscipes riparia 

Endangered Terrestrial No. 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Kangaroo Rat, Tipton Terrestrial 

Mountain Beaver, Point Arena 

Mouse, Pacific Pocket 

Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest 

Rabbit, Riparian Brush 

Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn 

Sheep, Sierra Nevada Bighorn 

Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate 

Vole, Amargosa 

Woodrat, Riparian 

Monocot - 

Alopecurus, Sonoma 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Freshwater, Terrebtrial I 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial I 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Alopecurus aequalis var. 

sonomensis 

Terrestrial , 

Arnole, Cammatta Canyon ,Chloroga~um purpureum var. 

reductum 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Amole, Purple Chlorogalum purpureum var. Threatened Terrestrial 

purpureum 

Yes 

Endangered 

~ndan~ered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vernal pool, Terres rial 

Vernal pool 3 

! 

I 

Terrestrial 

Bluegrass, Napa 

Bluegrass, San Bernardino 

Brodiaea, Chinese Camp 

Brodiaea, Thread-leaved 

Grass, California Orcutt 

Grass, Colusa 

Grass, Eureka Dune 

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt 

Grass, Solano 

Lily, Pitkin Marsh 

Lily, Tiburon Mariposa 

Lily, Western 

Onion, Munz's 

Piperia, Yadon's 

Sedge, White 

Reptile 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Poa napensis 

Poa atropurpurea 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Brodiaea pallida 

Brodiaea filifolia 

Orcuttia californica 

Neostapfia colusana 

Swallenia alexandrae 

Orcuttia inaequalis 

Tuctoria m ucronata 

Vernal pool 

Vernal pool, Terrestrial I 

Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 

Calochorfus tiburonensis 

Liljum occidentale 

A Ilium m unzii 

Piperia yadonii 

Carex albida 

Page 10 of 50 
Lizard, Blunt-nosed Leopard Gambelia silus 

Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Uma inornata 

Lizard, Island Night Xantusia riversiana 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia niydas 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Sea turtle, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea 

Snake, Giant Garter Thamnophis gigas 

Snake, San Francisco Garter Thamnophis sirtalis fefrataenia 

Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizii 

Whipsnake (=Striped Racer), Alameda Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus 

Colorado ( 17) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida 

Dicot 

Beardtongue, Penland Penstemon penlandii 

Bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs Lesquerella congesta 

Butterfly Plant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. 

coloradensis 

Cactus, Knowlton Pediocactus knowltonii 

Cactus, Mesa Verde Sclerocactus mesae-verdae 

Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Sclerocactus'glaucus 

Milk-vetch, Mancos Astragalus humillimus 

Milk-vetch, Osterhout Astragalus osterhoutii 

Mustard, Penland Alpine Fen Eutrema penlandii 

Phacelia, North Park Phacelia formosula 

Twinpod, ~udie~ Bluffs Physaria obdordata 

Wild-buckwheat, Clay-loving Eriogon um pelinophilurn 

Mammal 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius preblei 

Monocot 

Ladies1-tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis 

Connecticut ( 11) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

~hreatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

- CH 

Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 1 1 of 50 
Tern, Roseate 

Dicot 

Gerardia, Sandplain 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana 

Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Agalinis acuta 

Myotis sodalis 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater I No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

- CH 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Erefmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Carettacaretta " 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Delaware ( 10) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Marr~mal 

Squirrel, Delmawa Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus 

Monocot 

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata~.~ 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial, Freshwbter No 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides Terrestrial No 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback , Dermochelys coriacea 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

- CH 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Turtle, Bog (~orthern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Florida ( 88) species: 

Amphibian 

Salamander, Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Freshwater, Vernal ipool, No 

Terrestrial 

Bird 

Caracara, Audubon's Crested Polyborus plancus audubonii Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Page 12 of 50 

Kite, Everglade Snail Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

4129J2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 
Scrub-Jay, Florida 

Sparrow, Cape Sable Seaside 

Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper 

Stork, Wood 

Tern, Roseate 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

Conflcycds 

Torreya, Florida 

Dicot 

Aster, Florida Golden 

Bellflower, Brooksville 

Birds-in-a-nest, White 

Blazing Star, Scrub 

Bonamia, Florida 

Buckwheat, Scrub 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Threatened 

Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Endangered 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Endangered 

Mycteria americana Endangered 

Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered 

Picoides borealis Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Torreya taxifolia , Endangered Terrestrial 

Chrysopsis floridana 

Campanula robinsiae 

Macbridea alba 

Liatris ohlingerae 

Bonamia grandiflora 

Eriogonum longifolium var. 

gnaphalifolium 

Pinguicula ionantha 

Pilosocereus robinii 

Silene polypetala 

Schwalbea americana 

Chionanthus pygmaeus 

Ribes echinellum 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Butterwort, Godfrey's 

Cactus, Key Tree 

Campion, Fringed 

Chaffseed, American 

Fringe Tree, Pygmy 

Gooseberry, Miccosukee 

Gourd, Okeechobee 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Endangered Terrestrial 

okeechobeensis 

Harebells, Avon Park 

Hypericum, Highlands Scrub 

Jacquemontia, Beach 

Crotalaria avonensis Endangered Terrestrial 

Hypericum cumulicola Endangered Terrestrial 

Jacquemontia reclina ta Endangered Terrestrial, Coastal 

(neritic) 

Lead-plant, Crenulate 

Lupine, Scrub 

Meadowrue, Cooley's 

Milkpea, Small's 

Mint, Garrett's 

Mint, Lakela's 

Mint, Longspurred 

Mint, Scrub 

Mustard, Carter's 

Pawpaw, Beautiful 

Amorpha crenulata 

Lupinus aridorum 

Thalictrum cooleyi 

Galactia smallii 

Dicerandra christmanii 

Dicerandra immaculata 

Dicerandra cornutissima 

Dicerandra frutescens 

Warea carter; 

Deeringotharnnus pulchellus 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 1 
Pawpaw, Four-petal 

Pawpaw, Rugel's 

Pinkroot, Gentian 

Plum, Scrub 

Polygala, Lewton's 

Polygala, Tiny 

Prickly-apple, Fragrant 

Rhododendron, Chapman 

Rosemary, Apalachicola 

Rosemary, Etonia 

Rosemary, Short-leaved 

Sandlace 

Skullcap, Florida 

Snakeroot 

Spurge, Deltoid 

Asimina tetramera Endangered Terrestrial No 

Deeringothamnus rugelii Endangered Terrestrial No 

Spigelia gentianoides Endangered Terrestrial No 

Prunus geniculata Endangered 

Polygala lewtonii Endangered 

Polygala smallii Endangered 

Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans Endangered 

Rhododendron chapmanii Endangered 

Conradina glabra Endangered 

Conradina etonia Endangered 

Conradina brevifolia Endangered' 

Polygonella myriophylla Endangered 

Scutellaria floridana Threatened 

Eryngium cuneifolium Endangered 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

~ehestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

.Terrestrial 

.Terrestrial 

Spurge, Garber's 

Spurge, Telephus 

Warea, Wide-leaf 

Water-willow, Cooley's 

Whitlow-wort, Papery 

Wings, Pigeon 

Wireweed 

Ziziphus, Florida 

Lichen 

Cladonia, Florida Perforate 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray 

Chamaesyce garberi 

Euphorbia telephioides 

Warea amplexifolia 

Justicia cooleyi 

Paronychia chartacea 

Clitoria fragrans 

Polygonella basiramia 

. Ziziphus celata 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Cladonia perforata Endangered Terrestrial No 

Myotis grisescens 

Myotis sodalis 

Endangered 

-. 

~ndan~ered 

Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

.Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Yes 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Deer, Key Terrestrial 

Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach 

Odocoileus virginianus clavium 

Peromyscus polionotus phasma Terrestrial, Coastal 

(neritic) 

Peromyscus polionotus allophfys Endangered Coastal (neritic), 

Terrestrial 

Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Mouse, Key Largo Cotton 

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach 

Mouse, Southeastern Beach 

Peromyscus gossypinus . 

Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Coastal (neritic) 

Coastal (neritic), 

Terrestrial 

4/29/2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 14 of 50 
Mouse, St. Andrew Beach Peromyscus polionotus Endangered Terrestrial, Coastal No 

(neritic) 

Panther, ~iorida Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi Endangered Terrestrial No 

Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh 

Rice Rat (=Silver Rice Rat) 

Vole, Florida Salt Marsh 

Woodrat, Key Largo 

Monocot 

Beargrass, Britton's 

Beauty, Harper's 

Seagrass, Johnson's 

Reptile 

Crocodile, American 

Sea turtle, green 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

Skink, Blue-tailed Mole 

Skink, Sand 

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh 

Snake, Eastern Indigo 

Georgia 

Amphibian 

Salamander, Flatwoods 

Plover, Piping 

Stork, Wood 

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

Conflcycds 

Torreya, Florida 

Dicot 

Arnphianthus, Little 

Barbara Buttons, Mohr's 

Sylvilagus palustris hefneri 

Oryzomys palustris natator 

Microtus pennsylvanicus 

dukecampbelli 

Neotoma 'floridana smalli 

Nolina brittoniana 

Harperocallis flava 

Halophila johnsonii 

Crocodylus acutus 

Chelonia mydas 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

Lepidochelys kempiiDermochelys coriacea 

Caretta caretta 

Eumeces egregius lividus 

Neoseps reynoldsi 

Nerodia clarkii taeniata 

Drymarchon corais couperi 

( 34) species: 

Ambystoma cingulatum 

Charadrius melodus 

Mycteria americana 

Dendroica kirtlandii 

Picoides borealis 

Torreya taxifolia 

Amphianthus pusillus 

Marshallia mohrii 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial, Brackish 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Threatened Coastal (neritic), 

Saltwater 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened > ?" 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Saltwater, Terrestrial, 

Brackish 

Terrestrial 

Threatened Freshwater, Vernal pool, 

Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threaten.ed Freshwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 15 of 50 
Campion, Fringed 

Dropwort, Canby's 

Harperella 

Pitcher-plant, Green 

Pondberry 

Rattleweed, Hairy 

Skullcap, Large-flowered 

Spiraea, Virginia 

Sumac, Michaux's 

Ferns 

Quillwort, Black-spored 

Quillwort, Mat-forming 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray 

Silene polypetala 

Oxypolis canbyi 

Ptilimnium nodosum 

Sarracenia oreophila 

Lindera melissifolia 

Baptisia arachnifera 

Scutellaria montana 

Spiraea virginiana 

Rhus michauxii 

lsoetes melanospora 

lsoetes tegetiformans 

Myotis grisescens 

Bat: Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) 

townsendii virginianus 

Monocot 

Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed Xyris tennesseensis 

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens 

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum 

water-plantain, Kral's 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

snake, Eastern Indigo 

Sagitfaria secundifolia 

Chelonia mydas 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

Lepidochelys kempii 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Caretta caretta 

Drymarchon corais couperi 

Hawaii ( 304) species: 

Bird 

'Akepa, Hawaii Loxops coccineus coccineus 

'Akepa, Maui Loxops coccineus ochraceus 

'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus Hemignathus procerus 

procerus) - 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Freshwater 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial I 

Terrestrial I 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Vernal pool No 

Endangered Vernal pool No 

Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial, Subterraneous Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwhter No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Freshwater No 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Threatened Saltwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

- CH 

~ndangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Page 16 of 50 
'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) 

Albatross, Short-tailed 

Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) 

Creeper, Hawaii 

Creeper, Molokai (Kakawahie) 

Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) 

Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) 

Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) 

Hemignathus munroi 

Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albafrus 

Fulica americana alai 

Oreomystis mana 

Paroreomyza flammea 

Paroreomyza maculata 

Coivus ha waiiensis 

Anas wyvilliana 

Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis 

Elepaio, Oahu Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis 

Finch, Laysan Telespyza cantans 

Finch, Nihoa Telespyza ultima 

Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) ' Bran fa (ZNesochen) sandvicensis 

Hawk, Hawaiian (lo) Buteo solitarius 

Honeycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe) Palmeria dolei 

Millerbird, Nihoa Acrocephalus familiaris kingi 

Moorhen, Hawaiian Common Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis 

Nuku Pu'u Hemignathus lucidus 

'0'0, Kauai (='A1a) Moho braccatus 

'O'u (Honeycreeper) 

Palila 

Psittirostra psittacea 

Loxioides bailleui 

parrotbill, Maui Pseudonesfor xanfhophrys 

Petrel, Hawaiian Dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia 

sandwichensis 

Po'ouli Melamprosops phaeosoma 

Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's Puffinus auricularis newelli 

Stilt, Hawaiian (=Aelo) Himantopus mexicanus knudseni 

Thrush, Large Kauai Myadestes myadestinus 

Thrush, Molokai (Oloma'o) Myadestes lanaiensis rutha 

Thrush; Small Kauai (Puaiohi) Myadestes palmeri 

Dicot 

Abutilon eremitopetalum (ncn) Abutilon eremitopetalum 

Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) Abutilon sandwicense 

Achyranthes mutica (ncn) Achyranthes mutica 

Achyranthes splendens var. Achyranthes splendens var. 

rotundata (ncn) rotundata 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Saltwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial ' 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial . . 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial, Saltwater No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

A'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. 

tom entosum) tomentosum 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 17 of 50 
Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

A'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) Zanthoxylum hawaiiense 

Nothocestrum breviflorum 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) 

'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) Nothocestrum peltatum 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. 

kaenana) 

Chamaesyce celastroides var. 

kaenana 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) Chamaesyce deppeana Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) Chamaesyce herbstii 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) Chamaesyce kuwaleana 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii) Chamaesyce rockii 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. 

skottsbe 

Chamaesyce skotfsbergii var. 

kalaeloana 

'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) 

Alani (Melicope adscendens) 

Alani (Melicope balloui) 

Alani {~elicope haupuensis) 

Alani (Melicope knudsenii) 

Alani (Melicope lydgatei) 

Alani (Melicope mucronulata) 

Alan1 (Melicope munroi) 

Alani (Melicope ovalis) 

Alani (Melicope pallida) 

Alani (Melicope quadrangularis) 

Alani (Melicope reflexa) 

Alani (Melicope saint-johnii) 

Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) 

Euphorbia haeleeleana Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Melicope adscendens 

Melicope balloui 

Melicope haupuensis 

Melicope knudsenii 

Melicope lydgatei 

Melicope mucronulata 

Melicope munroi 

Melicope ovalis 

Mellcope pallida 

Melicope quadrangularis 

Melicope reflexa 

Melicope saint-johnii 

~&co~e zahlbruckneri 

Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) 

Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) 

Alsinidendron viscosum (ncn) 

Amaranthus brownii (ncn) 

'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) 

'Anunu (Sicyos alba) 

Aupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) 

Aupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium) 

Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) 

'Awikiwiki (Canqvalia molokaiensis) 

'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) 

'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) 

Bonamia menziesii (ncn) 

Alsinidendron obovatum 

Alsinidendron trinewe 

Alsinidendron viscosum 

Amaranthus brownii 

Lepidium arbuscula 

Sicyos alba 

lsodendrion hosakae 

lsodendrion laurifolium 

lsodendrion longifolium 

Canavalia molokaiensis 

Centaurium sebaeoides 

Hedyotis cookiana 

Bonamia menziesil' 

412912010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 , Page 18 of 50 
Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) Chamaesyce halemanui 

Cyanea undulata 

Delissea rhytidosperma 

Dubautia latifolia 

Duba utia pa uciflorula 

Geranium arboreum 

Gouania hillebrandii 

Gouania meyenii 

Gouania vitifolia 

Cyanea acuminata 

Cyanea asarifolia 

Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Cyanea undulata (ncn) 

Delissea rhytodisperma (ncn) 

Dubautia latifolia (ncn) 

Dubautia pauciflorula (ncn) 

Geranium, Hawaiian Red-flowered 

Gouania hillebrandii (ncn) 

Gouania meyenii (ncn) 

Gouania vitifolia (ncn) 

Haha (Cyanea acuminata) 

Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) 

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. 

copelandii) 

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. 

haleakalaensis) 

Cyanea copelandii ssp. 

haleakalaensis 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia Cyanea (=Rollandia) crispa 

crispa) 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Haha (Cyanea dunbarii) Cyanea dunbarii 

Cyanea glabra 

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Haha (Cyanea glabra) 

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 

grimesiana) 

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae 

obatae) 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 

carlsonii) 

Cyanea hamatiflora carlsonii ,, Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. 

hamatiflora) 

,Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Haha (Cyanea humboldtiana) Cyanea humboldtiana 

Cyanea koolauensis 

Cyanea longiflora 

Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) 

Haha (Cyanea longiflora) 

Haha (Cyanea Macrostegia var. 

gibsonii) 

Haha (Cyanea mannii) 

Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) 

Haha (Cyanea pinnatifida) 

Haha (Cyanea platyphylla) 

Haha (Cyanea procera) 

Haha (Cyanea recta) 

Cyapea mannii 

Cyanea mceldowneyi 

Cyanea pinnatifida 

Cyanea platyphylla 

Cyanea procera 

Cyanea recta 

Cyanea remyi 

Cyanea shipmannii 

Cyanea stictophylla 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Haha (Cyanea remyi) 

Haha (Cyanea shipmanii) 

Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 19 of 50 
Haha (Cyanea St-Johnii) (=Rollandia 

St-Johnii) 

Haha (Cyanea superba) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra crenata) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra dentata) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra limahuliensis) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra munroi) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) 

Ha'lwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) 

Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) 

Hau'~auhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) 

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) 

Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) 

Hedyotis degeneri (ncn) 

Hedyotis parvula (ncn) 

Hedyotis St.-Johnii (ncn) 

Hesperomannia arborescens (ncn) 

Hesperomannia arbuscula (ncn) 

Hesperornannia lydgatei (ncn) 

Hibiscus, Clay's 

Holei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) 

lliau (Wilkesia hobdyi) 

Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) 

Karnakahala (Labordia lydgatei) 

Karnakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. 

lanaiensis) 

Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. 

wahiawaen) 

Karnakahala (Labordia triflora) 

Kanaloa kahoolawensis (ncn) 

Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) 

Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) 

Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) 

Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racernosa) 

Koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) 

Koki'o (Kokia kauaiensis) 

412912010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Cyanea st-johnii 

Cyanea superba 

Cyrtandra crenata 

Cyrtandra dentata 

Cyttandra giffardii 

Cyrtandra limahuliensis 

Cyrfandra munroi 

Cyrtandra polyantha 

Cyrtandra subumbellata 

Cyrtandra tintinnabula 

Cyrtandra viridiflora 

Haplostachys haplostachya 

Hibiscadelphus woodii 

Hibiscadelphus distans 

Exocarpos luteolus 

Hedyotis degeneri 

Hedyotis parvula 

Hedyofis st.-johnii 

Hesperomannia arborescens 

Hesperomannia arbuscula 

Hesperomannia lydgatei 

Hibiscus clayi 

Ochrosia kilaueaensis 

Wilkesia. hobdyi 

Labordia cyrtandrae 

La bordia lydgatei 

Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis 

Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis 

Labordia triflora 

Kanaloa kahoolawensis 

Colubrina oppositifolia 

Pteralyxa kauaiensis 

Hedyotis coriacea 

Phyllostegia racemosa 

Kokia drynarioides 

Kokia kauaiensis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Tewestr~al 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

I Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

I Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Pdge 20 of 50 
Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus arnottianus Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. 

ssp. immaculatus) immaculatus 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae 

ssp. hannerae) 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Kolea (Myrsine juddii) Myrsine juddii Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Kolea (Myrsine linearifolia) Myrsine linearifolia 

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha 

kalealaha) 

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens wiebkei) Bidens wiebkei Endangered 

Endangered 

~ndangered - 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

No 

Ko'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii) Abutilon menziesii 

Kopa (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var 

var. remyi) remyi 

Kuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron Alsinidendron lychnoides 

lychnoides) 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Kulu'l (Nototrichium humile) Nototrichium humile 

Laukahi Kuahiwi (Piantago hawaiensis) pkntago hawaiensis 

Endangered 

~ndan~ered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Laukahi ~uahiwi (Plantago princeps) 

Laulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) 

Lipochaeta venosa (ncn) 

Lobelia monostachya (ncn) 

Lobelia niihauensis (ncn) 

Lobelia oahuensis (ncn) . 

Lysimachia filifolia (ncn) 

Lysimachia lydgatei (ncn) 

Lysimachia maxima (ncn) 

Mahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) 

Makou (Peucedanum sandwicense) 

Ma'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus 

brackenridgei) 

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos) 

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae) 

Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) 

Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) 

Plantago princeps 

Schiedea stellarioides 

Lipochaeta venosa 

Lobelia monostachya 

Lobelia niihauensis 

Lobelia oahuensis 

Lysimachia filifolia 

Lysimachia lydgatei 

Lysimachia maxima 

Alectryon macrococcus 

Peucedanum sandwicense 

Hibiscus brackenridgei 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

~ndan~ered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Schiedea apokremnos 

Schiedea kealiae 

Cyrtandra cyaneoides 

Flueggea neowawraea 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Munroidendron racemosum (ncn) 

Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) 

Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. 

humilis) 

Nani Wai'ale'ale (Viola kauaensis var. 

wahiawaensis) 

Nanu (Gardenia mannii) 

Munroidendron racemosum 

Dubautia herbstobatae 

Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Gardenia mannii Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 2 1 of 50 
Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) Gardenia brighamii 

Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) Scaevola' coriacea 

Nehe (Lipochaeta fauriei) Lipochaeta fauriei 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

~hylla Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Nehe'(Lipochaeta kamolensis) Lipochaeta kamolensis 

Nehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. Lipochaeta iobata var. lepto~ 

leptophylla) 

Nehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) Lipochaeta micrantha Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered ' 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

~ekrastrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes I 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) Lipochaeta tenuifolia 

Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) Lipochaeta waimeaensis 

Neraudia angulata (ncn) Neraudia angulata 

Neraudia ovata (ncn) Neraudia ovata 

Neraudia sericea (ncn) Neraudia sericea 

Nioi (Eugenia koolauensis) Eugenia koolauensis 

Nohoanu (Geranium rnultiflorum) Geranium multiflorum 

'Oha (Delissea rivularis) Delissea rivularis 

'Oha (Delissea subcordata) Delissea subcordata 

'Oha (Delissea undulata) Delissea undulata 

'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) Lobeiia gaudichaudiissp. 

koolauensis 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) Clermontia drepanornorpha Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia lindseyana) Clermontia lindseyana 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 

brevipes) 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. Yes 

rnauiensis) mauiensis 

Endangered Terrestrial 

'Oha Wai (~lermontia peleana) Clermontia peleana 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) Clermontia pyrularia 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) Clermontia samuelii 

'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) Sesbania tomentosa 

'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa 

'Olulu (Brighamia insignis) Brighamia insignis Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Opuhe (Urera kaalae) Urera kaalae 

Pamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. Viola chamissoniana ssp. 

charnissoniana) chamissoniafla 

Phyllostegia hirsuta (ncn) Phyllostegia hirsuta Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

-Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Phyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn) Phyilostegia kaalaensis 

Phyllostegia knudsenii (ncn) Phyllostegia knudsenii 

Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) Phyilostegia mannii 

Phyllostegia mollis (ncn) Phyllostegia mollis 

412912010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 22 of 50 
Phyllostegia parviflora 

Phyllostegia velutina 

Phyllostegia waimeae 

Phyllostegia warshaueri 

Phyllostegia wawrana 

Hedyotis mannii 

Portulaca sclerocarpa 

Solanum sandwicense 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

'Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Phyllostegia parviflora (ncn) 

Phyllostegia velutina (ncn) 

Phyllostegia waimeae (ncn) 

Phyllostegia warshaueri (ncn) 

Phyllostegia wawrana (ncn) 

Pilo (Hedyotis mannii) 

Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) 

Popolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum 

sandwicense) 

Popolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum) Solanum incompletum Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Pua'ala (Brighamia rockii) 

Remya kauaiensis (ncn) 

Remya montgomeryi (ncn) 

Remya, Maui 

Sandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi) 

Brighamia rockii 

Rernya kauaiensis 

Remya montgomeryi 

Remya mauiensis 

Santalum freycinetianum var. 

lanaiense 

Sanicula mariversa 

Sanicula purpurea 

Schiedea haleakalensis 

Schiedea' helleri 

Schiedea hookeri 

Schiedea kaalae 

Schiedea kauaiensis 

Schiedea lydgatei 

Schiedea mernbranacea 

Schiedea nuttallii 

Schiedea sarmentosa 

Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Sanicula mariversa (ncn) Endangered 

~ndan~ered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

TerrestrialYes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Sanicula purpurea (ncn) 

Schiedea haleakalensis (ncn) 

Schiedea helleri (ncn) 

Schiedea hookeri (ncn) ' Yes .. . 

' Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Schiedea kaalae (ncn) 

Schiedea kauaiensis (ncn) 

Schiedea lydgatei (ncn) 

Schiedea membranacea (ncn) 

Schiedea nuttallii (ncn) 

Schiedea sarmentosa (ncn) 

Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda 

(ncn) 

Yes 

-- Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina 

(ncn) 

Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Schiedea verticillata 

Schiedea adamantis 

Endangered. 

Endangered 

Schiedea verticillata (ncn) Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

~chiedea, Diamond Head (~chiedea No 

adamantis) 

Silene alexandri (ncn) Silene alexandri 

Silene hawaiiensis (ncn) 

Silene lanceolata (ncn) 

Silene perlmanii (ncn) 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Silene ha waiiensis 

Silene lanceolata 

Silene perlmanii 

Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 

macrocephalum 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 23 af 50 
Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium 

kauense) 

Argyroxiphium kauense Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Silversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. 

sandwicense 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn) 

Stenogyne angustifolia (ncn) 

Spermolepis hawaiiensis Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Stenogyne angustifolia var. Terrestrial No 

angustifolia 

Stenogyne bifida (ncn) Stenogyne bifida 

Stenogyne campanulata 

Stenogyne kanehoana 

Tetramolopium arenarium 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Stenogyne campanulata (ncn) 

Stenogyne kanehoana (ncn) 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

I 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Tetrarnolopium arenarium (ncn) 

Tetrarnolopium capillare (ncn) Tetramolopium capillare 

Tetramolopium filiforme (ncn) Tetrarnolopium filiforme 

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 

lepidoturn (ncn) 

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 

lepidotum 

Tetramolopium remyi (ncn) Tetramolopium remyi Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial Yes 

Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) Tetramolopiurn rockii Coastal (neritic), Yes 

Terrestrial 

Trematolobelia singularis (ncn) Trematolobelia singularis 

Caesalpinia kavaiense 

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

No 

Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) 

Ulihi (~hyllostegia'glabra var. 

lanaiensis) 

Vetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) Vicia menziesii 

Vigna o-wahuensis 

Viola helenae 

Viola lanaiensis 

Viola oahuensis 

lsodendrion pyrifolium 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Vigna o-wahuensis (ncn) Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Viola helenae (ncn) 

Viola lanaiensis (ncn) 

Viola oahuensis (ncn) 

Wahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion 

pyrifolium) 

Xylosma crenatum,(ncn) Xylosma crenatum Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Ferns 

Asplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn) Asplenium fragile var. insulare 

DieNia erecta 

Diellia falcata 

Diellia pallida 

Diellia unisora 

Diplazium molokaiense 

Adenophorus periens 

Endangered. 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Diellia erecta (ncn) 

Diellia falcata (ncn) 

Diellia pallida (ncn) 

Diellia unisora (ncn) 

Diplazium molokaiense (ncn) 

Fern, Pendant Kihi (Adenophorus 

periens) 

'Ihi'lhi (Marsilea villosa) Marsilea villosa 

Ctenitis squamigera 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Vernal pool, Terrestrial Yes 

Pauoa (Ctenitis squamigera) Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 24 of 50 
pteris lidgatei (ncn) 

:~awae'lole (Phlegmariurus 

(=Huperzia) mannii) 

)Vawaellole (Phlegmariurus 

(=Lycopodium) nutans) 1 Mammal 

Bat, Hawaiian Hoary 

IVlonocot 

Bluegrass, Hawaiian 

Bluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) 

Gahnia Lanaiensis (ncn) 

Grass, Fosberg's Love 1 Hala Pepe (Pleornele hawaiiensis) 

1 Hilo lschaemum (Ischaemum byrone) 

Kamanomano (Cenchrus 

agrimonioides) 

Lau'ehu (Panicum niihauense) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia affinis) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia kaalae) , 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia munroi) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia remota) 1 Lo.ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) 

Mariscus fauriei (ncn) 1 ldariscus pennatiformis (ncn) 

Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei 

var.carteri) 

Platanthera holochila (ncn) 

Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) 

Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) 

Wahane (Pritchardia aylmerrdbinsonii) 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green 

Pteris lidgatei 

Huperzia mannii 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus) nutans Endangered Terrestrial 

Lasiurus cinereus semotus 

Poa sandvicensis 

Poa mannii 

Gahnia lanaiensis 

Eragrostis fosbergii 

Pleomele hawaiiensis 

lschaernum byrone 

Cenchrus agrimonioides 

Panbum niihauense 

Pritchardia affinis 

Pritchardia kaalae 

Pritchardia munroi 

Pritchardia napaliensis 

Pritchardia remota 

Pritchardia schattaueri 

Pritchardia viscosa 

Mariscus fauriei 

Mariscus pennatiformis 

Panicum fauriei var. carter; 

Platanthera holochila 

Poa siphonoglossa 

Cyperus trachysanthos 

Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii 

Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Idaho ( 7) species: 

fl/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial, Subterraneous No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

~errestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

- 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Saltwater 

Threatened Saltwater 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

- CH 

Page 25 of 50 
Grus americana 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping 

Dicot 

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii 

Four-o'clock, Macfarlane's Mirabilis macfarlanei 

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis 

Mammal 

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis 

Caribou, Woodland Wngifer tarandus caribou 

Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground Spermophilus brunneus brunneus 

///inojs ( 13) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Dicot 

Aster, Decurrent False Boltonia decurrens 

Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea fo!iosa 

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya 

Daisy, Lakeside Hymenoxys herbacea 

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii 

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana 

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitchen 

IVlammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Monocot 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie. Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Indiana ( 10) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Dicot 

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum 

Goldenrod, Short's Solidago shorfii 

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

~hreatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

- CH 

Terrestrial Yes I 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial, Freshw4ter No I 

Terrestrial I No 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater I No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Suhterraneous, No 

Terrestrial I 

Subterraneous, I Yes 

Terrestrial 

Terrestr~al No 

Terrestrial No 

- CH 

Terrestrial Yes 

! Terrestrial ; No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial 1 No 

Page 26 of 50 
Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

I Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Reptile 

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

10 wa ( 9) species: - CH 

Bird 

I Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Terrestrial No 

3 Dicot 

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya 

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii 

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconifum noveboracense 

Ferns 

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium smlopendrium var. 

americanum 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No ! 

Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Terrestrial No 

Kansas ( 7) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Terrestrial No 

Dicot 

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii 

Mammal 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

Monocot 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 27 of 50 
Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Pla tanthera praeclara Threatened Terrestrial No 

Kentucky ( 19) species: - CH 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kittlandii 

Warbler, Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii 

Woodpecker, Ivoty-billed Campephilus principalis 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana 

Clover, Running Buffalo. Trifolium stoloniferum 

Goldenrod, Short's Solidago shortii 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial I No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Goldenrod, White-haired 

Potato-bean, Price's 

Rock-cress, Large (=Braunls) 

Solidago albopilosa 

Apios priceana 

Arabis perstella fa E. L. Braun var. 

ampla Rollins 

Rock-cress, Small Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. 

perstellata Fernald 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Rosemary, Cumberland 

Sandwort, Cum berland 

Spiraea, Virginia 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray 

Conradina verticillata Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Arenaria cumberlandensis 

Spiraea virginiana 

Myotis grisescens Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Subterraneous, I Yes 

Terrestrial I 

Bat, Virginia Big-eared ~otyno;hinus (=Plecofus) 

townsendii virginianus 

Endangered Terrestrial, ~ubterrabeous Yes 

Louisiana ( 15) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No I 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial I No 

Tern, California Least Sterna antillarum browni 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Chaffseed, American Schwafbea americana Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial I No Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum 

Ferns 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 28 of 50 
Quillwort, Louisiana lsoetes louisianensis 

Mammal 

Bear,Louisiana Black Ursus americanus luteolus 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus 

Turtle, Ringed Sawback Graptemys oculifera 

Maine ( 7) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Dicot 

Lousewott, Furbish Pedicularis furbishiae 

Mammal 

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis 

Monocot 

. . Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Maryland 

Bird 

Plover, Piping 

Dicot 

Dropwort, Canby's 

( 14) species: 

Charadrius melodus 

Oxypolis canbyi 

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta 

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum 

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Squirrel, delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus 

Monocot 

Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Threatened Saltwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Saltwater 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Freshwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial, Brackish No 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 29 of 50 
Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Bristle) 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Threatened Terrestrial. Freshwater No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

Terrestrial, Freshhter No 

- CH 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Massachusetts ( 12) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Dicot 

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial I Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Bristle) 

Pogoma, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Endangered Terrestrial, ~reshwdter No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No I 

Terrestrial, Freshwavr No 

Terrestrial, ~reshwatbr Yes 

- CH 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Turtle, Plymouth Red-bellied Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi - Endangered 

Michigan ( 13) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii 

Dicot 

~ais~, Lakeside Hymenoxys herbacea 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial I Yes 

Terrestrial I No 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

~errestrial, Freshwater No 

Goldenrod, Houghton's Solidago houghtonii 

Monkey-flower, Michigan Mimulus glabratus var. 

michiganensis 

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri 

412912010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Page 30 of 50 
Ferns 

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. 

americanum 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis 

Monocot 

Iris, Dwarf Lake Iris lacustris 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta 

Minnesota ( 6) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Dicot 

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya 

Roseroot, Leedy's ' Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi 

Marrrmal 

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis 

Monocot 

Lily, Minnesota Trout Erythronium propullans 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara 

Mississippi ( 20) species: 

Amphibian. 

Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) Rana capito sevosa 

Bird' 

Crane, Mississippi Sandhill Grus canadensis pulla 

Plover, Piping Charadricis melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia 

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana 

Ferns 

Quillwort, Louisiana fsoetes louisianensis 

Mammal 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Endangered Tekestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Page 31 of 50 
Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bear, Louisiana Black 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green 

Ursus americanus luteolus 

Chelonia mydas 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Saltwater 

Saltwater I 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial I 

Freshwater, Terresirial 

Freshwater, ~erresirial 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

- CH 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi 

Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus 

Turtle, Ringed Sawback Graptemys oculifera 

Turtle, Yellow-blotched Map Grap,&mys flavimaculata 

Missouri ( 12) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 1 Yes 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Terrestrial I No 

Dicot 

Aster, Decurrent False Boltonia decurrens Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrral I No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Vernal pool No 

~laddgrkd, Missouri Lesquerella filiformis 

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum 

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum 

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii 

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia 

Sneezeweed, Virginia Helenium virginicum 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Subterraneous, I No 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Terrestrial No 

I 

CH Montana ( 7) species: I - 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus arnericana Terrestrial, Freshwat r Yes 

Terrestrral 

i 

Yes 

Terrestr~al No 

Page 32 of 50 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna anfillarum 

4/29/2010 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 
Dicot 

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Threatened Terrestrial 

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis Threatened Freshwater 

Mammal 

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Terrestrial 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Terrestrial 

Nebraska ( 7) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Dicot 

Butterfly Plant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. 

coloradensis 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Penstemon, Blowout Pegsfemon haydenii 

Mammal 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

Monocot 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Terrestrial No 

Nevada ( 12) species: -- - CH 

Bird 

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Terrestrial 

Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Blazing Star, Ash Meadows Mentzelia leucophylla Threatened Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Buckwheat. Steam boat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. Endangered Terrestrial No 

williamsiae 

Centaury, Spring-loving 

Gumplant, Ash Meadows 

Ivesia, Ash Meadows 

Milk-vetch, Ash Meadows 

Niterwort, Amargosa 

Sunray, Ash Meadows 

Monocot 

Ladies1-tresses, Ute 

Reptile 

Tortoise, Desert 

Centaurium namophilum Threatened Terrestrial 

Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Threatened Terrestrial 

lvesia kingii var. eremica Threatened Terrestrial 

Astragalus phoenix Threatened Terrestrial 

Nitrophila mohavensis Endangered Terrestrial 

Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata Threatened Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Terrestrial 

Gopherus agassizii Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 33 of 50 
New Hampshire- ( 4) species: 

Dicot 

Mil k-vetch, Jesup's Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Monocot 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

New Jersey ( 13) species: 

Bird . 

Curlew, Eskimo 

Plover, Piping 

Dicot 

Chaffseed, American 

Numenius borealis 

Charadrius melodus 

Schwalbea americana 

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myofis sodalis 

Monocot 

Beaked-rush, Knieskern's Rhynchospora knieskernii 

Pink, Swamp Helonlas bullata 

Pogonia, Small Whorled ./sotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta carelta 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemrnys muhlenbergii 

New Mexico ( 25) species: 

Amphibian 

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard , Rana chiricahuensis 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis 

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial I 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial, Brackish 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

- CH 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered . Saltwater Yes 

Threatened Saltwater No . 

Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

- CH 

Threateried Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 34 of 50 
Owl, Mexican Spotted 

Plbver, Piping 

Tern, Interior (population) Least 

Dicot 

Cactus, Knowlton 

Cactus, Kuenzler Hedgehog 

Cactus, Lee Pincushion 

Cactus, Mesa Verde 

Cactus, Sneed Pincushion 

Fleabane, Zuni 

Ipomopsis, Holy Ghost 

Milk-vetch, Mancos 

Pennyroyal, Todsen's 

Poppy, Sacramento Prickly 

Strix occidentalis lucida 

Charadrius melodus 

Sterna antillarum 

Pediocactus knowltonii 

Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri 

Coryphantha sneedii var. leei 

Sclerocactus mesae-verdae 

Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii 

Erigeron rhizomatus 

lpomopsis sancti-spiritus 

Astragalus humillimus 

Hedeoma todsenii 

Argemone pleiacantha ssp. 

pinnatisecta 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus Threatened 

Thistle, Sacramento Mountains Cirsium vinaceum Threatened 

Wild-buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum Threatened 

Mammal 

Bat, Lesser (=Sanbornls) Long-nosed Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered 

Bat, Mexican Long-nosed Leptonycteris nivalis Endangered 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered 

Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered 

Reptile 

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge-nosed Crotalus willardi obscurus Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

New York ( 15) species: - CH 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Terresf'rial Yes 

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Terrestrial No 

Dicot 

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened Coastal (neritic) No 

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Endangered Terrestrial No 

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Threatened Terrestrial No 

Roseroot, Leedy's 

Ferns 

Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi Threatened Terrestrial No 

Page 35 of 50 
Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. 

americanum 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Monocot 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys rnuhlenbergii 

North Carolina ( 40) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Stork, Wood Mycferia arnericana 

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus 

Avens, Spreading Geum radiatum 

Bittercress, Small-anthered Cardamine mbranthera 

Blazing aar, Hellet's Lia tris helleri 

Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyofis purpurea var. montana 

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana 

Coneflower, Smooth Echinacea laevigata 

Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi 

Goldenrod, Blue Ridge Solidago spithamaea 

Harperella 

Heartleaf, Dwarf-flowered 

Pfilimnium nodosum 

Hexastyls naniflora 

Heather, Mountain Golden Hudsonia monfana 

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica 

Loosestrife, Rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia 

Meadowrue, Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi 

Pitcher-plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila 

Pitcher-plant, Mountain Sweet Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

~ndangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

ThreatenedEndangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

Terrestrial I 

No 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No I 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater I No 

Terrestrial, ~reshwbter No 

I - CH 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No I 

Terrestr~al No 

coaGa1 (neritic) No 

Terrestrial I No 

Terrestrial I No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial ; No 

Terrestrial 1 No 

Terrestrial ; No 

I 

Terrestrial, ~reshwajer . No , .-. .- 

Terrestrial No 

1 

Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

~ 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial, Brackish 1 No 

! 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial I No I 

Terrestrial, Freshwatgr No 

Freshwater, ~errestri61 No 
Pondberry Lindera melissifolia 

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana 

Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii 

Sunflower, Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii 

Lichen 

Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) 

townsendii virginianus 

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus 

Moiiocot 

Arrowhead, Bunched Sagitfaria fasciculata 

Irisette, White Sisyrinchium dichotomum 

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides. 

Sedge, Golden Carex lutea 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

North Dakota ( 4) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Monocot 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara 

Ohio ( 11) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Dicot 

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered. 

Endangered' 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Subterraneous Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Page 37 of 50 
Daisy, Lakeside Hyrnenoxys herbacea 

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense 

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

/ Bat, Indiana Myofis sodalis Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Pla fanthera leucophaea 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria rnedeoloides 

Reptile 

Snake, Lake ~rje Water Nerodia sipedon insularurn 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial, Freshwbter No 

Freshwater, ~erreslrial No 

I 

- CH 

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta 

Oklahoma . ( 11) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endgngered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial, ~reshw4ter Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Plover, Piping Charadrius rnelodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Vireo, Black-capped Vireo atricaprlla 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Mammal 

Bat. Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Ozark Big-eared Coiynorhinus (=Plecotus) 

townsendii ingens 

Monocot 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Endangered Terrestrial, Subterraqeous No 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 1 No 

Terrestrial No 

- CH 

1 Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanfhera praeclara 

Oregon ( 21) species: 

Bird 

Murrelet, Marbled Brachyrarnphus rnarrnoratus 

rnarrnoratus 

Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial, Yes 

Saltwater 

Terrestrial Yes 

Terrestrial Yes 

( Owl, Northern Spotked Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened 

Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened 

Dicot 1 Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Threatened Terrestrial No 

/ 4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 38 of 50 
Checker-mallow, Nelson's Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Daisy, Willamette Erigeron decumbens var. Terrestrial No 

decumbens 

Four-o'clock, Macfarlane's Mirabilis macfarlanei Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Vernal pool No 

Terrestrial No 

Lomatium, Bradshaw's Lomatiurn bradshawii 

Lornatium, Cook's Loma tium cookii 

Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus su@hureus (=oreganus) 

ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) 

Meadowfoam, Large-flowered Woolly Limnanthes f/occosa ssp. Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Vernal pool No 

Terrestrial No 

Vernal pool No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Milk-vetch, Applegate's Astragalus applegatei 

Popcornflower, Rough Plagiobothrys hirtus 

Thelypody, Howell's Spectacular Thelypodium howellii spectabilis 

Wire-lettuce, Malheur Stephanomeria malheurensis 

Mammal 

Deer, Columbian White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus 

Monocot 

Fritillaly, Gentner's Fritillaria gentneri 

Endangered 

~ndan~ered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Lily, Western Terrestrial No 

Reptile 

Lilium occidentale 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Saltwater No 

- CH 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Seaturtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Pennsylvania ( 6) species: 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus Endangered Terrestrial No 

Monocot 

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Bristle) 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial, ~reshwater No 

Puerto Rico ( 69) species: - CH 

Arrtphibian 

Coqui, Golden Efeutherodaciylus jasperi 

Guajon Eleutherodactylus cooki 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Freshwater, Terrestrial Yes 

Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Page 39 of 50 
Toad, Puerto Rican Crested 

Bird 

Blackbird, Yellow-shouldered 

Hawk, Puerto Rican Broad-winged 

Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned 

Nightjar, Puerto Rico 

Parrot, Puerto Rican 

Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain 

Plover, Piping 

Tern, Roseate 

Dicot 

Auerodendron pauciflorum (ncn) 

Bariaco 

Boxwood, Vahl's 

Calyptranthes Thomasian'a (ncn) 

Capa Rosa 

Catesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn) 

Chamaecrista glandulosa (ncn) 

Chumbo, Higo 

Chupacallos 

Cobana Negra 

Cordia bellonis (ncn) 

Daphnopsis hellerana (ncn) 

Erubia 

Eugenia Woodburyana 

Gesneria pauciflora (ncn) 

Goetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey) 

Higuero De Sierra 

Holly, Cook's 

llex sintenisii (ncn) 

Leptocereus grantianus (ncn) 

Lyonia truncata var. proctorii [ncn) 

Mitracarpus Maxwelliae 

Mitracarpus Polycladus 

Myrcia Paganii 

Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia 

luquillensis) 

Peltophryne lemur 

Agelaius xanthomus 

Buteo platypierus brunnescens 

Accipiter strlatus venator 

Caprimulgus noctitherus 

Amazona viffata 

Columba inornata wetmorei 

Charadrius melodus 

Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Auerodendron pauciflorum 

Trichilia triacanfha 

Buxus vahlii 

Calyptranthes thomasrana 

Callicarpa ampla 

Catesbaea melanocarpa 

Chamaecrista glandulosa var. 

mirabilis 

Harrrsia portoricensis 

Pleodendron macranfhum 

Stahlia monospecma 

Cordia bellonis 

Daphnopsis hellerana 

Solanum drymophilum 

Eugenia woodburyana 

Gesneria paucrflora 

Goetzea elegans 

Crescentia portoricensis 

llex cookii 

llex smtensrr 

Leptocereus grantianus 

Lyonia truncata var. procforii 

Mitracarpus mavwelliae 

Mitracarpus polycladus 

Myrcia paganii 

Ternstroemia luquillensis 

Threatened Terrestrial, ~reshwater No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

I No 

No 

Yes 

No 

412912010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 
Palo de Jazmin Styrax portoricensis 

Palo de Nigua Cornutia obovata 

Palo de Ramon Banara vanderbiltii 

Palo de Rosa Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon 

Peperomia, Wheeler's Peperomia wheeleri 

Prickly-ash, St. Thomas Zanthoxylum thomasianum 

Schoepfia arenaria (ncn) Schoepfia arenaria 

Ternstroemia subsessilis (ncn) Ternstroemia subsessilis 

Uvillo Eugenia haematocarpa 

Vernonia Proctorii (ncn) Vernonia proctorii 

Walnut, Nogal Juglans jamaicensis 

Ferns 

Fern, Adiantum vivesii Adiantum vivesii 

Fern, Elaphoglossum serpens Elaphoglossum serpens 

Fern, Thelypteris inabonensis Thelypteris inabonensis 

Fern, Thelypteris verecunda Thelypteris verecunda 

Fern, Thelypteris yaucoensis Thelypteris yaucoensis 

Polystichum calderonense (ncn) Polystichum calderonense 

Tectaria Estremerana Tectaria estremerana 

Tree Fern, Elfin Cyathea dryopteroides 

Monocot 

Aristida chaseae (ncn) Aristida chaseae 

Cranichis Ricartii Cranichis ricartii 

Lepanthes eltorensis (ncn) Lepanthes elforoensk 

Manaca, palma de Calyptronoma rivalis 

Pelos del Diablo Aristida portoricensis 

Reptile 

Anole, Culebra Island Giant Anolis roosevelti 

Boa, Mona Epicrates monensis monensis 

Boa, Puerlo Rican Epicrates inornatus 

Gecko, Monito Sphaerodactylus micropithecus 

Iguana, Mona Ground Cyclura stejnegeri 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, leatherback Derrnochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Rhode Island ( 8) species: 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Saltwater 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

- CH 

Page 41 of 50 
Bird 

Plover, Piping 

Dicot 

Gerardia, Sandplain 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana 

Monocot 

Pogonia, Small Whorled 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

South Carolina ( 32) 

Amphibian 

Salamander, Flatwoods 

Bird 

Plover, Piping 

Stork, Wood 

Warbler, Bachrnan's 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

Dicot 

Amaranth, Seabeach 

Amphianthus, Lile 

Chaffseed, American 

Coneflower, Smooth 

Dropwort, Canby's 

Gooseberry, Miccosukee 

Harperella 

Heartleaf, Dwarf-flowered 

Loosestrife, Rough-leaved 

Pitcher-plant, Mountain Sweet 

Pondberry 

Sunflower, Schweinitz's 

Ferns 

Quillwort, Black-spored 

Charadrius melodus 

Agalinis acuta 

Myotis sodalis 

lsotria medeoloides 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

Lepidochelys kempii 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Caretta caretta 

species: 

Ambysfoma cingulatum 

Charadrius melodus 

Mycferia americana 

Vermivora bachmanii 

Picoides borealis 

Amaranthus pumilus 

Amphianthus pusillus 

Schwalbea americana 

Echinacea laevigata 

Oxypolis canbyi 

Ribes echinellum 

Ptilimnium nodoSum 

Hexastyls naniflora 

Lysimachia asperulaefblia 

Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii 

Lindera melissifolia 

Helianthus schweinitzii 

lsoetes rnelanospora 

Endangered ~errestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Saltwater 

~ndangered' Saltwater 

Threatened Saltwater 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

- CH 

Threatened Freshwater, ~ernal(~ool, No 

Terrestrial 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Coastal (neritic) 

Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial I 

Freshwater 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Endangered Vernal pool No 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 42 of 50 
Lichen 

Lichen, Rock Gnome 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana 

Gymnoderma lineare 

Myotis sodalis 

Monocot 

Arrowhead, Bunched Sagittaria fasciculata 

Irisette, White Sisyrinchium dichotomum 

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens 

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi 

South Dakota ( 5) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Mammal 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

Monocot 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara 

Tennessee ( 27) species: 

Bird 

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Aster, Ruth's Golden 

Avens, Spreading 

Bladderpod, Spring Creek 

Pityopsis-ruthii 

Geum radiatum 

Lesquerella perforata 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Freshwater 

Endangered Terrestrial 

'Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwater 

~hreatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Saltwater 

Endangered Saltwater 

Threatened Saltwater 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Floodplain 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

- CH 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 43 of 50 
Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered' 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Terrestrial I 

Terrestrial 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

NO 

Yes 

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana 

Clover, Leafy Prairie 

Coneflower, Tennessee Purple 

Goldenrod, Blue Ridge 

Ground-plum, Guthrie's 

Pitcher-plant, Green 

Potato-bean, Price's 

Rock-cress, Large (=Braunls) 

Dalea foliosa 

Echinacea tennesseensis 

Solidago spithamaea 

Astragalus bibullatus 

Sarracenia oreophila 

Apios priceana 

Arabis perstella fa E. L. Braun var. 

ampla Rollins 

Arabis perstella fa E. L. Braun var. 

perstellafa Femald 

Rock-cress, Small Endangered Terrestrial 1 Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Rosemary, Cumberland 

Sandwort, Cum berland 

Skullcap, Large-flowered 

Conradina verticillata 

Arenaria curnberlandensis 

Scutellaria montana 

Spiraea, Virginia 

Ferns 

Spiraea virginiana 

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. 

arnericanurn 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Lichen 

Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Yes 

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered Terrestrial 

Monocot 

Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed Xyris tennesseensis 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Texas ( 56) species: 

Amphibian 

Salamander, Barton Springs Eurycea sosorum 

Salamander, San Marcos Eurycea nana 

Salamander, Texas Blind T~hlomolge rathbuni 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Terrestrial 

Endangered Freshwater, ~erresttal No I 

Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Freshwater 

Toad, Houston 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping 

Curlew, Eskimo 

Bufo houstonensis Endangered Terrestrial, ~reshwat~r Yes 

Grus americana 

Numenius borealis 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwatbr Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 44 of 50 
Falcon, Northern Aplomado 

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow 

Owl, Mexican Spotted 

Plover, Piping 

Prairie-chicken, Attwater's Greater 

Tern, Interior (population) Least 

Vireo, Biack-capped 

Warbler (=Wood), Golden-cheeked 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

Dicot 

Ambrosia, South Texas 

Ayenia, Texas 

Bladderpod, White 

Bladderpod, Zapata 

Cactus, Black Lace 

Cactus, Bunched Cory 

Cactus, Chisos Mountain Hedgehog 

Cactus, Lloyd's Mariposa 

Cactus, Nellie Cory 

Cactus, Sneed Pincushion 

Cactus, Star 

Cactus, Tobusch Fishhook 

Cat's-eye, Terlingua Creek 

Dawn-flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas 

Bittetweed) 

Dogweed, Ashy 

Frankenia, Johnston's 

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) 

Manioc, Walker's 

Oak, Hinckley 

Phlox, Texas Trailing 

Pitaya, Davis' Green 

Poppy-mallow, Texas 

Rush-pea, Slender 

Sand-verbena, Large-fruited 

Snowbells, Texas 

Falco femoralis septentrionalis 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

Strix occidentalis lucida 

Charadrius melodus 

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri 

Sterna antillarum 

Vireo atricapilla 

Dendroica chtysoparia 

Picoides borealis 

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia 

Ayenia limitaris 

Lesquerella pallida 

Lesquerella thamnophila 

Echinocereus reichenbachii var. 

albertii 

Coryphantha ramillosa 

Echinocereus chisoensis var. 

chisoensis 

Echinomastus mariposensis 

Coryphantha minima 

Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii 

Astrophytum asterias 

Ancistrocactus tobuschii 

Cryptantha crassipes 

Hymenoxys texana 

Thymophylla tephroleuca 

Frankenia johnstonii 

Geocarpon minimum 

Manihot walkerae 

Quercus hinckleyi 

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis 

Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davis 

Callirhoe scabriuscula 

Hoffmannseggia tenella 

Abronia macrocarpa 

Styrax texanus 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened ' 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

ii Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial. 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 45 of 50 
Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus 

wild-buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum 

Mammal 

Bat, Mexican Long-nosed Leptonycferis nivalis 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Bear, ~ouisiana Black Ursus americanus luteolus Threatened 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Jaguarundi, Gulf Coast Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi 

cacomitli 

Terrestrial No 

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi 

tolteca 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis 

Monocot 

Ladies1-tresses, Navasota Spiranthes parksii 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered 

Endangered ' 

Endangered 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater I No 

I 

Freshwater Yes 

Pondweed, Little Aguja Creek Potamogeton clystocarpus 

Wild-rice, Texas 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

Zizania texana 

Chelonia mydas 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Saltwater No 

Saltwater Yes 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Saltwater No 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Saltwater Yes 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Snake, Concho Water ~etedia paucimaculata 

Saltwater No 

Freshwater, Terrestrial Yes 

Utah ( 29) species: 

Bird . ,. 

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered. 

Threatened 

Terrestrial Yes 

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix accidentalis lucida Terrestrial Yes 

Dicot 

Bear-poppy, Dwarf Arctomecon humilis 

Bladderpod, Kodachrome Lesquerella tumulosa 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Buttercup, Autumn Ranunculus aestivalis (=acriformis) 

Cactus, San Rafael Pediocactus despainii 

Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus 

(=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri 

Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Sclerocactus glaucus Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial 1 No 

Terrestrial No 

Terrestrial No 

Freshwater No 

Terrestrial No 

Page 46 of 50 

Cactus, Winkler Pediocactus winkleri 

Cactus, Wright Fishhook Sclerocactus wrightiae 

Cycladenia, Jones Cycladenia jonesii (=hummilis) 

Daisy, Maguire Erigeron ~naguirei 

Milk-vetch, Deseret Astragalus desereticus 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 
Milk-vetch, Heliotrope 

Milk-vetch, Holmgren 

Milk-vetch, Shivwits 

Milkweed, Welsh's 

Phacelia, Clay 

Primrose, Maguire 

Reed-mustard, Barneby 

Reed-mustard, Clay 

Reed-mustard, Shrubby 

Ridge-cress (=Pepper-cress), 

Townsendia, Last Chance 

Mammal 

Ferret, Black-footed 

Prairie Dog, Utah 

Monocot 

Ladies1-tresses, Ute 

Sedge, Navajo 

Reptile 

Tortoise, Desert 

Vermont 

Dicot 

Milk-vetch, Jesup's 

Mammal 

Bat, Indiana 

Monocot 

Astragalus montii 

Astragalus holmgreniorum 

Astragalus ampullarioides 

Asclepias welshii 

Phacelia argillacea 

Primula maguirei 

Schoenocrambe barnebyi 

Schoenocrambe argillacea 

Schoenocrambe suffrutescens 

Lepidium barnebyanum 

Townsendia aprica 

Mustela nigripes 

Cynomys parvidens 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Carex specuicola 

Gopherus agassizii 

( 3) species: 

Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi 

Myotis sodalis 

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancis'trochaetus 

Bristle) 

Virginia ( 29) species: 

Amphibian 

Salamander, Shenandoah Plethodon shenandoah 

Bird 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

Dicot 

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus 

Birch, Virginia Round-leaf Betula uber 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestria!, Subterraneous No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

- CH 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Coastal (neritic) No 

Threatened Floodplain No 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 47 of 50 
Bittercress, Small-anthered 

Chaffseed, American 

Coneflower, Smooth 

Harperella 

Joint-vetch, Sensitive 

Mallow, Peter's Mountain 

Rock-cress, Shale Barren 

Sneezeweed, Virginia 

Spiraea, Virginia 

Sumac, Michaux's 

Sunflower, Schweinitz's 

Marnma.1 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Cardamhe micranthera 

Schwalbea americana 

Echinacea laevigata 

Ptilimnium nodosum 

Aeschynomene virginica 

Iliamna corei 

Arabis serotina 

Helenlum virginicum 

Spiraea virginiana 

Rhus michauxii 

Helianthus schweinifiii 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynominus (=Plecotus) 

townsendii virginianus 

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus 

Monocot 

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Bristle) 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata 

Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta 

Washington ( 16) species: 

Bird 

Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus 

marmoratus 

Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis caurina 

Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

Dicot 

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Freshwater 

Threatened Terrestrial, Brackish 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Threatened Vernal pool 1 

Threatened Terrestrial . 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, I 

Terrestrial I 

E3dangeredm. Subterraneous, 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial, ~ubterraineous Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial I No 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwatpr No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

Threatened Saltwater No 

- CH 

Threatened Freshwater, Terrestridl, Yes 

Saltwater 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial Yes 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 48 of 50 
Checker-mallow, Nelson's Sidalcea nelsoniana 

Checker-mallow, Wenatchee Mountains Sidalcea oregana var. calva 

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis 

Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) 

ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) 

Paintbrush, Golden Castilleja levisecta 

Stickseed, Showy Hackelia venusta 

Mammal 

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis 

Caribou, Woodland Rangifer tarandus caribou 

Deer, Columbian White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus 

Rabbit, Pygmy Brachylagus idahoensis 

Reptile 

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas 

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

West Virginia ( 10) species: 

Ampt-ribian 

Salamander, Cheat Mountain Plethodon nettingi 

Dicot 

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum .i 

Harperella s Ptilimnium nodosum 

Rock-cress, Shale Barren Arabis serotina 

Spiraea, ~irginia Spiraea virginiana 

Mammal 

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens 

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Cotynorhinus (=Plecotus) 

townsendii virginianus 

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus 

Monocot 

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Bristle) 

Wisconsin . ( 10) species: 

Bird 

Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Threatened Freshwater No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered. Terrestrial No 

Endangered Saltwater No 

Endangered Saltwater Yes 

- CH 

Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Freshwater No 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Threatened Terrestrial No 

Endangered Subterraneous, No 

Terrestrial 

Endangered Subterraneous, Yes 

Terrestrial 

~ndan~e'red Terrestrial, Subterraneous Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No 

Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial Yes 

Endangered Terrestrial No 

Page 49 of 50 
Dicot 

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya 

Locoweed, Fassett's Oxytropis campestris var. 

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense 

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri 

Mammal 

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis 

Monocot 

Iris, Dwarf Lake Iris lacustris 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea 

Wyoming ( 6) species: 

Amphibian 

Toad, Wyoming Bufo baxteri (=herniophrys) 

Dicot 

Butterfly Plant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. 

coloradensis 

Yellowhead, Desert Yermo xanfhocephalus 

Mammal 

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis 

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius preblei 

No species were selected for exclusion. 

Dispersed species included in report. 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Freshwater, ~erresirial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 50 of 50