### UNITED STATESENVIRONRIENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTOND.C., 20460
OFFICE OF CHEMiCALSAFETY 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 ManagerReviewer 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 EnvironmentalFate and Effects Division (7507P) I


### This Section 3 ecological risk assessmentwas conducted for the proposed labeledusesfor outdoor-andresidential use in right-of-ways, industrial,golf resorts, and athletic commercial, municipal and residentialturf using the active ingredient, growth regulator to control growth of turf grasses, ornamentals, and a flowering, bulb crop, perennial, and woody landscapeplants.
This risk assessment was revised to update the terrestrial exposureanalysis for banded application to ground surfaces. 

### In the previous assessment, the inputs for banded applidations modeled in 

### T-REXreflected agricultural practices where a band applicationis 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 completelytreated

# 4 hen "banded" applications are applied as little as six inches wide on the ,edge/perimeterof 

## $area.

### 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 andDistribution



### ................................................................................................................. 7 1

# . Nature of Stressor



### ......................................................................................................................................... 7 

### 2

# . Mode of Action



### ............................................................................................................................................. 9



### . 

# . 3 

### Overview ofPesticideUsage



### .................................................................................................................. 9 B

# . Receptors



### .................................................................................................................................................. 11 1



# . Aquatic Effects



### ........................................................................................................................................... 11 

### 2

# . Terrestrial Effects



### .................................................................................................................................... 11 3

# . Ecosystem atRisk



### ....................................................................................................................................... 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

# . BeneficialInsects



### ........................................................................................................................................ 46



### ............................................................................................... 4

# . Soil-dwellingInvertebrates (Earthworm) 46 C

# . TerrestrialPlants



### ........................................................................................................................................ 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-phaseAmphibians 49 3

# . AquaticPlants



### ............................................................................................................................................ 49



### ................................................................................ B

# . Risks to Non-target Terrestrial Animals and Plants 49 1



# . Birds



### ............................................................................................................................................................ 502

# . Terrestrial-phaseAmphibians and Reptiles



### ......................................................................................... 5 1 

### 3

# . Mammals



### ................................................................................................................................................ 52 

### 4

# . Soil-DwellingInvertebrates



### ...................................................................................................................... 57 5

# . Beneficial Insects



### ....................................................................................................................................... 57 6

# . Terrestrial Plants



### ................................................................................... ............................................... 57



### ............................................................................................................................. 

# . C Review of Incident Data 57 

### D

# . EndocrineDisruptor ScreeningProgram



### .................................................................................. 1

### ...............58 

### E

# . Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species Concerns:



### ...................................... ..............58 1

# . Action Area



### ............................................................................................................................................. 59 2

# . Taxonomic GroupsPotentially atRisk



### .................................................................................................... 59 3

# . IndirectEffects Analysis



### ................................. ;

### ......................................................................................... 60 4

# . Critical Habitat



### ........................................................................................................................... ,

### ......... 60 5

# . Direct Effect Co-occurrenceAnalysis



### ...................................................................................................... 61 6

# . IndirectEffect Co-occurrenceAnalysis



### ............................................................................................... 62



## ........... VII

# . Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths,andData Ga~s 

### 63 A

# . Use Pattern



### .................................................................................................................................................. , . 

### 63 

### B

# . EnvironmentalFate and Transport



### ................................. 

### .................................................................... 64

. .

. . 

### C

# . Aquatic ExposureEstimates



### ...................................................................................................................... 64 

### D

# . Terrestrial Exposure Estimates



### ............................................................................................................. 64 

### E

# . EcologicalEffects



### .................................................................................................................................... 65



## ...... .... APPENDIX A: GENEEC EECs



### ................................................................................................ 

## .,. ; 

### 69



### ............. 

### ........................... ..................................... APPENDIX 

### B

# .PRZM/EXAMS EEC and Output 

### ;. i 

### 72

I 

### APPENDIX C: T-REX EECs



### ..................................................................................................... .,. 

### ........... 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 developedto reduce internode elongationof 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 ornamentalplants.
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% ,andReg. 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 chronicrisk 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 aquaticnon-vascular plants is minimal; however,risks to aquatic vascular and terrestrial plants are expected since flurprimidolis a plant growth regulator. Minimal acute and chronicrisks to aquatic organisms and minimal acute risk to birds are presumed.


### Table 1-1presents the Risk Quotients (RQs) and use patterns used to determine the potential risks to terrestrial and aquatic organisms and plants exposedto flurprimidol.

### Table 

### 1-1. Summaryof

## Risk Quotient Calculationfor FlurprimidolExposures to 

# 1 Terrestrial andAquatic organisms andPlants.* 

## - Species

- 

### FlnrprimidolRQs 

### 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 ITerrestrialAnimals and Plants 

### , I ..- . 

# 1 AcuteRQs: NC 

# 1 I Acute RQs: NC 

### ( Aquatic Organismsand Plants

All Acute RQs: <0.01Aquatic 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 inboth 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 expectedto 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 exposureto 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 

### (AppendicesA and 

### B). Terrestrial residues 

## * Bold entries indicate LOC exceedance NC -RQs not calculated since toxicity was greater than thehighest 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-ListedPlant 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 fugacitymodel (Appendix D). TerrPLANT version 1.2.2(Appendix E) was modeled for terrestrialplants.
D. Conciusions 

## -Ecological Effects Characterization Laboratory toxicity data suggest that flurprimidol is slightly toxic on an acutebasis to freshwater animals, with fish and invertebrateLC5Os ranging from 12-18 mg a.i./L. There are no acute toxicity data available to characterize acute effects to their estuarinelmarinecounterparts; 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 invertebrateNOAECs ranging from 0.939 to 2.95 mg a.i./L.Toxicity data for aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants identifiedEC5Os of less than 

### 1 mg a.i./L.
Acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity tests suggest that flurprimidol is practically nontoxicto 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 indicatereductions 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 1000mg a.i./kg-diet (equivalentto 74 mg a.i./kg-bwlday) and a reproductive NOAEL of 100mg a.i./kg-diet (equivalentto 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-phaseamphibians, 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 exposedto 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 withDirect orIndirect Effects Due to Outdoor and Residential 

### Uses withFlurprimidol

- - 

### 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 Marinelestuarinefish



### Terrestrial 

# I Direct Effects from Chronic Exposures

Aquatic-phase amphibians 

# I No 

# I Semi-aquaticplants -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



# I No Reptiles 

# 1 yes 

# I yes , . -- - Terrestrial-phaseamphibians 

# 1 Mammals 

# 1 yes 

# 1 yes 

# 1 yes 

# 1

-p - - N/A 

### - indicatesthat 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 conductedfor the proposed use of flurprimidol as a plant growthreguiator 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 analyzingthe data and characterizingthe risk 

### (USEPA, 1998). Yes



### A. StressorSource and 

### Distribution 1. Nature 

### of Stressor - -- Yes



### This ecological risk assessment addresses the potential ecologicalrisks 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 stressorhas the potential to be applied anywherethe turf grasses and ornamentals are grown and does not consider predicted sales, market trends, etc.

### A 

### summary of selected physical, chemical, and environmentalfateproperties 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. Flurprimidolis stable to hydrolysis and resistant to degradation in both aerobic and anaerobic terrestrial systems. Field dissipation data suggestthat much more rapid dissipationwas found that mightbe expected from the laboratory studies;however, the registrant postulates that this couldbe due to a number of factors not tracked in the study including plant uptake and volatilization. Consequently, given that when applied to bareground sites, flurprimidolwas 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 summarizedbelow in 

### Table 11-1.

. 

### Table 11-1.Summary of Chemical and PhysicalProperties 

### of Flurprimidol CommonName: EmpiricalFormula: Chemical Name: (IUpAC)

ChemicalAbstracts #: 

### 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): 

### OctanollwaterPartition Coefficient: (Kow) 

### Environmental Fate Properties Hydrolysis Stable at pHs 5,7, and 9 Aqueous Photolysis T1,2: 1.4days 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-positionin the propane moiety (the carbinol C) 

### is a chiral molecule. However,

### EFED has no records of the discussionof the stereo chemistry of the molecule or possible differences in environmental fate properties or ecotoxicitybetweep isomers. Based upon the Confidential Statementof the Formula's silence on the chirality questians,EFED 

### is assuming the technical flurprimidolis 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 suppressionof gibberellicacid biosynthesis.


### 3. 

### Overview of 

### PesticideUsage Flurprirnidol is a plant growth regulator for use on turf grass in golf courses; on a variety of bedding, flowering, perennial, and woody landscapeplants 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, gravestones, fences, and other similar areas. Application informationfor currentregistered uses and proposed new uses for flurprimidolis summarized in 

### Table 11-2.

### Flurprimidol is formulated as a wettablepowder (10% - 

### 50% active ingredient),soluble/solidconcentrate(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 

### 0.26to 3.0 pounds active ingrediedacre (lbs a.i./A) and seasonal applicationrates areup to 

### 3.008 lbs a.i./A. Chemigationis 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.

Turfgrasses 

# r Table

### II-2. CurrentRegisteredUse and Proposed

### New Use Patterns for Flurprimidol

Turfgrasses and Ornamentals

Turfgrasses 

### Uses

Turfgrasses 

# 1
and
' Ornamentals 

### Maxixnum 

### Single rate (Ib

### ailA)

Turfgrasses 

### Product - 

### Maximum yearlyrate (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) EdgeBand (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= 1.10lb ailgallon;0.00859 Ib ailfl. oz. '67690-19, Turf Fertilizer Cutless0..5%/G(0.5 % ai); density =0.005 Ib aiflbof 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 = 15g 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 selectionis based on valued entities or ecological receqtors, the ecosystems potentially at risk, pesticide migrationpathways, and routes by which ecological receptors may be exposed to the stressor. Endpoints for baseline ecological risk assessdents typically include survivorship and sublethalparameters for aquatic and terrestrial species that ' 

### may be exposed to a given stressor.Although assessment endpoints typically focus on individual toxicity of surrogate species, dependingon 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.studiessubmitted by the registrant to the Agency. With the recent submissiod of aquatic toxicity data with duckweed, fish early-life-stage study with fathead minnow, Adlifecycle study with daphnids, the aquatic toxicity profile is updated 

### (Table

## IV-1). In additipn, freshwater fish acts as a surrogate for aquatic-phaseamphibian when data are not available on amphibians. 0.435



### 2. Terrestrial Effects
The effect of flurprimidolto terrestrial organisms and plants is assessed from acute, subacute and chronic studies submittedby the registrantto 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-phaseamphibians 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-erosionof 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 expressionsof the actual environmentalvalue 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 communityof fish and aquatic invertebrates) and its attributes (i.e., survival and reproduction). Therefore, selectionof the assessment endpoints is based on valued entities (i.e., ecological receptors), the migration pathways of pesticides, and the routes by which ecologicalreceptors are exposed to pesticiderelated contamination. The selectionof clearly defined assessment endpoints-isimportant 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 characterizepotential ecological risks associatedwith exposureto flurprimidol are summarized in 

### Table 11-3.The ecological relevance of selecting these assessment endpointsis as follows: 1)completeexposure pathways exist for these receptors, 2) the receptors may be potentially sensitiveto 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 developedto 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 applicationof 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) applicationof granules at 1.5 lb a.i./A.
This assessmentis not intended to represent a site or time-specific analysis. Instead, this assessmentis intended to represent high-end exposures at a national level. Likewise, the most sensitive toxicity endpoints are used from surrogatetest 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 orderto 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 survivorshiphave important implicationsfor both popul~tion growth increase and 

### habitat carrying capacity.

Maximumreqidues on LD5dsqft(grhular

Honeybee acute contactLDS0

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 forbaseline 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. ConceptualModel
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 flutriafolto the environment. The followingrisk hypothesis is presumed for this baseline assessment.
The use offlurprimidol as aplant growth regulator for terrestrialand residential outdoor uses will result in exposure to terrestrial and aquatic animals andplants. Based on thepersistence and mobilhy offlurprimidol, the mode of action, the application methods, and food-web of the target terrestrial ecosystems, jlurprimidol has thepotential to ca2se reduced survival, and reproductive and growth impairments for both terrestrialand aquatic animals andplant species.


### 2. Conceptual Model Diagram
The conceptual model is used to depict the potential routes of exposure from flurprimidolwhen 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 

### (Figures2 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 chemicalto pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposurepathway is the means by which a contaminant moves in the environment from a 

### sourceto an ecological receptor. For an ecological exposure pathway to be complete,it must have a source, an environmentaltransport medium, a point of exposurefor ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. The assessment of ecological exposurepathways, therefore, includes an examinationof the source and potential migration pathways for constituents,and the determinationof potential exposure routes (e.g.,

### ingestion, inhalation,dermal contact).

### Potential exposure pathways by which flurprimidol may inadvertently affect non-targetplant 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 exposureroutes 

### are drift (from spray application),runoff events (off-sitemovement 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 flurprimidolis

, 

### persistent 

### in the environment.



### Stressor 

# I Liquid and Granule Applications of Flurprirnidolto Turfgrasses and Ornamentals
'j2 

# 1

** Routeof exposure includesonly ingestionof 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 liquidand Granule Application of Flurprimidolto Turfgrasses and Ornamentals 

# ''[ & Source 

# 1 ~u~off Soil Leachingto 

# + Grouqdwater I 

# - 

# . I 

## Exposure 4 

### Surfacewater1 

## Media Sediment I 

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

## 7 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 Modificationof PCEs Community change Reduced growth related to 

### prey availability Modificationof 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 integratedto assess the risks. This is accomplished using risk indices (ratio of exposure concentrationto effects concentration) approach. Although risk is often defined as the 

### likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological effects, the risk quotient- and 

### LDsoper 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 arebeyond the scope of this baseline assessment. This analysisprovides 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 considersthe 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 decisionregarding the active ingredient on a particularuse 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, 2001)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 resultingrisk 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 flurprimidolhas a low potential to bioaccumulate as demonstrated by its relatively low 

## &, and low BCF factors inbluegill 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 standardmethodology for assessing chronic risk to terrestrial animdlsfrom ingesting granules. 

### In order to estimate chronic risks for terrestrial animals, the estimate of flurprimidol concentrationsaccumulated 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 thepotential 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 consumptionof 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-sitepuddles) or combinedroutes 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 availabledata are generally sufficient for risk assessment purposes of the parent compound. I I 

### There are no toxicity studies with estuarinelmarineorganisms 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 requiringthe studies at this time becauseboth acute oral studieswith bobwhite quail and mallard duck did not observe any mortality or sublethal effects; thus, it s likeljfor 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 simulationmodel GENEEC2 (Version 2.0; USEPA, 2001) is'used to generate estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of the active ingredient that arenot expected to be exceeded 90% of the time in surface water bodies adjacentto application sites. The predicted peak, 21-day, and 60-day concentrations are used to estimate acute and chronicrisks 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 ingredientto a 10-hectare agricultural field, planted solely in a generic crop, that drains into an adjacent 1-hectarewater body, 2 meters deep (20,000 m3volume) with no outlet. This generic agricultural scenariois representative of flutriafoluse 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 rainfalvrunoffevent from,astandard size field to a standard size ecologicalpond.
The Tier I1 models were also used to predict aquaticEECs 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 simulationmodels coupled with the input shellPE5.pl (Aug 2007) to generate daily exposures and 1-in-10year EECs of flurprimidol that may occur in surface water bodies adjacentto 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 scenarioused for ecologicalpesticide assessments assumes applicationto 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-10year return peak or rolling mean concentration. The 

### 1- in-10 year peak is used for estimating acute exposures of direct effects to aquaticplants.
TerrestrialAnimals and Plants
The pote'ntial exposurepathways for terrestrial plants and animals include depositionfrom 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 concentrationsof flutriafol to non-target birds, mammals and plants.
T-REX assumes applicationof 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 flurprimidolresidues within thle field. The earthworm fugacity model assumes concentrations of flurprimidol in earthwormtiissues. TerrPlant assumes application of the active ingredient to a one-acre agriculturalfield that drifts and/or is subject to runoff off site to adjacent fields of non-targetplants. For soil-dwelling invertebrates, soil EECs are estimated by convertingthe application $ateof 1bIAto mglkg soil, using a soil density of 1.3g/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 representativeof 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 chronicmeasures of effect are the No Observed Adverse Effects Concentdation (NOAEC) and the No ObservedAdverse Effects Level (NOAEL). The measurement en points used for risk characterization were derived from studies which underwentreview and 

### w

# !
re classified as "acceptable" (conductedunder guidelineconditions and considered to be 

## I scientifically sound) 01 

### "supplemental" (conditions deviated from guidelines but the resblts are scientifically sound).
4. Integration of Exposure andEffects
Available exposure and toxicity data are compared in orderto evaluatetherisks of adveqse ecological effects on non-target species. For this baseline assessment, the risk indices (ThQ 

### and ~~~~/ft~) are used to compare exposure and toxicityvalues. The risk indices involve diviiding EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. TheresultingRQs 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/ormagnitude of an adverse effect,but ratherprovides a "yes" or "no" answer depending upon whether or not LOCs are exceeded.

### LOCs currently address the followingrisk presumption categories: (1) 

### acute risk -

### when a risk index is greater than the LOC of 0.5to 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 1.0to animals, and (5) 

### non-listedand listed plant risk - 

### when a risk index is greater than the LOC of 1.0to 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 

### 111-1below serve as the basis for selecting the appropriate applicationrates 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 flurprimidolis 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 anaerobicterrestrial systems. Field dissipationdata for cropped turf plots suggest that much more rapid dissipationwas found that might be expected from the laboratory studies;however, the registrantpostulates that this couldbe 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 dissipationtimes comparable to laboratory estimates

### which suggest that thepresence of plant material is influencing the dissipationin the field.No data was available to suggesthow available flurprimidolis in plant residues and how flurprimidol residues in 

### this compartment might influenceoverall exposures. Finally, flurprimidolis not expected to be volatile, has a moderate solubility in water, and a low potential to bioaccurnulate as demonstrated by its relativelylow KO, and low BCFfactors in bluegill sunfish.


### In an acceptable hydrolysis study 

### (MRID 00117921),flurprimidolwas studied 

### in three solutions buffered at pH5, pH7, and pH9 at a test concentrationof 1

### ppm. The solutionswere iqcubated 

### in the dark at 25OC 

### and sampled for 

### 31 days. Flurprimidol was stabletohydrolysisundet 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 ofithe artificial light source,the inability to control volatilization,and poor recoveries. Ther4gistrant responded to these concerns 

### (MRID 40858503) however, the additional data did not changethe conclusions and the study was deemed unacceptable. 

### In response,the registrant submitted a new aqueous photolysis study (MRID 00117922) which provided supplemental data. The studywas 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 1ppm 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 solutionof 7 at 25'C and sampledfor 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),flurprimidolwas 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 extrapolatedbeyond the end of the study. Analysis revealed that over 30 degradation products were formed but none of theseby-products exceeded 2% of applield.At 26 weeks post treatment, degradates totaled 12.6-19.4% of applied radioactivityin soil, and 3.4- 4.4% were unextractable.


### In an anaerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 40858504), flurprimidolwas found to be extremely stableunder 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 following4 

### weeks of aerobic conditioning. In 

### the three soils, flurprimidol comprised 91% to 93% of therecovered 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 transformationproducts of flurprimidol is limited. 

### In an aqueous photolysis study (MRID41228001), flurprimidol degraded readily with a half-life of 1.4days. 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/desorptionstudy (MRID 00142919),flurprimidol was studiedusing 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 

### Kdvalues ranged from 0.12 to 4.9 'while Koc values ranged fro 140 to 535 with corresponding 1/Nvalues 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 correspondingKO,values of 369 and 404 mL/go,. Flurprimidolwas also studied in both aged and unaged leaching columns. The aged leaching column study was not considered acceptable because the incubationperiod 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 00117919)was submitted which provided data on the potential adsorptionldesorptionof flurprimidol. Flurprimidol applied at 0.0142 to 1.68glml was studied in a single sandy loam soil and found to have a Freundlich 

## & of 1.7mLIg. Finally, an additional supplemental aged leaching study (MRID 00117920)was submitted which indicated that flurprimidolresidues 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 dissipationwas studied on turf covered sites in Florida, Tennessee, and Indiana. Flurprimidolwas 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 12inch or 12 to 18inch 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. Flurprimidolwas stable to storagefor 

### 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 (MRID40401007), flurprimidolwas applied to a bareground sites in Indiana and Mississippi at 1.75lbs 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 althoughthis 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 dissipatedwith an approximatehalf life of 4 to 9 

### months. The purpose of the study was to determine if flurprimidolwas 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 fromthe results of these studies is how much flurprimidol remains in the plant and what effect incomplete plant coverage might haqe on dissipationin the field.
In an 

### acceptable bioconcentration factor study 

### (MRID 40401001) flurprimidol was found to 19.3~ in edible tissues, 52.3~ in nonedible tissues, and 6.2~ 

### in whole fish. Specifically, juvenile bluegill sunfish were exposedto flurprimidol at 0.425 pprn for 

### 28 days under flow-thrqugh conditions. Maximum mean residue levels were 

### 8.2pprn in edible tissues, 22.4 ppm iq nonedible tissues, and 14.9pprn 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 approximately20% of applied. Several minor dcgradates were also detected. Water concentrationsranged from0.410 pprn to 0.455 ppm. After1 

### 16 days of depuration, flurprimidol residues were 0.05pprn 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 10-7mm Hg

Persistence
pH 

### 5 

## - stable pH 7 

## - stable pH 

### 9 - 

### stable Photolysis tin in 

### water 1.4 days 00142917,4040~006, 40858503,41228001, Photolysistllz

### on soil No data Soil metabolism aerobic tl,z 482 

### days
Soilmetabolism 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 exposuremodeling 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 conservativeEECs yield risk quotients that fall below the Agency's Level of Concern (LOC) for aquaticorganisms, 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 reflectiveof actual use site conditions.



### a. GENEEC2Exposure Modeling
Tier 1aquatic exposure modeling relies on 

### GENEEC~' (Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration) (USEPA, 2001), a screeningmodel that is non-specific to crop and use-site. The model estimates upper-bound pesticide exposure in surface water using basic chemical properties, proposed applicationrates 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 GENEEC2model estimates upper-bound pesticide surface water concentrations in a genericfarm pond scenarioby incorporatingthe followingconservative 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 representativeof high-end potential for pesticiderunoff and is not necessarily representativeof runoff conditions for the labeled use.


### EFED has developed a tiered approach for modeling aquatic exposures. This tiered systemis 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-registrationreview. 'Passing' a given assessment tier indicates that there is a low possibility of risk to the aquatic environment. 'Failing' an assessmenttier, however, does not mean the chemical is likeily to cause environmentalproblems,but that the assessment should continue on to the next higher assessment tier. The end result of this tiered modeling system will ideallybe 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 GENericEstimated Exposure Concentration model version 2 (GENEEC2)to estimate flurprimidol concentrationsin surface water. GENEEC2 was designed to mimic a much more sophisticated 

### PRZMIEXAMS simulationbut requires far fewer inputs and much less time and effort to use. The model uses a candidate chemical's basic use and applicationinformation, its soiuwaterpartition data and its degradationrate 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 differencesin 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 eventsper 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 rainfalVrunoffevent occurs and removed a large quantity of pesticide from the field to the water all at one time. Longer-term, multiple-dhy average concentrationvalues are calculated based onthe peak day value and subsequent values considering degradationprocesses. 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. 

## GENEEC2InputParameters forFlurprirnidolfor 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 %) AerobicAquatic 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 117921

. 

### MRTD 00142919, average 

### I(d 001 17919,00117920

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters inModeling 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 representpeak and 4-, 

### 21-, 60-, and 90-day average estimates of surfacewater concentrationsin 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 exceedsthe annual label limit of 3.08 lb a.i.lAper 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 

### I1PRZMIEXAMS~ modeling was conducted to address aquatic exposure issues for aquatic vascular plants. Input parameters for PRZMBXAMS modeling are shown in 

### TableIIP-4.These results represent the 

### 1in 10year 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 TransportofPedticides, Version2.1. I



### d. PRZMIEXAMS Modeling Results Aquatic EECs generated from PRZMEXAMS forthe 

### labeleduses 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 surfacewater concentrations in the standard farm pond for use as acute and chronic exposure endpoints.However, because RQs for aquatic plants arebased on the aquaticplant 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 

### FateProperty Molecular Weight 

### Input Value 312.3 

### g/mol 

### Comments 

### MRDD (4rsource) Product Chebnistry

# I Table 111-5. Scenario, Date 

### ofFirst 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 Monitoringand 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 flurprimidolin 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.isChemical 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 ofpesticide active ingredients. These exposures are considered as surrogatesfor terrestrial-phase amphibians as well as reptiles. For exposureto terrestrial wildlife, such as birds and small mammals, pesticide residues on food items or ground surfaces are estimated,based on the 

### assumptionthat animals are exposed to a singlepesticide residue in 

### a given exposure scenario. 

## orm mu la ti on' (CAM)'



### 0.75 0.75 0.26



### For flurprimidol spray applicationsapplied to foliar surfaces, estimationof 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, estimationof 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 informationis 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 dissipationdefault halflife of 35 days (Willis and McDowell, 1987).Uncertainties in the terrestrialEECs are primarily associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces.T

### REX does not differentiatebetween 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 appliciltionsto ground surfaces.Acute exposure from "banded" apblications is uncertain since T-REX does not have the capability to assess risk to terrestrialanimals 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 solelyon the edge of an area. 

### Broadcast granularhiquid applicationsto 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 0.69-1ba.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 

### 1.5lb 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. Theresidue concentration is convertedto daily oral dosebased 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 111-8provide dietary- 

### and dose-basedEECs for broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces, 

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

### Table 111-10provides intermediate EECs for broadcastgranular applications to ground surfaces, and 

### Table 111-11provides 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 intervalsUsed to further evaluatethe likelihood of adverse ecological effects to non-target species.

# ITable III-9. 

### TerrestrialEECs (mg 

### ailft2)

### Following

### Flurpimidol "Banded" Spray Applicationsto

, 

### Ground ~urfaces'"

Turf 

### grass and Ornamentals

Ground 

### ~urfaces'~ 

### Uses 

## ( # 

### ofApp. 

### x App. 

### Rate 

# IIntermediate Calculations 

# 1 EEC EEC 

### N/A

,



### Table 111-10.

### TerrestrialEECs (mg ai/f?) 

### Following

### Flurprimidol Broadcast Granular Applicationsto 

### Ground Surfaces

One (broadcast)

Turf grass 

### and 

### application of granules at Ornanientals 1.5Ib 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): # 

### ofApp. 

### 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 

### ail1000ft 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 onbroadcast applications, 2Accounts only for a single application, not multiple applications 

### N/

### A N/A 

### NIA 7.18

# 

### ofApp. 

### 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 canbe found in Appendix 

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

### &food. b Dose-based EarthwormEECs =Food Intakex Dietary-based~arthworm EEC / BW 1

I 1, 

### b. 

### Soil-DwellingInvertebrates
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 scenarioof 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-aquaticareas adjacent to the treated field. The activeingredient EECs are based onithe application rate, soil incorporation,runoff fraction, drift fraction and solubilityof 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 solubilityof 130mg 

### ai/L in water. Drift from ground and granular applicatipns are assumed to be 

### 1%and 

### 0%,respectively, of the applicationrate. TerrPlantdoes 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 SoilDensity 

### 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 scenariofor terrestrial plants inhabiting dry areas adjacentto a field is characterized as "sheet runoff' (one treated acre to 

### an adjacent acre: a 1:

### 1ratio) and inhabiting semi-aquatic or wetland areas adjacent to a field is characterizedas- "channelized runoff" (10 treated acre to 

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

### 111-14and in.~ppendix E.



# ) Granules 

# ) 0.0375 0.375 None 

# I


# 1 3.0ibaiIA Granules

. 1.5 0.26 Ib ai/A

1.5lb 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 discussionof 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 summarizedin Tables 

### IV-1 and 

### IV-2below.
A. Aquatic Effects Characterization 0.0156

0.075



## able IV-1presents the most sensitive toxicity endpoints used to estimaterisk to aquatic receptors from exposure to flurprimidol. 0.1326

0.75 0.0026

None

### B. Terrestrial Effects Characterization Table IV-1. HurprimidolToxicity Profilefor AquaticAnimals 

### andPlants



### Table

### IV-2presents the most sensitivetoxicity endpoints used to estimaterisk to terrestrial receptors from terrestrial exposures of flurprimidol. MRID 1 Classification 00117925 (acceptable)
47459602 (acceptable) 

### Toxicity Category Slightly toxic

Not



## I Table

### IV-2. HurprimidolToxicityProfile for Terrestrial Animals and

### Plants Toxicity Value
LC5(, = 17.2 mg ai/L NOAEC = 0.939 mg ain LoAEC = 1.75mg Reductions in fry survival, length, and weight. 

### Most Sensitive Species Tested Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis rnacrochirus

Fathead minnow Pimephalespromelas

Estuarine1 MarineFish

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 Raftusnorvegicus

Rat Rattus norvegicus 

### Exposure Duration

Acute

Chronic 00 1 17927 (acceptable)

47459601 (acceptable) Water Flea Daphnia magna

Water Flea Daphnia magna



### ToxicityValue

LD50 =709 mg aikgbw
NOAEL = 100mg ailkgdiet (7.3 mg ailkg-bwlday) LOAEL = 1000mg ailkg diet Decreased mating, fertility, and fetal survival (stillbirths)in both generations and increased incidence ofpersistent vaginal estrousand no corporalutea. EC5()= 11.8mg a*
NOAEC =2.95 mg a& LOAEC = 5.70 mg ain Reductionsof young per adult and adultlength, 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 applicableAcute Oral Bobwhite quail LDSo >2000 mg ailkgbw 

## . Practically Colinus virginianus nontoxic 

# ' (acceotable) 00117928 

# / Table 

## IV-2.FlurprimidolToxicity 

### 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 indicatepotential risk to non-target organisms.LOCs are the Agency's interpretivepolicy and are used to analyze potential risk to non-target or listed organisms and the need to considerregulatory action. These criteria are used to indicatewhen 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. ToxicityValue

Acute



### A. Risks to Aquatic Organisms and Plants Bobwhite quail Colinusvirginianus

Mallard duck Anasplatyrhynchos

Acute
Acute

Survival

and growth



### For this baseline risk assessmentwith 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 10mg 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)

Loliumperenne Cucumber (dicot) Cucumis sativa Ryegrass (monocot)

Loliumperenne 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=0.011 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. Thepeak 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 chronicLOCs are exceeded 

### (TableV-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 applicationsto those scenarios are lower than thehighest exposure scenario of five applications at 0.69 lb ai/Awith a 56-dayreapplication interval.

TableV.2. 

### Riik QuotientsforFreshwater

### Animals forProposed

### FIurprimidol Use asPlant Growth qegulator 

# '" 1 Freshwater 

### Fish 

# ' 

# I Freshwater~nhrtebrate

(LC5,, 

### =17.2mg a.iJL ; 

# I (ECe 

### = 11.8 

## 4a.ii ; 

# I # 

### of

### App. 

### xApp. Rate 

### x Interval 

# I NOAEC 

### =0.939mg 

### a.iJL) NOAEC 

### =295 

## ka.i./L) 

# I

- -- - LOC exceedances are bolded (Endangered SpeciesLOC =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 acuteRQ =Peak EEC 

### +LC5,; chronicRQ = 60-day EEC tNOAEC 4.~reshwater invertebrate acute RQ =PeakEEC 

## +ECS0; chronic RQ =21-day EEC 

### +NOAEC


### 2. 

### Estuarinemarine Fish 

## and Invertebrates 5 apps 

### x 0.69lb 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 sufficientlymore 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 flurprimidolis applied at the maximum application rates listed on the product label.
Of all exposure scenarios and GENEECEECs, 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 

### I1EECs Table V-3. Risk Quotientsfor AquaticPlantsforProposedFlurprimidolUses as Plant GrowthRegulator 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 

### (TableV-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 PlantLOC > 1). Tier IEECs from Table 111-3. Non-listed vascular RQ =PeakEEC 

## +EC.50; listed vascular RQ =Peak EEC 

## +NOAEC Non-listed non-vascular RQ =Peak EEC 

## +EC.50; listed non-vascular RQ =PeakEEC 

## +NOAEC 

### Use

Turf grass / Ornamentals

> 

### Non-VascularAquatic Plant (ECS0 

### =0.84 

### mg am; 

### NOAEC =0.28 

### mg sin)



### Table V4..Risk Quotients for Aquatic Plants for ProposedFIurprimidolUses 

### as Plant Growth Regulator 192 # 

### ofApp. 

### 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 1.5lb 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 

### VascularAquatic 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 MINursery 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 2.04Tier I1 EECs from

### able 111-5. Non-listed vascular RQ =PeakEEC sEC50; listed vascular RQ,= Peak EEC tNOAEC 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 comparingthe acute toxicity values of the A1 

### to T-REX EECs generated based on applicationto ground surfaces. With no methodology available for assessing chronicrisk 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 earthwormtissue. 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 arebolded (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 dietaryresidue concentrations determined from the Kdnaga nomogram: (1) dietary-basedRQs; and (2) 

### dose-basedRQs. RQ calculations (Table 

### V-5) are ' 

### based on an adjusted LDsoand exposure value (mg ailkg-bw or mg ai/kg-diet). TheseRQs are not equivalent. Dietary risk quotients are calculatedby 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 concentrationestimated to be on selected food items. These risk qyotients do not account for the fact that smaller-sizedanimals need to consumemore 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-basedRQs incorporate the ingestion rate-adjustedexposure 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 evaluateonly 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 applicationand granular products. The ~~~dft~ method modeled by 

### T-REX is used to estimate the magnitude by which the LD50is exceeded for abird or mammal occupying me square foot of the treated area subjectedto all routes of exposure. The ~~solft~ method does not capture feedingbehaviors 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) arebased on an adjusted LDsoand exposure value (mg ai/ft2).Terrestrial animals may be exposed to granular pesticides ingesting granules when foraging for food or grit. Otherroutes also may expose them, such as by walking on exposed granules or direct ingestion of earthworm. The numbers of lethal doses (LDSos) that are availablewithin 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 calculatedby comparing the gg a,i./ft2to three 

### separateweight 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 calculatedose- and dietafy-based risk 

## quotientsfor spray applicationsto 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 arenot 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 applicationsto ground surfaces.

For birds, the bobwhite quail LDSo of >2000mag-bw is adjusted for birds of various sizes based on the following formula, recommended by Mineau etal. 

### 1996: 

## Equation Acute Daily Exposure (mglkg-bw)/ adjusted 

### LDS0(mgkgbw) Kenaga 

### EEC (mglkg-fooditem) I

### LCSo (mg/kg-diet) 

### EEC (mgkg-bw) IAdjusted 

### 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. LDsois the median 50% lethal dose for the species being assessed,LDsois 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 speciesLDS0 fromthetest 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 0.178kg (178 grams). For mammals using similarmethodology 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. LDsoor 

### NOAEL =

### LDSO or NOAEL (TW~AW)~.~~ LDSO, TW, and AW were previously defined. Adjusted LDsosand 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 

### tbbirds on acute oral and dietarybases. Studyresults indicatethat the acute toxicitythresholds are greater than the highest concentrations tested (acuteLDso >2000 mg aikg-bw and subacpte dietaryLCso

### >43 10mg al/kg-diet). Since definitive acute toxicitythresholds were not established, acute avianRQS

### (dose- 

### and dietary-based) were not estimated, and the poteqtial risk and uncertainties to birds (surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-phaseamphibians) from gray applications to foliar surfaces are described qualitatively in the Risk Description section.


### ChronicRQs -

### Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Sut$aces Available-reproductive toxicity data forbirds indicated that flurprimidol caused significant reductions of egg production, embryo survival, and hatchabilityas 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 chronicRQ is 

### 1.6,which does exceed the LOC 

### of 1.0

### for birds consuming short grass only 

### (Table 

### V-8).

# ow ever, assumingthe lower scenario forbroadcast 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 flurprimidolas 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 flurprimidolvia broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces.



# I TableV-8. 

### Upper Bound Kenaga, 

### Chronic Avian 

### Dietary-BasedRisk Quotients for Broadcast 

# 1

SprayApplicationsto Foliar Surfaces 3



### b. Potential Risks to Birds via Banded. Spray Applicationsto Ground Surfaces Scenario

4 apps at 0.75 lb aiJA

intervals 12apps at 0.26 lb aiJA with 2-week intervals



### Acute 

### LDsdft2 -

### Banded Spray Applications to GroundSurj6aces 

### Available acute toxicity data for birds suggest that flurprimido1.i~ practically nontoxic to birds on acute oral basis. Studyresults indicate that the acute toxicity thresholds are greaterthan the highest concentrations tested (acuteLDsos 

### >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 forreptiles and terrestrial-phaseamphibians)frombanded spray applicationsto ground surfaces are described qualitatively in the Risk Description section.



### c. Potential Risks to Mammals via Broadcast Spray Applications toFoliar 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 LDsoof 

### 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 BroadleafPlants/ Small Insects'



# I-p

16 

### EEC Fruits/Pods/ Seeds1 Large Insects

0.05 0.4 

### 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 15gand 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 1000g mammals consuming short grass. However, for the lower exposure scenario 

### (12 applications of 0.26 lb ai/A with 2-week intervals), the endangered speciesLOC 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 flurprirnidolas 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 speciesLOCs; and *exceeds the endangered speciesLOC) 

### Table V-9presents the acute RQ 

### calcu1ations for mammals exposed to flurprimidolvia broadcast spray applicationsto foliar surfaces.

ChronicRQs -

### Broadcast SprayApplications toFoliar Suqaces 

### To evaluate the chronicrisk to mammals, dose-basedand dietary-based RQs for broadcsrst spray applications to foliar surfaces are calculated using the rat NOAEL of 7.3 mg aikgbwldiy and 

### NOAEC of 100mg 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 chronicLOC 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 flurprimidolresidues. 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 indicateLOC exceedance(***exceeds the acute risk, restricted use, and endangered species LOCs; **exceedsthe

### The dietary-basedRQs also exceeded the chronicLOC 

### 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 exposureto 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-11present the chronic RQ calculations for mammals exposed to flurprimidolvia broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces.
Table 

### V-10. UpperBound Kenaga, Chronic MammalianDose-Based

### Risk Quotientsfor Broadcast Spray Applicationsto 

### Foliar Surfaces EECs and RQs Broadleaf FruiWPods/ 

### Scenario Adjusted Short Grass Tall Grass Plants1



### . Granivores Large Small Insects Insects EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

P 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 SpeciesLOC (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 12apps 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 calculatedusing 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 aik

### diet)

Sizeclass 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 

### BroadleafPlants1 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 

### 15g and 

### 35 g mammals inhabiting those areas exposed to flurprimidol residues. These exceedances indicate that small- and medium-sizedmammals 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. 

### TableV-12. 

### Mammal LD50 

### per SquareFoot for "Banded" Spray 

# 1 - - 

### Applications to 

### Ground surfaces - 

# 1
Scenario

and endangered speciesLOCs; **exceehs the restricted use and endangered 

### : speciesLOCs; and *exceeds the endangered species LOC) 

# ' T-REXdoes not have the capabilityto calculate EECs (mglsq ft) based on "banded" applications occurring on the edge of a site; therefore, EECs are based onbroadcast applications.

0.69lb 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 toxicitythresholds 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 surfacesare 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 Mammalsvia 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 (fromthe 

### T-REX model); the acute ~~roslft~s or all exposure scenarios 

### (TablesV-13 

### and V-14) exceed the acute LOCs for 

### 15g 

### and 35 

### g mammals. These exceedances indidate that small- and medium-sized mammals may be at risk for adverseeffects 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



### TableV-13. 

### MammalianLD50 

### per Square

### Footfor Direct Ingestionof 

### 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. 

### MammalianLD50 

### per Square FootforDirect 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 acuterisk, restricteduse, 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 calculateEECs (mglsqft)based on "banded" applicationsoccurring on the edge of a site; therefore,EECs are based on broadcast applications. 31.24

Clnnn (g---, 

### , 15 

# 1

2. Terrestrial-phaseAmphibians 

### and Reptiles Adjusted



### LDso 1558.26



### EFED currentlyuses 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 qualitativelydiscussed in the Risk Description section. 

# 1 Adjusted

1558.26



### 3. 

### Beneficial .Insects 

### road cast'

EFED does not quantify risk to terrestrialnon-target insects;however, available toxicity data indicate flwprimidol is practically non-toxic to honeybees (LD50>I00 pg ai,). Potentialrisks to beneficial insects from spray and granular applications are 

### qualitatively discussedin the Risk Description section. mg/sq. ft 

# I road cast'

4. Soil-dwellingInvertebrates (Earthworm) LDdsq. ft



### 0.67""" 

# 1

Available acute toxicity data for earthworm suggestthat flurprimidolis practically non-toxicto soil-dwellinginvertebrates on acute basis. Study results indicate that the acute toxicity threshold is greater than the highest concentrations tested (acute

### LDS0 >I00mg aikg). Since definitive acute toxicity threshold was not established, the acute RQ was not estimated, and the potential risk to soil-dwellinginvertebrates from spray and granular applications are described qualitativelyin 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-useproduct, CUTLESS 50W containing 54.89% of the active 46

### ingredient, and then comparedto the EECs generated from the TerrPLANT model. RQs are calculatedby comparing the toxicity values of the 

### A1 in the end-useproduct to TerrPLANT EECs generated based on spray and granular applications. TerrestrialEECs were derived for the use of flurprimidolbased on the four scenarios developed for this baseline assessment. TerrPLANT doesnot have the capacityof generating EECs frombanded applications and the risks to plants from banded applications will be evaluated based on broadcast applications. The potential risks to terrestrialplants are described further in the Risk Description section. 

### 1. 

### Non-Listedand Listed Terrestrial Plants I 

### Terrestrial plant toxicity studies with monocots and dicots indicate that seedling emergence and vegetative vigor are impacted by exposureto flurprimidol.For the proposed new uses bf flurprimidoland the maximum EECs of the use scenarios, the noh-listed and listed plapt LOCs were all exceeded for dicots inhabiting dry and semi-aquaticareas adjacent to treated qeas as a result of runoff frombroadcast 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-aquaticareas, the non-listed and listed LOCs were all exceeded as a result of runoff.
The results indicate that monocots and dicots inhabitingterrestrial and semi-aquaticarqas would be at risk for adverse effectsto growth and development when exposed to flurprimidolas a result of the spray and granular application of flurprimidolto the proposed new uses.

# 1able V-15. 

### Terrestrial Plant

### Risk Quotient Summaryfor 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

### applicationat 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

### applicationat 3.0 

### lb ai/A) Gmmnd -

. - --.. - . Monocot 

### 1.07 10.71 

# 1 39.47 <0.1 Dicot 

# 1 12.5 

# 1 125 (<0.1 134.09 1340.91 

# 1 <0.1 '~etailedcalculations for RQs and TerrPlantVer. 

### 1.2.2input and output are provided in Appendix E. 

### Broadcast Spray (1

### applicatii Ground Monocot 

### 0.11 0.95 

# 0 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 Adjacentarea 

### Drift

2~on-listed toxicity thresholds (EC25) were 

### 0.14 Ib ai/A, 

### 0.012Ib ai/A, 

### 0.42Ib 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 

### 0.038lb ai/A, 

### 0.0044,0.11,0.0046 Ib ai/A for seedling emergence monocot, seedling emergence dicot, vegetativevigor dicot And vegetative vigor monocot, respectively, 

### Listed RQs Terrestrial Semi-aquatic Adjacent area

# 1Adjacent area

# 1 Drift



### VI. RISK DESCRIPTION
The risk hypothesis states that the use of flurprimidol as a plant growth regulatorhas the potential to compromise survivorship, reproduction, and/or growth of non-target aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants, including Federally-listedendangered 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 exposedto 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-vascularplants (green algae) are not supportedby the results of this baselinerisk assessment. 

### A. Risks to Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants
In the conceptual model, spray drift and surface mnoff/leachingto 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 availabletoxicity 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 exceedancesfor fish and invertebratesbased 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'reno 

### LOC exceedances for acute or chronic risk to freshwater fish; thus, there is no indication of adverse effects to survival, reproduction, and/or growthfor 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-vascularplapt studies available for flurprimidol; the green algae study indicates that flurprirnidolaffects 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 availabletoxicity information, the non-listed and listed plant LOCs (LOC >1) were exceeded for duckweed (RQs range from 1.4to 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 vascul4plants 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 aquaticvascular 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 willbe observed,lbut it is uncertain how flurprimidol will affect one's ability to survive, grow, and reproduce. 

### B. Risks toNon-target Terrestrial Animals andPlants
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 exposureto 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 concentrationsof flurprimidolto 

### non-target terrestrialplants and animals were modeled accordingto the labeled applicationrates for ornamentals and turfgrasses.For terrestrialbirds and mammals, estimates of upper-bound levels of flurprimidolresidues on various food items and granules, which may be contacted or consumedby wildlife, were

### determined using the Fletcher nomogram followedby a first order decline model TREX 1.4.1. Risk to soil-dwellinginvertebrates was determinedby estimatingthe 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 Applicationsto 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 estimatedfor birds (surrogatefor 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 10mg 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 determineif 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 concentrationswhich 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 dosetested in the studies. Also, a comparisonof the dietary LC50 with the highest dietary-basedEEC 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 granuleswith flurprimidol residues; avian species are likely not at risk for adverse effectsto survival from acute oral or dietary exposures to flurprimidol as a result of the labeled uses.


### b. Potential Chronic Risks from Broadcastand 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 chronicLOC 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 chronicLOC 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 assessedfeed items when the minimum exposure scenariois assumed. Although there is 

## an exceedance of the chronic LOC based on the maximum exposure scenario,thepotential risk for adverse effects to growth and reproduction is based on the assumptionthat birds occupy the area permanently and are feeding on short grass exclusively within the treated areas where turfgrasses are grown. Tothe extent that those birds donot 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 tobirds frombanded spray applicationsto 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 methodologyfor assessing chronic risk tobirds from granular applications. The following chronic exposure estimation and risk characterization for Zjirds considers granularroutes 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~tjon f earthworm are not calculated for the chronic risk estimation, the risks are unknown.

I



### TableVI-2. Dietary-basedChronicRQ 

### for InsectivorousBirds 

## 1 I I I

a Chronic RQ =Earthworm EEC/ NOAEC. I I 

### Application

## Rate
3.0

### Ib a.i./A



### 2. Terrestrial-phaseAmphibians and Reptiles a. PotentialAcute Risks fromBroadcast and Banded Sprby Applications to Foliar and Ground Surfaces and ~ireci Ingestion of Granules
EFED currentlyuses data on surrogate species (birds) to assess non-targetterrestrial-phabe amphibians and reptiles. Based on the evaluation of potential acute risks to birds, potential acute risks to reptiles and terrestrial-phaseamphibians 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 (mga.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/lothof 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 chronicrisks 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-phaseamphibiansfrom 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 DirectIngestion of Granules
Based on the evaluationof potential chronic risks to birds from ingestion of soil invertebrates as one ofthe granular routes, potential chronicrisks 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 adverseeffects on reproduction and growth from indirect granule (soil invertebrate)consumption with flurprimidolresidues. However,the chronicrisk from direct granule consumption is unknown.
3. 

### Mammals a. PotentialAcute Risks from Broadcast Spray Applications to Foliar Surfaces Acute RQs 

# -Broadcast Spray Applications toFoliar Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690-15, 

### Cutless SOW Turf 

### Growth Regulator) Based on the maximum exposure scenario (fourbroadcast spray applications of 0.75 lb ai/A with areapplication interval of 2 week) using Cutless SOWTurf Growth Regulator (Reg. No. 67690- 15) and maximum predicted EECs, the acute mammalian dose-basedrisk quotientsfor 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 1000g mammals consuming short grass and for 15 g and 35 g mammals consumingtall grass, broadleaves and small insects. In 

### addition, there is an exceedance of the endangered species LOC for 15gmammals 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 flurprimidolis 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 1000g mammals feeding on short grass with residues of the activeingredient.
For the lower (minimum) exposure scenario (12broadcast 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. 

### PotentialAcute Risks from Banded Spray Applications to Ground Surfaces
Acute L,D5df8- 

### Banded SprayApplications to GroundSurfaces 

### (Reg.No. 67690-46, SP5075 Turf Growth Regulator) Based on the maximum exposure scenario for banded spray applicationsto 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 15g rnammgls while the endangered speciesLOC is exceeded for 35 g mammals inhabiting the treated are& where flurprimidol is applied to the ground. The RQs ranged from 0.01 to 0.31for a banded qpray applicationto ground surface at 0.69 lb a.i./A, respectively, with small-sizedmammals; affected the most when exposed.



### c. Potential Acute Risks from Direct Ingestion of Grandles
Acute 

### L,DsdftZ- Broadcast Granular Applications to GroundSurfaces 

### (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 applicationsof granulqs to ground surfaces at 0.75 Ib a.i./A and 3-week intervals, the restricteduse and endangered species LOCs are exceededfor 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 applicationsof 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 

### RQof 0.67 for 15g 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 baselinerisk assessment also estimates, the minimum foraging area (square feet) needed to allow for direct ingestion of sufficientmass of flurprimidol granules to achieve a dose that exceeds the adjustedLDso 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 speciesby evaluating how much area would need to be foragedto achievethe amount of flurprimidol granules necessary to trigger the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs). 

### TablesVI-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, 1.5lb a.i./A, and 3.0 lb a.i.1A granular flurprimidol.

Table

### VI-3. Estimates ofthe number ofgranules, and minimum area foraged neededfora 15g,35g, and 1000gmammal to achievethe EEC that would triggeranexceedanceofthe adjustedLDSO, acute risk LOC (0.5), and endangered species risk (0.5) levels ofconcern (LOCs) based on an application rate of 0.75 Ib a.iJA Mammal Size (grams) 15 35 

# I 1000
No. of Consumed GranulesRequired 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 0.75lb/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 ofField 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 1bIAgranular flurprimidol. Adjusted LD5,, Acute RiL LOC (0,5) Endangered SpeciesLOC (0.1)



### Table

### VI-4. Estimates ofthe number 

### ofgranule$,and minimum area foraged neededfora 15g,35g, and lOOOg mammal to achieve the EEC that would triggeran exceedanceofthe adjustedLD50, acute risk 

### LOC (0.5), and endangered species risk (0.5) levels ofconcern (LOCs) based on an application rate of 

### 1.5 

### * Immediate EEC =7.81 mglsquare feet (excluding row spacing,bandwidth, and # of rows inputparameters) 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 ofField to be Foraged (square feet) to Achieve the Endangered SpeciesLOC Based - 7 14 70

-" 

# AcuteRiskpp
Endangered SpeciesLOC (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 = 15.62mglsquare feet (excludipgrow spacing, bandwidth, and # of rows input parameters) on Application Rate of 1.5lblA.*



### In 

### Table 

### VI-4 above, it was estimated that it would take a 15gmammal to consume 3 granules that would result 

### in an exceedanceof the endangered species LOC. Based on the applkcationrate of 1.5IblA, 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 exceedanceof the endangered species LOC, a 1000gmammal 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 areaneeded to epceed

I 

### Agency's LOCs at the minimum application rate of 3.0 1blAgranular flurprimidol. Assuming a 50% FeedingEfficiency



### Table VI-5. 

### Estimates ofthe number ofgranules,and 

### minimumarea foragedneededfora 15g, 35g, 

### and lOOOg 

### mammal to achievethe 

### EEC that would trigger anexceedanceof the adjustedLDSO, 

### acutj

### risk LOC (0.5), 

### and endangered species risk 

### (0.5) 

### levels ofconcern (LOCs) based on an applicationrqte 

### of3.0 

# I 0.3



### I lb/A I 0.57



## / Adiusted LD5" No. of Consumed GranulesRequired to Reach the S~ecified LOC



### In 

### Table 

### VL-5 above, it was estimated that it would take a 15gmammal to consume 3 granules that would result in an exceedanceof the endangered species LOC. Based on the appli4ationrate 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 exceedanceof 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 SpeciesLOC (0.1) Assuming a 100%Feeding



### e. Potential Chronic Risks from Broadcast Spray Applicttionsto Foliar Surfaces I Mammal Size (grams)

-- I I I



### ChronicRQs 

# -Broadcast Spray Applications toFoliar 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 545 273 12

I 

### * Immediate EEC = 3 1.24mglsquare feet (excludingrow spacing, bandwidth, and # ofrows 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% FeedingEfficiency Assuming a 10%Feeding Efficiency 0.75

### Based on the maximum exposure scenario (four broadcast spray applicationsof 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-basedrisk quotients for broadcast spray applications to foliar surfaces exceed the Chronic LOC for mammals of all weight classes consuming all the assessed feed items exceptfor 1000 g mammals consuming fruits, seeds, and large insects. In addition, there is an exceedance of the ChronicLOC 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 1000g mammals feeding on any of the assessed feed items except fruits, seeds, and large insects, the chronicLOC is exceeded after one applicationof flurprimidol. For the lower (minimum) exposure scenario 

### (12 broadcast spray applicationsof 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 SprayApplications to 

### Ground Surfaces (Reg. No. 67690-46, SP5075 Turf. Growth Regulator) Chronic risks to mammals from banded spray applicationsto 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 applicationswill be lower than. broadcast applications; thus, risk will be presumably less but not ruled out since the RQs werehigh for: broadcast applications.

g. 

### Potential Chronic Risks from Direct Ingestion of Granules
Similarto birds, EFED has no standard methodologyfor assessing chronicrisk to mammals from granular applications. The following chronic exposure estimation and risk characterizationfor 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 100mg a.i./kg-diet,the chronic LOC is not exceeded 

### (Table VI

### 6) and is 

### 2860x lower than the modeled EEC for insectivorous mammals exposed to flurprimidol granules via ingestionof earthworms at the maximum application rate of 3.0 lb a.i./A (see 

### Appendix D). Similarto birds, direct consumption of granules and dose-based risk quotients for direct consumptionof earthworm are not calculated for the chronicrisk estimation, the risks are unknown.

### Table VI-6. Dietary-basedChronic

### RQ for InsectivorousMammals 

## 1 

# I I I

a Chronic RQ =EarthwormEEC 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>I00mg 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, suggestthqt 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 A1is expectedto be minimal; consequently, precautionary labeling for honeybee protections is not requited at this time.
6. Terrestrial Plants EarthwormEEC (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 someuncertainty 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 1as 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) 100



### A search of the EIIS (Environmental Incident Information System) database for ecological incidents (searched on April 5, 2010) reported no adverse ecological incidents. ChronicRQa

<O. 1

### D. Endocrine Disruptor ScreeningProgram
As required under FFDCA section408(p),EPA has developed the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) to determinewhether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effectproduced by a "naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administratormay designate." TheEDSP employs a two-tiered approachto making the statutorilyrequired 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 necessarybased on the available data. Tier 2 testingis designed to identify any adverse endocrine related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose-response relationshipbetween 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 exposurethrough 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
Section7 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 tojeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or adverse modificationof designated critical habitat. Tojeopardize 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 ofboth the survival and recovery of a listed species (USEPA, 2004.). After the Agency's baselinerisk 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/erosionor direct ingestion of granules. If listed or candidate species may be present in the proposed action area, furtherbiological assessment is undertaken. The extent to which listed species may be at risk is considered, which then determined the need for developmentof a more comprehensiveconsultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act.
The federal action addressedherein is the proposed registration for nationwideuse of flurprimidol on turf grass and ornamentals. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

### 2002 census, the proposed uses are likelyto 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 initialbaseline, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomicgroups and so conservatively assumes that listed species within thosebroad groups are co-located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrialplants 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 surfacewater 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" determinationif the assumptions associated with the baseline action area result in RQs that are below or above the listedspecies LOCs sincethe Service(s)has not identified which listed species and critical habitat are. potentially implicated.Furthermore, if RQs arebelow 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 effectsupon listed species that depend upon that taxonomicgroup as a resource. 

### In such cases, additional informationon the biology of listed species, the locations of these species, mdthe locations of use sites could be considered along with available information on the fate and transportproperties of the pesticideto 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 areafor a particular listed animal and may potentially include areas of exposurethat are downwind and downstream of th$ pesticide use site. 

### 2. Taxonomic Groups Potentiallyat 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 flurprimidolresidues 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 15g 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 aquaticvascular 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 informationmay 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-phaseamphibians and reptiles.
In addition, the listed plant LOC was exceeded for terrestrial and aquaticvascular 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 evaluationof 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 considerationsor 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 ofconcern (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-phaseamphibians, 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 determinewhich 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 determinewhether 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 definitiveidentification of specits that are potentially impacted indirectly or criticalhabitats 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 biologicalfeatures that, if they are constituentelements of one or more criticalhabitats 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-phaseamphibians, mammals, aquatic. vascular plants and terrestrialplants. This list should serve as an initial step inprobleq formulationfor further assessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, should adbitional work be necessary. 

### 5. Direct Effect Co-occurrenceAnalysis
For the proposed uses of flurprimidol,LOCATES was 

## runfor all listedbirds, reptiles, terrestrialphase amphibians,mammals, terrestrial plants, and aquaticvascular plants to determine the potential for co-occurrenceof listed animal and plant species located within areas of expected pesticide use. When baseline assessment information suggeststhat 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 listedbird, terrestrial-phaseamphibian, reptile, mammals,terrestrial plant, and aquaticplant species are potentially directly affected from flurprimidoluses for where turf grasses and ornamentals are

### grown. Such potential concerns are limitedby the true potential for exposures of critical resources to modeled flurprimidol levels. LOCATES identified 

### >I200 endangeredlthreatened bird, terrestrial-phase amphibian, reptile, mammals, terrestrialplant, 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 expectedpesticide use 

### (Table

### VI-7).

6. 

### Indirect Effect Co-occurrence Analysis Table 

### VI-7. Numberof Listed SpeciesLocated Where 

### Turf Grass and Ornamentals are Grown in the United States 

### ofAmerica.



### In accordancewith establishedprocedures, 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 aquaticplants that requirebirds 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 relationshipbetween 'directly affected' listed species and 'indirectly affected' listed species. Consequently,additional analysis of listed species locations, refinement of the action area associated with flurprimidolregulatory 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 TaxonomicGroupsPotentially at

### Risk forDirect or Indirect Effects as 

### a Result of Flurprimidol Applications (Applications arefor Terrestrialand ResidentialOutdoor Uses where 

### Turf Grass

Terrestrial and SemiAquatic Plants 

# lYes 

# I and ornament& are grownNationwide)

All 

### Listed Taxon

. 

### VII. Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths,and 

### Data Gaps Direct Effects



## r Beneficial Insects



### Limitations of availablemethods of assessing risk and gaps in submitted data lead to u$certainty in risk conclusions. 

### In assessingrisk from flurprimidol use, major uncertainties arisefrom 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 ofDirect Effects Concern

No



### Flurprimidol is'labeled for outdoor and residentialuses only and application rates are expressed as pounds active ingredientper gallon. Quantifying risk, then, requi'res that assumptionsbe 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 representativeof 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 EstuarinelmarineFish Estuarinelmarine Crustaceans EstuarinelmarineMollusks Aquatic Nonvascular Plants 

### Indirect Effects

None 

### Use ofIndirectEffects Concern

yes3.4.5.6

1 Birds are used as surrogate species for terrestrial-phaseamphibians and reptiles; therefore,potential dbect and indirect effectsto endangered avian, terrestrial-phase amphibiansand 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 attributableto direct effects onbirds, 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 onterrestrial 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 ~~~3~4~5~6All 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 expectedto lead to overestimation of risk. 

## B. Environmental Fate and Transport
The environmental fate databasefor parent flurprimidolis largely complete. The primary data gaps are 

### in identifying degradates and characterizing their fate. Several major degradates have not been identified. Understandingof 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 estimateswere 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 applicationinformation, its soillwater partition data and its degradationkinetics to estimate exposurevalues 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-ladenrunoff 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 pesticideremoval through flow through or water releases. The standard runoff scenario assumes uniform soils and agronomic management practices across the standard 10hectare field.
This standardpond 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 overestimatesof 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 sprayersused 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 differentrunoff characteristicsof these surfaces. The assumption that the entire 10-ha area is treated with flurprimidolis 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 estimatespotential 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 exclusivelywithin areas where flurprimidol is used. Given the small-scalenature of the use, it is unlikely that animals will obtain all dietary items within the treated area. Additionally, terrestrial exposureestimates rely on the same conservative assumptions about application rates as discussed above. Some underestimationof exposure is possible due to the fact that estimates are based primarily on dietary consumptionof 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 inhalationor dermal absorptionby terrestrial animals. Along with the other conservative assumptionsused, 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 habitatrequiremehts 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 assessmentrelies 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' sensitivityand 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 conservativeto 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 'sensitivityof 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 onjuveniles weighing 0.1 

### to 5 grams. For aquaticinvertebrates, 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. Testingofjuveniles may overestimate the toxicity of direct acting pesticides in 

### adults.As juvenile animals do nothave fully developed metabolic systems, they may not possess the ability to transform and detoxify xenobiotics equivalentto the olderladult animal. The baselinerisk assessment has no current provisions for a generally applied method that accounts for this uncertainty. 

### In so far as the available toxicity data may provideranges of sensitivity information with respect to age class, the risk assessmentuses the most sensitive life-stage informationas the conservative baseline endpoint.

## VIII. Literature Cited Bums, 

### L. A. 2004. EXAMS (ExposureAnalysis 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. Pesticideresidues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. 

# InF. 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 SoilZones: 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 AssessmentProcess 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 ProtectionAgency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. Washington, D.C. December 11,2008.
USEPA. 2009. Guidance for SelectingInput 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 ofEnvironmental Contaminationand 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 0.0645161290322581 77.59 0.0967741935483871 75.73 0.129032258064516 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 31.24 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 

### 720.1 74.943 74.334 72.702 67.96 64.461 38.207 Averageof 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~~ ChemicalName: Flurprimidol Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecularweight mwt 312.3 glmol Henry'sLaw 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 AerobicAquatic Metabolism kbacw 0 days Halfife AnaerobicAquatic 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 IncorporationDepth: DEPI 0 cm ApplicationRate: TAPP 3.36 kglha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 1.00 fraction SprayDrift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond ApplicationDate Date 08-08 ddlmm or ddlmmm or dd-mm or dd-rnmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTW Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(averageof entire run) stored asMInlG.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 96hr 21 Day 60 Day 90Day 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 

### 73Sorted 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 0.451612903225806 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 11.47 11.4 11.26 10.69 28.778 12.67 13.83 17.82 13.63 12.3 18.12 11.02 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 

### 74Average of yearly averages: 13.3389333333333 Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006
Dataused 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 Molecularweight 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 IncorporationDepth: DEPI 0 cm ApplicationRate: TAPP 3.36 kgha ApplicationEfficiency: APPEFF 1.OO fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.00 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 08-03 ddlmm or ddlmmmor 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(averageof 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 96hr 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 '90Day 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 

### 75Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 0.032258064516129 52.83 52.54 0.0645161290322581 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
Dataused for this run: OutputFile: 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 'molKd 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 ddfmmmor dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1interval 60 days Setto 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 .apprate 1.68 kglha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1

. UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(averageof entire run)
stored as NJn4GS37.out Chemical:Flurprimidol PRZM environment:NJnurserySTD-V2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September2007 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 

### 77Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 0.032258064516129 0.0645161290322581 0.0967741935483871 0.129032258064516 0.161290322580645 0.193548387096774 0.225806451612903 0.258064516129032 0.290322580645161 0.32258064516129 32.58 0.354838709677419 0.387096774193548 0.419354838709677 0.45 1612903225806 0.483870967741936 0.516129032258065 0.548387096774194 0.580645161290323 0.612903225806452 0.645161290322581 0.6774193548387124.66 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 31.94 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 

### 78Application Date Date 7-3 dd/mm or ddtmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1interval 2 1 days Setto 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.84 kgiha Interval 2interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kglha Interval 3interval 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 entirerun) stored asPAturf4GS.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 0.0645161290322581 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 

### 790.1 24.427 24.291 23.664 22.635 21.828 16.836 Average of yearly averages: 7.77776666666667 Inputs generatedby 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 Solubilitysol 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 SeePRZM 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 1interval 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 IUPTKF 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 0.0645161290322581 0.0967741935483871 0.129032258064516 0.161290322580645 0.193548387096774 0.22580645 1612903 0.258064516129032 0.290322580645 161 0.3225806451612941.73 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 

### 810.1 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 Solubilitysol 130 mgL Kd Kd 2.78 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysishalf-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 ddmmmor dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.84 kglha Interval 2interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kgka Interval 3interval 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 FEXTRC0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(averageof entire run) stored as NJn4GS85.out Chemical: Flurprimidol PRZM environment:NJnurserySTD-V2.txt modified Sunday, 30 September 2007 at 23:05:00 

### 82EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modifiedTueday, 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 0.032258064516129 0.0645161290322581. 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 

### 830.1 58.467 58.053 56.417 53.357 51.9 38.946 Average of yearly averages: 28.9221333333333 Inputs generatedby 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 VariableName 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 SprayDrift 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 1interval 2 1 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.84 kglha Interval 2interval 2 1 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 2 apprate 0.84 kglha Interval 3interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 3 apprate 0.84 kg/ha Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFFnone none, monthly or total(average of entirerun) 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 

### 84Sorted 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 14.011 11.044 Average of yearly averages: 6.7904 

### 85Inputs generatedby 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 Solubilitysol 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 ddmmor ddmmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm Interval 1interval 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 7interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 7 apprate 0.291 kglha Interval 8 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 8 apprate 0.291 kgha Interval 9interval 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(averageof 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 

### 86Water 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
Sortedresults Prob. Peak 96 hr 0.032258064516129 0.0645161290322581 0.0967741935483871 0.129032258064516 0.161290322580645 0.193548387096774


# , 0.225806451612903 0.258064516129032 0.290322580645161 0.32258064516129 10.42 0.354838709677419 0.387096774193548 0.419354838709677 0.451612903225806 0.483870967741936 0.516129032258065 0.548387096774194 0.580645161290323 0.612903225806452 0.645161290322581 0.677419354838716.716 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 

### 870.1 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
Dataused for this run: Output File: PAtur28h6 Metfile: w14751.dvf PRZM scenario: PAturfSTD.txt EXAMS environmentfile: pond298.e~~ Chemical Name: Flurprimidol Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 312.3 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 IncorporationDepth: DEPl 0 cm ApplicationRate: TAPP 0.291 kgka ApplicationEfficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fractionof 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 Interval4interval 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 6interval 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 0.291 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 FEXTRC0.5

# / 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 Mallardduck NOAEL(mg1kg-bw) 0.00 Mallardduck NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 309



# 1 AVIAN EECs and ADJUSTED LD50s Flurprimidol Turf Grass 

### 1Ornamentals Cutless 

### 50W Turf Growth Regulator 

### 0.75 I 

### bs ai/A 

### 35 days 

### 14 days 

### 4 applications 

### 1year

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-dietlday) 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) 20 100 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 1000

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 567.34 260.03 319.13 

### 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 85.10 106.38



### . 16.55



### FI 

### (kg-dietlday) 1.43E-02 2.31 E-02 1.53E-01 3.18E-03 $.13E-03 3.40E-02 114.58 48.53 60.66 9.44 51.30 21.73 27.16 4.22

### Table C1. Upper Bound Kqnaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk ~uotients (4 Applications. @ 

### 0.75 lb ai/A with 14Day 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 indicatesLOC.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, SubacuteAvian Dietary Based Risk Quotients 

### (4 Applications @ 

### 0.75 lb ai/A with 14Day Intervals) EECs and RQs

-Bold value indicatesLOC 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/ SmallInsects

-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 

### (4Applications @ 0.75 

### Ib ai/A with 

### 14Day Intervals)

BroadIeaf l?ruits/Pods/ Short Grass Tall Grass Plants1 Seeds/ SmallInsects 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 indicateLOC exceedances

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

### Table C4. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute MammalianDose-BasedRisk Quotients (4 

### Applications @ 0.75 

### lb ai/A with 

### 14Day Intervals) I



### Table C6. Upper Bound Kenaga, ChronicMammalian Dose-BasedRisk 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 indicateLOC 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 SmallInsects

Broadleaf

Plants/ SmallInsects 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 indicatesLOC 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 SmallInsects 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/ASize class not used for dietary risk quotients 

### Table C10. Mean Kenaga, Acute MammalianDose-BasedRisk Quotients 

### (4 Applications @ 

### 0.75 lb ailA with 14Day IntervaIs)

Size Class (grams)

15 35 1000



### Table C12. Mean Kenaga, Chronic MammalianDose-BasedRisk Quotients 

### (4 Applications @ 

### 0.75 lb ailA with 

### 14Day Intervals) EECs andRQs

. I 

### Broadleaf FruitsfPodsI Grass Tall Grass Plants1 Seeds/ (grams) 

### NOAEL Large Gqnivores Small Insects 

### Insects I

P 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/ SmallInsects

116.26 26.95 

### Fruits/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) 20 100 1000 

### Adjusted LD50 

### (mglkg-bw)

>1440.86 

### Ingestion (Fwet) (glda y) 23 65 291 

### % 

### bodywgt 

### 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 BodyWeights

Mammalian Class Herbivores1 insectivores
Granivores

Mammalian Class Herbivores1 insectivores
Granivores small Upper Bound EEC 

### (mglkg)

Body Weight



### - 15 35 1000

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 3.18E-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 57.15 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. UpperBound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-BasedRisk Quotients (12 Applications @ 

### 0.26 lbai/A with 

### 14Day Intervals)

SueClass (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/ LargeInsects 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/ SmallInsects
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, ChronicAvian 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 ailAwith 14Day Intervals) Broadleaf Short Grass Tall Grass Plantsf Small Insects

Table C16. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute MammalianDose-BasedRisk Quotients (12 Applications 

### 00.26 Ib ailA with 14

### Day Intervals) I

I 

### EECs and RQs I

Size class not used for dietaryrisk quotients 

### Fruits/Pods/ Seeds/ LargeInsects

Table CIS. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic MammalianDose-BasedRisk Quotients (12 Applications @ 

### 0.26 lb 

### ailAwith 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 Sizeclass not used for dietary risk quotients Bold values indicate LOC exceedances



### Short Grass

Bold values indicateLOC 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 SmallInsects

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 RQsfor 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-BasedRisk 

### Quotients (12 Applications @ 

### 0.26 Ib ailA with 14Day Intervals)

Size Class (grams)

20 100 1000



### Table C20. Mean Kenaga, SubacuteAvian Dietary Based Risk Quotients (12Applications @ 

### 0.26 Ib ai/A with 14Day 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 SmallInsects 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 NIASize class not used 

### for dietary risk quotients 

### Table C22. Mean Kenaga, AcuteMammalianDose-BasedRisk 

### Quotients (12Applications @ 

### 0.26 Ib ai/A with 

### 14Day Intervals)

Table C24. Mean Kenaga, ChronicMammalianDose-Based 

### Risk Quotients (12 ~~plicati& @ 

### 0.26 

### lb ai/A with 14Day 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 SmallInsects 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 (1OOg) >I 834.29 (1OOOg) ~2591 .OO Mammalian LD50 (15g): 1558.26 mglkg bw (35g) 1260.80 (1OOOg) 545.33 Row Spacing: 0 inches Bandwidth: 0 inches Unincorporation: 100%

## RESULTS- 

## Intermediate EECs 

## and LD50lSQ 

## FTfor 1 

## Application of 

## Granules at 

## 0.75 

## Ib a.i./A

INPUTS

# - LD50lSQ FT 

### Calculations Application Rate: 0.75 Ibslacre % A.I.: 100.00% Avian LD50 (20g): >1440.86 mglkg bw (1009) >1834.29 (1OOOg) >2591.OO Mammalian LD50 (15g): 1558.26 mglkg bw (35g) 1260.80 (1OOOg) 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 (1OOg) >1834.29 (1OOOg) >2591.OO Mammalian LD50 (1

5g): 1558.26 mglkg bw (35g) 1260.80 (10009) 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 (1OOg) >1834.29 (10009) >2591.OO Mammalian LD50 (159): 1558.26 mglkg bw (35g) 1260.80 (1OOOg) 545.33 Row Spacing: 0 inches Bandwidth: 0 inches Unincorporation: 100%

### APPENDIX D: Terrestrial Chronic Exposure Estimates for Granular Applications of Flurprimidol (EarthwormFugacity Model) Flurprimidol exposure to terrestrial wildlife from non-granular applications is evaluatedby 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 pesticideper unit area (ft2). EFED has no standard methodologyfor 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 ofSoil

### 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 concentrationwas calculated using a fugacity-based (equilibrium.partitioning) approachbased 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 concentrationof 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 chemicalconcentration 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 Kbwis the bulk soil-to-water partitioning coefficient = 

### (psoil)(&)+e +(~-e)(Kaw) Kaw is the air-to-water partitioning coefficient =

### WRT H =

### Henry's Constant specificto flurprimidol(1.17E-4) 

### R =

### universal gas constant, 8.31~oules-m~/mol-~~ T =

### temperature OK, assumed to be 298 OK Kd= 

### soil partitioning coefficientfor 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 

### organism0.01 (Cobb et al., 1995) 

## &, =

### the octonal to water partitioning coefficient for flurprimidol(2.96)

### pmwm =the density of the organism, assumed to be 

### 1glhn 3


### TableD.l summarizes the estimated immediate post-treatment soil concentrationsof flurprimidol, assuming 15cm (3-inch) averaging depth, a soil density of 

### 1.3 g/cm3,and granular applicationrates of flurprimidolat 3.0 lb ai/A.



### Table D.2 summarizes the model inputs and exposureestimates (i.e., earthworm concpntrations in ppm) for insectivorousbirds and mammals, based on granular flurprimidol application rate of 3.0 lb ai/A. 

### TableD.1-Estimated Soil Concentrationsfor Flurprimidol (Immediately Post-treatment) Application Rate (lb aVA) 3.O



### ChronicRisk 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 ConcentrationsImmediately Post-treatment)

Chronicrisks for birds and mammals that consume terrestrial invertebrates as the majority of their diet were estimated based on comparisonof the concentration of 

### flurprimidol in earthworm tissue (Cearthwom) with chronic toxicity values for birds and mammals. Given that earthworms are llkelyto be present in the top 

### 6 inches of soil, a 15-cmsoil 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

### concentrationacross 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 insectivorousbirds were estimated by comparing the CearthWom in mgkgby the avian chronicNOAEC for flurprimidol(309 mgkg). Estimated earthwormresidues for insectivorous avian receptors (0.04 mgkg) are less than the avian chronic endpoint (309 mgkg; based on reproductive effects) for granular flurprimidol applicationof 3.0 lb ai/A. Therefore, chronicrisks to insectivorousbirds associated with ingestion of terrestrial invertebrates (i.e., earthworms) that have bioaccumulated flurprimidolgranules 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

\ 

### Chronicrisks for insectivorousmammals were estimatedby consideringboth dietary- and doserelated exposures and effects. In the dietarymethod, 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 insectivorousmammals 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 doseby multiplying the dietary CearthWom by the percentageBW 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 ofthe mammals accordingto 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 

### TableD.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 interrestrial invertebrates may represent, by itself, a biologically significant pathway for exposure. Dose-basedRQs 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 adjustmentsto account for feeding behavior and varying size classes.


### TableD.3. 

### Dose-based Chronic

## RO for InsectivorousMammals 

# I Application Rate Body Weight Dose-adjusted

### EEC, (rngJkg-BWlda~)~

chronic RQ =Dose-adjustedEEC, 1Adjusted NOAEL. 'Exceeds chronic risk level of concern (RQ2 1.0). 

### Adjusted NOAEL 

### ChronicRQC 

### (mg/kg-~~/day)b



### Uncertainties 3.0lb 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-adjustedEECw = Dietary EEC, (ppm)

# - (%BWconsumed/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 inbulk 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 oneroute 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 Simulationof 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. EECsfor FJur riniidol. Units 

### in Ibs

### aV4. 

# 41 A plication Method

Application Form 

# g liquid

. . Dicot 0.012. 0.0044 0.011 ; 0.0046 

### Solubility inWater (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 

### A*D 

# 6 All *R*10

## + A*D Totalfor semi-aquatic areas (( ) ) ( ) 0.1326 

### EEC 0.013 0.13 O.OQ26 IChemical Name PC code Use Application Method

Application Form Solubility inWater (ppm) flurprimidol 125701 Turf 

### / Ornamental Ground liquid 130 mg/LMonocot 0.14 0.938. 0.42 

### i 0.11 

### Dicot 0.012 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. GranularADDlication 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

Drift 

### Fraction 

# 11 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 ' Phaeognathushubrichti 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 Amphianfhuspusillus 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 Clematissocialis 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 scolopendriumvar. Threatened Terrestrial No americanurn Quillwort, Louisiana lsoetes louisianensis Endangered Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

### Mammal' Bat, Gray Myotisgrisescens Endangered Subterraneous, No Terrestrial Bat, Indiana Myotissodalis Endangered Subterraneous, Yes Terrestrial Mouse, Alabama Beach Peromyscuspolionofusammobates Endangered Terrestrial, Coastal Yes (neritic)

4/29/2010 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 1 of 50 

### 116Mouse, 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 Lep7dochelyskempii Sea turtle, leatherback Dermoche'lys coriacea Seaturtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Tortoise, Gopher Gopheruspolyphemus ~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 Polystictastelleri

Fern, Aleutian Shield Polystichumaleuticum 

### 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, southwesternWillow Empidonax trailliiextimus Owl, Mexican Spotted ' - Strix occidentalis lucida Pygmy-owl, Cactus Ferruginous Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostrisyumanensis 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 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 2 of 50

### Dicot Blue-star, Kearney's Amsonia kearneyana Endangered Endangered Terrestrial No Terrestrial No Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog Echinocereustriglochidiatus var. 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 Echinocactushorizonthaloniusvar. nicholii Cactus, Peebles Navajo Pediocactuspeeblesianus peeblesianus Endangered Terrestrial No
Cactus, Pima Pineapple Coryphanthascheerivar. robustispina Endangered Terrestrial No
Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri Threatened Terrestrial No
Cliffrose, Arizona Purshia (=cowania) subintegra Cycladenia,Jones Cycladeniajonesii (=humilis) Fleabane, Zuni Erigeronrhizoma 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 cremnophylaxvar. cremnophylax Milkweed, Welsh's Asclepias welshii Threatened Endangered Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes Umbel, HuachucaWater Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recunfa 

### Mammal Bat, Lesser (=Sanbornls) Long-nosed Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered Subterraneous, No Terrestrial Ferret, Black-footed Mustelanigripes 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 Microtusmexicanus hualpaiensis 

### Monocot Ladies1-tresses, Canelo Hills Spiranthes 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 Gopherusagassizii Threatened Terrestrial Yes

4/29/2010 12:24:48PM 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 Myotisgrisescens
Bat, Indiana Myofis sodalis
Bat, Ozark Big-eared Coynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendiiingens 

### California ( 232)

### species: 

### Amphibian Frog, California Red-legged Rana aurora draytonii Frog, Mountain Yellow-legged Gopherusagassizii 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 trailliiextimus Polioptila californica californica Brachyramphusmarmoratus marmoratus Strix occidentalis caurina Charadriusalexandrinusnivosus Rallus longirostris obsoletus Rallus longirostris levipes Rallus longirostrisyumanensis Lanius ludovicianusrnearnsi Amphispiza belliclementeae 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 50Towhee, lnyo Brown Vireo, Least Bell's 

### Conflcycds Cypress,'Gowen Pipilo crissalis eremophilus Vireobelliipusillus Threatened Endangered Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial Yes
Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Threatened Terrestrial Cypress, Santa Cruz 

### Dicot Cupressusabramsiana Endangered Terrestrial

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin Pseudobahiapeirsonii Plagiobothrys strictus Ambrosia pumila Baccharis vanessae Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Berberis nevinii Galium califomicumssp. sierr.-- Galiumbuxifolium 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 Cordylanthuspalmatus Bird's-beak, Pennell's Cordylanthustenuis ssp. capillaris Bird's-beak,salt marsh Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Cordylanthusmollis ssp. mollis Endangered Endangered Brackish, Saltwater Terrestrial Bird's-beak, Soft No Yes Bladderpod, San Bernardino Mountains Lesquerella kingiissp. bernardina

Terrestrial Threatened Bluecurls, Hidden Lake Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum 

### c room, San Clemente lsland Buckwheat, Cushenbury Buckwheat, lone (incl. Irish Hill) Lotus dendroideusssp. traskiae Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. prostratum) Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial No Yes No
Buckwheat, Southern MountainWild Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum Threatened Terrestrial
Bush-mallow,San Clemente lsland Bush-mallow,Santa Cruz lsland Malacofhamnus clementinus Endangered Endan.gered Terrestrial Terrestrial Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. 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 Seneciolayneae 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 Centauriumnamophilum Sidalcea keckiiChecker-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 JacintoValley 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 Sidalceapedata Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Clarkia franciscana Clarkia springvil/ensis Clarkia imbricata Castilleja carnpestris ssp. Trifolium trichocalyx Trifolium amoenum Eryngiumconstancei Verbesina dissita Atriplex coronata var. notatior Erigeronparishii Dudleya abramsiissp. parva Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens Dudleya setchellii Dudleya nesiotica Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia Dudleya verityi Hesperolinoncongestum Oenothera deltoidesssp. howellii Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis Camissonia benitensis Amsinckia grandiflora Fremontodendron mexicanurn Fremontodendroncalifornicumssp. decumbens Thysanocarpus conchuliferus Gilia tenuiflorassp. hoffmannii Gilia fenuiflora ssp. arenaria Pseudobahia bahiifolia Lasthenia burkei Lasthenia conjugens Orcuttiapilosa Orcuttia viscida Orcuttia fenuis Grindeliafraxino-prafensis 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 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 'Page 6 of 50Ivesia, 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 Caulanthuscalifornicus Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Streptanthusniger Delphinium bakeri Delphinium variegatumssp. kinkiense Larkspur, Yellow Layia, Beach Delphinium luteum Layia carnosa Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial, Coastal No (neritic) Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germariorum) Endangered Terrestrial No Lessingia, San Francisco
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 Malacothrixsqualida 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 Arctostaphylospallida 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 No Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis Milk-vetch, Lane Mountain Milk-vetch, Pierson's Milk-vetch, Triple-ribbed Milk-vetch,Ventura Marsh Astragalusjaegerianus 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 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 7of 50Mint, Otay Mesa Pogogynenudiuscula Mint, San Diego Mesa Pogogyneabramsii Monardella, Willowy Monardella linoides ssp. viminea Morning-glory,Stebbins Calystegiastebbinsii Mountainbalrn, Indian Knob Eriodictyonaltissimum Mountain-mahogany, Catalina lsland Cercocarpus fraskiae Mustard, Slender-petaled Thelypodiumstenopetalum Navarretia, Few-flowered Navarretia leucocephalassp. pauciflora (=N. pauciflora) Navarretia, Many-flowered Navarretia leucocephalassp. plieantha Navarretia, Spreading Na varretia fossalk Niterwort,Arnargosa Nitrophila mohavensis Oxytheca, Cushenbuly Oxytheca parishiivar. goodmaniana Paintbrush, Ash-grey Indian Castilleja cinerea Paintbrush, San Cleniente lsland lndian Castillejagrisea
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 insularisssp. insularis Phloxhirsuta Polygonumhickmanii 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 50Spineflower, Robust Spineflower, Scotts Valley Spineflower, Slender-horned Spineflower, Sonoma Spurge, Hoover's Stickyseed,Baker's Stonecrop, Lake County Sunflower, San MateoWoolly 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 Chorizantherobusta var. hartwegii Dodecahema leptoceras Chorizanthe walida Chamaesycehooveri Blennosperma bakeri Parvisedum leiocarpum Eriophyllum latilobum Taraxacumcalifornicum 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 capitatum 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

Vulpesmacrotis 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 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 PageKangaroo Rat, Fresno Kangaroo Rat, Giant Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Dipodomys ingens Dipodomysheermanni morroensis Dipodomys merriamiparvus Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial No Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial Yes Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Merriarn's


### . Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus) Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Aplodontia rufa nigra Perognathus longimembris Reithrodontomys raviventris Sylvilagus bachmaniriparius Ovis canadensis Ovis canadensiscaliforniana Sorex ornatus relictus Microtus californicus scirpensis Neotoma fuscipes riparia Endangered Terrestrial No.
Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, Tipton 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

Threatened Terrestrial Amole, Purple Chlorogalum purpureum var. 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 12:24:48PM 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 AIlium munzii Piperiayadonii Carexalbida
Page 10of 50Lizard, Blunt-nosed Leopard Gambeliasilus Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Uma inornata Lizard, Island Night Xantusia riversiana Seaturtle, green Chelonia niydas Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Sea turtle, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Snake, Giant Garter Thamnophisgigas Snake, San Francisco Garter Thamnophis sirtalis fefrataenia Tortoise, Desert Gopherusagassizii Whipsnake (=Striped Racer), Alameda Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus 

### Colorado ( 17)species: 

### Bird Crane, Whooping Grus americana Owl, Mexican Spotted Strixoccidentalislucida 

### 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, PenlandAlpine Fen Eutremapenlandii Phacelia, North Park Phacelia formosula Twinpod, ~udie~ Bluffs Physaria obdordata Wild-buckwheat, Clay-loving Eriogonum pelinophilurn 

### Mammal Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Mouse, Preble's MeadowJumping Zapus hudsonius preblei 

### Monocot Ladies1-tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis 

### Connecticut ( 11) species: 

### Bird Plover, Piping Charadriusmelodus 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 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 11 of 50Tern, Roseate 

### Dicot Gerardia, Sandplain 

### Mammal Bat, Indiana Sterna dougallii dougallii
Agalinis acuta
Myotissodalis 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 Terrestrial No Pogonia, SmallWhorled 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 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 Polyborusplancus audubonii Threatened Endangered Endangered Terrestrial No Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial Yes Page 12 of 50 Kite, EvergladeSnail Rostrhamussociabilis plumbeus Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 4129J2010 12:24:48 PM Ver. 2.10.4Scrub-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 Silenepolypetala Schwalbea americana Chionanthuspygmaeus Ribes echinellum Endangered Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Threatened Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial
Butterwort, Godfrey's Cactus, Key Tree Campion, Fringed Chaffseed, American FringeTree, Pygmy Gooseberry, Miccosukee Gourd, Okeechobee Threatened Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Threatened Terrestrial, Freshwater Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Endangered okeechobeensis Harebells, Avon Park Hypericum, Highlands Scrub Jacquemontia, Beach Crotalaria avonensis Endangered Terrestrial Hypericum cumulicola Endangered Terrestrial Jacquemontia reclinata 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 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 1Pawpaw, 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 Deeringothamnusrugelii Endangered Terrestrial No Spigelia gentianoides Endangered Terrestrial No Prunus geniculata Endangered Polygala lewtonii Endangered Polygalasmallii Endangered Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans Endangered Rhododendronchapmanii Endangered Conradina glabra Endangered Conradina etonia Endangered Conradina brevifolia Endangered' Polygonella myriophylla Endangered Scutellaria floridana Threatened Eryngiumcuneifolium 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 Euphorbiatelephioides Warea amplexifolia Justicia cooleyi Paronychia chartacea Clitoria fragrans Polygonellabasiramia

.Ziziphus celata Threatened Threatened Endangered Endangered Threatened Threatened Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial

Cladoniaperforata Endangered Terrestrial No
Myotisgrisescens
Myotissodalis Endangered

-. ~ndan~ered Subterraneous, Terrestrial .Subterraneous, Terrestrial Bat, Indiana Yes Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Deer, Key Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach Odocoileusvirginianus clavium Peromyscus polionotus phasma Terrestrial, Coastal (neritic) Peromyscus polionotus allophfys Endangered Coastal (neritic), Terrestrial Yes Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach

No Yes No Mouse, Key Largo Cotton Mouse, Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Southeastern Beach Peromyscusgossypinus

. Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Endangered Endangered Threatened Terrestrial Coastal (neritic) Coastal (neritic), Terrestrial
Page 14of 50 4/29/2010 12:24:48PM Ver. 2.10.4Mouse, St. Andrew Beach Peromyscus polionotus Endangered Terrestrial, Coastal No (neritic) Panther, ~iorida Puma (=Felis) concolorcoryi 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 Seaturtle, 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 Sylvilaguspalustris hefneri Oryzomys palustris natator Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli Neotoma 'floridanasmalli

Nolina brittoniana Harperocallis flava Halophila johnsonii

Crocodylusacutus Chelonia mydas Eretmochelys imbricata LepidochelyskempiiDermochelyscoriacea Caretta caretta Eumeces egregius lividus Neoseps reynoldsi Nerodia clarkiitaeniata
Drymarchon corais couperi ( 

### 34) species:
Ambystoma cingulatum

Charadriusmelodus Mycteria americana Dendroica kirtlandii Picoidesborealis
Torreya taxifolia

Amphianthuspusillus 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 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 15of 50Campion, 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 Silenepolypetala 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) townsendiivirginianus 

### Monocot Grass, TennesseeYellow-eyed Xyris tennesseensis Pink, Swamp Heloniasbullata Pogonia, Small Whorled lsotria medeoloides Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens Trillium, Relict Trilliumreliquum water-plantain, Kral's 

### Reptile Sea turtle, green Seaturtle, hawksbill Seaturtle, Kemp's ridley Seaturtle, leatherback Sea turtle, loggerhead snake, Eastern Indigo Sagitfaria secundifolia

Cheloniamydas Eretmochelys imbricata Lepidochelys kempii Dermochelys coriacea Caretta caretta Drymarchon corais couperi 

### Hawaii ( 

### 304)species: 

### Bird 'Akepa, Hawaii Loxopscoccineus coccineus 'Akepa, Maui Loxops coccineus ochraceus 'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus Hemignathusprocerus 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 (Hemignathusmunroi) 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 Fulicaamericana alai Oreomystis mana Paroreomyza flammea Paroreomyza maculata Coivus hawaiiensis 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 Loxioidesbailleui parrotbill, Maui Pseudonesfor xanfhophrys Petrel, Hawaiian Dark-rumped Pterodromaphaeopygia sandwichensis Po'ouli Melamprosops phaeosoma Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's Puffinusauricularis newelli Stilt, Hawaiian (=Aelo) Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Thrush, Large Kauai Myadestes myadestinus Thrush, Molokai (Oloma'o) Myadestes lanaiensis rutha Thrush; Small Kauai (Puaiohi) Myadestespalmeri 

### Dicot Abutilon eremitopetalum (ncn) Abutilon eremitopetalum Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) Abutilonsandwicense Achyranthes mutica (ncn) Achyranthes mutica Achyranthes splendens var. Achyranthes splendensvar. 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. tomentosum) tomentosum Endangered Terrestrial Yes

4/29/2010 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 17 of 50Endangered 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) Nothocestrumpeltatum 'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroidesvar. kaenana) Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana 'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) Chamaesycedeppeana 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 (Chamaesyceskottsbergiivar. skottsbe Chamaesyceskotfsbergii 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 (Melicopeovalis) 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 Mellcopepallida Melicope quadrangularis Melicope reflexa Melicope saint-johnii ~&co~e zahlbruckneri Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) Alsinidendronviscosum (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 Canavaliamolokaiensis Centaurium sebaeoides Hedyotis cookiana Bonamia menziesil'
412912010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4

, Page 18 of 50Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) Chamaesycehalemanui Cyanea undulata Delissea rhytidosperma Dubautia latifolia Dubautia pauciflorula Geranium arboreum Gouania hillebrandii Gouania meyenii Gouania vitifolia Cyanea acuminata Cyanea asarifolia Cyanea copelandiissp. 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 copelandiissp. haleakalaensis Endangered Terrestrial Yes Cyanea (=Rollandia) crispa Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa) Endangered Terrestrial Yes

Haha (Cyanea dunbarii) Cyanea dunbarii Cyanea glabra Cyanea grimesianassp. grimesiana Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Yes Yes Yes Haha (Cyanea glabra) Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. 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 macrostegiassp. gibsonii Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Yes Yes Yes No Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) Haha (Cyanea longiflora) Haha (Cyanea Macrostegiavar. 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 of50Haha (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 (Cyrtandratintinnabula) Ha'lwale (Cyrtandraviridiflora) Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) Hau'~auhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) Hedyotisdegeneri (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 (Labordiatinifolia var. lanaiensis) Kamakahala (Labordiatinifolia var. wahiawaen) Karnakahala (Labordiatriflora) Kanaloa kahoolawensis (ncn) Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racernosa) Koki'o (Kokiadrynarioides) 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 Cyrtandrapolyantha Cyrtandrasubumbellata 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 Labordia 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 of50Koki'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 (Myrsinejuddii) Myrsinejuddii 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 (Bidenswiebkei) 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) Lipochaetavenosa (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(Schiedeaapokremnos) Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae) Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) Plantagoprinceps 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
Munroidendronracemosum (ncn) Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) NaniWai'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 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 21 of 50Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) Gardenia brighamii Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevolacoriacea) Scaevola' coriacea Nehe (Lipochaetafauriei) Lipochaetafauriei Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered ~hylla Endangered Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial No No Yes Yes Yes Nehe'(Lipochaetakamolensis) Lipochaeta kamolensis Nehe (Lipochaeta lobatavar. 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 (Lipochaetatenuifolia) Lipochaetatenuifolia Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) Lipochaetawaimeaensis 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) Delisseasubcordata 'Oha (Delissea undulata) Delissea undulata 'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) Lobeiiagaudichaudiissp. 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 oblongifoliassp. Clermontia oblongifoliassp. brevipes) Yes 'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifoliassp. Clermontia oblongifoliassp. rnauiensis) mauiensis Endangered Terrestrial

'Oha Wai (~lermontia peleana) Clermontiapeleana 'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) Clermontiapyrularia Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) Clermontiasamuelii '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 Phyllostegiaknudsenii (ncn) Phyllostegiaknudsenii Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) Phyilostegia mannii Phyllostegiamollis (ncn) Phyllostegia mollis
412912010 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 22 of 50Phyllostegiaparviflora 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) Phyllostegiawawrana (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 freycinetianumvar. lanaiense Sanicula mariversa Saniculapurpurea 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 TerrestrialTerrestrialYes 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 spergulinavar. leiopoda (ncn) Yes

-- Schiedea spergulinavar. spergulina (ncn) Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina Threatened Terrestrial Yes

Schiedea verticillata Schiedea adamantis Endangered. Endangered Schiedea verticillata (ncn) Terrestrial Terrestrial Yes No ~chiedea, Diamond Head (~chiedea adamantis) Silene alexandri Silenealexandri (ncn) 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 hawaiiensis Silene lanceolata Silene perlmanii Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicensessp. macrocephalum 4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 23 af50Silversword, 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 Terrestrial No Stenogyne angustifolia var. 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) Tetramolopiumlepidotum ssp. lepidotum Tetramolopium remyi (ncn) Tetramolopium remyi Endangered Threatened Terrestrial Yes Yes Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) Tetramolopiurn rockii Coastal (neritic), Terrestrial Trematolobelia singularis (ncn) Trematolobeliasingularis 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 lsodendrionpyrifolium 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 Endangered Terrestrial Yes Xylosma crenatum,(ncn) 

## Ferns Asplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn) Asplenium fragile var. insulare DieNia erecta Dielliafalcata Diellia pallida Diellia unisora Diplaziummolokaiense 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 Ctenitissquamigera Endangered Endangered Vernal pool, Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial Yes Pauoa (Ctenitis squamigera)

4/29/2010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 24 of50pteris 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 (Pritchardiaviscosa) Mariscusfauriei (ncn) 

# 1 ldariscus pennatiformis (ncn)

Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var.carteri) Platanthera holochila (ncn) Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) Wahane (Pritchardiaaylmerrdbinsonii) 

### 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 Pritchardiaremota Pritchardia schattaueri Pritchardia viscosa Mariscus fauriei Mariscus pennatiformis Panicum fauriei var. carter;

Platanthera holochila Poa siphonoglossa Cyperus trachysanthos Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii

Cheloniamydas 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 of50Grus 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 Spermophilusbrunneus 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 Asclepiasmeadii Potato-bean,Price's Apios priceana Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsiumpitchen 

### IVlammal Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens
Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

### Monocot Orchid, Eastern Prairie. Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Pogonia, SmallWhorled 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 Solidagoshorfii Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii 4/29/2010 12:24:49PM 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 50Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsiumpitcheri 

### 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 CopperbellyWater Nerodia erythrogasterneglecta Threatened

Threatened Terrestrial No

Freshwater, Terrestrial No 

### CH 

## - 10 

### wa ( 

### 9)species: 

### Bird 

# I Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Endangered Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial No Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 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 Platantherapraeclara Terrestrial No 

### Kansas ( 

### 7) species: 

### Bird Crane, Whooping Grus americana Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Endangered Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater Yes Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial No Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

### 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 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 27 of 50Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Terrestrial No 

## CH 

## - Kentucky ( 19) species: 

### 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 Vermivorabachmanii Woodpecker, Ivoty-billed Campephilusprincipalis Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

### Dicot Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Clover, RunningBuffalo. Trifolium stoloniferum Goldenrod, Short's Solidagoshortii 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) Solidagoalbopilosa Apios priceana Arabis perstellafa E. L. Braun var. ampla Rollins Rock-cress, Small Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata Fernald Endangered Terrestrial Yes
Rosemary, Cumberland Sandwort, Cumberland 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 Charadriusmelodus 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) Geocarponminimum 

### Ferns
Page28 of 50 4/29/2010 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4Quillwort, Louisiana lsoetes louisianensis 

### Mammal Bear,Louisiana Black Ursusamericanusluteolus 

### 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 Gopheruspolyphemus Turtle, Ringed Sawback Graptemysoculifera 

### Maine ( 

### 7) species: 

### Bird Plover, Piping Charadriusmelodus Tern, Roseate Sterna dougalliidougallii 

### 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:

Charadriusmelodus
Oxypolis canbyi Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Harperella Ptilimniumnodosum Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica 

### Mammal Bat, Indiana Myotissodalis 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 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 29 of 50Bulrush, Northeastern(=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus Bristle) Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwater No
Pink, Swamp Heloniasbullata 

### 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 dougalliidougallii 

### 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, SmallWhorled 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 Lepidochelyskempii Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Turtle, Plymouth Red-bellied Pseudemys rubriventrisbangsi - Endangered 

### Michigan ( 

### 13) 

### species: 

### Bird Plover, Piping Charadriusmelodus 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 Solidagohoughtonii Monkey-flower, Michigan Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsiumpitcheri 412912010 12:24:49 PM Ver. 2.10.4 Threatened Terrestrial No Page 30 of50

### 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 erythrogasterneglecta 

### Minnesota ( 6)

### species: 

### Bird Plover, Piping Charadriusmelodus 

### Dicot Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Roseroot, Leedy's ' Sedum integrifoliumssp. leedyi 

### Marrrmal Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis 

### Monocot Lily, Minnesota Trout Erythroniumpropullans Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara 

### Mississippi ( 

### 20)species: 

### Amphibian. Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) Rana capito sevosa 

### Bird' Crane, MississippiSandhill Grus canadensispulla Plover, Piping Charadricismelodus 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 12:24:49PM 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 50Bat, 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 Gopheruspolyphemus Turtle, Ringed Sawback Graptemys oculifera Turtle, Yellow-blotchedMap Grap,&mys flavimaculata 

### Missouri ( 12)

### species: 

### Bird Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Endangered Terrestrial 1 Yes Terrestrial I No Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

### Dicot Aster, Decurrent False Boltoniadecurrens 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 Heleniumvirginicum 

### Mammal Bat, Gray Myotisgrisescens Endangered Subterraneous, I No Terrestrial Bat, Indiana Myotissodalis Endangered Subterraneous, Yes Terrestrial 

### Monocot Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Terrestrial No I CH I 

## - Montana ( 7) 

### species: 

### 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 Silenespaldingii Threatened Terrestrial Threatened Freshwater Howellia,Water Howellia aquatilis 

### Mammal Bear, Grizzly Ursusarctos horribilis Threatened Terrestrial Endangered Terrestrial Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

### 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 

### CH 

## - Nevada ( 12) 

### species: 

### -- Bird Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax trailliiextimus Endangered Terrestrial Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostrisyumanensis Endangered Terrestrial 

### Dicot Blazing Star, Ash Meadows Mentzelia leucophylla Threatened Terrestrial Yes No

Yes No Buckwheat. Steamboat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. Endangered Terrestrial 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 Centauriumnamophilum 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
Gopherusagassizii 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 Dermochelyscoriacea 

### New Jersey ( 13)species: 

### Bird

. Curlew, Eskimo Plover, Piping 

### Dicot Chaffseed, American Numenius borealis Charadriusmelodus

Schwalbea americana Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica 

### Mammal Bat, Indiana Myofissodalis 

### Monocot Beaked-rush, Knieskern's Rhynchospora knieskernii Pink, Swamp Helonlas bullata Pogonia, Small Whorled ./sotriamedeoloides 

### Reptile Seaturtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta carelta Turtle, Bog (Northernpopulation) Clemrnysmuhlenbergii 

### 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 12:24:49PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 34 of 50Owl, 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 occidentalislucida Charadrius melodus Sterna antillarum

Pediocactusknowltonii Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri Coryphanthasneedii var. leei Sclerocactus mesae-verdae Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Erigeron rhizomatus lpomopsis sancti-spiritus Astragalus humillimus Hedeoma todsenii Argemonepleiacantha 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 Leptonycterisnivalis 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 Charadriusmelodus 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 50Fern, American hart's-tongue Aspleniumscolopendrium 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 Mycferiaarnericana Tern, Roseate Sterna dougalliidougallii Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

### Dicot Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Avens, Spreading Geum radiatum Bittercress, Small-anthered Cardamine mbranthera Blazing aar, Hellet's Liatris helleri Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyofispurpurea var. montana Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Coneflower, Smooth Echinacea laevigata Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Goldenrod, Blue Ridge Solidago spithamaea Harperella Heartleaf, Dwarf-flowered Pfilimniumnodosum Hexastyls naniflora Heather, Mountain Golden Hudsoniamonfana Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica Loosestrife, Rough-leaved Lysimachiaasperulaefolia 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 ThreatenedThreatenedEndangered 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 NoPondberry Lindera melissifolia Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii Sunflower, Schweinitz's Helianthusschweinitzii 

### Lichen Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare 

### Mammal Bat, Gray Myotisgrisescens
Bat, Indiana Myotissodalis
Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendiivirginianus 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 Dermochelyscoriacea 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 12:24:50PM 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, SubterraneousYes

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 50Daisy, 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 erythrogasterneglecta 

### 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 Vireoatricaprlla 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) townsendiiingens 

### 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 Brachyrarnphusrnarrnoratus rnarrnoratus Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial, Yes Saltwater Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial Yes 

# ( Owl, NorthernSpotked Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Threatened Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

### Dicot 

# 1 Catchfly,Spalding's Silenespaldingii Threatened Terrestrial No Page 38 of 50 

## / 4/29/2010 12:24:50 PM Ver. 2.10.4Checker-mallow, Nelson's Sidalceanelsoniana Threatened Endangered Terrestrial No Terrestrial No Daisy, Willamette Erigeron decumbens var. 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 Lomatium cookii Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus su@hureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) Meadowfoam, Large-flowered Woolly Limnanthes f/occosassp. 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 howelliispectabilis Wire-lettuce, Malheur Stephanomeria malheurensis 

### Mammal Deer, Columbian White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus 

### Monocot Fritillaly, Gentner's Fritillariagentneri Endangered

~ndan~ered Endangered Terrestrial No Terrestrial No Lily, Western 

### 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 Myotissodalis Endangered Terrestrial Yes
Endangered Subterraneous, Yes Terrestrial Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus nigercinereus Terrestrial No Endangered 

### 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 

### CH 

## - Puerto Rico ( 69)species: 

### Arrtphibian Coqui, Golden Efeutherodaciylus jasperi Guajon Eleutherodactylus cooki 4/29/2010 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4 Threatened Threatened Freshwater, Terrestrial Yes Freshwater, Terrestrial No Page 39 of 50Toad, 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) Lyoniatruncata var. proctorii [ncn) Mitracarpus Maxwelliae Mitracarpus Polycladus Myrcia Paganii Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) Peltophrynelemur
Agelaiusxanthomus Buteoplatypierus brunnescens Accipiter strlatus venator Caprimulgusnoctitherus Amazona viffata Columba inornata wetmorei Charadriusmelodus Sterna dougallii dougallii

Auerodendron pauciflorum Trichilia triacanfha Buxus vahlii Calyptranthesthomasrana Callicarpa ampla Catesbaea melanocarpa Chamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilis Harrrsiaportoricensis Pleodendron macranfhum Stahlia monospecma Cordia bellonis Daphnopsis hellerana Solanum drymophilum Eugenia woodburyana Gesneriapaucrflora Goetzea elegans Crescentia portoricensis llex cookii llex smtensrr Leptocereus grantianus Lyonia truncata var. procforii Mitracarpusmavwelliae Mitracarpus polycladus Myrcia paganii Ternstroemialuquillensis 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. 2.10.4Palo de Jazmin Styraxportoricensis Palode Nigua Cornutiaobovata 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 Juglansjamaicensis 

### Ferns Fern, Adiantum vivesii Adiantum vivesii Fern, Elaphoglossum serpens Elaphoglossum serpens Fern, Thelypteris inabonensis Thelypteris inabonensis Fern, Thelypteris verecunda Thelypterisverecunda 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 Calyptronomarivalis Pelos del Diablo Aristida portoricensis 

### Reptile Anole, Culebra IslandGiant 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 12:24:50PM 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 

## - Page41 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
Myotissodalis

lsotriamedeoloides
Eretmochelys imbricata Lepidochelys kempii Dermochelys coriacea Caretta caretta species:
Ambysfoma cingulatum

Charadrius melodus Mycferiaamericana Vermivora bachmanii Picoides borealis

Amaranthus pumilus Amphianthus pusillus Schwalbea americana Echinacea laevigata Oxypolis canbyi Ribes echinellum PtilimniumnodoSum Hexastyls naniflora Lysimachia asperulaefblia Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Lindera melissifolia Helianthusschweinitzii

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 Page42 of 50 4/29/2010 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4

### Lichen Lichen, Rock Gnome 

### Mammal Bat, Indiana Gymnoderma lineare
Myotis sodalis 

### Monocot Arrowhead, Bunched Sagittaria fasciculata Irisette,White Sisyrinchiumdichotomum Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Pogonia, SmallWhorled lsotria medeoloides Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens Trillium, Relict Trilliumreliquum 

### Reptile Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelysimbricata 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 Charadriusmelodus Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum 

### Mammal Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes 

### Monocot Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platantherapraeclara



### Tennessee ( 27) species: 

### Bird Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

### Dicot Aster, Ruth'sGolden 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 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page43 of 50Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyotispurpurea 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 Schwalbeaamericana 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 Solidagospithamaea Astragalus bibullatus Sarracenia oreophila Apios priceana Arabis perstellafa E. L. Braun var. ampla Rollins Arabis perstellafa E. L. Braun var. perstellafa Femald Endangered Terrestrial 1 Yes Rock-cress, Small

Threatened Terrestrial No Endangered Terrestrial No Threatened Terrestrial No Threatened Terrestrial No Rosemary, Cumberland Sandwort, Cumberland 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 Endangered Terrestrial Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomyssabrinus coloratus 

### 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 Numeniusborealis Endangered Terrestrial, Freshwatbr Yes Endangered Terrestrial No
4/29/2010 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page44 of 50Falcon, NorthernAplomado 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, SouthTexas Ayenia, Texas Bladderpod, White Bladderpod, Zapata Cactus, Black Lace
Cactus, BunchedCory 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 trailliiextimus Strix occidentalis lucida Charadrius melodus Tympanuchuscupidoattwateri 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 Geocarponminimum Manihot walkerae Quercushinckleyi Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davis Callirhoescabriuscula 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 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 45 of 50Sunflower, Pecos Helianthusparadoxus wild-buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum 

### Mammal Bat, Mexican Long-nosed Leptonycferisnivalis 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 Spiranthesparksii Endangered Terrestrial No
Endangered Endangered ' Endangered Terrestrial No Freshwater I No I Freshwater Yes Pondweed, LittleAguja 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, ConchoWater ~etedia paucimaculata Saltwater No Freshwater, Terrestrial Yes 

### Utah ( 

### 29)species: 

### Bird

. ,. Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax trailliiextimus Endangered. Threatened Terrestrial Yes Terrestrial Yes Owl, Mexican Spotted Strixaccidentalis lucida 

### 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 Ranunculusaestivalis (=acriformis) Cactus, San Rafael Pediocactus despainii Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Sclerocactusglaucus 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 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4Milk-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 Schoenocrambeargillacea Schoenocrambesuffrutescens Lepidium barnebyanum Townsendia aprica

Mustela nigripes Cynomysparvidens

Spiranthesdiluvialis Carex specuicola
Gopherusagassizii ( 3) species:
Astragalus robbinsiivar. jesupi

Myotis sodalis

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancis'trochaetus Bristle)



### Virginia ( 29)species: 

### Amphibian Salamander, Shenandoah Plethodonshenandoah 

### Bird Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis 

### Dicot Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthuspumilus 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 12:24:50PM Ver. 2.10.4 Page 47 of 50Bittercress, 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 Helianthusschweinifiii

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis
Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynominus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus nigercinereus 

### Monocot Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpusancistrochaetus Bristle) Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Pogonia, SmallWhorled lsotria medeoloides 

### Reptile Sea turtle, green Cheloniamydas Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelysimbricata Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelyskempii Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta



### Washington ( 

### 16)species: 

### Bird Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentaliscaurina Plover,Western Snowy Charadriusalexandrinusnivosus 

### Dicot Catchfly, Spalding's Silenespaldingii 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 50Checker-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 taranduscaribou Deer, ColumbianWhite-tailed Odocoileus virginianusleucurus Rabbit, Pygmy Brachylagusidahoensis 

### Reptile Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea



### West Virginia ( 10) species: 

### Ampt-ribian Salamander, Cheat Mountain Plethodonnettingi 

### Dicot Clover, Running Buffalo Trifoliumstoloniferum .i Harperella s Ptilimniumnodosum 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 Glaucomyssabrinus coloratus 

### Monocot Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Scirpus ancistrochaetus Bristle)



### Wisconsin

. ( 10) species: 

### Bird Crane, Whooping Grus americana Plover, Piping Charadriusmelodus Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii 4/29/2010 12:24:50PM 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, SubterraneousYes
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 Oxytropiscampestris var. Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsiumpitcheri 

### 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 neomexicanavar. coloradensis Yellowhead, Desert Yermo xanfhocephalus 

### Mammal Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsoniuspreblei 

### 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