Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0380-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-02-07T05:00Z

Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Dimethipin
Prepared
by:

Larry
Liu,
Ph.
D.
Environmental
Scientist
James
Felkel,
Wildlife
Biologist
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Environmental
Risk
Branch
IV
Ariel
Rios
Building
(
Mail
Code
7507C)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Reviewed
by:
Miachel
Rexrode,
Ph.
D.,
Senior
Scientist
Mah
Shamim,
Ph.
D.,
Branch
Chief
­
i­
Table
of
Contents
Table
of
Contents
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
ii­

List
of
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
v­

List
of
Figures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
v­

I.
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
B.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
2­

II.
Problem
Formulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
2­
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
2­
1.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
2­
2.
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
3.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
4­
B.
Receptors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
4­
1.
Ecological
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
4­
2.
Ecosystems
Potentially
At
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
C.
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
D.
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
7­
1.
Risk
Hypotheses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
8­
2.
Diagram
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­
E.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
10­
1.
Develop
Assessment
Design
and
Methods
for
Conducting
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
10­
2.
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
10­
3.
Measures
to
Evaluate
Risk
Hypotheses
and
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
a.
Measures
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
b.
Measures
of
Effect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
c.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­

III.
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
A.
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
B.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
a.
Summary
of
Empirical
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
b.
Degradation
and
Metabolism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
c.
Soil
Sorption
and
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
15­
d.
Field
Dissipation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
2.
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
(
Field
Data)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
3.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
­
iia
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
17­
b.
Magnitude
of
Residue
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
4.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
19­
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
19­
1.
Aquatic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
19­
a.
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
19­
b.
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
22­
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
a.
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
b.
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
24­

IV.
Risk
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
24­
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
24­
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
24­
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
27­
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Plants
and
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
30­
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
30­
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
30­
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
3.
Review
of
Incident
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
a.
Incidents
Involving
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­
b.
Incidents
Involving
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­
4.
Endocrine
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­
5.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
33­
a.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
33­
b.
Action
Area
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
33­
c.
Indirect
Effects
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
34­
d.
Critical
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
35­
C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
35­
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
For
All
Taxa
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
36­
2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
For
Aquatic
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
36­
3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
For
Terrestrial
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
36­
4.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
38­
5.
Assumptions
Associated
With
the
Acute
LOCs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
39­

V.
Literature
Cited
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
39­

Appendix
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
42­

Appendix
B.
Aquatic
Exposure
Model
(
GENEEC)
and
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
48­

Appendix
C.
ELL­
Fate
Model
and
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
53­

Appendix
D.
TerrPlant
Model
and
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
55­

Appendix
E.
Ecological
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
56­
­
iii­
Appendix
F.
The
Risk
Quotient
Method
and
Levels
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
73­

Appendix
G.
Summary
of
Endangered/
Threatened
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
76­

Appendix
H.
Environmental
Fate
Bibliography
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
191­

Appendix
I.
Ecotoxicity
Bibliography
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
193­
­
iv­
List
of
Tables
Table
1.
General
fate
and
physical­
chemical
properties
of
dimethipin
based
on
information
from
the
registrant.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
Table
2.
Examples
of
taxonomic
groups
and
test
species
evaluated
for
ecological
effects
in
screening
level
risk
assessments.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
4­
Table
3.
Summary
of
potential
assessment
and
measure
of
effects.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
Table
4.
Surface
water
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
aquatic
ecological
risk
assessment
for
dimethipin
generated
from
GENEEC2.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
Table
5.
Input
parameters
used
in
ELL­
FATE.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
18­
Table
6.
Maximum
residue
EECs
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
(
ppm)
following
a
single
application
of
dimethipin
at
0.56
lbs
a.
i./
A
for
cotton
and
0.077
lbs
a.
i./
A
for
apples.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
18­
Table
7.
Dimethipin
toxicity
reference
values
(
TRVs)
(
ppm
of
active
ingredient)
for
aquatic
organisms.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
20­
Table
8.
Toxicity
reference
values
(
TRVs)
for
terrestrial
species
for
dimethipin.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
Table
9.
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
dimethipin
for
acute
and
chronic
exposures
of
aquatic
species.
.
.
.
­
25­
Table
10.
Acute
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
calculations
for
bird
consumption
of
plant
and
insect
forage
material.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
27­
Table
11.
Acute
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
calculations
for
mammalian
consumption
of
plant
and
insect
forage
material.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
28­
Table
12.
Chronic
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
calculations
for
bird
consumption
of
plant
and
insect
forage
material.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
30­

List
of
Figures
Figure
1.
Ecological
conceptual
exposure
model
for
screening­
level
risk
assessment
of
dimethipin
applied
to
agricultural
fields.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­

Figure
2.
Agricultural
use
of
dimethipin
in
the
United
States
during
1992
(
USGS
2004).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
­
1­
I.
Executive
Summary
A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
EFED
has
completed
its
screening
level
risk
assessment
for
the
proposed
uses
of
dimethipin
on
cotton
and
apples
(
nonbearing
nursery
stock).
This
assessment
shows
that
projected
environmental
concentrations
of
dimethipin
for
the
cotton
use
have
the
potential
for
causing
acute
risk
to
endangered
small
mammals
that
forage
on
grasses
and
broadleaf
plants.
Based
on
the
defoliant
properties
of
dimethipin,
the
compound
is
assumed
to
have
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
to
both
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
plants;
however,
to
complete
a
risk
assessment
will
require
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data
valid
for
calculating
risk
quotients.
The
assessment
also
shows
that
the
proposed
use
of
dimethipin
should
not
result
in
acute
adverse
effects
to
birds,
non­
endangered
mammals,
aquatic
invertebrates,
fish,
or
aquatic
plants,
or
chronic
adverse
effects
in
freshwater
invertebrates,
freshwater
fish,
or
mammals.
However,
uncertainties
regarding
risk
were
also
noted.
EFED
was
unable
to
complete
an
assessment
on
chronic
risk
to
birds
because
of
insufficient
toxicity
data.
Risk
quotients
(
RQ)
for
terrestrial
plants
could
not
be
calculated
because
of
the
lack
of
sufficient
data.
RQ
values
for
chronic
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrate
assessment
endpoints
were
calculated
by
using
an
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
method.

B.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
Dimethipin
(
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithi­
ine
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide;
Harvade;
CAS
number
55290­
64­
7)
is
used
primarily
(
95%)
as
a
cotton
defoliant,
with
minor
uses
(
5%)
including
post­
directed
weed
control
in
cotton
(
in
tank
mixes
with
other
herbicides)
and
nonbearing
apple
nursery
stock.
It
is
usually
formulated
as
a
suspension
concentrate
and
reportedly
works
by
interfering
with
protein
synthesis
in
the
plant
epidermis.
Dimethipin
is
applied
both
by
ground
rig
and
by
air,
including
once
per
year
at
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.56
lbs
a.
i./
A
on
cotton
and
0.077
lbs
a.
i./
A
on
apples.
Although
EFED
does
not
have
toxicity
information
on
potential
dimethipin
degradation
products,
environmental
breakdown
of
the
parent
compound
is
slow
and
no
major
transformation
products
were
identified
in
any
study.
2,3­
Dihydro­
5­
hydroxymethyl­
6­
methyl­
1,4­
dithiin­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
H­
5)
was
a
minor
transformation
product
at
<
2%
of
the
applied
in
the
photodegradation
in
water
study
only.
The
saturated
carboxylic
acid
of
dimethipin
was
identified
in
the
anaerobic
aquatic
study
but
was
not
quantified.

C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
Dimethipin
is
persistent
under
most
environmental
conditions,
with
biodegradation,
hydrolysis,
and
photolysis
all
occurring
slowly.
Half­
lives
of
several
weeks
to
a
few
months
may
be
expected
for
dimethipin
under
most
environmental
conditions.
Dimethipin
is
not
expected
to
adsorb
significantly
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment,
or
to
bioaccumulate
in
aquatic
organisms.
Exposures
to
aquatic
organisms
is
expected
to
occur
primarily
via
direct
contact
with
dimethipin
in
surface
water.
Exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
is
expected
to
occur
primarily
via
ingestion
(
i.
e.,
due
to
dimethipin
residues
on
forage
items
such
as
vegetation
and
insects).
No
major
degradates
were
detected
in
the
environmental
fate
studies.

For
this
Tier
I
assessment
of
dimethipin,
acute
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
is
represented
by
the
maximum
24­
hour
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
value
calculated
using
GENEEC2.
EECs
used
to
assess
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
avian
and
mammalian
species
were
calculated
using
ELL­
FATE
v.
­
2­
1.4.
Exposure
modeling
for
plants
was
not
conducted
because
valid
toxicity
data
are
not
available
to
quantify
risks
to
terrestrial
plants.
The
drinking
water
assessment
(
6/
23/
04)
has
been
submitted
directly
to
HED
and
SRRD
and
is
therefore
not
included
in
the
current
assessment.

D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
Results
of
acute
toxicity
studies
suggest
that
dimethipin
is
practically
nontoxic
to
birds
(
LC50
>
5,000
ppm),
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
(
LC50
=
20.9
ppm),
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
LC50
=
17.8
ppm),
freshwater
invertebrates
(
LC50
=
20
ppm),
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
EC50
=
12.4
ppm)
and
moderately
toxic
to
mammals
(
LD50
=
458
mg/
kg,
males)
.
Results
of
acute
toxicity
studies
in
aquatic
plants
suggest
that
dimethipin
is
toxic
to
freshwater
macrophytes
(
EC50
=
2.1
ppm,
duckweed)
and
algae
(
e.
g.,
EC50
=
5.12
ppm,
green
algae;
EC50
=
99.5
ppm,
blue­
green
algae).
Results
of
an
acute
contact
study
in
honey
bees
using
a
formulation
product
of
dimethipin
(
22.4%
a.
i.)
indicate
that
dimethipin
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
honey
bees
(
LC50
>
100ug/
bee).

Freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
chronic
toxicity
studies
show
that
dimethipin
has
the
potential
for
reproductive
effects
with
decreased
growth
and
reduced
number
of
young/
reproductive
day
(
NOAEC
=
0.61
­
1.0
ppm),
while
freshwater
fish
early­
life
stage
study
showed
increase
larval
mortality
(
NOAEC
=
12
ppm).
Chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
in
mammals
resulted
in
reduced
body
weight
for
pups
(
NOAEC
=
200
ppm).

II.
Problem
Formulation
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
Dimethipin
is
persistent
under
most
environmental
conditions,
with
biodegradation,
hydrolysis,
and
photolysis
all
occurring
slowly.
No
significant
degradates
were
found
in
the
environemntal
fate
studies.
Half­
lives
of
several
weeks
to
a
few
months
may
be
expected
for
dimethipin
under
most
environmental
conditions.
Volatilization
from
soil
and
water
surfaces
is
not
expected
to
be
an
important
process
since
dimethipin
has
a
relatively
low
vapor
pressure
(<
3.81x10­
7
mmHg)
and
Henry's
Law
constant
(
2.3x10­
11
atm­
m3/
mol).
Dimethipin
does
not
readily
adsorb
to
soil
surfaces,
possesses
high
mobility,
and
has
the
potential
to
leach
into
groundwater.
Bioconcentration
in
aquatic
organisms
such
as
fish
is
expected
to
be
low
based
on
the
low
Kow
value
(­
0.18).
Table
1
provides
a
summary
of
the
chemical
and
physical
properties
of
dimethipin.

Table
1.
General
fate
and
physical­
chemical
properties
of
dimethipin
based
on
information
from
the
registrant.

Parameter
Value
Source
Chemical
Structure
S
O
O
S
O
O
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithiin
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
Table
1.
General
fate
and
physical­
chemical
properties
of
dimethipin
based
on
information
from
the
registrant.

Parameter
Value
Source
­
3­
Chemical
Name
Dimethipin
CAS
Number
55290­
64­
7
Molecular
Weight
210.26
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
SMILES
CC1=
C(
C)
S(=
O)(=
O)
CCS1(=
O)=
O
Melting
Point

C
162
 
167
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
Water
Solubility
(
at
25

C)
4,600
mg/
L
(
water)
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
Vapor
Pressure
(
at
24

C)
<
3.81
x
10­
7
mmHg
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
log
K
ow
(
at
24

C)
­
0.18
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
pK
a
10.88
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
Hydrolysis
Half­
life
(
pH
5,
7,
9;
at
25

C)
Stable:
t
1/
2
>
2
years
MRID
24023789
Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
pH
5
pH
7
pH
9
t
1/
2
=
59.75
t
1/
2
=
223.60
t
1/
2
=
72.20
MRID
41967101
Soil
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
t
1/
2
=
75.3
MRID
42237601
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
t
1/
2
=
407.7
MRID
42429606
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
t
1/
2
=
277.3
MRID
42673501
Organic
Carbon
Partition
Coefficient
(
K
oc)
3.3,
<
1,
<
1,
<
1
MRID
41660901
Soil
Partition
Coefficient
(
K
d,
mL/
g)
0.09,
<
0.01,
<
0.01,
<
0.01
MRID
41660901
2.
Mode
of
Action
Dimethipin
is
a
plant
growth
regulator
registered
for
use
as
a
preharvest
cotton
defoliant
and
also
as
an
herbicide
for
weed
control
in
nonbearing
apple
nursery
stock.
Dimethipin
causes
leaves
to
abscise
or
shed
prematurely
by
increasing
leaf
ethylene
concentrations.
The
mode
of
action
appears
to
be
alterations
in
the
synthesis
of
plant
epidermal
proteins,
primarily
through
effects
on
the
translational,
rather
than
transcriptional,
processes
of
protein
synthesis.
Exposure
of
plants
to
dimethipin
results
in
alterations
of
the
proteins
responsible
for
stomatal
control.
The
loss
of
stomatal
control
causes
leaves
to
rapidly
lose
water,
stressing
the
plant
and
leading
to
the
production
of
ethylene,
which
ultimately
results
in
leaf
abscission
and
defoliation
of
the
plant
(
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.
1998).

3.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Agricultural
uses
of
dimethipin
are
largely
limited
to
uses
on
cotton
fields
in
the
southern
United
States
and
California
(
although
it
is
also
labeled
for
apple
non­
bearing
nursery
stock).
Dimethipin
is
­
4­
applied
to
cotton
either
by
ground
rig
or
by
air,
including
once
per
year
at
preharvest
(
i.
e.,
August­
September)
at
a
maximum
application
rate
of
0.56
lbs
a.
i./
A
on
cotton
and
0.077
lbs
a.
i./
A
on
apples.

B.
Receptors
1.
Ecological
Effects
Each
assessment
endpoint
requires
one
or
more
measures
of
ecological
effect,
which
are
defined
as
changes
in
the
attributes
of
an
assessment
endpoint
itself
or
changes
in
a
surrogate
entity
or
attribute
in
response
to
exposure
to
a
pesticide.
Ecological
measures
of
effect
for
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms
in
broad
groupings
listed
in
Table
2.

Table
2.
Examples
of
taxonomic
groups
and
test
species
evaluated
for
ecological
effects
in
screening
level
risk
assessments.

Taxonomic
Group
Example(
s)
of
Representative
Species
Birds1
mallard
duck
(
Anas
playtrhynchos)
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)

Mammals
laboratory
rat
Freshwater
Fish2
bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)

Freshwater
Invertebrates
water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)

Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
sheepshead
minnow
(
Cypridodon
variegatus)

Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Eastern
Oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
Mysid
Shrimp
(
Americamysis
bahia)

Terrestrial
Plants3
Monocots
­
corn
(
Zea
mays)
Dicots
­
soybean
(
Glycine
max)

Aquatic
Plants
and
Algae
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum)

1
Birds
may
be
surrogates
for
amphibians
(
terrestrial
phase)
and
reptiles.
2
Freshwater
fish
may
be
surrogates
for
amphibians
(
aquatic
phase).
3
Four
species
of
two
families
of
monocots,
of
which
one
is
corn;
six
species
of
at
least
four
dicot
families,
of
which
one
is
soybeans.

Within
each
of
these
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and/
or
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data.
Additional
ecological
effects
data
for
dimethipin
are
available
for
honey
bees
(
Apis
mellifera)
and
have
been
incorporated
into
the
risk
characterization
as
an
additional
line
of
evidence.
Studies
on
acute
toxicity
to
plants
were
classified
as
invalid,
and
were
not
included
in
the
risk
characterization.

A
complete
discussion
of
all
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measures
of
effect
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
included
in
Appendix
E.
A
summary
of
the
potential
assessment
endpoints
and
measures
of
effect
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
­
5­
associated
with
exposure
to
dimethipin
is
provided
in
Table
3.
Data
are
not
available
for
all
potential
measures
of
effect.
­
6­
2.
Ecosystems
Potentially
At
Risk
Ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
selected
assessment
endpoints.
The
typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risks
are
reduced
survival,
and
reproductive
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species.
Aquatic
animal
species
of
potential
concern
include
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
Terrestrial
animal
species
of
potential
concern
include
birds,
mammals,
beneficial
insects,
and
earthworms.
For
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species,
direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
exposures
are
considered.
In
order
to
protect
threatened
and
endangered
species,
all
assessment
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level,
which
may
also
provide
insights
regarding
risks
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
e.
g.,
populations
and
communities).
For
example,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survivorship
can
have
important
implications
for
both
population
growth
rates
and
habitat
carrying
capacity.

For
terrestrial
plants
and
plants
in
semi­
aquatic
environments,
the
screening
assessment
endpoint
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species,
including
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species.
Existing
testing
requirements
focus
on
an
evaluation
of
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
these
endpoints
may
not
address
all
components
of
the
lifecycle
of
plants
in
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
environments.
It
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
in
active
growth
stages
can
reduce
a
plant's
overall
ability
to
be
competitive,
ultimately
impacting
reproductive
success.

For
aquatic
plants,
the
assessment
endpoint
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measures
of
effect
for
these
assessment
endpoints
include
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements
of
algae
and
common
vascular
plants
(
i.
e.,
duckweed).
These
receptors
are
useful
indicators
of
risks
to
the
ecosystem
for
at
least
two
reasons:
1)
complete
exposure
pathways
exist
for
these
receptors;
and
2)
they
are
ubiquitous,
potentially
inhabiting
areas
where
pesticides
are
applied,
or
areas
where
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
may
occur.

C.
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected."
Defining
an
assessment
endpoint
involves
two
steps:
1)
identifying
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk;
and
2)
operationally
defining
the
assessment
endpoint
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
selection
of
the
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.
Assessment
endpoints
and
measures
of
effect
are
described
in
Table
3.
­
7­
Table
3.
Summary
of
potential
assessment
endpoints
and
measures
of
effect.

Assessment
Endpoint
Measures
of
Effect
1.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds
1a.
Bobwhite
quail
acute
oral
LD50
1b.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
subacute
dietary
LC50
1c.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
2.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals
2a.
Laboratory
rat
acute
oral
LD50
2b.
Laboratory
rat
developmental
and
chronic
(
2­
generation)
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
Rainbow
trout
and
bluegill
sunfish
acute
LC50
3b.
Rainbow
trout
chronic
(
early­
life)
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
3c.
Water
flea
(
and
other
freshwater
invertebrates)
acute
EC50
3d.
Water
flea
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
4b.
Estimated
chronic
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
values
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
for
freshwater
fish
4c.
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp
acute
LC50
4d.
Mysid
shrimp
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
4e.
Estimated
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
values
for
mollusks
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
for
mysids
5.
Perpetuation
of
individuals
and
populations
of
non­
target
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
species
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species)
5a.
Monocot
and
dicot
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
EC25
values
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
7.
Maintenance
and
growth
of
individuals
and
populations
of
aquatic
plants
from
standing
crop
or
biomass
7a.
Algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
EC50
values
for
growth
rate
and
biomass
measurements
LD
50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
NOAEL
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
level.
LOAEL
=
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level.
LC
50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
EC
50/
EC
25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50%/
25%
of
the
test
population.
­
8­
D.
Conceptual
Model
1.
Risk
Hypotheses
Risk
hypotheses
are
specific
assumptions
about
potential
adverse
effects
(
i.
e.,
changes
in
assessment
endpoints)
and
may
be
based
on
theory
and
logic,
empirical
data,
mathematical
models,
or
probability
models
(
EPA
1998a).
For
this
assessment,
the
risk
is
stressor­
initiated,
where
the
stressor
is
the
release
of
dimethipin
to
the
environment.
The
following
risk
hypothesis
is
presumed
for
this
screening
level
assessment:

Based
on
the
persistence
of
dimethipin,
the
mode
of
action,
and
the
food­
web
of
the
target
aquatic
and
terrestrial
ecosystems,
dimethipin
has
the
potential
to
cause
reduced
survival,
and
reproductive
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
and
plant
species.

Adequate
protection
is
defined
as
protection
of
growth,
reproduction,
and
survival
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
ecological
populations,
and
individuals
of
threatened
and
endangered
species,
as
needed.

2.
Diagram
The
conceptual
site
model
shown
in
Figure
1
generically
depicts
the
potential
source
of
dimethipin,
release
mechanisms,
abiotic
receiving
media,
biological
receptor
types,
and
effects
endpoints
of
potential
concern.

In
order
for
a
chemical
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
ecological
receptors
in
biologically
significant
concentrations.
An
exposure
pathway
is
the
means
by
which
a
contaminant
moves
in
the
environment
from
a
source
to
an
ecological
receptor.
For
an
ecological
exposure
pathway
to
be
complete,
it
must
have
a
source,
a
release
mechanism,
an
environmental
transport
medium,
a
point
of
exposure
for
ecological
receptors,
and
a
feasible
route
of
exposure.
In
addition,
the
potential
mechanisms
of
transformation
(
i.
e.,
which
degradates
may
form
in
the
environment,
in
which
media,
and
how
much)
must
be
known,
especially
for
a
chemical
whose
metabolites/
degradates
are
of
greater
toxicological
concern
than
the
parent
compound
(
not
known
to
be
the
case
for
dimethipin).
The
assessment
of
ecological
exposure
pathways,
therefore,
includes
an
examination
of
the
source
and
potential
migration
pathways
for
constituents,
and
the
determination
of
potential
exposure
routes
(
e.
g.,
ingestion,
inhalation,
dermal
absorption).

Ecological
receptors
that
may
potentially
be
exposed
to
dimethipin
include
terrestrial
and
semiaquatic
wildlife
(
i.
e.,
mammals,
birds,
and
reptiles),
terrestrial
and
plants
in
semi­
aquatic
areas,
and
soil
invertebrates.
In
addition
to
terrestrial
ecological
receptors,
aquatic
receptors
(
e.
g.,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
amphibians)
may
also
be
exposed
to
potential
migration
of
pesticides
from
the
site
of
application
to
various
watersheds
and
other
aquatic
environments
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.

The
source
and
mechanism
of
release
of
dimethipin
are
ground
application
via
foliar
spray,
and
aerial
application
to
cotton
and
apple
crops.
Surface
water
runoff
from
the
areas
of
application
is
assumed
to
follow
topography.
Additional
release
mechanisms
include
spray
drift,
and
wind
erosion,
which
may
­
9­
potentially
transport
site­
related
contaminants
to
the
surrounding
air.
Potential
emission
of
volatile
compounds
is
not
considered
as
a
viable
release
mechanism
for
dimethipin,
since
volatilization
is
not
expected
to
be
a
significant
route
of
dissipation
for
this
chemical.
­
10­
Figure
1.
Ecological
Conceptual
Exposure
Model
for
Screening­
Level
Risk
Assessment
of
Dimethipin
Applied
to
Agricultural
Fields
Stressor
Dimethipin
applied
as
ground/
aerial
spray
to
an
agricultural
field
Source/
Transport
Pathways
Volatilization
/
Wind
Suspension
Direct
Deposition
Spray
Drift
Runoff/
Erosion
Leaching
(
Infiltration/
Percolation
Source/
Exposure
Media
Terrestrial
Food
Residues
(
foliage,
fruit,
insects
Upland
Foliage/
Soil
Riparian/
Wetland
Foliage/
Soil
Water
Column,
Sediment
Groundwater
Exposure
Point
Ingestion
Direct
contact/
Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/
Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Receptors
Attribute
Changes
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,
Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Individual
Animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Aquatic
Vertebrates
Aquatic
Plants
Wetland/
Riparian
Plants
Individual
Plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
vertebrates
and
invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Bioaccumulation
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
­
11­
E.
Analysis
Plan
1.
Develop
Assessment
Design
and
Methods
for
Conducting
Assessment
The
analysis
plan
is
the
final
step
in
Problem
Formulation
and
targets
the
working
hypotheses
that
are
considered
more
likely
to
effect
the
assessment
endpoints.
The
Analysis
Plan
specifies
the
data
that
is
required
in
developing
an
evaluation
of
the
potential
impact
of
a
pesticide
to
the
assessment
endpoints
and
the
methods
that
will
be
used
to
analyze
the
data.
The
Analysis
Plan
is
also
used
to
outline
the
scope
of
the
assessment,
identify
the
measures
of
effect
to
be
used
in
evaluating
the
hypothesis,
and
a
rationale
for
the
focus
and
possible
refinement
of
the
assessment.

The
objective
of
EFED's
risk
assessment
is
to
identify
the
risk
to
the
environment
from
dimethipin
use
as
a
defoliant
on
cotton
and
nonbearing
apples.
This
initial
analysis
will
be
referred
to
as
Tier
I
screening
and
is
based
on
the
ratio
or
quotient
method.
As
noted
in
the
USEPA
1998,
Part
A
Section
5.1.3,
"
Typically,
the
ratio
(
or
quotient)
is
expressed
as
an
exposure
concentration
divided
by
an
effects
concentration".
Therefore
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
is
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
of
a
chemical
to
a
toxicity
test
effect
(
e.
g.,
LC50
)
for
a
given
species.
The
RQ
as
an
index
of
potential
adverse
effects
is
then
compared
to
an
Agency
established
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)
in
order
to
identify
when
the
potential
adverse
effect
is
a
concern
to
the
Agency.
These
LOCs
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Appendix
F
of
this
document
summarizes
the
LOCs
used
in
this
risk
assessment.
This
paper
presents
a
sequence
of
risk
assessment
methods
that
include
GENEEC2
generated
EEC
values
for
aquatic
exposure
and
ELL­
FATE
generated
values
for
terrestrial
wildlife
exposure.
The
laboratory­
derived
effects
data
for
the
most
sensitive
representative
species
of
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
are
included
in
Table
E.
This
screening­
level
assessment
should
identify
habitats,
and
species
potentially
at
risk
from
dimethipin
exposure.
The
fate,
effects,
and
usage
information
presented
in
this
document
suggest
that
the
focus
of
the
working
hypothesis
for
an
environmental
risk
assessment
is
that
exposure
to
dimethipin
has
the
potential
to
cause
acute
and
chronic
effects
that
may
result
in
reduced
survival,
reproductive
impairment
and
growth
effects
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plant
species.

2.
Data
Gaps
The
adequacy
of
the
submitted
data
was
evaluated
relative
to
Agency
guidelines.
The
following
identified
data
gaps
for
ecological
fate
and
effects
endpoints
result
in
a
degree
of
uncertainty
in
evaluating
the
ecological
risk
of
dimethipin.

°
Although
it
is
clear
that
biodegradation
of
dimethipin
occurs
slowly
in
soil,
the
reported
half­
life
is
of
uncertain
value
because
it
is
extrapolated
beyond
the
duration
of
the
study
and
assumes
that
degradation
continues
to
follow
a
first
order
model.

°
No
aerobic
or
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
studies
of
dimethipin
were
provided,
and
its
fate
in
aquatic
environments
is
uncertain.
­
12­
°
No
data
are
available
to
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
dimethipin
to
birds.

°
No
data
are
available
to
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
dimethipin
to
estuarine/
marine
fish.

°
No
data
are
available
to
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
dimethipin
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

°
Studies
submitted
by
the
registrant
on
the
effects
of
dimethipin
in
terrestrial
plants
were
classified
as
Invalid.
Thus,
no
data
are
available
to
assess
the
risk
of
dimethipin
terrestrial
plants.
­
13­
3.
Measures
to
Evaluate
Risk
Hypotheses
and
Conceptual
Model
a.
Measures
of
Exposure
The
critical
measure
of
exposure
for
a
Tier
1
risk
assessment
is
the
peak
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
in
surface
water
(
calculated
using
GENEEC2).
This
value
is
used
in
both
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
estimation
for
aquatic
organisms.
Similarly,
a
peak
24­
hour
EEC
is
calculated
for
four
different
types
of
food
group
classifications
for
terrestrial
receptors
(
mammals
and
birds)
using
ELLFATE

b.
Measures
of
Effect
Measures
of
effect
are
generally
based
on
the
results
of
a
toxicity
study,
although
monitoring
data
and
incident
reports
may
also
be
used
to
provide
supporting
lines
of
evidence
for
the
risk
characterization.
A
complete
summary
of
the
measures
of
effect
based
on
toxicity
studies
for
different
ecological
receptors
and
effect
endpoints
(
acute/
chronic)
is
given
in
Table
3.
Examples
of
measures
of
acute
effects
(
e.
g.,
lethality)
include
an
oral
LD50
for
mammals
and
LC50
for
fish
and
invertebrates.
Examples
of
measures
of
chronic
effects
include
a
NOAEL
for
birds
or
mammals
based
on
reproduction
or
developmental
endpoints,
and
an
EC05
for
plants
based
on
growth
rate
or
biomass
measurements.

c.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
For
the
Tier
1
assessment
using
GENEEC2
and
ELL­
FATE,
the
ecosystems
that
are
modeled
are
intended
to
be
generally
representative
of
any
aquatic
or
terrestrial
ecosystem
associated
with
areas
where
dimethipin
is
used.
The
receptors
addressed
by
the
aquatic
and
terrestrial
risk
assessments
are
summarized
in
Figure
1.
For
aquatic
assessments,
generally
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
and
aquatic
plants
in
both
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
environments
are
represented.
For
terrestrial
assessments,
generally
birds,
terrestrial
plants,
and
wild
mammals
are
included.
Three
different
size
classes
of
wild
mammals
are
represented,
along
with
four
potential
foraging
categories.
(
see
Appendix
C
for
a
detailed
description).

III.
Analysis
A.
Use
Characterization
Currently,
agricultural
uses
of
dimethipin
are
largely
limited
to
applications
on
cotton
fields
in
the
southern
United
States
and
California.
Recent
statistics
on
agricultural
uses
of
dimethipin
are
recorded
in
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy's
(
NCFAP)
National
Pesticide
Use
Database
available
from
USGS
(
2004).
Figure
2
shows
a
national
map
of
annual
uses
in
1992.
No
map
is
available
for
1997.
In
1992
and
1997,
the
NCFAP
estimated
that
nearly
all
of
the
uses
of
dimethipin
were
for
cotton
crops.

The
dimethipin
use
data
from
1992
and
1997
reported
by
NCFAP
includes
information
on
application
rates
(
lbs
a.
i./
A).
According
to
these
data,
the
highest
application
rates
were
0.305
lbs
a.
i./
A
­
14­
(
NCFAP
2004).
These
values
are
slightly
lower
than
the
suggested
application
rates
given
on
the
product
labels
for
dimethipin,
which
suggest
a
maximum
seasonal
application
rate
of
0.56
lbs
a.
i./
A.
For
this
risk
assessment,
product
use
information
(
i.
e.,
application
rates,
number
of
applications,
time
interval)
required
for
Tier
1
exposure
modeling
was
based
on
the
more
recent
product
label
rather
than
the
NCFAP
data.
­
15­
Figure
2.
Agricultural
use
of
dimethipin
in
the
United
States
during
1992
(
USGS
2004).
­
16­
B.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
a.
Summary
of
Empirical
Data
Dimethipin
is
persistent
under
most
environmental
conditions,
with
biodegradation,
hydrolysis,
andphotolysis
all
occurring
slowly.
No
significant
degradates
were
detected
in
the
environmental
fate
sutdies.
Half­
lives
of
several
weeks
to
a
few
months
may
be
expected
for
dimethipin
under
most
environmental
conditions.
Volatilization
from
soil
and
water
surfaces
is
not
expected
to
be
an
important
dissipation
process
since
dimethipin
has
a
relatively
low
vapor
pressure
and
Henry's
Law
constant.
Dimethipin
does
not
readily
adsorb
to
soil
surfaces,
possesses
high
mobility,
and
has
the
potential
to
leach
into
groundwater.
Field
studies
have
verified
that
dimethipin
readily
moves
to
subsurface
soil
over
time.
Detections
of
dimethipin
at
depths
of
75
 
90
cm
below
the
soil
surface
were
observed
in
a
terrestrial
field
dissipation
study
conducted
using
a
cotton
field
in
Georgia
(
sandy
clay
loam)
following
application
of
0.30
lbs
a.
i./
A
followed
by
a
second
application
of
0.225
lbs
a.
i./
A
7
days
later.
These
results
were
consistent
with
a
second
terrestrial
field
dissipation
study
conducted
in
Mississippi,
in
which
dimethipin
was
detected
at
depths
up
to
60
 
75
cm.
No
degradates
were
analyzed
in
these
field
dissipation
studies.
If
released
to
water,
dimethipin
is
not
expected
to
adsorb
significantly
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment.
Bioconcentration
in
aquatic
organisms
such
as
fish
is
expected
to
be
low
based
on
the
low
log
Kow
(­
0.18)
value.

Important
physical
and
chemical
properties
for
dimethipin
are
provided
in
Table
1.

b.
Degradation
and
Metabolism
The
half­
life
of
dimethipin
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
under
aerobic
conditions
was
over
400
days
when
applied
at
3
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
MRID
42429606).
Photolysis
on
soil
surfaces
was
also
shown
to
occur
slowly
with
a
half­
life
of
about
75
days
following
irradiation
of
30.5
µ
g/
g
of
14C
labeled
dimethipin
for
30
days
using
a
sandy
loam
soil
(
MRID
42237601).
Dimethipin
was
stable
to
hydrolysis
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
over
2
years
at
pH
of
4
 
9
(
MRID
80106).
At
a
nominal
concentration
of
680
µ
g
a.
i./
L
in
aqueous
buffers
at
pH
5,
7,
and
9,
the
aqueous
photolysis
half­
life
of
dimethipin
was
60,
224,
and
72
days,
respectively
when
the
samples
were
placed
in
outdoor
light
in
Massachusetts
(
MRID
41967101).
The
only
degradation
products
identified
in
any
of
these
studies
were
2,3­
dihydro­
5­
hydroxymethyl­
6­
methyl­
1,4­
dithiin­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
H­
5),
and
2­
hydroxymethyl­
3­
methyl­
1,4­
dithiane­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
H­
49)
which
occurred
in
the
aqueous
photolysis
study.
These
degradates
are
not
considered
important
because
they
are
less
than
10%
of
parent
material.

c.
Soil
Sorption
and
Mobility
Batch
adsorption
experiments
using
a
clay
soil,
sand,
sandy
loam,
and
silty
soil
resulted
in
Koc
values
of
<
1
to
3.3
(
MRID
41660901).
These
values
suggest
that
adsorption
to
soil
surfaces
is
low,
mobility
in
soils
is
very
high,
and
dimethipin
has
the
potential
to
leach
into
groundwater.
Volatilization
from
soil
and
water
surfaces
are
not
expected
to
be
important
environmental
fate
processes
based
on
a
vapor
pressure
of
<
3.81
x
10­
7
mmHg
and
Henry's
Law
constant
of
2.3x10­
11
atm­
m3/
mol.
­
17­
d.
Field
Dissipation
Dimethipin
had
relatively
long
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
(
136
days
and
117
days
on
a
bare
plot
and
a
field
cropped
with
cotton,
respectively)
using
a
cotton
field
located
in
Georgia
(
MRID
43216001).
Dimethipin
was
detected
at
a
concentration
of
0.011
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
240
days
following
the
second
application)
in
the
75
 
90
cm
soil
depth
of
the
cropped
plot
indicating
that
this
compound
may
leach
into
groundwater.
It
was
also
detected
at
levels
as
deep
as
60
 
75
cm
in
the
uncropped
plot.
In
a
second
field
dissipation
study
classified
as
acceptable
the
terrestrial
field
half­
life
of
dimethipin
in
the
surface
(
0
 
15
cm)
soil
of
a
Mississippi
cotton
field
was
calculated
as
25
days
(
MRID
43216002).
Dimethipin
was
shown
to
be
very
mobile
in
this
study
as
well.
The
maximum
dimethipin
concentrations
by
depth
were
0.032
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
90
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
15
 
30
cm
soil
depth,
0.057
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
58
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
30
 
45
cm
depth,
0.050
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
119
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
45
 
60
cm
depth,
and
0.030
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
240
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
60
 
75
cm
soil
depth.

2.
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
The
Tier
1
model
GENEEC2
(
2001)
was
used
to
estimate
surface
water
concentrations
of
dimethipin.
Exposures
are
typically
calculated
for
fish
and
invertebrates,
which
serve
as
surrogates
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians.
The
same
peak,
24­
hour
EEC
is
used
to
estimate
both
acute
and
chronic
risks.
The
GENEEC2
model
was
run
for
two
different
crops,
cotton
and
apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock,
using
the
proposed
label
application
rates
(
0.56
and
0.077
lbs
a.
i./
A,
respectively).
An
aerial
application
was
chosen
in
accordance
with
the
product
label.
The
droplet
size
was
set
to
the
default
of
fine­
to­
medium
and
the
depth
of
incorporation
was
set
to
the
default
of
0
inches.

The
peak,
24­
hour
EECs
of
dimethipin,
generated
from
GENEEC2,
are
33.89
and
4.66
ppb
for
cotton
and
apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
crops,
respectively.
The
4­,
21­,
60­,
and
90­
day
concentrations
show
little
change
from
the
peak
for
both
crops,
as
shown
in
Table
4.
The
output
data
generated
by
GENEEC2,
as
well
as
additional
background
on
the
model,
are
given
in
Appendix
B.

Table
4.
Surface
water
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
aquatic
ecological
risk
assessment
for
dimethipin
generated
from
GENEEC2.1
Surface
Water
Concentrations
(
ppb)

Crop
Peak,
24­
hour
4­
day
21­
day
60­
day
90­
day
Cotton
33.89
33.88
33.83
33.7
33.61
Apple/
nonbearing
nursery
stock
4.66
4.66
4.65
4.63
4.62
1See
Table
B­
1
for
input
parameters.
­
18­
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
(
Field
Data)

At
this
time,
there
are
no
monitoring
data
available
for
dimethipin
in
both
surface
water
and
groundwater.
The
U.
S.
Geological
Survey's
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
program
(
NAWQA)
is
not
currently
analyzing
for
dimethipin,
and
there
are
no
analytical
methods
in
place
for
this
chemical
(
USGS
2004).
Dimethipin
was
not
monitored
in
the
"
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database"
(
1991)
and
is
not
included
in
the
monitoring
data
within
EPA
STORET.
No
detections
of
dimethipin
have
been
reported
to
the
Agency
under
6(
a)
2.

3.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Assessment
a.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
bird
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
exposures
are
considered
as
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
as
well
as
reptiles.
For
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms,
such
as
birds
and
small
mammals,
pesticide
residues
on
food
items
are
estimated,
based
on
the
assumption
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
(
based
on
Kenaga,
1972)
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rate.
The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
generated
from
a
spreadsheet­
based
model
model,
ELL­
FATE
(
v.
1.4,
dated
April
7,
2004).
ELL­
FATE
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
Further
explanation
and
the
results
of
the
model
are
presented
in
Appendix
C.

Dimethipin
is
primarily
applied
aerially;
there
are
no
registered
uses
for
granular
applications
or
seed
treatment.
Input
values
on
avian
and
mammalian
toxicity
as
well
as
chemical
application
and
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
data
are
required
to
run
the
model.
The
model
provides
estimates
of
both
exposure
concentrations
and
RQs.
Specifically,
the
model
provides
estimates
of
concentrations
(
maximum
and
average)
of
chemical
residues
on
the
surface
of
different
types
of
foliage
that
may
be
sources
of
exposure
to
birds
and
mammals
primarily
via
diet.
Uncertainties
in
the
terrestrial
EECs
are
primarily
associated
with
a
lack
of
data
on
interception
and
subsequent
dissipation
from
foliar
surfaces.
When
data
are
absent,
as
in
this
case,
EFED
assumes
a
35­
day
foliar
dissipation
half
life,
based
on
the
work
of
Willis
and
McDowell
(
1987).
However,
since
dimethipin
is
only
applied
once,
this
does
not
factor
into
the
EECs
used
for
either
the
acute
or
chronic
risk
quotients.
The
model
was
run
for
aerial
applications
of
dimethipin
to
cotton
and
apples
using
the
inputs
provided
in
Table
5.
­
19­
Table
5.
Input
parameters
used
in
ELL­
FATE.

Parameter
Value
Application
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
cotton:
0.56
apple:
0.077
Foliar
Half­
life
(
days)
35
Frequency
of
Application
(
days)
1
 
Maximum
Applications
per
Year
1
1
This
term
should
be
interpreted
as
the
interval
between
successive
applications.
In
the
case
of
dimethipin,
applications
are
limited
to
one
per
year,
so
no
value
is
needed
for
the
frequency
of
application.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
dimethipin
uses
upper
bound
predicted
residues
as
the
measure
of
exposure.
The
EECs
on
food
items
may
be
compared
directly
with
dietary
toxicity
data
or
converted
to
an
oral
dose,
as
is
the
case
for
small
mammals.
For
mammals,
the
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
the
fraction
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
through
mammalian
allometric
relationships.

The
predicted
maximum
(
peak,
24­
hour)
residues
of
dimethipin
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
(
at
the
maximum
annual
or
seasonal
label
rate)
for
cotton
and
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
are
given
in
Table
6.
For
applications
on
cotton,
EECs
ranged
from
8.4
ppm
on
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
to
134.40
ppm
on
short
grass.
For
applications
on
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock,
EECs
ranged
from
1.16
ppm
on
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
to
18.48
pm
short
grass.
For
both
crop
scenarios,
short
grass
is
the
terrestrial
habitat
that
yields
the
highest
EECs.

Table
6.
Maximum
residue
EECs
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
(
ppm)
following
a
single
application
of
dimethipin
at
0.56
lbs
a.
i./
A
for
cotton
and
0.077
lbs
a.
i./
A
for
apples.

Crop
and
Food
Group
Classification
Peak
EECs,
24­
hour
average
(
ppm)

Cotton
Short
grass1
134
Tall
grass1
62
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
76
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
8
Apple/
nonbearing
nursery
stock
Short
grass
18
Table
6.
Maximum
residue
EECs
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
(
ppm)
following
a
single
application
of
dimethipin
at
0.56
lbs
a.
i./
A
for
cotton
and
0.077
lbs
a.
i./
A
for
apples.

Crop
and
Food
Group
Classification
Peak
EECs,
24­
hour
average
(
ppm)

­
20­
Tall
grass
8
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
10
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
1.16
1
Examples
of
food
group
categories
for
grasses:
short
grass
(
e.
g.,
commercial
turf);
tall
grass
(
e.
g.,
prairie
regions).

b.
Magnitude
of
Residue
Studies
Terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
have
been
conducted,
and
are
summarized
above
(
Section
3(
B)(
1)(
a))
and
Appendix
A.
Since
dimethipin
is
applied
only
once,
foliar
dissipation
rates
do
not
factor
into
the
EECs
used
for
the
risk
quotients.

4.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Assessment
Due
to
the
lack
of
acceptable
studies
on
plant
toxicity,
exposure
modeling
was
not
conducted
for
non­
target
terrestrial
plants.

C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
Effects
characterization
describes
the
potential
effects
a
pesticide
can
produce
in
an
aquatic
or
terrestrial
organism.
This
characterization
is
based
on
registrant­
submitted
studies
that
describe
acute
and
chronic
effects
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
Appendix
E
summarizes
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
used
to
characterize
effects
for
this
risk
assessment.
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
birds,
mammals,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

In
general,
categories
of
acute
toxicity
ranging
from
"
practically
nontoxic"
to
"
very
highly
toxic"
have
been
established
for
aquatic
organisms
(
based
on
LC50
values),
terrestrial
organisms
(
based
on
LD50
values),
avian
species
(
based
on
LC50
values),
and
non­
target
insects
(
based
on
LD50
values
for
honey
bees)
(
EPA
2001).
These
categories
are
presented
in
Appendix
E.

1.
Aquatic
Effects
­
21­
a.
Aquatic
Animals
The
most
sensitive
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
references
values
associated
with
dimethipin
exposure
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
species
are
summarized
in
Table
7.
A
more
detailed
summary
of
the
aquatic
toxicity
data
available
to
characterize
risks
associated
dimethipin
applications
is
given
in
Appendix
E,
Tables
E5
 
E10.

Table
7.
Dimethipin
toxicity
reference
values
(
TRVs)
(
ppm
of
active
ingredient)
for
aquatic
organisms.

Exposure
Scenario
Species
Exposure
Duration
Toxicity
Reference
Value
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Reference
Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Bluegill
sunfish
96
hours
LC50
=
20.9
ppm
a..
i.
MRID
41945902
Core
Study
Chronic
Fathead
minnow
31
days
NOAEC
=
12
ppm
a.
i.
MRID
00126069
Supplemental
Study
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Acute
Daphnia
magna
48
hours
LC50
=
20
ppm
a.
i.
00086315
LeBlanc
1977
Core
Study
Chronic
Daphnia
magna
21
days
NOAEC
(
length)
=
0.61
ppm
a.
i.
MRID
00128803
Core
Study
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Acute
Sheepshead
minnow
96
hours
LC50
=
17.8
ppm
a.
i.
MRID
41663901
Core
Study
Chronic
no
data;
an
extrapolated
NOAEC
value
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
in
freshwater
fish
is
10.2
ppm
a.
i.
1
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Acute
Mysid
shrimp
48
hour
LC50
=
13.9
ppm
a.
i.
MRID
41663902
Core
Study
Chronic
no
data;
an
extrapolated
NOAEC
value
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
in
freshwater
invertebrates
is
0.42
ppm
a.
i.
2
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Lemna
gibba
14
days
EC50
=
2.1
ppm
a.
i.
NOAEC
=
0.8
ppm
a.
i.
MRID
42627104
Core
Study
1.
Acute­
to­
Chronic
ratio
for
freshwater
fish
is
20.9:
12
=
1.7;
17.8ppm/
1.7
=
10.2
ppm.
2.
Acute­
to­
Chronic
ratio
for
freshwater
invertebrates
is
20:
0.61
=
32.8;
13.9
ppm/
32.8
=
0.42
ppm.
­
22­
Aquatic
animals
do
not
appear
highly
susceptible
to
toxicity
resulting
from
acute
dimethipin
exposure.
Dimethipin
is
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
(
96­
hour
LC50
=
20.9
to
52.9
ppm
a.
i.),
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
96­
hour
LC50
=
17.8
ppm
a.
i.),
and
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates
(
in
mysids,
48­
hour
LC50
=
13.9;
in
eastern
oyster,
96­
hour
EC50
for
shell
deposition
=
12.4
to
18.6
ppm
a.
i.)
and
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates
(
48­
hour
LC50
=
6.6
[
re
FP]
to
21.3
ppm
a.
i.).

Acute
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Fish
The
acute
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
freshwater
fish
was
evaluated
in
bluegill
sunfish
and
rainbow
trout,
with
96­
hour
LC50
of
20.9
and
52.8
ppm
a.
i.,
respectively.
Based
on
this
information,
dimethipin
was
shown
to
be
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
The
96­
hour
LC50
value
of
20.9
ppm
from
the
core
study
in
bluegill
sunfish
(
MRID
41945902)
is
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
acute
risks
to
fish
from
exposure
to
dimethipin.

Chronic
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Fish
The
chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
freshwater
fish
was
evaluated
in
an
early
life­
stage
study
in
fathead
minnow,
with
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values
for
larval
survival
of
12
and
24
ppm
a.
i.,
respectively
(
MRID
00126069).
The
NOAEC
of
12
ppm
will
be
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
chronic
risks
to
fish
from
exposure
to
dimethipin.

Acute
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
The
acute
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
aquatic
invertebrates
has
been
assessed
in
Daphnia
magna,
with
48­
hour
LC50
values
ranging
from
6.6
to
21.3
ppm
a.
i.
(
MRID
00086315;
MRID
41945904;
MRID
46063401).
Results
from
these
studies
suggest
that
dimethipin
is
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates.
The
lowest
48­
hour
LC50
value
reported
of
6.6
ppm
a.
i.
was
obtained
in
a
study
using
Harvade
25F,
containing
23.2%
dimethipin.
Slightly
higher
LC50
values
were
reported
for
studies
assessing
the
acute
toxicity
of
dimethipin
technical
(
48­
hour
LC50
values
of
20
to
28.1
ppm
a.
i.).
The
lower
LC50
value
for
the
a.
i.
based
on
formulated
product
testing
(
compared
to
technical
grade
dimethipin)
may
suggest
that
other
ingredients
in
the
formulated
product
possibly
enhance
the
acute
toxicity
of
dimethipin.
The
48­
hour
LC50
value
of
20
ppm
a.
i.,
obtained
from
a
study
using
the
TGAI
(
MRID
00086315),
is
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
acute
risks
to
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates
from
exposure
to
dimethipin.

An
acute
toxicity
study
in
daphnids
using
a
dimethipin
formulation
(
Harvade
25F)
yields
the
lowest
48­
hour
LC50
value
(
6.6
ppm
a.
i.),
indicating
that
the
potential
for
toxicity
from
exposure
to
the
dimethipin
formulation
may
be
greater
than
that
for
the
technical
grade
of
the
active
ingredient
(
TGAI).

Chronic
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Results
of
chronic
exposure
studies
in
Daphnia
magna
show
that
dimethipin
has
the
potential
to
decrease
growth
and
reproduction
in
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates.
Based
on
this
analysis,
all
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
animals
appear
to
be
at
similar
risk
for
acute
effects
associated
with
applications
of
dimethipin.
­
23­
The
chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates
was
evaluated
in
two
21­
day
life­
cycle
tests
in
Daphnia
magna;
however,
one
study
(
MRID
00126070)
was
classified
as
invalid
and,
therefore,
data
from
this
study
are
not
considered
usable
for
assessing
risk.
Results
of
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
(
MRID
00128803)
show
that
exposure
to
dimethipin
increased
mortality,
reduced
reproduction
(
number
of
young
produced/
female/
reproductive
day),
and
decreased
growth
(
terminal
length).
The
most
sensitive
effect
was
decreased
growth,
with
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values
of
0.61
and
1.0
ppm
a.
i.,
respectively.
The
results
of
this
study
show
that
dimethipin
has
the
potential
to
affect
growth
and
reproduction
in
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
21­
day
NOAEC
of
0.61
ppm
a.
i.
for
decreased
length
will
be
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
chronic
risks
from
exposure
to
dimethipin.

Acute
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Results
of
a
single
acute
toxicity
study
in
sheepshead
minnow
indicate
that
dimethipin
is
slightly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
based
on
the
96­
hour
LC50
of
17.8
ppm
a.
i.
(
MRID
41663901);
this
value
will
be
used
to
assess
acute
risks
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
from
exposure
to
dimethipin.

Acute
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
The
acute
toxicity
of
dimethipin
has
been
evaluated
in
eastern
oyster
(
MRID
41666501;
MRID
42643101)
and
mysid
shrimp
(
MRID
41663902).
Based
on
the
96­
hour
EC50
values
of
12.4
and
18.6
ppm
a.
i.
for
shell
growth
obtained
in
eastern
oyster
and
the
48­
hour
LC50
value
of
13.9
obtained
in
mysid
shrimp,
dimethipin
can
be
classified
as
slightly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
The
Core
LC50
value
of
13.9
in
the
mysid
shrimp
study
(
MRID
41663902)
will
be
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
acute
risks
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
from
exposure
to
dimethipin
(
and
for
an
acute/
chronic
extrapolation
­
see
below).

Chronic
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
and
Invertebrates
Studies
assessing
the
chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
were
not
identified
among
the
toxicity
data
available
to
the
Agency
in
support
of
uses
of
dimethipin.
Due
to
the
lack
of
chronic
toxicity
data
in
estuarine/
marine
animals,
it
is
not
possible
to
determine
the
potential
for
chronic
effects
in
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
directly.
However,
the
chronic
toxicity
values
could
be
estimated
from
the
ratio
of
acute­
to­
chronic
toxicity
reference
values
available
for
freshwater
animals.
Freshwater
fish
have
an
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
of
20.9
ppm
:
12
ppm,
or
approximately
1.7;
freshwater
invertebrates
have
an
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
of
20
ppm
:
0.61,
or
approximately
0.38.
These
results
suggest
that
the
chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
marine/
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates
is
approximately
10
ppm
(
17.8
/
1.7)
and
0.42
ppm
(
13.9/
32.8),
respectively.
There
are
uncertainties
associated
with
this
assumption
because
the
Agency
is
unaware
of
any
comparative
analysis
of
taxonomic
sensitivity
factors
among
the
two
broad
categories
of
aquatic
organisms
(
freshwater
compared
with
estuarine/
marine).
Variability
is
to
be
expected
across
taxa
(
i.
e.,
different
chronic
endpoints
of
concern)
and
across
test
species.

b.
Aquatic
Plants
Results
of
acute
toxicity
studies
in
aquatic
plants
suggest
that
dimethipin
is
toxic
to
freshwater
macrophytes
(
duckweed),
based
on
the
14­
day
EC50
for
decreased
growth
of
2.1
ppm
a.
i.
(
MRID
­
24­
42627104),
and
to
algae,
with
5­
day
EC50
values
ranging
from
5.13
to
99.5
ppm
a.
i.
(
MRID
41264605;
MRID
42627101;
MRID
42627102;
MRID
42627103).
The
lowest
EC50
value
of
2.1
ppm
a.
i.
obtained
from
the
study
in
duckweed
will
be
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
acute
risks
to
aquatic
plants
from
exposure
to
dimethipin.
The
lowest
NOAEC
of
0.8
ppm
a.
i.
in
duckweed
will
be
used
to
assess
acute
endangered
species
risk
in
aquatic
plants
from
dimethipin
exposure.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
a.
Terrestrial
Animals
The
toxicity
endpoints
used
to
characterize
risks
of
dimethipin
exposure
to
birds
and
mammals
are
summarized
in
Table
8.
Results
of
all
studies
in
terrestrial
animal
species
are
summarized
in
Appendix
E,
Tables
E1
 
E4.

Table
8.
Toxicity
reference
values
(
TRVs)
for
terrestrial
species
for
dimethipin.

Exposure
Scenario
Species
Exposure
Duration
Toxicity
Reference
Value
Reference
Mammals
Acute
Rat
Single
oral
dose
LD50
=
458
mg/
kg1,2
MRID
42429601
Chronic
Rat
2­
generation
reproduction
study
(
dietary
exposure)
NOAEC
=
200
ppm
a.
i.
diet1
MRID
93089034
Acceptable/
guideline
Birds
Acute
Mallard
duck
5­
day
dietary
LC50
>
5,000
ppm
a.
i.
(
No
mortality)
MRID
41955902
Core
Study
Chronic
No
Data
1Data
taken
from
Draft
Dimethipin:
HED
Chapter
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED).
2Not
specified
in
HED
Chapter
if
units
are
expressed
in
terms
of
mg
a.
i./
kg
or
mg
of
formulated
product/
kg.

Mammalian
Species
As
reviewed
in
the
Draft
Dimethipin:
HED
Chapter
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED),
results
of
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
in
rats
indicate
that
dimethipin
is
moderately
toxic
to
mammals,
based
on
the
acute
LD50
value
in
male
rats
of
458
mg/
kg
(
MRID
42429601).
Although
HED
did
not
conduct
an
acute
aggregate
risk
assessment
due
to
lack
of
an
endpoint
attributable
to
a
single
exposure
scenario
for
dimethipin,
the
oral
LD50
of
458
mg/
kg
will
be
used
to
assess
acute
risk
in
mammals
in
this
risk
assessment.
A
NOAEC
of
200
ppm
a.
i.
for
decreased
body
weight
in
pups
was
reported
in
a
2­
generation
reproduction
study
in
rats
(
MRID
93089034).
According
to
EFED
policy
(
EPA
2004)
chronic
risk
for
mammals
should
be
assessed
using
the
lowest
NOAEC
from
a
2­
generation
reproduction
test.
Thus,
the
NOAEC
of
200
ppm
will
be
used
to
assess
chronic
risk
in
mammals.
Results
of
these
studies
are
­
25­
presented
in
Appendix
E,
Table
E­
3.

Avian
Species
Acute
toxicity
studies
have
been
conducted
in
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
ducks;
results
are
summarized
in
Appendix
E,
Tables
E­
1
 
E­
2.
Results
of
5­
day
dietary
toxicity
studies
in
bobwhite
quail
(
MRID
41945901)
and
mallard
ducks
(
MRID
41955902)
yield
LD50
values
>
5,000
ppm
a.
i.;
thus,
dimethipin
is
considered
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
an
acute
basis.

Studies
assessing
the
chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
in
avian
species
were
not
identified
among
the
toxicity
data
available
to
the
Agency
in
support
of
uses
of
dimethipin.

Non­
target
Insects
Although
studies
assessing
the
acute
contact
toxicity
of
dimethipin
TGAI
were
not
identified
among
the
toxicity
data
available
to
the
Agency
in
support
of
uses
of
dimethipin,
results
of
an
acute
contact
study
in
honey
bees
using
the
dimethipin
formulation
Harvade
25F
(
MRID
41264606),
which
contains
22.4%
a.
i.,
indicate
that
dimethipin
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
honey
bees.
Details
of
this
study
are
provided
in
Appendix
E.
The
acute
contact
LD50
reported
in
this
study
is
>
100
µ
g/
bee;
however,
it
is
not
clear
if
this
value
is
expressed
in
term
of
µ
g
a.
i./
bee
or
µ
g
formulation/
bee.
Taking
a
conservative
approach
by
assuming
that
the
reported
LD50
is
expressed
in
terms
of
the
formulation
(>
100
µ
g
formulation/
bee),
the
LD50
expressed
in
terms
of
a.
i.
would
be
equivalent
to
22.4
µ
g
a.
i./
bee
[
100
µ
g
of
formulated
product/
bee
×
22.4%
a.
i
in
the
formulation
=
22.4
µ
g
a.
i./
bee].
Based
on
this
analysis,
dimethipin
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
on
an
acute
contact
basis
(
MRID
41264606).

b.
Terrestrial
Plants
All
studies
assessing
the
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
terrestrial
plants
that
were
submitted
to
support
uses
of
dimethipin
are
currently
considered
invalid
for
risk
assessment.
The
available
data
from
these
studies
are
not
sufficient
for
use
in
quantifying
the
risks
of
dimethipin
exposure
to
non­
target
plants.

IV.
Risk
Characterization
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Risk
quotients
for
dimethipin
are
calculated
using
the
toxicity
values
for
dimethipin
summarized
in
Table
A­
2
and
EECs
from
the
Tier
I
model
GENEEC2
summarized
in
Table
3.
For
assessing
both
acute
and
chronic
risks,
the
24­
hour
peak
concentration
is
used
for
the
two
crop
applications
modeled
using
GENEEC2
(
cotton
and
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock).
Risk
quotients
for
aquatic
species
are
presented
in
Table
9.
­
26­
Table
9.
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
dimethipin
for
acute
and
chronic
exposures
of
aquatic
species.

Exposure
Scenario
Exposure
(
ppb)
Toxicity
Reference
Value
(
ppb)
Risk
Quotient1
Freshwater
Fish
Acute
risk2
Cotton
33.89
20,900
0.002
Apple
4.66
20,900
0.0002
Chronic
risk3
Cotton
33.89
12,000
0.003
Apple
4.66
12,000
0.0004
Freshwater
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Acute
risk4
Cotton
33.89
20,000
0.002
Apple
4.66
20,000
0.0002
Chronic
risk5
Cotton
33.89
610
0.06
Apple
4.66
610
0.008
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Acute
risk6
Cotton
33.89
17,800
0.002
Apple
4.66
17,800
0.0003
Chronic
risk10
Cotton
33.89
10,200
0.003
Apple
4.66
10,200
0.0005
Estuarine/
Marine
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Acute
exposure7
Cotton
33.89
13,900
0.002
Apple
4.66
13,900
0.0003
Chronic
risk10
Table
9.
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)
for
dimethipin
for
acute
and
chronic
exposures
of
aquatic
species.

Exposure
Scenario
Exposure
(
ppb)
Toxicity
Reference
Value
(
ppb)
Risk
Quotient1
­
27­
Cotton
33.89
420
0.081
Apple
4.66
420
0.0111
Aquatic
Plants8
(
acute
risk)

Cotton
33.89
2,100
0.02
Apple
4.66
2,100
0.002
Aquatic
Plants9
(
acute
endangered
risk)

Cotton
33.89
800
0.04
Apple
4.66
800
0.006
1Exposure
value
÷
toxicity
value
2Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
96­
hour
LC
50.
3Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
31­
day
NOAEC.
4Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
48­
hour
LC
50.
5Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
21­
day
NOAEC.
6Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
96­
hour
LC
50.
7Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
96­
hour
EC
50.
8Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
14­
day
EC
50.
9Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
the
14­
day
NOAEC.
10Based
on
24­
hour
peak
concentration
using
an
extrapolated
NOAEC.

Freshwater
Fish
and
Invertebrates
Acute
RQ
values
for
freshwater
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
well
below
the
level
of
concern
for
acute
high
risk
(
LOC
0.5),
acute
restricted
risk
(
LOC
0.1),
or
acute
endangered
risk
(
LOC
0.05).
Because
the
toxicity
values
used
to
assess
risk
were
similar
for
both
freshwater
fish
(
20,900
ppb)
and
aquatic
invertebrates
(
20,000
ppb),
RQs
for
these
species
categories
are
essentially
the
same;
for
application
to
cotton,
the
acute
RQ
is
0.002
and
for
application
to
apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock,
the
acute
RQ
is
0.0002.
For
chronic
risk,
RQs
range
from
0.0004
for
the
apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
scenario
for
freshwater
fish
to
0.06
for
the
cotton
scenario
for
aquatic
invertebrates.
Thus,
none
of
the
acute
RQ
values
for
freshwater
fish
or
aquatic
invertebrates
exceeds,
meets
or
approaches
the
level
of
concern
for
chronic
risk
(
LOC
1).
Based
on
this
analysis,
freshwater
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
do
not
appear
to
be
at
acute
or
chronic
risk
from
exposure
to
dimethipin
for
the
crop
scenarios
considered.
As
discussed
in
Section
5a(
i),
the
results
of
a
single
study
in
Daphnia
magna
suggest
that
exposure
to
the
dimethipin
formulation
Harvade
25F
may
be
more
toxic
than
exposure
to
dimethipin
TGAI
by
a
factor
of
approximately
3
to
4­
fold.
Using
the
acute
toxicity
value
for
Harvade
25F
of
6.6
ppm
a.
i.
(
6,600
ppb
a.
i.),
RQs
for
the
dimethipin
formulation
are
well
below
levels
of
concern
values
for
all
categories
of
acute
risk
(
RQ
0.005
for
cotton;
RQ
0.0007
for
apples/
non­
nursery
bearing
stock).
Based
on
this
analysis,
aquatic
invertebrates
do
not
appear
at
acute
risk
from
exposure
to
Harvade
25F.
­
28­
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
and
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Acute
RQ
values
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
well
below
the
level
of
concern
for
acute
high
risk
(
LOC
0.5),
acute
restricted
risk
(
LOC
0.1),
or
acute
endangered
risk
(
LOC
0.05).
For
estuarine/
marine
fish,
acute
RQ
values
are
0.002
for
the
cotton
scenario
and
0.0003
for
the
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
scenario.
For
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates,
acute
RQ
values
are
0.002
for
the
cotton
scenario
and
0.0003
for
the
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
scenario.
Based
on
this
analysis,
estuarine/
marine
animals
do
not
appear
to
be
at
an
acute
risk
from
dimethipin
exposure.
To
evaluate
chronic
risk,
extrapolated
NOAEC
values
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
were
calculated,
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratios
in
freshwater
species
and
the
acute
toxicity
values
for
estuarine/
marine
species.
Based
on
the
resulting
RQ
values
of
0.003
for
fish
and
0.081
for
invertebrates
under
the
cotton
scenario,
and
0.0005
for
fish
and
0.0111
for
invertebrates
under
the
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
scenario,
the
chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
appears
to
be
low.
Chronic
toxicity
data
will
enable
an
improved
assessment.

Aquatic
Plants
Acute
RQ
values
for
aquatic
plants
are
well
below
the
level
of
concern
for
acute
risk
(
for
cotton:
0.02
vs.
LOC
of
1,
based
on
the
EC50
value)
and
acute
endangered
risk
(
for
cotton:
0.04
vs.
LOC
of
1,
based
on
the
NOAEC
value)
for
both
the
cotton
and
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
crop
applications.
Based
on
this
analysis,
aquatic
plants
do
not
appear
at
acute
risk
from
dimethipin
exposure
for
the
crop
scenarios
considered.

2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
An
analysis
of
the
results
shown
in
Table
10
indicates
that
avian
acute,
restricted
use,
and
endangered
species
levels
of
concern
are
not
exceeded
at
the
maximum
application
rate
for
dimethipin
applied
to
cotton
and
apple/
nonbearing
nursery
stock
for
any
of
the
forage
items.
Chronic
risks
to
avian
species
from
dimethipin
on
foliage
could
not
be
estimated
as
data
on
chronic
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
birds
are
not
available.
­
29­
Table
10.
Acute
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
calculations
for
bird
consumption
of
plant
and
insect
forage
material.

Crop
and
Forage
Item
Maximum
EEC
(
ppm)
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
Acute
RQ
Cotton
Short
grass
134.4
>
5,000
<
0.03
Tall
grass
61.6
>
5,000
<
0.01
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
75.6
>
5,000
<
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
8.4
>
5,000
<
0.002
Apples/
nonbearing
nursery
stock
Short
grass
18.48
>
5,000
<
0.004
Tall
grass
8.47
>
5,000
<
0.002
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
10.40
>
5,000
<
0.002
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
1.16
>
5,000
<
0.0002
An
analysis
of
the
results
shown
in
Table
11
indicates
shows
that
no
mammal
acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
application
of
dimethipin
to
apple/
nonbearing
nursery
stock.
For
application
on
cotton,
LOCs
range
from
0.0001
(
1000
g
granivore,
seeds)
to
0.28
(
15g
mammal,
short
grass).
The
LOC
for
acute
restricted
risk
(
LOC
0.2)
is
exceeded
for
a
15g
mammal
feeding
on
short
grass.
The
LOC
for
acute
endangered
risk
(
LOC
0.1)
is
also
exceeded
for
a
15g
mammal
feeding
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
and
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
and
for
a
35
g
mammal
feeding
on
short
grass
and
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects.
As
shown
in
Table
12,
all
chronic
RQs
are
below
the
LOC
(
1)
for
chronic
risk
for
application
of
dimethipin
to
cotton
or
apple/
nonbearing
nursery
stock.
­
30­
Table
11.
Acute
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
calculations
for
mammalian
consumption
of
plant
and
insect
forage
material.

Crop
and
Forage
Item
Maximum
EEC
(
ppm)
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d)
Weight
of
Mammal
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Acute
Risk
Quotients
1
Cotton
Short
grass
134.4
458
0.28
0.19
0.04
Tall
grass
61.6
458
0.13
0.09
0.02
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
75.6
458
0.16
0.11
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
8.4
458
0.02
0.01
0.003
Seeds
(
granivore)
8.4
458
0.004
0.003
0.001
Apple/
nonbearing
nursery
stock
Short
grass
18.48
458
0.04
0.03
0.006
Tall
grass
8.47
458
0.02
0.01
0.003
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
10.40
458
0.02
0.01
0.003
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
1.16
458
0.002
0.002
0.004
Seeds
(
granivore)
1.16
458
0.0005
0.0004
0.0001
1
RQ
=
EEC
(
ppm)
LD50
(
mg/
kg)/
%
Body
Weight
Consumed
where
the
%
body
weight
consumed
varies
with
body
size
and
diet:
Herbivores/
insectivores:
95%
for
15
g
wt;
66%
for
35
g
wt;
15%
for
1000
g
wt;
Granivores:
21%
for
15
g
wt;
15%
for
35
g
wt;
3%
for
1000
g
wt.
­
31­
Table
12.
Chronic
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
calculations
for
mammal
consumption
of
plant
and
insect
forage
material.

Crop
and
Forage
Item
Maximum
EEC
(
ppm)
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
Chronic
RQ
Cotton
Short
grass
134.4
200
0.7
Tall
grass
61.6
200
0.3
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
75.6
200
0.4
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
8.4
200
0.04
Apples/
nonbearing
nursery
stock
Short
grass
18.48
200
0.09
Tall
grass
8.47
200
0.04
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
10.40
200
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects
1.16
200
0.006
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Plants
and
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Valid
data
appropriate
for
a
risk
assessment
are
not
available.

B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
Dimethipin
is
primarily
used
as
a
plant
growth
regulator
and
defoliant
on
cotton
crops
(
see
Section
IIIA:
Use
Characterization);
therefore,
exposure
to
this
herbicide
will
primarily
occur
in
the
southern
regions
of
the
United
States
or
California
where
cotton
is
typically
grown.
Following
the
application
of
dimethipin,
spray
drift
or
field
runoff
may
contaminate
adjacent
ponds,
streams,
or
lakes.
Dimethipin
is
persistent
under
most
environmental
conditions,
with
biodegradation,
hydrolysis,
and
photolysis
all
occurring
slowly.
Half­
lives
of
several
weeks
to
a
few
months
may
be
expected
for
dimethipin
under
most
environmental
conditions.
Volatilization
from
soil
and
water
surfaces
is
not
expected
to
be
an
important
fate
process
since
dimethipin
has
a
relatively
low
vapor
pressure
and
Henry's
Law
constant.
Dimethipin
is
not
expected
to
adsorb
significantly
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment,
and
no
sediment
toxicity
studies
were
conducted.
Bioconcentration
in
aquatic
organisms,
such
as
fish
is
expected
to
be
low
based
on
the
­
32­
small
log
Kow
(­
0.18)
value.

Freshwater
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
do
not
appear
to
be
at
acute
or
chronic
risk
from
exposure
to
dimethipin
(
risk
quotients
were
orders
of
magnitude
less
than
the
levels
of
concern).
Similar
conclusions
were
reached
for
marine/
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates,
although
for
chronic
risk
this
is
based
on
an
extrapolation
using
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratios
in
freshwater
species
and
the
acute
toxicity
values
for
estuarine/
marine
species.
Acute
RQ
values
for
aquatic
plants
are
well
below
the
level
of
concern
for
acute
high
risk
and
acute
endangered
risk
for
both
the
cotton
and
apples/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
crop
applications.

2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
The
direct
application
of
dimethipin
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
is
likely.
For
mammals,
all
RQs
are
below
the
LOC
for
acute
risk
(
0.5);
however,
the
LOC
for
acute
restricted
use
(
0.2)
was
exceeded
for
15g
mammals
and
the
acute
endangered
LOC
(
0.1)
was
exceeded
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
for
exposure
via
various
forage
items
for
the
cotton
scenario.
Based
on
this
analysis,
smaller
mammals,
particularly
endangered
species,
may
be
at
risk
from
acute
exposures
to
dimethipin,
if
exposed.
For
chronic
risk
to
mammals,
all
RQs
are
below
the
LOCs.
As
discussed
in
Section
IIIC
(
Ecological
Effects
Characterization),
assessment
of
chronic
risk
is
based
on
the
NOAEL
from
a
2­
generation
reproductive
study
in
rats.

For
avian
species,
all
acute
RQs
are
several
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
all
acute
LOCs;
thus,
dimethipin
appears
to
pose
a
low
acute
risk
to
birds
(
both
endangered
and
non­
endangered
species).
As
data
on
avian
chronic
toxicity
are
not
available
for
dimethipin,
chronic
RQ
values
could
not
be
estimated.
Based
on
the
low
toxicity
rating
for
dimethipin
in
honey
bees,
dimethipin
does
not
appear
to
pose
a
high
risk
to
non­
target
insects.

Although
the
data
provided
for
assessing
the
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
terrestrial
plants
do
not
allow
for
a
quantitative
assessment
of
risk,
results
of
vegetative
vigor
studies
show
that
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
are
susceptible
to
dimethipin
toxicity.
Since
dimethipin
is
a
defoliant,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
it
has
the
potential
to
adversely
affect
non­
target
plants
or
crops
at
some
environmental
concentration.
Without
valid
data
for
risk
assessment,
a
comparison
to
LOCs
cannot
be
made.

3.
Review
of
Incident
Data
Incident
reports
submitted
to
EPA
since
approximately
1994
have
been
tracked
by
assignment
of
I­
#
s
in
an
Incident
Data
System
(
IDS),
microfiched,
and
then
entered
to
a
second
database
(
in
EFED),
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS).
An
effort
has
also
been
made
to
enter
information
to
EIIS
on
incident
reports
received
prior
to
establishment
of
current
databases.
Incident
reports
are
often
not
received
in
a
consistent
format
(
e.
g.,
states
and
various
labs
usually
have
their
own
formats),
may
involve
multiple
incidents
involving
multiple
chemicals
in
one
report,
and
may
report
on
only
part
of
a
given
incident
investigation
(
e.
g.,
residues).

It
is
believed
that
the
EFED
database
contains
reports
of
only
a
small
portion
of
plant
and
animal
wildlife
incidents
that
actually
occur
as
a
result
of
pesticide
use.
Mortality
incidents
must
be
seen,
reported,
investigated,
and
have
investigation
reports
submitted
to
EPA
to
have
the
potential
to
get
entered
into
a
database.
Incidents
often
are
not
seen,
especially
if
the
affected
organisms
are
inconspicuous
or
few
­
33­
people
are
systematically
looking,
for
example.
Incidents
seen
may
not
get
reported
to
appropriate
authorities
capable
of
investigating
the
incident
because
the
finder
may
not
know
of
the
importance
of
reporting
incidents,
may
not
know
who
to
call,
or
may
not
feel
they
have
the
time
or
desire
to
call,
for
example.
Incidents
reported
may
not
get
investigated
if
resources
are
limited
or
may
not
get
investigated
thoroughly.
Reports
of
investigated
incidents
often
do
not
get
submitted
to
EPA,
since
reporting
by
states
is
voluntary
and
some
investigators
may
believe
that
they
don't
have
the
resources
to
submit
incident
reports
to
EPA.

a.
Incidents
Involving
Aquatic
Organisms
No
incident
reports
involving
aquatic
organisms
have
been
received
for
dimethipin.

b.
Incidents
Involving
Terrestrial
Organisms
No
incident
reports
involving
terrestrial
organisms
have
been
received
for
dimethipin.

4.
Endocrine
Effects
Based
on
the
available
data,
there
is
no
indication
that
dimethipin
exhibits
endocrine
toxicity
in
mammalian
organisms.
According
to
the
Draft
Dimethipin
HED
Chapter,
no
estrogen,
androgen,
and/
or
thyroid
mediated
toxicity
was
observed
in
the
available
mammalian
toxicity
studies.
Studies
on
the
effects
of
dimethipin
on
avian
reproduction
were
not
submitted
to
the
Agency;
thus,
no
conclusion
can
be
made
regarding
the
potential
for
dimethipin
to
cause
endocrine
disruption
in
avian
species.

In
aquatic
species,
reproductive
effects
were
observed
in
full
life­
cycle
studies
in
daphnids
(
decreased
number
of
young/
female/
reproductive
day)
(
MRID
00128803;
MRID
00126070).
Full­
life
cycle
tests
were
not
submitted
for
freshwater
fish,
estuarine
fish,
or
estuarine
invertebrates;
thus,
no
data
are
available
to
assess
the
potential
for
dimethipin
to
produce
endocrine
toxicity
in
these
aquatic
species.
Although
limited
information
is
available,
based
on
the
reproductive
effects
observed
in
daphnia,
dimethipin
exhibited
effects
that
may
be
indicative
of
endocrine
disrupting
activity.

Under
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA),
EPA
is
required
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally­
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen­
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
the
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allow,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).
When
the
appropriate
screening
and
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
Agency's
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
have
been
developed,
dimethipin
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.
­
34­
5.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
a.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
Based
on
available
screening
level
information,
it
is
unlikely
that
dimethipin
will
have
toxic
effects
on
endangered
or
threatened
aquatic
or
avian
species.
However
based
on
the
exceedance
of
the
acute
endangered
LOC
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
for
exposure
via
various
forage
items,
there
is
the
potential
for
toxic
effects
to
endangered/
threatened
mammals,
if
exposure
occurs.
Furthermore,
based
on
its
defoliant
properties,
dimethipin
may
have
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
endangered/
threatened
terrestrial
plant
species,
if
exposure
occurs,
although
insufficient
data
from
terrestrial
toxicity
studies
with
plants
are
available
for
a
quantitative
assessment.

b.
Action
Area
For
listed
species
assessment
purposes,
the
action
area
is
considered
to
be
the
area
affected
directly
or
indirectly
by
the
Federal
action
and
not
merely
the
immediate
area
involved
in
the
action.
At
the
initial
screening­
level,
the
risk
assessment
considers
broadly
described
taxonomic
groups
and
so
conservatively
assumes
that
listed
species
within
those
broad
groups
are
collocated
with
the
pesticide
treatment
area.
This
means
that
terrestrial
plants
and
wildlife
are
assumed
to
be
located
on
or
adjacent
to
the
treated
site
and
aquatic
organisms
are
assumed
to
be
located
in
a
surface
water
body
adjacent
to
the
treated
site.
The
assessment
also
assumes
that
the
listed
species
are
located
within
an
assumed
area
which
has
the
relatively
highest
potential
exposure
to
the
pesticide,
and
that
exposures
are
likely
to
decrease
with
distance
from
the
treatment
area.
Sections
I.
B.,
II.
A.
3.,
and
III.
A.
of
this
risk
assessment
describe
the
pesticide
use
sites
that
are
used
to
establish
initial
collocation
of
species
with
treatment
areas.

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

The
LOCATES
model
was
run,
to
identify
those
U.
S.
counties
that
both
grow
cotton
and
have
federally­
listed
endangered
or
threatened
mammals
or
plants.
A
preliminary
analysis
has
been
conducted
of
this
county
overlap
of
crop
and
species.
For
mammals,
the
majority
of
the
species
identified
in
cottongrowing
counties
were
much
larger
than
the
15g
and
35g
size
classes
for
which
potential
risk
has
been
identified.
Such
species
include
the
jaguar,
gray
wolf,
Sonoran
pronghorn,
San
Joaquin
kit
fox,
American
­
35­
black
bear,
red
wolf,
and
ocelot,
for
example.
Small
mammals
identified
that
potentially
could
consume
a
large
portion
of
their
diet
as
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and/
or
small
insects
include:
Alabama
beach
mouse,
Perdido
Key
beach
mouse,
Hualapai
Mexican
vole,
Tipton
Kangaroo
rat,
Buena
Vista
shrew,
San
Bernadino
Kangaroo
rat,
Amargosa
vole,
and
Choctawhatchee
beach
mouse.
Of
these,
the
three
beach
mice
inhabit
sand
dunes
and
appear
likely
to
be
exposed
only
if
cotton
is
grown
near
the
sand
dunes
(
i.
e.,
spray
drift).
Similarly,
the
Hualapai
Mexican
vole
inhabits
meadows
in
pine
forests
on
mountain
slopes
and
the
Amargosa
vole
inhabits
bulrush
marshes.
If
cotton
is
grown
near
the
bulrush
marshes,
for
example,
the
vole
could
potentially
be
exposed
by
drift
or
runoff.
Various
listed
bat
species
consume
large
numbers
of
small
insects,
but
the
bats
are
larger
than
the
size
mammal
expected
to
be
at
risk
and
the
insects
are
live,
flying
insects
that
would
probably
not
have
the
dimethipin
residues
of
small,
crawling
insects.

Except
for
a
few
examples
above
(
e.
g.,
large
mammals),
the
screening­
level
assessment
does
not
provide
sufficient
information
to
preclude
a
potential
concern
for
effect
for
listed
species
within
the
mammal
and
plant
taxonomic
groups
of
concern.
Refinements
based
on
higher
resolution
location,
habitat,
and
biological
information
for
each
listed
species
of
potential
concern
would
provide
additional
information
to
determine
whether
effects
on
particular
listed
species
may
be
anticipated.
Such
detailed
refinements
are
pending.
Valid
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data
are
also
needed
before
a
quantitative
analysis
can
be
completed
for
these
plants.
It
is
anticipated
that
the
Agency
(
in
coordination
with
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and/
or
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service)
will
continue
refinement
efforts
to
assess
dimethipin
impacts
on
listed
species
of
potential
concern.

c.
Indirect
Effects
Analysis
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
pesticides
have
the
potential
to
exert
indirect
effects
upon
the
listed
organisms
by
perturbing
forage
or
prey
availability
or
altering
the
extent
and
nature
of
nesting
habitat,
for
example.
In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
the
Agency
uses
the
direct
effects
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
endangered
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.

For
dimethipin,
direct
effect
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
certain
small
mammals,
as
indicated
above.
There
is
also
the
assumption
that
terrestrial
plants
may
be
adversely
affected
(
given
the
defoliant
properties
of
dimethipin),
although
terrestrial
plant
RQs
are
not
available
for
comparison
to
the
LOC
since
valid
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data
suitable
for
such
calculation
are
not
available.
Thus,
in
addition
to
potential
direct
effects
upon
certain
endangered/
threatened
mammals
and
plants,
there
may
be
a
potential
for
indirect
effects
to
those
endangered/
threatened
species
that
are
dependent
upon
small
mammals
and
terrestrial
plants.

For
mammals,
an
analysis
has
been
conducted
of
the
probability
of
individual
mortality
at
an
LOC
of
0.1,
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
mammals.
It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
The
analysis
uses
the
EFED
spreadsheet
IECv1.1.
xls,
developed
by
EFED
(
USEPA,
2004).
Slope
and
confidence
interval
information
were
reported
in
the
dimethipin
rat
acute
oral
study
(
MRID
42429601)
that
was
reviewed
and
accepted
by
HED.
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
1.524,
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.1,
the
acute
toxic
endpoint
for
mammals,
is
1
in
15.7.
To
explore
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
values
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
1.317
­
1.763)
were
used
to
calculate
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
These
values
­
36­
are
1
in
10.6
and
1
in
25.7.

Thus,
the
probability
of
individual
mortality,
based
on
this
data,
could
be
as
high
as
1
in
10.6
at
an
LOC
of
0.1.
As
previously
indicated,
the
risk
quotients
for
small
mammals
are
as
high
as
0.28,
well
above
the
LOC
of
0.1.
Thus,
the
probability
of
individual
mortality
at
the
predicted
exposures
used
for
the
risk
quotients
would
be
considerably
higher
than
at
the
LOC.

d.
Critical
Habitat
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
dimethipin
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
small
mammals
and
terrestrial
plants.

In
light
of
the
potential
for
indirect
effects,
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
is
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.
Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constituent
elements
that
fall
into
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
a
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
or
not
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
is
not
sufficient
to
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
are
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
pesticides.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects,
namely
small
mammals
(
e.
g.,
15
and
35
grams)
and
terrestrial
plants.
These
results
may
be
used
to
develop
a
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary.

C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
­
37­
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
For
All
Daxa
There
are
a
number
of
areas
of
uncertainty
in
the
aquatic
and
terrestrial
risk
assessments.
The
toxicity
assessment
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals
is
limited
by
the
number
of
species
tested
in
the
available
toxicity
studies.
Use
of
toxicity
data
on
representative
species
does
not
provide
information
on
the
potential
variability
in
susceptibility
to
acute
and
chronic
exposures.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
relies
on
labeled
statements
of
the
maximum
rate
of
dimethipin
application,
the
maximum
number
of
applications,
and
the
shortest
interval
between
applications.
Together,
these
assumptions
constitute
a
maximum
use
scenario.
The
frequency
at
which
actual
uses
approach
these
maximums
is
dependant
on
resistance
to
the
herbicide,
timing
of
applications,
and
market
forces.

2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
For
Aquatic
Species
For
an
acute
risk
assessment,
there
is
no
averaging
time
for
exposure.
An
instantaneous
peak
concentration,
with
a
1
in
10
year
return
frequency,
is
assumed.
The
use
of
the
instantaneous
peak
assumes
that
instantaneous
exposure
is
of
sufficient
duration
to
elicit
acute
effects
comparable
to
those
observed
over
more
protracted
exposure
periods
tested
in
the
laboratory,
typically
48
to
96
hours.
In
the
absence
of
data
regarding
time­
to­
toxic
event
analyses
and
latent
responses
to
instantaneous
exposure,
the
degree
to
which
risk
is
overestimated
cannot
be
quantified.

3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
For
Terrestrial
Species
The
data
available
to
support
the
exposure
assessment
for
dimethipin
is
substantially
complete,
with
the
exception
of
a
foliar
dissipation
study,
which
is
an
input
variable
for
Tier
1
modeling
of
risks
to
birds
and
mammals
(
i.
e.,
ELL­
FATE).
The
terrestrial
modeling
was
conducted
with
a
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days,
which
may
not
be
a
realistic
foliar
half­
life
for
this
compound.
Photolysis
data
(
both
aqueous
and
soil)
suggest
that
dimethipin
undergoes
photolysis
in
the
environment
slowly
with
half­
lives
of
several
weeks
to
a
few
months.
Biodegradation
and
hydrolysis
also
occur
slowly
for
dimethipin;
therefore,
the
35
day
half­
life
may
be
too
low.
However,
since
the
risk
assessment
is
for
just
one
application,
maximum
residues
were
used
and
thus
the
default
half­
life
did
not
affect
risk
quotients.
Also,
for
screening
terrestrial
risk
assessments,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
is
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
pesticide
at
a
rate
commensurate
with
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
The
actual
habitat
requirements
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.

Screening­
level
risk
assessments
for
spray
applications
of
pesticides
consider
dietary
exposure
alone.
Other
routes
of
exposure,
not
considered
in
this
assessment,
are
discussed
below:
­
38­
Incidental
soil
ingestion
exposure
of
Wildlife
This
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
incidental
soil
ingestion.
Available
data
suggests
that
up
to
15%
of
the
diet
can
consist
of
incidentally
ingested
soil
depending
on
the
species
and
feeding
strategy.
Since
dimethipin
is
persistent
in
soils,
this
may
be
an
important
exposure
pathway.
Dimethipin
possesses
high
mobility
in
soil
surfaces,
however,
and
may
be
transported
to
lower
horizons
where
it
may
not
be
readily
accessible
to
species
at
ground
surfaces.

Inhalation
exposure
of
Wildlife
The
screening
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
inhalation
exposure,
due
to
the
low
volatility
of
dimethipin.

Dermal
Exposure
of
Wildlife
The
screening
assessment
does
not
consider
dermal
exposure,
except
as
it
is
indirectly
included
in
calculations
of
RQs
based
on
lethal
doses
per
unit
of
pesticide
treated
area.
Dermal
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
direct
application
of
spray
to
terrestrial
wildlife
in
the
treated
area
or
within
the
drift
footprint,
(
2)
incidental
contact
with
contaminated
vegetation,
or
(
3)
contact
with
contaminated
water
or
soil.

The
available
measured
data
related
to
wildlife
dermal
contact
with
pesticides
are
extremely
limited.
The
Agency
is
actively
pursuing
modeling
techniques
to
account
for
dermal
exposure
via
direct
application
of
spray
and
by
incidental
contact
with
vegetation.

Drinking
Water
Exposure
of
Wildlife
Drinking
water
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient
may
be
the
result
of
consumption
of
surface
water
or
consumption
of
the
pesticide
in
dew
or
other
water
on
the
surfaces
of
treated
vegetation.
For
pesticide
active
ingredients
with
a
potential
to
dissolve
in
runoff,
puddles
on
the
treated
field
may
contain
the
chemical.
Given
that
dimethipin
is
soluble
in
water
and
does
not
adsorb
appreciably
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment
in
the
water
column,
there
exists
the
potential
for
exposure
to
dimethipin
from
drinking
water.
The
Tier
I
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
of
Dimethipin,
for
use
in
Human
Health
Risk
Assessment
was
completed
on
June
13,
2004.

Dietary
Intake
­
The
Differences
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
The
acute
and
chronic
characterization
of
risk
rely
on
comparisons
of
wildlife
dietary
residues
with
LC50
or
NOAEC
values
expressed
in
concentrations
of
pesticides
in
laboratory
feed.
These
comparisons
assume
that
ingestion
of
food
items
in
the
field
occurs
at
rates
commensurate
with
those
in
the
laboratory.
Although
the
screening
assessment
process
adjusts
dry­
weight
estimates
of
food
intake
to
reflect
the
increased
mass
in
fresh­
weight
wildlife
food
intake
estimates,
it
does
not
allow
for
gross
energy
and
­
39­
assimilative
efficiency
differences
between
wildlife
food
items
and
laboratory
feed.

On
gross
energy
content
alone,
direct
comparison
of
a
laboratory
dietary
concentration­
based
effects
threshold
to
a
fresh­
weight
pesticide
residue
estimate
would
result
in
an
underestimation
of
field
exposure
by
food
consumption
by
a
factor
of
1.25
­
2.5
for
most
food
items.
Only
for
seeds
would
the
direct
comparison
of
dietary
threshold
to
residue
estimate
lead
to
an
overestimate
of
exposure.

Differences
in
assimilative
efficiency
between
laboratory
and
wild
diets
suggest
that
current
screening
assessment
methods
do
not
account
for
a
potentially
important
aspect
of
food
requirements.
Depending
upon
species
and
dietary
matrix,
bird
assimilation
of
wild
diet
energy
ranges
from
23
­
80%,
and
mammal's
assimilation
ranges
from
41
­
85%
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1993).
If
it
is
assumed
that
laboratory
chow
is
formulated
to
maximize
assimilative
efficiency
(
e.
g.,
a
value
of
85%),
a
potential
for
underestimation
of
exposure
may
exist
by
assuming
that
consumption
of
food
in
the
wild
is
comparable
with
consumption
during
laboratory
testing.
In
the
screening
process,
exposure
may
be
underestimated
because
metabolic
rates
are
not
related
to
food
consumption.

Finally,
the
screening
procedure
does
not
account
for
situations
where
the
feeding
rate
may
be
above
or
below
requirements
to
meet
free
living
metabolic
requirements.
Gorging
behavior
is
a
possibility
under
some
specific
wildlife
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
bird
migration)
where
the
food
intake
rate
may
be
greatly
increased.
Kirkwood
(
1983)
has
suggested
that
an
upper­
bound
limit
to
this
behavior
might
be
the
typical
intake
rate
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
5.

In
contrast
is
the
potential
for
avoidance,
operationally
defined
as
animals
responding
to
the
presence
of
noxious
chemicals
in
their
food
by
reducing
consumption
of
treated
dietary
elements.
This
response
is
seen
in
nature
where
herbivores
avoid
plant
secondary
compounds.

4.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
The
data
available
to
support
the
terrestrial
and
aquatic
effects
assessment
is
incomplete.
Terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data
valid
for
risk
assessment
are
needed.
Although
it
appears
that
dimethipin
is
relatively
non
toxic
to
aquatic
species,
the
lack
of
chronic
toxicity
data
in
estuarine/
marine
animals
(
both
fish
and
invertebrates)
makes
it
impossible
to
determine
the
potential
for
chronic
effects.
In
addition
chronic
toxicity
studies
for
birds
were
not
available,
limiting
the
current
assessment
to
acute
toxicity
of
avian
species.

Age
class
and
sensitivity
of
effects
thresholds
It
is
generally
recognized
that
test
organism
age
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
observed
sensitivity
to
a
toxicant.
The
screening
risk
assessment
acute
toxicity
data
for
fish
are
collected
on
juvenile
fish
between
0.1
and
5
grams.
Aquatic
invertebrate
acute
testing
is
performed
on
recommended
immature
age
classes
(
e.
g.,
first
instar
for
daphnids,
second
instar
for
amphipods,
stoneflies
and
mayflies,
and
third
instar
for
midges).
Similarly,
acute
dietary
testing
with
birds
is
also
performed
on
juveniles,
with
mallard
being
5­
10
days
old
and
quail
10­
14
days
old.
­
40­
Testing
of
juveniles
may
overestimate
toxicity
at
older
age
classes
for
pesticidal
active
ingredients,
such
as
dimethipin,
that
act
directly
(
without
metabolic
transformation)
because
younger
age
classes
may
not
have
the
enzymatic
systems
associated
with
detoxifying
xenobiotics.
The
screening
risk
assessment
has
no
current
provisions
for
a
generally
applied
method
that
accounts
for
this
uncertainty.
In
so
far
as
the
available
toxicity
data
may
provide
ranges
of
sensitivity
information
with
respect
to
age
class,
the
risk
assessment
uses
the
most
sensitive
life­
stage
information
as
the
conservative
screening
endpoint.

Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
Although
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested,
it
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
selected
toxicity
endpoints
reflect
sensitivity
of
the
most
sensitive
species
existing
in
a
given
environment.
The
relative
position
of
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
in
the
distribution
of
all
possible
species
is
a
function
of
the
overall
variability
among
species
to
a
particular
chemical.
In
the
case
of
listed
species,
there
is
uncertainty
regarding
the
relationship
of
the
listed
species'
sensitivity
and
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.

The
Agency
is
not
limited
to
a
base
set
of
surrogate
toxicity
information
in
establishing
risk
assessment
conclusions.
The
Agency
also
considers
toxicity
data
on
non­
standard
test
species
when
available.

5.
Assumptions
Associated
With
the
Acute
LOCs
The
risk
characterization
section
of
the
assessment
document
includes
an
evaluation
of
the
potential
for
individual
effects
at
an
exposure
level
equivalent
to
the
LOC.
This
evaluation
is
based
on
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate
and
dose/
response
relationship
established
for
the
effects
study
corresponding
to
each
taxonomic
group
for
which
the
LOCs
are
exceeded.

V.
Literature
Cited
EPA.
1998a.
Guidelines
for
Ecological
Risk
Assessment.
Published
on
May
14,
1998,
Federal
Register
63(
93):
26846­
26924.
Risk
Assessment
Forum,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
EPA/
630/
R­
95/
002F.
191
pgs.
April.

EPA.
1998b.
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
.
Published
on
July
3,
1998,
Federal
Register
54:
27984­
28008.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

EPA.
2001.
GENEEC.
Description
and
User's
Manual.
Environmental
Effects
and
Fate
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
15
pgs.
Available
­
41­
online
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/.

EPA.
2002.
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II.
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
21
pgs.
February
28.

EPA.
2004.
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations,
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Washington,
D.
C.
100
pgs.
January
23.

Kirkwood
RC.
(
1983).
The
relationship
of
metabolism
studies
to
the
modes
of
action
of
herbicides.
Pestic.
Sci.
14:
453­
460.

Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.
1998.
Harvade­
5F:
A
Guide
to
Defoliation.
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Crop
Protection
Division.
World
Headquarters.
Middlebury,
CT
06749.

USEPA
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Appendix:
Literature
Review
Database
(
1993).
NTIS
Number
PB
94
177
789.

USEPA.
2004.
EFED
spreadsheet
IECv1.1.
xls
(
6/
22/
04).

USGS.
2004.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey.
National
Pesticide
Use
Database.

Willis,
G.
H.,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
Persistence
on
Foliage
in
Reviews
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology.
100:
23­
73.
­
42­
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
would
like
to
thank
Syracuse
Environmental
Research
Associates,
Inc.
(
SERA)
(
Julie
Klotzbach
and
Patrick
Durkin)
and
Syracuse
Research
Corporation
(
Mario
Citra,
Molly
Ramsey,
and
Philip
Goodrum)
for
their
assistance
in
developing
this
dimethipin
risk
assessment.
­
43­
Appendix
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
Hydrolysis
161­
1
(
MRID
80106)

The
hydrolysis
of
[
2,3­
14C]­
labeled
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithi­
ine
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
dimethipin;
"
Harvade"),
at
500
mg
a.
i./
L,
was
studied
in
the
dark
at
25

C
in
sterile
pH
3
(
0.01
M
phthalate),
pH
6
(
0.01
M
citrate),
and
pH
9
(
0.01
M
phosphate)
aqueous
buffered
solutions
for
up
to
57
days
(
MRID
24023789).
Dimethipin
was
stable
to
hydrolysis
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
over
2
years
at
all
3
pH
values.
The
study
is
scientifically
valid
but
does
not
meet
all
the
requirement
for
a
hydrolysis
study
because
the
"
acidic"
buffer
was
adjusted
to
pH
4
rather
than
pH
5
and
the
"
neutral"
buffer
was
adjusted
to
pH
6
rather
than
pH
7.
Therefore
this
study
was
classified
as
supplemental.
No
attempt
was
made
to
identify
any
transformation
products.

Aqueous
Photolysis
161­
2
(
MRID
41967101)

The
aqueous
phototransformation
of
[
2,3­
14C]­
labeled
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithiine
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
dimethipin;
"
Harvade"),
was
studied
at
a
nominal
concentration
of
680
µ
g
a.
i./
L
in
aqueous
buffers
at
pH
5
(
0.01
M
acetate),
pH
7
(
0.01
M
monobasic
potassium
phosphate),
and
pH
9
(
0.01
M
Borax)
for
30
days
at
0.0
to
53.0

C
(
mean
31.6
±
9.5

C).
The
test
samples
were
kept
outdoors
between
May
6
to
June
6,
1991,
in
direct
sunlight
in
Wareham,
Massachusetts
(
41

N,
55

W);
the
light
intensity
ranged
from
ca.
2
to
93
µ
W/
cm2
(
MRID
41967101).
Half­
lives
of
59.75,
223.60,
and
72.20
days
were
observed
in
the
irradiated
samples
at
pH
5,
7,
and
9,
respectively.
The
compound
was
considered
stable
in
a
dark
control
at
pH
5
and
had
half­
lives
of
3.2
years
and
113.63
days
in
dark
controls
at
pH
7
and
9,
respectively.
The
portions
of
this
study
conducted
at
pH
7
and
pH
9
are
classified
as
supplemental.
They
are
scientifically
valid
but
do
not
satisfy
the
requirements
for
a
photodegradation
in
water
study
because
the
temperature
of
the
samples
ranged
from
0
to
53

C
(
31.6
±
9.5

C)
and
the
sterility
of
the
test
solutions
was
not
confirmed.
The
portion
of
the
study
conducted
at
pH
5
is
classified
as
supplemental
for
the
preceding
reasons
and
also
because
a
transformation
product
present
at
>
10%
of
the
applied
in
the
irradiated
30­
day
sample
was
not
identified.
Degradation
products
identified
were
2,3­
dihydro­
5­
hydroxymethyl­
6­
methyl­
1,4­
dithiin­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
H­
5),
and
2­
hydroxymethyl­
3­
methyl­
1,4­
dithiane­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
H­
49).

Soil
Photolysis
161­
3
(
MRID
42237601)
­
44­
The
phototransformation
of
[
2,3­
14C]­
labeled
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithi­
ine­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
dimethipin;
"
Harvade")
was
studied
on
sandy
loam
soil
(
pH
6.3,
organic
matter
3.1%)
from
Connecticut
at
30.5
µ
g/
g
for
30
days
at
ca.
25

C
(
MRID
42237601).
The
treated
samples
were
irradiated
using
natural
sunlight
(
intensity
3.2
to
279
µ
watts/
cm2)
at
41

N
latitude,
55

W
longitude.
The
half­
life
of
the
irradiated
samples
was
75.3
days
(
r2
=
0.7832),
while
the
half­
life
of
the
dark
controls
were
577.6
days
(
r2
=
0.0693)
and
no
major/
minor
degradation
products
were
identified.
Although
scientifically
valid
the
study
was
classified
as
supplemental
because
the
methods
and
apparatus
used
in
this
study
were
inadequately
described;
it
could
not
be
determined
whether
the
variable
"
air
temperatures"
(
ranging
from
4.0
to
53.0

C)
reflected
both
the
irradiated
and
dark
control
sample
environments.

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
162­
1
(
MRID
42429606)

The
biotransformation
of
[
2,3­
14C]­
labeled
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithi­
ine
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
dimethipin,
Harvade)
was
studied
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
(
69%
sand,
29%
silt,
7%
clay,
pH
6.3,
organic
matter
3.1%)
for
365
days
under
aerobic
conditions
in
darkness
at
25

C
and
a
soil
moisture
content
of
75%
of
the
field
capacity
(
MRID
42429606).
Dimethipin
was
applied
at
3
mg
a.
i./
kg
soil.
The
[
14C]­
labeled
dimethipin
decreased
from
an
average
of
112.2%
of
the
applied
at
day
0
to
74.6%
at
121
days
post­
treatment,
and
56.0%
at
365
days.
The
half­
life
was
calculated
as
407.7
days.
The
half­
life
is
of
uncertain
value
because
it
is
extrapolated
beyond
the
duration
of
the
study
and
assumes
that
degradation
continues
to
follow
a
first­
order
model.
The
study
is
scientifically
valid,
but
does
not
satisfy
the
requirement
for
an
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
because
the
material
balance
decreased
by
>
20%
of
the
applied
during
the
study.
Also,
nonextractable
residues
totaled
>
10%
of
the
applied.
No
major
or
minor
degradation
products
were
identified.
Therefore,
this
study
was
classified
as
supplemental.

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
162­
2
(
MRID
42673501)

The
biotransformation
of
[
2,3­
14C]
2,3­
dihydro­
5,6­
dimethyl­
1,4­
dithi­
ine­
1,1,4,4­
tetraoxide
(
dimethipin;
"
Harvade")
was
studied
in
a
pond
water­
loamy
sand
sediment
(
water
not
characterized;
sediment
pH
6.4,
organic
matter
1.2%)
from
Georgia
for
365
days
under
anaerobic
conditions
in
darkness
at
25
±
1

C.
Based
on
the
water
volume,
[
14C]
dimethipin
was
applied
at
a
nominal
rate
of
5.2
mg
a.
i./
L.
The
sediment:
water
ratio
used
was
1:
3
(
10
g
dry
wt.
soil:
30
mL
water).
The
test
system
consisted
of
glass
culture
tubes
(
12
x
150
mm)
containing
water­
soil
(
with
dextrose)
that
were
purged
with
nitrogen
for
31
days,
sealed
and
incubated
in
the
dark.
The
metabolism
vessel
was
attached
to
a
continuous
air­
flow
system;
humidified
nitrogen
was
­
45­
introduced
into
the
metabolism
vessel,
then
vented
sequentially
through
ethylene
glycol,
1N
H
2
SO
4,
and
1N
KOH
(
two
tubes)
trapping
solutions.
The
water­
sediment
systems
were
preincubated
for
31
days,
then
following
treatment,
duplicate
systems
were
collected
after
0,
1,
3,
7,
14,
30,
60,
91,
123,
182,
273
and
365
days.
Based
on
first­
order
linear
regression
analysis
(
Excel
2000),
dimethipin
in
the
total
system
dissipated
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
277.3
days.
The
halflife
in
water
using
all
sampling
intervals
(
0­
365
days)
resulted
in
a
half­
life
of
247.6
days;
the
halflife
in
sediment
could
not
be
calculated
because
the
concentration
in
sediment
ranged
from
3.2­
5.2%
of
the
applied
at
7­
365
days.
Overall
recoveries
of
radiolabeled
material
averaged
96.40
±
5.0%
of
the
applied.
In
[
2,3­
14C]
dimethipin
treated
systems,
dimethipin
in
the
total
system
decreased
from
95.5%
of
the
applied
at
time
0,
to
82.7%
at
30
days,
71.1%
at
123
days,
and
was
41.4%
at
365
days
(
study
termination).
In
the
water
layer,
[
14C]
dimethipin
was
92.4%
at
day
0,
78.4%
at
30
days,
67.0%
at
123
days,
and
was
36.7%
at
365
days.
In
sediment
extracts,
[
14C]
dimethipin
was
3.1%
at
day
0,
4.3%
at
30
days,
and
was
4.7%
at
365
days.
No
major
transformation
products
were
identified.
At
365
days,
volatiles
totaled
<
0.1%,
0.1%
and
6.9%
of
the
applied
in
the
ethylene
glycol,
sulfuric
acid
and
KOH
traps,
respectively.

Adsorption/
Desorption
163­
1
(
MRID
41660901)

Based
on
soil
adsorption
coefficient
(
K
d)
values
determined
using
Freundlich
adsorption
isotherms
with
batch
equilibrium
study
data
and
the
K
oc
values
that
were
obtained
by
normalizing
for
the
percentage
of
organic
carbon
content
in
the
soils,
dimethipin
is
expected
to
have
very
high
mobility
in
soils.

In
a
study
classified
as
supplemental
(
MRID
41660901),
dimethipin
had
measured
adsorption
coefficients
of
0.09,
<
0.01,
<
0.01,
and
<
0.01
in
a
clay
soil
from
MS
(
25%
sand,
33%
silt,
42%
clay,
pH
5.9,
2.9%
organic
carbon),
sandy
soil
from
MD
(
96%
sand,
2%
silt,
2%
clay,
pH
6.5,
0.53%
organic
carbon),
a
sandy
loam
from
CT
(
64%
sand,
29%
silt,
7%
clay,
pH
6.3,
1.8%
organic
carbon),
and
a
silt
loam
from
CA
(
44%
sand,
47%
silt,
9%
clay,
pH
6.7,
0.47%
organic
carbon),
respectively.
This
corresponds
to
K
oc
values
of
3.3,
<
1,
<
1,
and
<
1
for
the
MS,
MD,
CT,
and
CA
soil,
respectively.
These
data
are
summarized
in
Table
A­
1.
­
46­
Table
A­
1.
Soil
adsorption
coefficients
for
dimethipin
in
four
soils1
Soil
MS
Clay
MD
Sand
CT
Sandy
Loam
CA
Silt
%
Sand
25
96
64
44
%
Silt
33
2
29
47
%
Clay
42
2
7
9
%
Organic
carbon
2.8
0.53
1.9
0.47
pH
5.9
6.5
6.3
6.7
CEC
(
meq/
100
g)
24.3
1.8
8.5
4.3
Bulk
density
(
g/
mL)
1.22
1.65
1.16
1.57
Kd
Koc
0.09
3.3
<
0.01
<
1
<
0.01
<
1
<
0.01
<
1
1MRID
41660901
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
164­
1
(
MRID
43216001;
MRID
43216002)

In
a
study
that
was
classified
as
acceptable,
dimethipin
had
a
terrestrial
field
half­
life
(
0
 
15
cm
soil
layer)
of
136
days
and
117
days
on
a
bare
plot
and
a
field
cropped
with
cotton
in
Georgia
(
MRID
43216001).
The
major
route
of
dissipation
of
dimethipin
under
terrestrial
field
conditions
at
the
test
site
(
bare
and
cropped
plots)
could
not
be
determined
because
soil
samples
were
not
analyzed
for
degradates
of
dimethipin,
leaching
was
not
observed
below
the
75
 
90
cm
soil
layer,
and
volatilization
and
runoff
were
not
studied.

Dimethipin
was
sprayed
twice
(
7
days
apart)
to
both
test
plots
at
target
application
rates
of
0.336
kg
a.
i./
ha
(
0.3
lb
a.
i./
A,
first
application)
and
0.252
kg
a.
i./
ha
(
0.225
lb
a.
i./
A,
second
application),
respectively,
in
separate
bare
and
cropped
test
plots
that
were
each
divided
into
three
subplots
measuring
approximately
7
x
37
m.
The
first
application
was
made
when
the
cotton
crop
was
at
the
50%
open
boll
stage.
The
test
substance
was
applied
at
100%
of
the
maximum
annual
rate
(
0.59
kg
a.
i./
ha
or
0.53
lb
a.
i./
A).
Rainfall
was
supplemented
with
irrigation
to
reach
134
 
136%
of
the
30­
year
average
rainfall
during
the
study
period.
A
control
plot
was
located
71
 
88
m
away
from
the
two
treated
plots.
Soil
samples
were
taken
at
­
1,
0,
1,
2,
6,
7,
10,
14,
21,
35,
67,
97,
127,
157,
187,
247,
367,
490,
and
547
days
­
47­
post­
treatment
of
the
first
application
(­
7,
­
6,
­
5,
­
1,
0,
3,
7,
14,
28,
60,
90,
120,
150,
180,
240,
360,
483,
and
540
days
post­
treatment
of
the
second
application)
to
a
depth
of
0
 
120
cm.
In
the
bare
plot,
the
maximum
mean
concentration
of
dimethipin
in
the
0
 
15
cm
soil
depth
following
the
first
application
was
0.090
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
detected
at
2
days
after
the
application),
which
is
69.2%
of
the
target
application
rate,
based
on
one
application.
Following
the
second
application,
dimethipin
was
detected
in
the
0
 
15
cm
soil
depth
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
0.209
mg
a.
i./
kg
on
the
day
of
the
second
application,
decreased
to
0.078
mg
a.
i./
kg
by
60
days
post­
treatment
of
the
second
application
and
was
last
detected
at
0.013
mg
a.
i./
kg
at
360
days.
Dimethipin
initially
appeared
in
the
15
 
30,
30
 
45,
45
 
60,
and
60
 
75
cm
soil
layers
at
the
90­
and
120­
day
post­
treatment
sampling
intervals
following
the
second
application.
The
maximum
dimethipin
concentrations
by
depth
were
0.035
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
120
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
15
 
30
cm
soil
depth,
0.016
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
150
and
240
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
30
 
45
cm
depth,
0.015
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
150
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
45
 
60
cm
depth,
and
0.010
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
90
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
60
 
75
cm
soil
depth.

In
the
cropped
plot,
the
maximum
mean
concentration
of
dimethipin
in
the
0
 
15
cm
soil
depth
following
the
first
application
was
0.066
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
detected
at
6
days
after
the
application),
which
is
49.6%
of
the
target
application
rate,
based
on
one
application.
Following
the
second
application,
dimethipin
was
detected
in
the
0
 
15
cm
soil
depth
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
0.100
mg
a.
i./
kg
at
14
days
after
the
second
application,
decreased
to
0.047
 
0.051
mg
a.
i./
kg
by
90
 
120
days
post­
treatment
of
the
second
application
and
was
last
detected
at
0.014
mg
a.
i./
kg
at
240
days.
Dimethipin
was
observed
in
deeper
soil
layers
over
time,
appearing
in
the
15
 
30
cm
soil
layer
at
60
days
after
the
second
application,
in
the
30
 
45
and
45
 
60
cm
soil
depths
at
180
days
after
the
second
application
and
in
the
75
 
90
cm
soil
depth
at
240
days
after
the
second
application.
The
maximum
dimethipin
concentrations
by
depth
were
0.021
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
150
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
15
 
30
cm
soil
depth,
0.015
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
180
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
30
 
45
cm
depth,
0.012
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
180
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
45
 
60
cm
depth,
and
0.011
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
240
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
75
 
90
cm
soil
depth.

In
a
second
field
dissipation
study
classified
as
acceptable
the
terrestrial
field
half­
life
of
dimethipin
in
the
surface
(
0
 
15
cm)
soil
of
a
Mississippi
cotton
field
was
calculated
as
25
days
(
MRID
43216002).
Dimethipin
was
sprayed
twice
(
7
days
apart)
at
target
application
rates
of
0.336
kg
a.
i./
ha
(
0.3
lb
a.
i./
A)
and
0.252
kg
a.
i./
ha
(
0.225
lb
a.
i./
A),
respectively,
in
a
single
test
plot
divided
into
three
subplots
measuring
approximately
10
x
37
m.
The
first
application
was
made
when
the
cotton
crop
was
at
the
75%
open
boll
stage
and
the
second
at
approximately
90%
open
boll.
The
test
substance
was
applied
at
100%
of
the
maximum
annual
rate
(
0.59
kg
a.
i./
ha
or
0.53
lb
a.
i./
A).
Rainfall
was
supplemented
with
irrigation
to
reach
116%
of
the
30­
year
average
rainfall
during
the
study
period.
A
control
plot
was
located
approximately
46
m
away
from
the
treated
plot.
Soil
samples
were
taken
at
­
1,
0,
1,
2,
6,
7,
10,
14,
21,
35,
65,
97,
126,
159,
187,
247,
367,
489,
and
548
days
post­
treatment
of
the
first
application
(­
7,
­
6,
­
5,
­
1,
0,
3,
7,
14,
28,
58,
90,
119,
152,
180,
240,
360,
482,
and
541
days
post­
treatment
of
the
second
application)
to
a
depth
of
0
 
120
cm.
The
maximum
mean
concentration
of
dimethipin
in
the
0
 
15
cm
soil
depth
following
the
first
application
was
0.080
mg
a.
i./
kg,
which
is
51.3%
of
the
target
application
rate,
based
on
one
application.
Following
the
second
application,
dimethipin
was
detected
in
the
0
 
15
cm
soil
depth
at
a
­
48­
maximum
concentration
of
0.147
mg
a.
i./
kg
on
the
day
of
the
second
application,
decreased
to
0.088
mg
a.
i./
kg
by
28­
days
post­
treatment
of
the
second
application
and
was
last
detected
at
0.012
mg
a.
i./
kg
at
90
days.
Dimethipin
was
observed
in
deeper
soil
layers
over
time,
appearing
in
the
15
 
30
cm
soil
layer
at
6
days
after
the
first
application,
in
the
30
 
45
and
45
 
60
cm
soil
depths
at
58
days
after
the
second
application,
and
in
the
60
 
75
cm
soil
depth
at
119
days
after
the
second
application.
The
maximum
dimethipin
concentrations
by
depth
were
0.032
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
90
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
15
 
30
cm
soil
depth,
0.057
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
58
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
30
 
45
cm
depth,
0.050
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
119
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
45
 
60
cm
depth,
and
0.030
mg
a.
i./
kg
(
at
240
days
after
the
second
application)
in
the
60
 
75
cm
soil
depth.
The
major
route
of
dissipation
of
dimethipin
under
terrestrial
field
conditions
at
the
test
site
could
not
be
determined
because
soil
samples
were
not
analyzed
for
degradates
of
dimethipin,
leaching
was
not
observed
below
the
60
 
75
cm
soil
layer,
and
volatilization
and
runoff
were
not
studied.
­
49­
Appendix
B.
Aquatic
Exposure
Model
(
GENEEC2)
and
Results
1.
Surface
Water
Modeling
a.
Background
Information
on
GENEEC2
GENEEC2
is
a
screening
model
designed
to
estimate
the
pesticide
concentrations
found
in
water
for
use
in
ecological
risk
assessments.
As
such,
it
provides
high­
end
values
on
the
concentrations
that
might
be
found
in
ecologically
sensitive
environments
due
to
the
use
of
a
pesticide.
GENEEC2
is
a
single­
event
model
(
one
runoff
event),
but
can
account
for
spray
drift
from
multiple
applications.
GENEEC2
is
hardwired
to
represent
a
10­
ha
field
immediately
adjacent
to
a
1­
ha
pond,
2
meters
deep
with
no
outlet.
The
pond
receives
a
spray
drift
event
from
each
application
plus
one
runoff
event.
The
runoff
event
moves
10%
of
the
available
pesticide
into
the
pond
during
the
rainfall
event.
This
amount
can
be
reduced
from
the
applied
amount
due
to
degradation
on
field
and
the
effects
of
binding
to
soil.
Spray
drift
is
equal
to
1%
of
the
applied
concentration
from
the
ground
spray
application
and
5%
for
aerial
application.

b.
Model
Inputs
and
Results
GENEEC2
was
run
for
cotton
and
apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock
crops,
using
the
proposed
label
application
rates
(
0.56
and
0.077
lb
a.
i./
A,
respectively).
An
aerial
application
was
chosen
in
accordance
with
the
product
label
and
the
default
setting
for
the
depth
of
incorporation
of
0
inches
was
used.
According
to
the
Agency's
guidelines
for
selecting
inputs
for
Tier
1
models
(
EPA
2002).
Table
B­
1
shows
the
input
parameters
used
in
GENEEC2
models
(
see
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
for
GENEEC2
results).

The
peak,
24­
hour
expected
EECs
generated
from
FIRST
are
11.86
and
7.09
ppb
and
the
annual
averages
are
8.04
and
4.81
ppb
for
cotton
and
apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock,
respectively
(
see
Table
B­
2).

Table
B­
1.
Input
parameters
used
in
GENEEC2.

Input
Variable
Parameter
Value
Source
Water
Solubility
at
25

C
(
ppm)
4,600
Dimethipin
RED,
PC
Chapter
Table
B­
1.
Input
parameters
used
in
GENEEC2.

Input
Variable
Parameter
Value
Source
­
50­
Hydrolysis
Half­
life
at
pH
7
0
(
stable)
MRID
24023789;
use
0
as
per
EFED
Input
Value
Guidance
(
2002)

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
1,223
t1/
2
=
407.7
days
from
MRID
42429606;
EFED
Input
Value
Guidance
(
2002)
for
single
values
(
use
three
times
the
half­
life)

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
2,446
No
data;
EFED
Input
Value
Guidance
(
2002)
for
data
gaps
(
use
two
times
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
input
value)

Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
224
MRID
41967101
Adsorption/
Desorption
Coefficient
(
lowest
non­
sand
Kd)
0.01
MRID
41660901
Organic
Carbon
Adsorption/
Desorption
Coefficient
(
lowest
non­
sand
KOC)
Not
applicable
Pesticide
is
Wetted­
in
No
Proposed
Label
Application
Method
(
for
maximum
application
rate)
Aerial
Proposed
Label
Application
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Cotton:
0.56
Apple/
non­
bearing
nursery
stock:
0.077
Proposed
Label
Applications
Permitted
per
Year
1
Proposed
Label
Application
Interval
(
minimum
days)
Not
applicable
Proposed
Label
Depth
of
Incorporation
Not
applicable
Proposed
Label
­
51­
­
52­
Surface
Water
Modeling:
GENEEC2.

GENEEC2
Model
Output
RUN
No.
1
FOR
dimethipin
ON
cotton
*
INPUT
VALUES
*

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Kd
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
ZONE(
FT)
(
IN)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

.560(
.560)
1
1
.0
4600.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1223.10
2
N/
A
223.60­
27726.40
******
2247.88
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
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

33.89
33.88
33.83
33.70
33.61
RUN
No.
2
FOR
dimethipin
ON
apple
*
INPUT
VALUES
*

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Kd
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
ZONE(
FT)
(
IN)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

.077(
.077)
1
1
.0
4600.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
­
53­
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1223.10
2
N/
A
223.60­
27726.40
******
2247.88
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
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

4.66
4.66
4.65
4.63
4.62
­
54­
Appendix
C.
ELL­
Fate
Model
and
Results
The
model
output
from
ELL­
FATE
for
dimethipin
is
in
the
attached
Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheet
"
Dimethipin
ELLFATE
1.4".

Kenaga
Estimates
&
ELL­
FATE
Model
 
Explanation
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
estimates
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
and
other
researchers
(
1994)
were
used
to
approximate
the
residues
on
plants
and
insects.
Hoerger­
Kenaga
categories
represent
preferred
foods
of
various
terrestrial
vertebrates:
fruits
and
bud
and
shoot
tips
of
leafy
crops
are
preferred
by
upland
game
birds;
leaves
and
stems
of
leafy
crops
are
consumed
by
hares
and
hoofed
mammals;
seeds,
seed
pods
and
grasses
are
consumed
by
rodents;
and
insects
are
consumed
by
various
birds,
mammals,
reptiles
and
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians.
Terrestrial
vertebrates
also
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
applied
to
soil
by
ingesting
pesticide
granules
and/
or
pesticide­
laden
soil
when
foraging.
Rich
in
minerals,
soil
comprises
5
to
30%
of
dietary
intake
by
many
wildlife
species
(
Beyer
and
Conner,
1994).

Hoerger­
Kenaga
pesticide
environmental
concentration
estimates
were
based
on
residue
data
correlated
from
more
than
20
pesticides
on
more
than
60
crops.
Representative
of
many
geographic
regions
(
7
states)
and
a
wide
array
of
cultural
practices,
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates
also
considered
differences
in
vegetative
yield,
surface/
mass
ratio,
and
interception
factors.
In
1994,
Fletcher,
Nellessen,
and
Pfleeger
reexamined
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
simple
linear
model
(
y=
B1x,
where
x=
application
rate
and
y=
pesticide
residue
in
ppm)
to
determine
whether
the
terrestrial
EEC's
were
accurate.
They
compiled
a
data
set
of
pesticide
day­
0
and
residue­
decay
data
involving
121
pesticides
(
85
insecticides,
27
herbicides,
and
9
fungicides
from
17
different
chemical
classes)
on
118
species
of
plants.
After
analyses,
their
conclusions
were
that
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates
needed
only
minor
modifications
to
elevate
the
predictive
values
for
forage
and
fruit
categories
from
58
to
135
ppm
and
from
7
to
15
ppm,
respectively.
Otherwise,
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates
were
accurate
in
predicting
the
maximum
residue
values
after
a
1
lb
ai/
A
application.
Mean
values
represent
the
arithmetic
mean
of
values
from
samples
collected
the
day
of
pesticide
treatment.
These
values,
in
the
table
below,
are
the
predicted
0­
day
maximum
and
mean
residues
of
a
pesticide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian,
mammalian,
reptilian,
or
terrestrial­
phase
amphibian
food
items
immediately
following
a
direct
single
application
at
a
1
lb
ai/
A
application
rate.
For
pesticides
applied
as
a
nongranular
product
(
e.
g.,
liquid,
dust),
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
on
food
items
following
product
application
are
compared
to
LC50
values
to
assess
risk.

Spreadsheet­
based
Terrestrial
Exposure
Values
A
first
order
decay
assumption
is
used
to
determine
the
concentration
at
each
day
after
initial
application
based
on
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
decay
is
calculated
from
the
first
order
rate
equation:
­
55­
CT
=
Cie­
kT
or
in
integrated
form:

ln
(
CT/
Ci)
=
­
kT
Where:

CT
=
concentration
at
time
T
on
day
zero.

Ci
=
concentration
in
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
present
initially
(
on
day
zero)
on
the
surfaces.

Ci
=
is
calculated
based
on
Kenaga
and
Fletcher
by
multiplying
the
application
rate,
in
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre,
by
240
for
short
grass,
110
for
tall
grass,
135
for
broad­
leaf
plants/
insects,
and
15
for
seeds.
Additional
applications
are
converted
from
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
to
ppm
on
the
plant
surface
and
the
addition
mass
added
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application.

k
=
degradation
rate
constant
determined
from
studies
of
hydrolysis,
photolysis,
microbial
degradation,
etc.
Since
degradation
rate
is
generally
reported
in
terms
of
half­
life,
the
rate
constant
is
calculated
from
the
input
half­
life
(
k
=
ln
2/
T1/
2)
instead
of
being
input
directly.
Choosing
which
process
controls
the
degradation
rate
and
which
half­
life
to
use
in
terrestrial
exposure
calculations
is
open
for
debate
and
should
be
done
by
a
qualified
scientist.

T
=
time,
in
days,
since
the
start
of
the
simulation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0.
The
simulation
is
set
to
run
for
365
days.

The
program
calculates
concentration
on
each
type
of
surface
on
a
daily
interval
for
one
year.
The
maximum
concentration
during
the
year
and
the
average
concentration
during
the
first
56
days
are
calculated.
­
56­
Appendix
D.
TerrPlant
Model
and
Results
TerrPlant
was
not
run
for
this
risk
assessment
because
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data
valid
for
these
calculations
were
unavailable.
­
57­
Appendix
E.
Ecological
Effects
Data
1.
Overview
The
toxicity
testing
required
does
not
test
all
species
of
birds,
fish,
mammals,
invertebrates,
and
plants.
Only
two
surrogate
species
for
birds
(
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
ducks)
are
used
to
represent
all
bird
species
(
over
900
in
the
U.
S.),
three
species
of
freshwater
fish
(
rainbow
trout,
bluegill
sunfish,
and
fathead
minnow)
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
species
(
over
900
in
the
U.
S.),
and
one
estuarine/
marine
fish
species
(
sheepshead
minnow)
is
used
to
represent
all
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
over
300
in
the
U.
S.).
The
surrogate
species
for
terrestrial
invertebrates
is
the
honey
bee,
for
freshwater
invertebrates
the
surrogate
species
is
usually
the
water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
and
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
the
surrogate
species
are
mysid
shrimp
and
eastern
oyster.
These
five
species
are
used
to
represent
all
invertebrates
species
(
over
10,000
in
the
U.
S.).
For
plants,
there
are
ten
surrogate
species
used
for
all
terrestrial
plants
and
five
surrogate
species
used
for
all
aquatic
plants.
There
are
over
20,000
plant
species
in
the
U.
S.
which
includes
flowering
plants,
conifers,
ferns,
mosses,
liverworts,
hornworts,
and
lichens
with
over
27,000
species
of
algae
worldwide.

The
surrogate
species
testing
scheme
used
in
this
assessment
assumes
that
a
chemical's
mechanism
of
action
and
toxicity
found
for
avian
species
is
similar
to
that
in
all
reptiles
(
over
300
species
in
the
U.
S.).
The
same
assumption
applies
to
amphibians
(
over
200
species
in
the
U.
S.)
and
fish;
the
tadpole
stage
of
amphibians
is
assumed
to
have
the
same
sensitivity
as
a
fish.
Therefore,
the
results
from
toxicity
tests
on
surrogate
species
are
considered
applicable
to
other
member
species
within
their
class
and
are
extrapolated
to
reptiles
and
amphibians.
The
U.
S.
species
numbers
noted
in
this
section
were
taken
from:
http://
www.
natureserve.
org/
summary
(
NatureServe:
An
online
encyclopedia
of
life
[
web
application],
2000)
and
the
worldwide
species
number
from
Ecological
Planning
and
Toxicology,
Inc.,
1996.

2.
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
a.
Birds:
Acute
and
Subacute
One
acute
oral
toxicity
study
using
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
(
a
waterfowl)
or
bobwhite
quail
(
an
upland
game
bird).
Results
of
an
acute
exposure
study
in
mallard
ducks
study
are
tabulated
below
in
Table
E­
1.
Since
the
LD50
value
of
880
mg
a.
i./
kg
is
in
the
range
of
501
 
2,000
mg/
kg,
dimethipin
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
avian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
Data
submitted
in
support
of
the
avian
acute
oral
toxicity
test
requirement,
Guideline
71­
1(
a)
(
Acute
Avian
Oral,
Quail/
Duck),
are
considered
useful
for
purposes
of
risk
assessment
(
MRID
41955901).
­
58­
Table
E­
1.
Avian
acute
oral
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
LD50
(
mg
a.
i./
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Mallard
ducks
(
Anus
platyrhynchos)
98.64
(
Harvade
Technical,
administered
by
gelatin
capsule)
880
Effects
noted:
decreased
body
weight
and
food
consumption
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41955901
(
Pedersen
1991)
Core
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

Categories
of
acute
toxicity
for
avian
species
can
be
classified
according
to
the
toxicity
reference
value
(
LC50)
given
by
a
study
(
EPA
2001):

LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
<
50
Very
highly
toxic
50
 
500
Highly
toxic
501
 
1000
Moderately
toxic
1001
 
5000
Slightly
toxic
>
5000
Practically
nontoxic
Two
subacute
dietary
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
(
Guideline
71­
2(
b),
Acute
Avian
Diet,
Duck)
and
bobwhite
quail
(
Guideline
71­
2(
a),
Acute
Avian
Diet,
Quail).
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below
in
Table
E­
2.
The
data
that
were
submitted
for
both
mallard
ducks
and
bobwhite
quail
show
that
the
LC50
is
>
5,000
ppm
a.
i.;
therefore,
dimethipin
is
categorized
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.
The
data
submitted
under
Guideline
71­
2(
b)
are
considered
useful
for
purposes
of
quantifying
risks
to
avian
species
(
MRID
41955902).
However,
the
study
in
bobwhite
quail
was
classified
as
supplemental
because
the
test
material
was
not
homogeneously
incorporated
into
the
basal
feed
(
MRID
41945901).
Therefore,
the
data
on
the
bobwhite
quail
study
are
considered
less
representative
than
the
data
­
59­
on
the
mallard
duck
for
purposes
of
risk
assessment.

Table
E­
2.
Avian
subchronic
dietary
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
LD50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
1
Toxicity
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification2
Mallard
ducks
(
Anus
platyrhynchos)
98.64
(
Harvade
Technical)
LC50
>
5,000
(
no
mortality)

NOAEC
(
for
decreased
body
weight)
1,250
Practically
non­
toxic
MRID
41955902
(
Pedersen
1991)
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
98.64
(
Harvade
technical)
LC50
>
5,000
(
measured
concentration
6,046)

NOAEC
(
for
mortality
and
signs
of
toxicity)
5,000
(
measured
concentration
in
food
6,046)

LOAEC
(
for
mortality
and
signs
of
toxicity)
>
5,000
(
measured
concentration
in
food
6,046
Practically
non­
toxic
MRID
41945901
(
Pedersen
1991)
Supplemental
(
classified
as
supplemental
because
test
material
was
not
homogeneously
incorporated
in
the
basal
feed)

15­
day
dietary
exposure
followed
by
additional
3­
day
observation
period.

2Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

b.
Birds:
Chronic
­
60­
Avian
reproduction
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
for
dimethipin
when
one
or
more
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
birds
may
be
subject
to
repeated
or
continuous
exposure
to
the
pesticide,
especially
preceding
or
during
the
mating
season,
(
2)
the
pesticide
is
stable
in
the
environment
to
the
extent
that
potentially
toxic
amounts
may
persist
in
animal
feed,
(
3)
the
pesticide
is
stored
or
accumulated
in
plant
or
animal
tissues,
and/
or
(
4)
information
derived
from
mammalian
reproduction
studies
indicates
reproduction
in
terrestrial
vertebrates
may
be
adversely
affected
by
the
anticipated
use
of
the
product.
For
dimethipin,
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.
No
data
were
submitted
under
Guidelines
71­
4(
a)
Avian
Reproduction,
Quail
and
71­
4(
b)
Avian
Reproduction,
Duck.,
so
chronic
risks
to
avian
species
could
not
be
assessed.

c.
Mammals:
Acute
and
Chronic
In
general,
categories
of
acute
toxicity
for
mammalian
species
can
be
classified
according
to
the
toxicity
reference
value
(
LD50)
given
by
a
study
(
EPA
2001):

LD50
(
mg
a.
i./
kg)
Toxicity
Category
<
10
Very
highly
toxic
10
 
50
Highly
toxic
51
 
500
Moderately
toxic
501
 
2000
Slightly
toxic
>
2000
Practically
nontoxic
Wild
mammal
testing
is
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
depending
on
the
results
of
lower
tier
laboratory
mammalian
studies,
intended
use
pattern,
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics.
In
most
cases,
rat
or
mouse
toxicity
values
obtained
from
the
Agency's
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED)
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.
These
toxicity
values
are
reported
below
in
Table
E­
3.
Based
on
these
results,
dimethipin
is
categorized
as
moderately
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
Although
HED
did
not
conduct
an
acute
aggregate
risk
assessment
due
to
lack
of
an
endpoint
attributable
to
a
single
exposure
scenario
for
dimethipin,
the
oral
LD50
of
458
mg/
kg
is
used
to
assess
acute
risk.
A
NOAEL
of
200
ppm
a.
i.
was
obtained
in
a
2­
generation
reproductive
study
in
rats
(
MRID
9308903),
for
use
in
chronic
risk
assessment.
­
61­
Table
E­
3.
Mammalian
toxicity
(
from
HED).

Species
%
a.
i.
Test
Type
Toxicity
Value
and
Affected
Endpoints
Identification
Number
Study
Classification
Rat
Not
reported
by
HED
Acute
oral
toxicity
LD50
=
458
mg/
kg
(

)

LD50
=
546
mg/
kg
(

)
MRID
42429601
No
classification
made
by
HED
Rat
99.7
2­
Generation
Reproductive
study
Dietary
exposure
to
0,
50,
200,
or
800
ppm
Parental
systemic
NOAEL
for

=
200
ppm
for
decreased
body
weight
and
body
weight
gain
(
equivalent
to
11.8­
29.0
mg/
kg/
day);
NOAEL
for

>
800
ppm
(
equivalent
to
35.5­
115.7
mg/
kg/
day)

Reproductive
toxicity
NOAEL
for

and

>
800
ppm
(
equivalent
to
35.5­
115.7
mg/
kg/
day
in

and
31.2­
12­.
3
mg/
kg/
day
in

)

Offspring
toxicity
NOAEL
for

and

=
200
ppm
for
decreased
body
weights
and/
or
decreased
body
weight
gain
by
the
F1a,
F2a,
and
F2b
pups
(
equivalent
to11.8­
92.0
mg/
kg/
day
in

and
9.2­
28.7
mg/
kg/
day
in

)
MRID
93089034
acceptable/

guideline
­
62­
d.
Terrestrial
Insects:
Acute
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
dimethipin
because
its
outdoor
treatment
use
will
result
in
honey
bee
exposure.
The
acute
contact
LD50,
using
the
honey
bee,
Apis
mellifera,
is
an
acute
contact,
single­
dose
laboratory
study
designed
to
estimate
the
quantity
of
toxicant
required
to
cause
50%
mortality
in
a
test
population
of
bees.
The
TGAI
is
administered
by
one
of
two
methods:
whole
body
exposure
to
technical
pesticide
in
a
nontoxic
dust
diluent;
or,
topical
exposure
to
technical
pesticide
via
micro­
applicator.
The
median
lethal
dose
(
LD50)
is
expressed
in
micrograms
of
active
ingredient
per
bee
(
µ
g
a.
i./
bee).
The
following
toxicity
category
descriptions
have
been
used
to
characterize
honey
bee
acute
contact
toxicity
values:

LD50
(
µ
g
a.
i./
bee)
Toxicity
Category
<
2
Highly
toxic
2
 
<
11
Moderately
toxic
>
11
Practically
nontoxic
Results
of
the
acute
exposure
studies
in
honey
bees
are
tabulated
below
(
Table
E­
4).
The
acute
contact
study
for
the
dimethipin
formulation
is
considered
to
be
a
core
study
because,
despite
the
fact
that
the
TGAI
was
not
tested,
dimethipin
was
shown
to
have
a
low
toxicity
to
bees.
Based
on
the
reported
toxicity
values,
it
is
not
clear
if
the
LD50
value
is
expressed
in
terms
of
µ
g
a.
i./
bee
or
µ
g
formulation/
bee.
The
Harvade
25F
formulation
contains
22.4%
a.
i.
Taking
a
conservative
approach
by
assuming
that
the
LD50
value
is
expressed
in
terms
of
the
formulation,
the
LD50
value
expressed
in
terms
of
TGAI
would
be
22.4
µ
g
a.
i./
bee
(
100
µ
g
formulation/
bee
×
22.4%
a.
i./
formulation
=
22.4
µ
g
a.
i./
bee).
Thus,
dimethipin
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
bees
on
a
contact
exposure
basis.
Data
submitted
under
Guideline
141­
1,
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact,
are
considered
useful
for
purposes
of
risk
assessment
(
MRID
41264606).

The
acute
oral
toxicity
study
(
MRID
41264606)
is
categorized
as
supplemental
because
the
submission
of
honey
bee
acute
oral
toxicity
studies
is
not
a
guideline
requirement
and
the
core
classification
is
reserved
for
guideline
studies
that
fulfill
guideline
requirements.
­
63­
Table
E­
4
Non­
target
insect
acute
contact
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
Toxicity
Value
and
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
Harvade
25F
 
purity
not
reported
Acute
contact
study;

48­
hour
LC50
>
100
µ
g/
bee2;
practically
nontoxic
MRID
41264606
(
Cole
1985)
Core3
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
Harvade
25F
 
purity
not
reported
Acute
oral
study;

48­
hour
LC50
>
100
µ
g/
bee2;
not
rated4
MRID
41264606
(
Cole
1985)
Supplemental3
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

2Not
specified
in
DER
if
this
value
is
in
terms
of
µ
g
a.
i./
bee
or
µ
g
formulation/
bee.

3Both
the
acute
contact
and
acute
oral
studies
were
reported
in
the
same
study
(
MRID
4126460).
Although
both
portions
of
this
study
are
considered
scientifically
sound,
only
the
acute
contact
study
is
classified
as
"
core",
because
acute
oral
toxicity
studies
in
honey
bees
are
not
a
guideline
requirement.

4OPP
does
not
categorize
honey
bee
acute
oral
toxicity.

3.
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
a.
Freshwater
Fish:
Acute
In
general,
categories
of
acute
toxicity
for
aquatic
organisms
can
be
classified
according
to
the
toxicity
reference
value
(
LC50)
given
by
a
study
(
EPA
2001):

LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
<
0.1
Very
highly
toxic
0.1
 
1
Highly
toxic
>
1
 
10
Moderately
toxic
>
10
 
100
Slightly
toxic
­
64­
>
100
Practically
nontoxic
Two
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
fish.
The
preferred
test
species
are
bluegill
sunfish
(
a
warmwater
fish)
and
rainbow
trout
(
a
coldwater
fish).
The
data
that
were
submitted
show
that
the
LC50
is
20.9
ppm
for
bluegill
sunfish
(
MRID
41945902)
and
52.8
ppm
for
rainbow
trout
(
MRID
41945903)
(
Table
E­
5).
Based
on
these
results,
dimethipin
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
EFED
will
use
the
worstcase
value,
LC50
of
20.9
ppm,
for
evaluating
acute
risks
to
freshwater
fish.
Data
submitted
under
Guideline
(#
72­
1)
are
considered
useful
for
purposes
of
risk
assessment
(
MRID
41945902;
MRID
41945903).

Table
E­
5
Freshwater
fish
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
96­
Hour
LC50
(
mg
a.
i./
L)
Toxicity
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lopomis
macrochirus)
98.18
(
Harvade
technical)
20.9
NOAEC
(
for
mortality
and
signs
of
toxicity):
6.3
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41945902
(
Ward
1991)
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
98.18
(
Harvade
technical)
52.8
NOAEC
(
for
mortality
and
signs
of
toxicity:)
10.3
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41945903
(
Ward
1991)
Core
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

b.
Freshwater
Fish:
Chronic
A
freshwater
fish
early
life­
stage
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
dimethipin
because
the
end­
use
product
may
be
transported
to
water
from
the
intended
use
site,
and
the
following
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
dimethipin
is
intended
for
use
such
that
its
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent
­
65­
regardless
of
toxicity;
(
2)
studies
on
aquatic
invertebrates
showed
reproductive
effects
(
daphnid
21­
day
LOAEC
=
1.0
ppm);
and/
or
(
3)
dimethipin
is
persistent
in
water.
As
summarized
in
Table
E­
6
results
of
an
early­
life
stage
study
in
fathead
minnow
yield
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values
for
larval
survival
of
12
ppm
and
24
ppm,
respectively
(
MRID
00126069).
Although
this
study
is
scientifically
sound,
it
is
classified
as
supplemental
due
to
several
deviations
from
guidance,
including
the
failure
to
report
purity
of
the
test
substance.
Thus,
although
data
reported
in
this
study
are
usable
in
this
risk
assessment,
the
Guideline
(
72­
4a)
has
not
been
fulfilled.

Table
E­
6
Freshwater
fish
chronic
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
Toxicity
Value
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
Purity
not
reported
(
Harvade
Technical)
Fish
Early­
life
Stage
Study.

Embryos
exposed
for
31
days,
from
hatch
to
31
days.

NOAEC
(
for
larval
survival):

12
ppm
LOAEC
(
for
larval
survival):

24
ppm
MRID
00126069
(
Wilson
and
Altshul,
no
date)
Supplemental
(
classified
as
supplemental
due
to
several
deviations
from
guidance,
including
purity
of
tecnical
not
reported)

1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

c.
Freshwater
Invertebrates:
Acute
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna.
The
data
that
were
submitted
show
that
dimethipin
is
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
daphnids,
with
acute
48­
hour
LC50
values
ranging
from
6.6
to
28
ppm
(
Table
E­
7).
Although
EFED
typically
uses
the
worst­
case
value
for
evaluating
acute
toxic
exposure
to
freshwater
invertebrates,
the
lowest
LC50/
EC50
of
6.6
ppm
(
MRID
46063401)
was
reported
in
a
study
using
the
dimethipin
formulation
Harvade
25F
(
purity
23.2%
a.
i.),
not
the
TGAI.
Thus,
the
EC50
value
of
20
ppm
a.
i
(
MRID
not
provided,
LeBlanc
1977)
is
used
for
evaluating
acute
toxic
exposure
to
freshwater
invertebrates.
The
Guideline
requirements
(
72­
2)
for
acute
invertebrate
toxicity
are
fulfilled
(
MRID
not
provided,
LeBlanc,
1977;
MRID
00126070;
MRID
41945904).
­
66­
Table
E­
7.
Freshwater
invertebrate
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
LC50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Toxicity
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Daphnia
magna
99.2
(
Harvade
Technical)
48­
hour
LC50:
20
NOAEC:
14
Slightly
toxic
00086315
(
LeBlanc
1977)
Core
Daphnia
magna
98.18
(
Harvade
Technical)
96­
hour
LC50:
21.3
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41945904
(
Ward
1991)
Core
Daphnia
magna
23.2
(
Harvade
25F)
48­
hour
LC50/
EC50:
6.6
NOAEC
(
for
mortality/
immobility):
3.16
LOAEC
(
for
mortality/
immobility):
9.82
Moderately
toxic
(
FP)
MRID
46063401
(
Czech
2003)
Supplemental
(
classified
as
supplemental
because
not
all
treatments
were
analytically
verified
at
0
and
48
hours)

1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

d.
Freshwater
Invertebrate:
Chronic
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
life­
cycle
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
dimethipin.
The
preferred
test
is
a
21­
day
life
cycle
on
Daphnia
magna.
The
data,
summarized
in
Table
E­
8,
that
were
submitted
show
that
dimethipin
has
the
potential
for
chronic
toxicity
to
daphnids
and
possibly
other
freshwater
invertebrates.
Exposure
to
1.0
ppm
a.
i.
resulted
in
growth
effects
and
exposure
to
2.1
ppm
a.
i.
reduced
reproduction
(
young/
adult/
reproductive
day).
The
NOAEC
of
0.61
ppm
a.
i.
(
length)
is
used
in
assessing
risk.
Risk
quotients
under
evaluated
uses
are
far
below
a
Level
of
Concern.
The
Guideline
(
72­
4)
is
fulfilled
(
MRID
00128803).
One
chronic
toxicity
study
in
daphnids
was
classified
as
Invalid
(
MRID
00126070).
­
67­
­
68­
Table
E­
8.
Freshwater
invertebrate
chronic
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
Toxicity
Value
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Daphnia
magna
99.1
(
Harvade
technical)
21­
day
life­
cycle
test.
Mortality,
number
of
young/
adult/
reproductive
day,
and
length
(
growth)
decreased
by
dimethipin
exposure.
Most
sensitive
effect
was
length.

Length:

NOAEC:
0.61
ppm
a.
i.

LOAEC:
1.0
ppm
a.
i.

Number
of
young/
reproduction
day:

NOAEC:
1.0
ppm
a.
i.

LOAEC:
2.1
ppm
a.
i.

Mortality:

NOAEC:
3.3
ppm
a.
i.

LOAEC:
9.1
ppm
a.
i.
MRID
00128803
(
Forbis
et
al.
1982)
Core
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

4.
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Animals
a.
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish:
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
fish
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
dimethipin.
The
preferred
test
species
is
the
sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus).
The
data
submitted
showed
that
the
LC50
=
17.8
ppm
(
Table
E­
9;
therefore,
dimethipin
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
The
Guideline
(
72­
3)
is
fulfilled
(
MRID
41663901).
­
69­
Table
E­
9.
Estuarine/
marine
fish
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
96­
hour
LC50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Toxicity
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cypridodon
variegatus)
91.18
(
Harvade
technical)
96­
hour
LC50:
17.8
NOAEC
(
for
mortality):
11.0
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41663901
(
Ward
1990)
Core
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
not
is
scientifically
valid,
does
not
satisfy
guideline
b.
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish:
Chronic
No
data
on
the
effects
of
chronic
exposure
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
to
dimethipin
were
submitted.

c.
Estuarine/
Marine
Aquatic
Invertebrates:
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
dimethipin
because
the
end­
use
product
is
intended
for
direct
application
to
the
estuarine/
marine
environment
or
the
active
ingredient
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment
because
of
its
use
in
coastal
communities.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mysid
shrimp
and
eastern
oyster.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
core
studies
summarized
in
Table
E­
10,
dimethipin
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
the
eastern
oyster
(
96­
hour
EC50
values
of
12.4
ppm,
MRID
41666501,
and
18.6
ppm,
MRID
41663902)
and
to
mysid
shrimp
(
48­
hour
LC50
of
13.9
ppm
a.
i.,
MRID
41663902).
The
Core
LC50
value
reported
of
13.9
ppm
a.
i.,
from
the
mysid
shrimp
study
(
MRID
41663902)
will
be
used
to
characterize
risk
of
acute
dimethipin
exposures
to
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates,
and
for
use
in
an
acute/
chronic
extrapolation
based
on
freshwater
invertebrate
data.
The
data
requirements
(
72­
3b
and
72­
3c)
are
fulfilled
(
MRID
42643101;
MRID
41663902).
­
70­
Table
E­
10.
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
LC50/
EC50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Toxicity
Category
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Mysid
shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
91.18
(
Harvade
technical)
48­
hour
LC50:
13.9
NOAEC
(
for
mortality)
=
5.9
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41663902
(
Ward
1990)
Core
Eastern
oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
98.18
(
Harvade
technical)
96­
hour
shell
deposition
study
EC50
(
for
shell
growth)
=
12.4
ppm
NOAEC
(
for
shell
growth)
=
4.67
ppm
Slightly
toxic
MRID
41666501
(
Ward
1990)
Supplemental
Eastern
oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
98.51
(
Harvade
technical)
96­
hour
shell
deposition
study
EC50
(
for
shell
deposition):
18.6
ppm
a.
i.

NOAEC
(
for
shell
deposition)
=
10.1
ppm
a.
i.
Slightly
toxic
MRID
42643101
(
McElwee
1993)
Core
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

d.
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate:
Chronic
An
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
life­
cycle
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
dimethipin
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
transport
to
an
estuarine/
marine
environment
from
the
intended
use
site,
and
the
following
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
the
pesticide
is
intended
for
use
such
that
its
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent
regardless
of
toxicity;
and
(
2)
studies
of
other
organisms
­
71­
indicate
that
the
reproductive
physiology
of
fish
and/
or
invertebrates
may
be
affected,
physicochemical
properties
indicate
cumulative
effects,
or
the
pesticide
is
persistent
in
water.
The
preferred
test
species
is
mysid
shrimp.
No
data
were
submitted.
The
Guideline
(
72­
4c)
has
not
been
fulfilled.

5.
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
and
Terrestrial
Plants
a.
Aquatic
Plants
Several
aquatic
plant
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
dimethipin
to
non­
target
aquatic
plants.
The
recommendation
is
for
testing
on
five
species:
freshwater
green
alga
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum),
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba),
marine
diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum),
bluegreen
algae
(
Anabaena
flos­
aquae),
and
a
freshwater
diatom.
Studies
submitted
for
each
of
the
five
recommended
species,
summarized
in
Table
E­
11,
showed
that
exposure
to
dimethipin
at
levels
greater
than
2.5
ppm
reduced
growth
of
aquatic
non­
vascular
plants
and
levels
greater
than
0.8
ppm
decreased
the
frond
count
in
aquatic
vascular
plants.
EFED
will
use
the
worst­
case
EC50
value,
2.1
ppm
(
vascular
plants),
for
evaluating
acute
toxic
exposure
to
non­
target
aquatic
plants.
The
Guideline
requirements
(
123­
2)
are
fulfilled
(
MRID
42627104;
MRID
41264605;
MRID
42627103;
MRID
42627101;
MRID
42627102)
for
all
five
required
species.

Table
E­
11.
Aquatic
plant
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
EC50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
98.51
(
Harvade
technical)
Tier­
2
aquatic
plant
test.

Endpoint:
frond
count
14­
day
EC50
(
for
decreased
growth):
2.1
NOAEC:
0.8
LOAEC:
1.3
MRID
42627104
(
McElwee
1993)
Core
Table
E­
11.
Aquatic
plant
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
EC50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
­
72­
Green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum)
Purity
not
reported
(
dimethipin
technical)
Tier­
2
aquatic
plant
test.

Endpoint:
growth
(
not
specified)

5­
day
EC50
=
5.12
NOAEC:
2.5
MRID
41264605
(
Richards
and
Kaiser
1982)
Core
Saltwater
diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum)
98.51
(
Harvade
technical)
Tier­
2
aquatic
plant
test.
Endpoint:
cell
count
5­
day
EC50:
12.2
NOAEC:
7.3
LOAEC:
12.6
MRID
42627103
(
McElwee
1993)
Core
Freshwater
diatom
(
Nitzschia
palea)
98.51
(
Harvade
technical)
Tier­
2
aquatic
plant
test.

Endpoint:
cell
count
5­
day
EC50:
17.6
NOAEC:
11.3
LOAEC:
18.9
MRID
42627102
(
McElwee
1993)
Core
Blue­
green
algae
(
Anabaena
flosaquae
98.51
(
Harvade
technical)
Tier­
2
aquatic
plant
test.

Endpoint:
cell
count
5­
day
EC50:
99.5
NOAEC:
13.6
LOAEC:
22.4
MRID
42627101
(
McElwee
1993)
Core
Table
E­
11.
Aquatic
plant
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
EC50
(
ppm
a.
i.)
Identification
Number
Study
Classification1
­
73­
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
Invalid:
study
is
not
scientifically
sound
and
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

b.
Terrestrial
Plants
Terrestrial
Tier
II
studies
are
required
since
dimethipin
is
a
defoliant/
herbicide.
The
recommendations
for
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
studies
are
for
testing
of:
(
1)
six
species
of
at
least
four
dicotyledonous
families,
one
species
of
which
is
soybean
(
Glycine
max)
and
the
second
of
which
is
a
root
crop;
and
(
2)
four
species
of
at
least
two
monocotyledonous
families,
one
of
which
is
corn
(
Zea
mays).
All
studies
submitted
to
fulfill
Guidelines
123­
1(
a)
and
123­
1(
b)
are
currently
considered
invalid
for
risk
assessment.
The
available
data
are
not
sufficient
to
use
to
quantify
the
risks
of
dimethipin
exposure
to
non­
target
plants.
The
Guidelines
123­
1a
and
123­
1b
are
not
fulfilled.
­
74­
Appendix
F.
The
Risk
Quotient
Method
and
Levels
of
Concern
The
risks
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
are
determined
based
on
a
method
by
which
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
compared
with
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
This
method
provides
an
indication
of
a
chemical's
potential
to
cause
an
effect
in
the
field
from
effects
observed
in
laboratory
studies,
when
used
as
directed.
Risk
quotients
are
expressed
as
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
to
the
speciesspecific
toxicity
reference
value
(
TRV):

RQ
EEC
TRV
=

Units
for
EEC
and
TRV
should
be
the
same
(
e.
g.,
µ
g/
L
or
ppb).
The
RQ
is
compared
to
the
LOC
as
part
of
a
risk
characterization.
Acute
and
chronic
LOCs
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
are
given
in
recent
Agency
guidance
(
EPA
2004a)
and
summarized
in
Table
F­
1
below.
­
75­
Table
F­
1.
Level
of
concern
(
LOC)
by
risk
presumption
category
(
EPA
2004).

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Mammals
and
Birds
Acute
Risk1
EEC2/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft3
or
LD50/
day4
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use5
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species6
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
Aquatic
Animals
Acute
Risk
EEC7/
LC50
or
EC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC/
EC25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOEC
1
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC8/
EC50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC7/
EC05
or
NOEC
1
1Potential
for
acute
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
which
may
warrat
regulatory
action
in
addition
to
restricted
use
classification
(
EPA
2004).

2Estimated
environmental
concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
3mg/
ft2
4mg
of
toxicant
consumed
per
day
5Potential
for
acute
risk
to
non­
target
organisms,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
(
EPA
2004).

6Endangered
species
may
be
potentially
affected
by
use
(
EPA
2004).

7EEC
=
ppb
or
ppm
in
water
8EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
­
76­
For
acute
exposure
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants,
an
LOC
of
1
is
used.
Currently
the
Agency
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
plants
or
acute/
chronic
risks
to
non­
target
insects.

For
this
Tier
I
assessment
of
dimethipin,
acute
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
is
represented
by
the
maximum
24­
hour
EEC
value
calculated
using
GENEEC2.
EECs
used
to
assess
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
avian
and
mammalian
species
were
calculated
using
ELL­
FATE.
­
77­
Appendix
G.
Summary
of
Endangered/
Threatened
Species
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Alabama
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Autauga
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
9956
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9956
Baldwin
Mammal
MOUSE,
ALABAMA
BEACH
Peromyscus
polionotus
ammobates
Endangered
known
13040
MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
Peromyscus
polionotus
trissyllepsis
Endangered
known
13040
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
26080
Colbert
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
25509
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
25509
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
51018
Conecuh
Mammal
­
78­
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
1260
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1260
Lauderdale
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
22968
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
22968
Lawrence
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
24769
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
1
of
27
­
79­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Alabama
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Lawrence
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
24769
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
49538
Limestone
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
21951
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
21951
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
43902
Madison
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
5456
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
5456
Morgan
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
2110
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
known
2110
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4220
Shelby
Mammal
­
80­
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
4313
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
known
4313
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
8626
Arizona
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Cochise
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
2
of
27
­
81­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Arizona
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Cochise
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
6731
LONG­
NOSED
JAGUAR
Panthera
onca
Endangered
known
6731
Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
tolteca
Endangered
6731
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
possible
6731
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
possible
6731
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
33655
Graham
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
22903
LONG­
NOSED
JAGUAR
Panthera
onca
Endangered
known
22903
Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
tolteca
Endangered
22903
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
possible
22903
SQUIRREL,
MOUNT
GRAHAM
RED
Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
grahamensis
Endangered
known
22903
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
114515
Greenlee
Mammal
JAGUAR
Panthera
onca
Endangered
known
1004
­
82­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1004
Maricopa
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
112706
LONG­
NOSED
PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
Antilocapra
americana
sonoriensis
Endangered
known
112706
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
225412
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
3
of
27
­
83­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Arizona
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Mohave
Mammal
VOLE,
HUALAPAI
MEXICAN
Microtus
mexicanus
hualpaiensis
Endangered
known
3977
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3977
Pima
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
14570
LONG­
NOSED
JAGUAR
Panthera
onca
Endangered
known
14570
PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
Antilocapra
americana
sonoriensis
Endangered
known
14570
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
43710
Pinal
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
118608
LONG­
NOSED
JAGUAR
Panthera
onca
Endangered
known
118608
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
237216
Yuma
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
27972
LONG­
NOSED
­
84­
PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
Antilocapra
americana
sonoriensis
Endangered
known
27972
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
55944
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Fresno
Mammal
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
4
of
27
­
85­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Fresno
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Endangered
known
348003
KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
Endangered
known
348003
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
Dipodomys
ingens
Endangered
known
348003
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1044009
Kern
Mammal
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Endangered
known
265462
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
Dipodomys
ingens
Endangered
known
265462
KANGAROO
RAT,
TIPTON
Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides
Endangered
known
265462
SHREW,
BUENA
VISTA
Sorex
ornatus
relictus
Endangered
known
265462
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1061848
Kings
Mammal
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Endangered
known
196108
KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
Endangered
possible
196108
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
Dipodomys
ingens
Endangered
known
196108
KANGAROO
RAT,
TIPTON
Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides
Endangered
known
196108
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
784432
Madera
­
86­
Mammal
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Endangered
known
36806
KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
Endangered
possible
36806
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
73612
Merced
Mammal
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
5
of
27
­
87­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Merced
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Endangered
known
74620
KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
Endangered
possible
74620
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
Dipodomys
ingens
Endangered
possible
74620
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
223860
Riverside
Mammal
KANGAROO
RAT,
SAN
BERNARDINO
Dipodomys
merriami
parvus
Endangered
known
12571
KANGAROO
RAT,
STEPHENS'
Dipodomys
stephensi
(
incl.
D.
cascus)
Threatened
known
12571
SHEEP,
PENINSULAR
BIGHORN
Ovis
canadensis
Threatened
known
12571
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
37713
San
Bernardino
Mammal
KANGAROO
RAT,
SAN
BERNARDINO
Dipodomys
merriami
parvus
Endangered
known
339
KANGAROO
RAT,
STEPHENS'
Dipodomys
stephensi
(
incl.
D.
cascus)
Threatened
possible
339
VOLE,
AMARGOSA
Microtus
californicus
scirpensis
Endangered
known
339
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1017
Tulare
Mammal
­
88­
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Endangered
known
81089
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
Dipodomys
ingens
Endangered
known
81089
KANGAROO
RAT,
TIPTON
Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides
Endangered
known
81089
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
243267
Florida
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
6
of
27
­
89­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Florida
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Escambia
Mammal
MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
Peromyscus
polionotus
trissyllepsis
Endangered
known
12422
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
12422
FLORIDA
Mammal
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Eubalaena
glacialis
Endangered
known
93504
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
93504
Jackson
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
23273
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
23273
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
46546
Walton
Mammal
MOUSE,
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
BEACH
Peromyscus
polionotus
allophrys
Endangered
known
3711
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3711
Georgia
County
­
90­
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Bartow
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
possible
2556
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
2556
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
5112
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
7
of
27
­
91­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Calhoun
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
17659
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
17659
Clay
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
4753
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4753
Crawford
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
700
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
700
Early
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
33630
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
33630
Floyd
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
possible
3769
­
92­
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
3769
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7538
Henry
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
792
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
792
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
8
of
27
­
93­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Lamar
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
2777
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2777
Marion
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
1399
MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Trichechus
manatus
Endangered
known
1399
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2798
Miller
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
23943
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
23943
Morgan
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
734
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
734
Pike
Mammal
­
94­
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
293
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
293
Polk
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
possible
1876
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
1876
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
9
of
27
­
95­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Polk
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3752
Quitman
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
2795
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2795
Randolph
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
9129
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9129
Schley
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
1154
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1154
Seminole
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
23038
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
23038
Stewart
­
96­
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
2723
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2723
Terrell
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
16493
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
10
of
27
­
97­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Terrell
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
16493
Webster
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
4718
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4718
Louisiana
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Catahoula
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
45984
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
45984
Concordia
Mammal
BEAR,
AMERICAN
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
Threatened
known
43443
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
43443
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
86886
Franklin
­
98­
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
87336
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
87336
Grant
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
2973
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2973
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
11
of
27
­
99­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Louisiana
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Madison
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
40138
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
40138
Pointe
Coupee
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
3997
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3997
Richland
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
89685
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
89685
St.
Landry
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
1484
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1484
Tensas
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
83009
­
100­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
83009
Missouri
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Dade
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
667
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
12
of
27
­
101­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Missouri
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Dade
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
667
Mississippi
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Adams
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
2282
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2282
Attala
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
9588
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9588
Claiborne
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
2045
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2045
Copiah
Mammal
­
102­
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
2044
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2044
Franklin
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
680
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
680
George
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
13
of
27
­
103­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Mississippi
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
George
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
1136
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1136
Greene
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
780
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
780
Hinds
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
13111
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
13111
Holmes
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
34930
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
34930
Humphreys
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
55206
­
104­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
55206
Issaquena
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
18681
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
18681
Jackson
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
14
of
27
­
105­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Mississippi
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Jackson
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
2216
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2216
Jefferson
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
3219
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3219
Leake
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
1863
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1863
Lowndes
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
5151
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
5151
Madison
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
27237
­
106­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
27237
Rankin
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
4337
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4337
Scott
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
15
of
27
­
107­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Mississippi
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Scott
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
1622
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1622
Sharkey
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
34603
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
34603
Tunica
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
38672
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
38672
Warren
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
10649
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
10649
Washington
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
89884
­
108­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
89884
Yazoo
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
64441
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
64441
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
16
of
27
­
109­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Beaufort
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
4602
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4602
Bertie
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
34319
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
34319
Cleveland
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
2875
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2875
Currituck
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
1780
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1780
Harnett
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
10978
­
110­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
10978
Hyde
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
4212
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4212
Martin
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
17
of
27
­
111­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Martin
Mammal
SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
Glaucomys
sabrinus
coloratus
Endangered
possible
37139
FLYING
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
37139
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
74278
NORTH
CAROLINA
Mammal
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Eubalaena
glacialis
Endangered
known
677541
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
677541
Rutherford
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
known
341
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
341
Tyrrell
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
1311
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1311
Washington
­
112­
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
7692
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7692
New
Mexico
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Chaves
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
18
of
27
­
113­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
New
Mexico
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Chaves
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
6954
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6954
Curry
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
2037
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2037
Dona
Ana
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
22016
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
22016
Eddy
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
9808
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9808
Hidalgo
Mammal
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Endangered
known
1219
LONG­
NOSED
­
114­
BAT,
MEXICAN
LONG­
NOSED
Leptonycteris
nivalis
Endangered
known
1219
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
1219
JAGUAR
Panthera
onca
Endangered
known
1219
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
known
1219
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6095
Lea
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
19
of
27
­
115­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
New
Mexico
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Lea
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
9531
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9531
Luna
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
known
6448
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
possible
6448
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
12896
Quay
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
2389
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2389
Roosevelt
Mammal
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Mustela
nigripes
Endangered
possible
7009
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7009
Oklahoma
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
­
116­
Wagoner
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
739
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
739
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
20
of
27
­
117­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mammal
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Eubalaena
glacialis
Endangered
known
285858
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
285858
Tennessee
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Carroll
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
9928
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9928
Chester
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
2654
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2654
Crockett
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
93514
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
93514
­
118­
Dyer
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
30026
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
30026
Fayette
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
36504
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
21
of
27
­
119­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Tennessee
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Fayette
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
36504
Franklin
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
3160
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
3160
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6320
Gibson
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
41313
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
41313
Hardeman
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
11657
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
11657
Haywood
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
105105
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
105105
­
120­
Henderson
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
1348
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1348
Lake
Mammal
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
22
of
27
­
121­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Tennessee
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Lake
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
9402
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9402
Lauderdale
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
35383
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
35383
Lincoln
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
3216
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
3216
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6432
Madison
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
29991
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
29991
Obion
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
3130
­
122­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3130
Rutherford
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
816
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
816
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1632
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
23
of
27
­
123­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Tennessee
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Shelby
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
9167
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9167
Tipton
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
43413
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
43413
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Anderson
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
possible
1345
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1345
Atascosa
Mammal
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
220
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
220
­
124­
Burleson
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
15376
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
15376
Cameron
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
51952
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
24
of
27
­
125­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Cameron
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
51952
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
103904
Hidalgo
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
61890
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
61890
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
123780
Jim
Wells
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
7075
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
7075
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
14150
Kleberg
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
38070
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
38070
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
76140
Live
Oak
­
126­
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
643
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
643
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1286
Nueces
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
100597
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
25
of
27
­
127­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Nueces
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
100597
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
201194
Refugio
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
possible
21044
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
21044
Robertson
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
12082
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
12082
San
Patricio
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
81685
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
81685
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
163370
Starr
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
4591
­
128­
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
4591
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9182
Victoria
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
possible
7956
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7956
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
26
of
27
­
129­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Willacy
Mammal
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
Endangered
known
86188
OCELOT
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Endangered
known
86188
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
172376
Virginia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Accomack
Mammal
SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
Sciurus
niger
cinereus
Endangered
known
796
FOX
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
796
Northampton
Mammal
SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
Sciurus
niger
cinereus
Endangered
known
2159
FOX
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2159
VIRGINIA
Mammal
­
130­
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Eubalaena
glacialis
Endangered
known
98244
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
98244
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
27
of
27
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Alabama
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Autauga
Plant
PITCHER­
PLANT,
ALABAMA
Sarracenia
rubra
alabamensis
Endangered
known
9956
CANEBRAKE
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
Apios
priceana
Threatened
known
9956
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
19912
Blount
Plant
SUNFLOWER,
EGGERT'S
Helianthus
eggertii
Threatened
known
1394
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1394
­
131­
Bullock
Plant
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
1051
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1051
Cherokee
Plant
BARBARA'S
BUTTONS,
MOHR'S
Marshallia
mohrii
Endangered
known
20041
HARPERELLA
Ptilimnium
nodosum
Endangered
known
20041
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
ALABAMA
Clematis
socialis
Endangered
known
20041
PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
Sarracenia
oreophila
Endangered
known
20041
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
80164
Colbert
Plant
BLADDERPOD,
LYRATE
Lesquerella
lyrata
Threatened
known
25509
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
25509
Elmore
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
1
of
31
­
132­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Alabama
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Elmore
Plant
PITCHER­
PLANT,
ALABAMA
Sarracenia
rubra
alabamensis
Endangered
known
19393
CANEBRAKE
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
19393
Etowah
Plant
BARBARA'S
BUTTONS,
MOHR'S
Marshallia
mohrii
Endangered
known
3072
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
ALABAMA
Clematis
socialis
Endangered
known
3072
PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
Sarracenia
oreophila
Endangered
known
3072
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9216
Franklin
Plant
BLADDERPOD,
LYRATE
Lesquerella
lyrata
Threatened
known
738
GRASS,
TENNESSEE
YELLOW­
EYED
Xyris
tennesseensis
Endangered
known
738
PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
Dalea
foliosa
Endangered
possible
738
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2214
Henry
Plant
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
19632
­
133­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
19632
Lawrence
Plant
BLADDERPOD,
LYRATE
Lesquerella
lyrata
Threatened
known
24769
PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
Dalea
foliosa
Endangered
known
24769
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
49538
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
2
of
31
­
134­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Alabama
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Lee
Plant
HARPERELLA
Ptilimnium
nodosum
Endangered
known
2454
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
2454
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4908
Madison
Plant
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
MOREFIELD'S
Clematis
morefieldii
Endangered
known
5456
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
Apios
priceana
Threatened
known
5456
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
10912
Mobile
Plant
QUILLWORT,
LOUISIANA
Isoetes
louisianensis
Endangered
possible
13313
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
13313
Morgan
Plant
FERN,
AMERICAN
HART'S­
TONGUE
Asplenium
scolopendrium
var.
Threatened
known
2110
PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
Dalea
foliosa
Endangered
known
2110
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4220
­
135­
Arkansas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Clay
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
28331
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
28331
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
3
of
31
­
136­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Arkansas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Drew
Plant
GEOCARPON
MINIMUM
Geocarpon
minimum
Endangered
known
22714
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
22714
Jackson
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
1151
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1151
Woodruff
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
6764
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6764
Arizona
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Cochise
Plant
CACTUS,
COCHISE
PINCUSHION
Coryphantha
robbinsorum
Threatened
known
6731
UMBEL,
HUACHUCA
WATER
Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana
var.
recurva
Endangered
known
6731
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
13462
­
137­
Graham
Plant
CLIFFROSE,
ARIZONA
Purshia
(=
cowania)
subintegra
Endangered
known
22903
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
22903
Maricopa
Plant
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
4
of
31
­
138­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Arizona
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Maricopa
AGAVE,
ARIZONA
Agave
arizonica
Endangered
known
112706
CACTUS,
ARIZONA
HEDGEHOG
Echinocereus
triglochidiatus
var.
Endangered
known
112706
CLIFFROSE,
ARIZONA
Purshia
(=
cowania)
subintegra
Endangered
known
112706
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
338118
Mohave
Plant
CACTUS,
SILER
PINCUSHION
Pediocactus
(=
Echinocactus,=
Utahia)
Threatened
known
3977
CLIFFROSE,
ARIZONA
Purshia
(=
cowania)
subintegra
Endangered
known
3977
CYCLADENIA,
JONES
Cycladenia
jonesii
(=
humilis)
Threatened
known
3977
MILK­
VETCH,
HOLMGREN
Astragalus
holmgreniorum
Endangered
known
3977
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
15908
Pima
Plant
BLUE­
STAR,
KEARNEY'S
Amsonia
kearneyana
Endangered
known
14570
CACTUS,
NICHOL'S
TURK'S
HEAD
Echinocactus
horizonthalonius
var.
Endangered
known
14570
CACTUS,
PIMA
PINEAPPLE
Coryphantha
scheeri
var.
robustispina
Endangered
possible
14570
UMBEL,
HUACHUCA
WATER
Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana
var.
recurva
Endangered
known
14570
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
58280
Pinal
­
139­
Plant
CACTUS,
ARIZONA
HEDGEHOG
Echinocereus
triglochidiatus
var.
Endangered
known
118608
CACTUS,
NICHOL'S
TURK'S
HEAD
Echinocactus
horizonthalonius
var.
Endangered
known
118608
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
237216
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
5
of
31
­
140­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Colusa
Plant
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PALMATE­
BRACTED
Cordylanthus
palmatus
Endangered
known
7483
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7483
Fresno
Plant
ADOBE
SUNBURST,
SAN
JOAQUIN
Pseudobahia
peirsonii
Endangered
known
348003
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PALMATE­
BRACTED
Cordylanthus
palmatus
Endangered
known
348003
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
KECK'S
Sidalcea
keckii
Endangered
known
348003
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
CLARA
VALLEY
Dudleya
setchellii
Endangered
possible
348003
GOLDEN
SUNBURST,
HARTWEG'S
Pseudobahia
bahiifolia
Endangered
known
348003
GRASS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
VALLEY
Orcuttia
inaequalis
Threatened
known
348003
ORCUTT
JEWELFLOWER,
CALIFORNIA
Caulanthus
californicus
Endangered
known
348003
OWL'S­
CLOVER,
FLESHY
Castilleja
campestris
ssp.
succulenta
Endangered
known
348003
PUSSYPAWS,
MARIPOSA
Calyptridium
pulchellum
Threatened
known
348003
WOOLLY­
THREADS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
Monolopia
(=
Lembertia)
congdonii
Endangered
known
348003
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3480030
Glenn
Plant
­
141­
GRASS,
HAIRY
ORCUTT
Orcuttia
pilosa
Endangered
known
1046
SPURGE,
HOOVER'S
Chamaesyce
hooveri
Threatened
known
1046
TUCTORIA,
GREEN'S
Tuctoria
greenei
Endangered
known
1046
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3138
Imperial
Plant
MILK­
VETCH,
PIERSON'S
Astragalus
magdalenae
var.
peirsonii
Threatened
known
6058
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
6
of
31
­
142­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Imperial
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6058
Kern
Plant
CACTUS,
BAKERSFIELD
Opuntia
treleasei
Endangered
known
265462
JEWELFLOWER,
CALIFORNIA
Caulanthus
californicus
Endangered
known
265462
MALLOW,
KERN
Eremalche
kernensis
Endangered
known
265462
WOOLLY­
THREADS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
Monolopia
(=
Lembertia)
congdonii
Endangered
known
265462
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1061848
Kings
Plant
JEWELFLOWER,
CALIFORNIA
Caulanthus
californicus
Endangered
known
196108
WOOLLY­
THREADS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
Monolopia
(=
Lembertia)
congdonii
Endangered
known
196108
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
392216
Madera
Plant
ADOBE
SUNBURST,
SAN
JOAQUIN
Pseudobahia
peirsonii
Endangered
known
36806
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PALMATE­
BRACTED
Cordylanthus
palmatus
Endangered
possible
36806
GOLDEN
SUNBURST,
HARTWEG'S
Pseudobahia
bahiifolia
Endangered
known
36806
GRASS,
HAIRY
ORCUTT
Orcuttia
pilosa
Endangered
known
36806
­
143­
GRASS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
VALLEY
Orcuttia
inaequalis
Threatened
known
36806
ORCUTT
LUPINE,
CLOVER
Lupinus
tidestromii
Endangered
known
36806
OWL'S­
CLOVER,
FLESHY
Castilleja
campestris
ssp.
succulenta
Endangered
known
36806
PUSSYPAWS,
MARIPOSA
Calyptridium
pulchellum
Threatened
known
36806
TUCTORIA,
GREEN'S
Tuctoria
greenei
Endangered
extirpate
36806
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
331254
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
7
of
31
­
144­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Merced
Plant
GRASS,
COLUSA
Neostapfia
colusana
Threatened
known
74620
GRASS,
HAIRY
ORCUTT
Orcuttia
pilosa
Endangered
known
74620
GRASS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
VALLEY
Orcuttia
inaequalis
Threatened
known
74620
ORCUTT
OWL'S­
CLOVER,
FLESHY
Castilleja
campestris
ssp.
succulenta
Endangered
known
74620
SPURGE,
HOOVER'S
Chamaesyce
hooveri
Threatened
known
74620
TUCTORIA,
GREEN'S
Tuctoria
greenei
Endangered
known
74620
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
447720
Riverside
Plant
AMBROSIA,
SAN
DIEGO
Ambrosia
pumila
Endangered
known
12571
BARBERRY,
NEVIN'S
Berberis
nevinii
Endangered
known
12571
BRODIAEA,
THREAD­
LEAVED
Brodiaea
filifolia
Threatened
known
12571
BUTTON­
CELERY,
SAN
DIEGO
Eryngium
aristulatum
var.
parishii
Endangered
known
12571
CEANOTHUS,
VAIL
LAKE
Ceanothus
ophiochilus
Threatened
known
12571
CROWNSCALE,
SAN
JACINTO
Atriplex
coronata
var.
notatior
Endangered
known
12571
VALLEY
DAISY,
PARISH'S
Erigeron
parishii
Threatened
known
12571
GRASS,
CALIFORNIA
ORCUTT
Orcuttia
californica
Endangered
known
12571
­
145­
MILK­
VETCH,
COACHELLA
VALLEY
Astragalus
lentiginosus
var.
coachellae
Endangered
known
12571
MILK­
VETCH,
TRIPLE­
RIBBED
Astragalus
tricarinatus
Endangered
known
12571
MINT,
OTAY
MESA
Pogogyne
nudiuscula
Endangered
known
12571
NAVARRETIA,
SPREADING
Navarretia
fossalis
Threatened
known
12571
ONION,
MUNZ'S
Allium
munzii
Endangered
known
12571
SPINEFLOWER,
SLENDER­
HORNED
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Endangered
known
12571
WOOLLY­
STAR,
SANTA
ANA
RIVER
Eriastrum
densifolium
ssp.
sanctorum
Endangered
known
12571
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
8
of
31
­
146­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Riverside
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
188565
San
Bernardino
Plant
BLADDERPOD,
SAN
BERNARDINO
Lesquerella
kingii
ssp.
bernardina
Endangered
known
339
MOUNTAINS
BLUECURLS,
HIDDEN
LAKE
Trichostema
austromontanum
ssp.
Threatened
known
339
BLUEGRASS,
SAN
BERNARDINO
Poa
atropurpurea
Endangered
known
339
BRODIAEA,
THREAD­
LEAVED
Brodiaea
filifolia
Threatened
known
339
BUCKWHEAT,
CUSHENBURY
Eriogonum
ovalifolium
var.
vineum
Endangered
known
339
BUCKWHEAT,
SOUTHERN
MOUNTAIN
Eriogonum
kennedyi
var.
austromontanum
Threatened
known
339
WILD
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
PEDATE
Sidalcea
pedata
Endangered
known
339
DAISY,
PARISH'S
Erigeron
parishii
Threatened
known
339
MILK­
VETCH,
CUSHENBURY
Astragalus
albens
Endangered
known
339
MILK­
VETCH,
LANE
MOUNTAIN
Astragalus
jaegerianus
Endangered
known
339
MILK­
VETCH,
TRIPLE­
RIBBED
Astragalus
tricarinatus
Endangered
known
339
MUSTARD,
SLENDER­
PETALED
Thelypodium
stenopetalum
Endangered
known
339
OXYTHECA,
CUSHENBURY
Oxytheca
parishii
var.
goodmaniana
Endangered
known
339
PAINTBRUSH,
ASH­
GREY
INDIAN
Castilleja
cinerea
Threatened
known
339
SANDWORT,
BEAR
VALLEY
Arenaria
ursina
Threatened
known
339
­
147­
SPINEFLOWER,
SLENDER­
HORNED
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Endangered
known
339
TARAXACUM,
CALIFORNIA
Taraxacum
californicum
Endangered
known
339
WATERCRESS,
GAMBEL'S
Rorippa
gambellii
Endangered
known
339
WOOLLY­
STAR,
SANTA
ANA
RIVER
Eriastrum
densifolium
ssp.
sanctorum
Endangered
known
339
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6441
Tulare
Plant
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
9
of
31
­
148­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
California
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Tulare
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
KECK'S
Sidalcea
keckii
Endangered
known
81089
CLARKIA,
SPRINGVILLE
Clarkia
springvillensis
Threatened
known
81089
GRASS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
VALLEY
Orcuttia
inaequalis
Threatened
known
81089
ORCUTT
JEWELFLOWER,
CALIFORNIA
Caulanthus
californicus
Endangered
known
81089
SPURGE,
HOOVER'S
Chamaesyce
hooveri
Threatened
known
81089
WOOLLY­
THREADS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
Monolopia
(=
Lembertia)
congdonii
Endangered
known
81089
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
486534
Yolo
Plant
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PALMATE­
BRACTED
Cordylanthus
palmatus
Endangered
known
4057
GRASS,
COLUSA
Neostapfia
colusana
Threatened
known
4057
GRASS,
SOLANO
Tuctoria
mucronata
Endangered
known
4057
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
12171
Florida
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Calhoun
Plant
PINKROOT,
GENTIAN
Spigelia
gentianoides
Endangered
known
6600
­
149­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6600
Jackson
Plant
PINKROOT,
GENTIAN
Spigelia
gentianoides
Endangered
known
23273
TORREYA,
FLORIDA
Torreya
taxifolia
Endangered
known
23273
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
46546
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
10
of
31
­
150­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Florida
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Jefferson
Plant
GOOSEBERRY,
MICCOSUKEE
Ribes
echinellum
Threatened
known
1477
(
FLORIDA)

Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1477
Okaloosa
Plant
CLADONIA,
FLORIDA
PERFORATE
Cladonia
perforata
Endangered
known
3796
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3796
Walton
Plant
MEADOWRUE,
COOLEY'S
Thalictrum
cooleyi
Endangered
known
3711
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3711
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Bartow
Plant
GRASS,
TENNESSEE
YELLOW­
EYED
Xyris
tennesseensis
Endangered
known
2556
POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Isotria
medeoloides
Threatened
possible
2556
­
151­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
5112
Bibb
Plant
CAMPION,
FRINGED
Silene
polypetala
Endangered
known
305
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
305
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
610
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
11
of
31
­
152­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Burke
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
47843
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
47843
Clay
Plant
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
4753
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
4753
Crawford
Plant
CAMPION,
FRINGED
Silene
polypetala
Endangered
known
700
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
700
Decatur
Plant
CAMPION,
FRINGED
Silene
polypetala
Endangered
known
34720
TORREYA,
FLORIDA
Torreya
taxifolia
Endangered
known
34720
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
69440
Dooly
Plant
­
153­
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
69227
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
69227
Early
Plant
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
33630
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
33630
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
12
of
31
­
154­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Elbert
Plant
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
2543
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2543
Floyd
Plant
BARBARA'S
BUTTONS,
MOHR'S
Marshallia
mohrii
Endangered
known
3769
POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Isotria
medeoloides
Threatened
possible
3769
SKULLCAP,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
Scutellaria
montana
Threatened
known
3769
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
11307
Henry
Plant
AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
Amphianthus
pusillus
Threatened
known
792
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
792
Jenkins
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
12939
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
12939
Lee
­
155­
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
23613
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
23613
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
47226
Macon
Plant
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
13
of
31
­
156­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Macon
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
16678
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
16678
Pike
Plant
AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
Amphianthus
pusillus
Threatened
known
293
QUILLWORT,
BLACK­
SPORED
Isoetes
melanospora
Endangered
known
293
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
586
Polk
Plant
POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Isotria
medeoloides
Threatened
possible
1876
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1876
Quitman
Plant
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
2795
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2795
Screven
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
26330
­
157­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
26330
Sumter
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
possible
39437
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
39437
Taylor
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
14
of
31
­
158­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Georgia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Taylor
Plant
CAMPION,
FRINGED
Silene
polypetala
Endangered
known
4545
PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
Sarracenia
oreophila
Endangered
known
4545
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9090
Wayne
Plant
RATTLEWEED,
HAIRY
Baptisia
arachnifera
Endangered
known
11683
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
11683
Wheeler
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
2824
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2824
Kansas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Atchison
Plant
ORCHID,
WESTERN
PRAIRIE
FRINGED
Platanthera
praeclara
Threatened
known
73
­
159­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
73
Missouri
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Butler
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
828
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
15
of
31
­
160­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Missouri
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Butler
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
828
Dade
Plant
BLADDERPOD,
MISSOURI
Lesquerella
filiformis
Endangered
known
667
CLOVER,
RUNNING
BUFFALO
Trifolium
stoloniferum
Endangered
known
667
GEOCARPON
MINIMUM
Geocarpon
minimum
Endangered
known
667
MILKWEED,
MEAD'S
Asclepias
meadii
Threatened
known
667
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2668
Dunklin
Plant
ASTER,
DECURRENT
FALSE
Boltonia
decurrens
Threatened
known
162794
CLOVER,
RUNNING
BUFFALO
Trifolium
stoloniferum
Endangered
known
162794
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
325588
Mississippi
Plant
ASTER,
DECURRENT
FALSE
Boltonia
decurrens
Threatened
known
2757
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2757
Mississippi
­
161­
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Bolivar
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
63027
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
63027
Clay
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
16
of
31
­
162­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Mississippi
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Clay
Plant
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
Apios
priceana
Threatened
known
2462
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2462
Lee
Plant
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
Apios
priceana
Threatened
known
6722
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6722
Oktibbeha
Plant
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
Apios
priceana
Threatened
known
702
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
702
Sharkey
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
34603
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
34603
Sunflower
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
58271
­
163­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
58271
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Beaufort
Plant
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Aeschynomene
virginica
Threatened
known
4602
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
17
of
31
­
164­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Beaufort
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
possible
4602
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9204
Bladen
Plant
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
known
8151
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
8151
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
16302
Cleveland
Plant
HEARTLEAF,
DWARF­
FLOWERED
Hexastylis
naniflora
Threatened
known
2875
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2875
Columbus
Plant
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
possible
2039
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2039
Craven
Plant
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Aeschynomene
virginica
Threatened
possible
17556
­
165­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
17556
Cumberland
Plant
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
known
3925
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
3925
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
3925
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
18
of
31
­
166­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Cumberland
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
11775
Franklin
Plant
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
182
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
182
Granville
Plant
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Echinacea
laevigata
Endangered
known
96
HARPERELLA
Ptilimnium
nodosum
Endangered
known
96
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
192
Hoke
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
18645
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
known
18645
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
18645
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
55935
Hyde
Plant
­
167­
AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
Amaranthus
pumilus
Threatened
known
4212
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Aeschynomene
virginica
Threatened
known
4212
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
8424
Martin
Plant
HEATHER,
MOUNTAIN
GOLDEN
Hudsonia
montana
Threatened
known
37139
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
19
of
31
­
168­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Martin
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
37139
Onslow
Plant
AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
Amaranthus
pumilus
Threatened
known
3600
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
known
3600
MEADOWRUE,
COOLEY'S
Thalictrum
cooleyi
Endangered
known
3600
SEDGE,
GOLDEN
Carex
lutea
Endangered
known
3600
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
14400
Pamlico
Plant
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
known
5708
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
5708
Robeson
Plant
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
30193
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
30193
Rutherford
Plant
­
169­
HEARTLEAF,
DWARF­
FLOWERED
Hexastylis
naniflora
Threatened
known
341
IRISETTE,
WHITE
Sisyrinchium
dichotomum
Endangered
known
341
LICHEN,
ROCK
GNOME
Gymnoderma
lineare
Endangered
known
341
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1023
Sampson
Plant
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
42202
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
20
of
31
­
170­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Sampson
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
42202
Scotland
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
14033
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
known
14033
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
14033
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
42099
Stanly
Plant
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Helianthus
schweinitzii
Endangered
known
6380
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6380
Tyrrell
Plant
SPIRAEA,
VIRGINIA
Spiraea
virginiana
Threatened
known
1311
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1311
Union
Plant
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Helianthus
schweinitzii
Endangered
known
7798
­
171­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7798
New
Mexico
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Chaves
Plant
CACTUS,
KUENZLER
HEDGEHOG
Echinocereus
fendleri
var.
kuenzleri
Endangered
known
6954
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
21
of
31
­
172­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
New
Mexico
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Chaves
SUNFLOWER,
PECOS
Helianthus
paradoxus
Threatened
known
6954
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
13908
Dona
Ana
Plant
CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
sneedii
Endangered
known
22016
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
22016
Eddy
Plant
CACTUS,
LEE
PINCUSHION
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
leei
Threatened
known
9808
WILD­
BUCKWHEAT,
GYPSUM
Eriogonum
gypsophilum
Threatened
known
9808
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
19616
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Aiken
Plant
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Echinacea
laevigata
Endangered
possible
4519
HARPERELLA
Ptilimnium
nodosum
Endangered
known
4519
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
4519
­
173­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
13557
Allendale
Plant
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Echinacea
laevigata
Endangered
possible
6146
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
6146
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
12292
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
22
of
31
­
174­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Bamberg
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
11699
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
11699
Barnwell
Plant
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Echinacea
laevigata
Endangered
possible
6718
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
6718
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
13436
Berkeley
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
817
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
known
817
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1634
Chesterfield
Plant
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
possible
752
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
752
Clarendon
­
175­
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
12818
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
12818
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
25636
Colleton
Plant
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
23
of
31
­
176­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Colleton
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
possible
1358
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1358
Darlington
Plant
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
possible
23471
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
23471
Dorchester
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
possible
7077
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7077
Edgefield
Plant
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Trillium
reliquum
Endangered
known
3380
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3380
Florence
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
possible
8607
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
8607
­
177­
Georgetown
Plant
AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
Amaranthus
pumilus
Threatened
known
469
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
possible
469
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
938
Hampton
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
24
of
31
­
178­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Hampton
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
14186
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
14186
Horry
Plant
AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
Amaranthus
pumilus
Threatened
possible
1065
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
1065
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
possible
1065
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
possible
1065
PONDBERRY
Lindera
melissifolia
Endangered
possible
1065
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Helianthus
schweinitzii
Endangered
possible
1065
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6390
Lee
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
25588
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
25588
Lexington
Plant
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Echinacea
laevigata
Endangered
possible
3635
­
179­
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Helianthus
schweinitzii
Endangered
possible
3635
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7270
Marlboro
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
possible
32426
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
Endangered
possible
32426
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
25
of
31
­
180­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Marlboro
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
64852
Orangeburg
Plant
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
36355
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
36355
Saluda
Plant
AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
Amphianthus
pusillus
Threatened
known
1253
HARPERELLA
Ptilimnium
nodosum
Endangered
known
1253
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2506
Sumter
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
9958
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9958
Williamsburg
Plant
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Schwalbea
americana
Endangered
known
23625
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Oxypolis
canbyi
Endangered
known
23625
­
181­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
47250
York
Plant
AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
Amphianthus
pusillus
Threatened
known
3546
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Helianthus
schweinitzii
Endangered
known
3546
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7092
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
26
of
31
­
182­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Tennessee
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Rutherford
Plant
CONEFLOWER,
TENNESSEE
PURPLE
Echinacea
tennesseensis
Endangered
known
816
GROUND­
PLUM,
GUTHRIE'S
Astragalus
bibullatus
Endangered
known
816
PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
Dalea
foliosa
Endangered
known
816
ROCK­
CRESS,
LARGE
(=
BRAUN'S)
Arabis
perstellata
Endangered
known
816
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3264
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Brazos
Plant
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
NAVASOTA
Spiranthes
parksii
Endangered
known
5939
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
5939
Burleson
Plant
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
NAVASOTA
Spiranthes
parksii
Endangered
known
15376
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
15376
Coke
­
183­
Plant
POPPY­
MALLOW,
TEXAS
Callirhoe
scabriuscula
Endangered
known
838
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
838
Culberson
Plant
CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
sneedii
Endangered
known
869
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
27
of
31
­
184­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Culberson
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
869
El
Paso
Plant
CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
sneedii
Endangered
known
27103
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
27103
Fort
Bend
Plant
DAWN­
FLOWER,
TEXAS
PRAIRIE
Hymenoxys
texana
Endangered
known
46380
(=
TEXAS
BITTERWEED
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
46380
Hays
Plant
WILD­
RICE,
TEXAS
Zizania
texana
Endangered
known
210
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
210
Hidalgo
Plant
AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TEXAS
Ambrosia
cheiranthifolia
Endangered
known
61890
AYENIA,
TEXAS
Ayenia
limitaris
Endangered
possible
61890
MANIOC,
WALKER'S
Manihot
walkerae
Endangered
known
61890
­
185­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
185670
Hudspeth
Plant
CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
sneedii
Endangered
known
9430
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
9430
Jim
Wells
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
28
of
31
­
186­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Jim
Wells
Plant
CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
Echinocereus
reichenbachii
var.
albertii
Endangered
known
7075
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
7075
Kleberg
Plant
AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TEXAS
Ambrosia
cheiranthifolia
Endangered
known
38070
AYENIA,
TEXAS
Ayenia
limitaris
Endangered
possible
38070
CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
Echinocereus
reichenbachii
var.
albertii
Endangered
known
38070
RUSH­
PEA,
SLENDER
Hoffmannseggia
tenella
Endangered
known
38070
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
152280
Mitchell
Plant
POPPY­
MALLOW,
TEXAS
Callirhoe
scabriuscula
Endangered
known
60127
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
60127
Nueces
Plant
AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TEXAS
Ambrosia
cheiranthifolia
Endangered
known
100597
AYENIA,
TEXAS
Ayenia
limitaris
Endangered
possible
100597
RUSH­
PEA,
SLENDER
Hoffmannseggia
tenella
Endangered
known
100597
­
187­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
301791
Pecos
Plant
SUNFLOWER,
PECOS
Helianthus
paradoxus
Threatened
known
8767
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
8767
Reeves
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
29
of
31
­
188­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Reeves
Plant
SUNFLOWER,
PECOS
Helianthus
paradoxus
Threatened
known
6620
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
6620
Refugio
Plant
CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
Echinocereus
reichenbachii
var.
albertii
Endangered
known
21044
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
21044
Robertson
Plant
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
NAVASOTA
Spiranthes
parksii
Endangered
known
12082
SAND­
VERBENA,
LARGE­
FRUITED
Abronia
macrocarpa
Endangered
known
12082
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
24164
Runnels
Plant
POPPY­
MALLOW,
TEXAS
Callirhoe
scabriuscula
Endangered
known
46188
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
46188
Starr
Plant
­
189­
BLADDERPOD,
ZAPATA
Lesquerella
thamnophila
Endangered
known
4591
CACTUS,
STAR
Astrophytum
asterias
Endangered
known
4591
DOGWEED,
ASHY
Thymophylla
tephroleuca
Endangered
known
4591
MANIOC,
WALKER'S
Manihot
walkerae
Endangered
possible
4591
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
18364
Uvalde
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
30
of
31
­
190­
Species
Listing
by
State
for
Crop
Cotton
(
43)

Minimum
of
1
Acres
Texas
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Uvalde
Plant
CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
Echinocereus
reichenbachii
var.
albertii
Endangered
known
5990
CACTUS,
TOBUSCH
FISHHOOK
Ancistrocactus
tobuschii
Endangered
known
5990
SNOWBELLS,
TEXAS
Styrax
texanus
Endangered
known
5990
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
17970
Virginia
County
County
Status
Presence
Acres
Charles
City
Plant
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Aeschynomene
virginica
Threatened
known
1915
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1915
Dinwiddie
Plant
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Rhus
michauxii
Endangered
known
3446
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
3446
King
and
Queen
Plant
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Aeschynomene
virginica
Threatened
known
1019
­
191­
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
1019
Surry
Plant
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Aeschynomene
virginica
Threatened
known
2926
Crop
Acres
(
inclusive
of
species­
crop
overlaps):
2926
Monday,
October
04,
2004
Page
31
of
31
­
192­
Appendix
H.
Environmental
Fate
Bibliography
Dzialo,
D.
G.
1992.
[
14C]
Harvade
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
on
Sandy
Loam
Soil.
Unpublished
study
performed
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.
Middlebury,
CT.
Laboratory
Project
ID:
9054.
MRID
42429606.

Dzialo,
D.
G.
1993.
[
14C]
Harvade
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism.
Unpublished
study
performed,
sponsored
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Middlebury,
CT.
Uniroyal
Project
No.
9018.
MRID
42673501.

Dzialo,
D.
G.
1994.
Field
Dissipation
of
Dimethipin
(
Harvade
5F)
on
Cotton
in
Georgia.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Landis
International,
Inc.,
Valdosta,
GA,
Research
Options,
Inc.,
Montezuma,
GA,
NET,
Inc.
 
Cambridge
Division,
Bedford,
MA,
and
Biodevelopment
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Cambridge,
MA,
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Middlebury,
CT.
Laboratory
Project
ID:
9113/
9175.
MRID
43216001.

Dzialo,
D.
G.
1994.
Field
Dissipation
of
Dimethipin
(
Harvade
5F)
on
Cotton
in
Mississippi.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Landis
International,
Inc.,
Valdosta,
GA,
Stoneville
Associates,
Inc.,
Greenville,
MS,
NET
Atlantic,
Inc.
 
Cambridge
Division,
Bedford,
MA,
and
Biodevelopment
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Cambridge,
MA,
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Middlebury,
CT.
Laboratory
Project
ID:
9114/
9176.
MRID
43216002.

Fackler,
P.
H.
1991.
Harvade
­
Determination
of
Aqueous
Photolysis
Rate
Constant
and
Half­
life.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Wareham,
MA,
and
sponsored
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Middlebury,
CT.
SLI
Report
No.:
91­
7­
3830.
Study
No.:
41.0391.6121.720.
MRID
41967101.

Fackler,
P.
H.
1992.
Harvade
­
Determination
of
Soil
Photolysis
Rate
Constant
and
Half­
life.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Wareham,
MA;
sponsored
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Middlebury,
CT;
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Bethany,
CT.
Uniroyal
Project
No.
9117.
SLI
Report
No.
91­
9­
3910.
SLI
Study
No.
41.0391.6120.721.
MRID
42237601.

Fitzpatrick,
K.
C.
1981.
Hydrolysis
of
Harvade
­
Part
"
A",
Half­
life
Determinations.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Raven
Research
Inc.
(
no
address
provided),
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Crop
Protection
Research,
Analytical
Research.
Project
No.:
7603­
A.
MRID
80106.
­
193­
Spare,
W.
C.
1990.
Adsorption/
Desorption
of
14C­
Harvade.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Agrisearch
Incorporated,
Frederick,
MD;
sponsored
and
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Incorporated,
Middlebury,
CT.
Agrisearch
Project
No.:
1917.
Uniroyal
Project
No.:
9063.
MRID
41660901.
­
194­
Appendix
I.
Ecotoxicity
Bibliography
Ames,
R.
B.
1977.
Harvade
Sensitive
Crop
Study,
Uniroyal
Chem
(
pp.
90
 
95)/
Harvade
Sensitivity
Study
Final
Report
(
pp.
96
 
98).
Unpublished
study
performed
by
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
097014.

Cole,
J.
H.
1985.
The
Acute
Oral
and
Contact
Toxicity
to
Honey
Bees
of
Harvade
25F.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Huntingdon
Research
Centre,
Ltd.,
Huntingdon,
England.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41264606.

Czech,
P.
2003.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Harvade
25F
to
Daphnia
magna
in
a
48­
hour
Immobilization
Test.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
RCC
Ltd.,
Itingen,
Switzerland.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
842758.
Study
submitted
by
Crompton
Europe
Limited,
Berkshire,
U.
K.
MRID
46063401.

Forbis,
A.
D.,
L.
Franklin
and
K.
Lawman.
1982.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Harvade
to
Daphnia
magna
Under
Flow­
through
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Analytical
BioChemistry
Laboratories
Inc.,
Columbia,
MO.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
not
provided
in
DER
(
Bar
Code
=
2006914).

Forbis,
A.
D.
Franklin,
L.,
Lawman,
K.
1982.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Harvade
to
Daphnia
magna
Under
Flow­
Through
Conditions.
Prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories
Inc.,
Colombia,
MO,
for
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.
MRID
00128803.

HED
Chapter
Reference
(
no
date):
Dimethipin:
HED
Chapter
of
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
Document
(
RED).
PC
Code:
118901,
Case
#:
3063,
DP
Barcode:
D299124.
Includes
MRIDs
42429601
and
MRID
43897601.

LeBlanc,
G.
A.
1977.
Acute
Toxicity
of
N252
(
Harvade
Technical)
to
the
Water
Flea
(
Daphnia
magna).
Unpublished
study
performed
by
EG
&
G,
Bionomics,
Aquatic
Toxicology
Laboratory,
Wareham,
ME.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER
(
Test
ID
No.
097014).
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
not
provided
in
DER
(
Bar
Code
=
2006909).

McElwee,
C.
1993.
Harvade
®
Technical:
Acute
Effect
on
New
Shell
Growth
of
the
Eastern
Oyster,
Crassostrea
virginica,
Under
Flow­
through
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
J9210002.
Study
submitted
by
­
195­
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
42643101.

McElwee,
C.
1993.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
the
Freshwater
Blue­
green
Algae,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
Under
Static
test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
J9209004d.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
42627101.

McElwee,
C.
1993.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
the
Freshwater
Diatom,
Nitzschia
palea,
Under
Static
test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
J9209004e.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
42627102.

McElwee,
C.
1993.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
the
Saltwater
Diatom,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Under
Static
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
J9209004f.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
42627103.

McElwee,
C.
1993.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Duckweed,
Lemna
gibba
G3,
Under
Static
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
J9209004g.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
42627104.

Pederson,
C.
A.
1991.
Harvade
Technical:
8­
day
Acute
Dietary
LC50
Study
in
Bobwhite
Quail.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.,
Neillsville,
WI.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41945901.

Pederson,
C.
A.
1991.
Harvade
Technical:
8­
day
Acute
Dietary
LC50
Study
in
Mallard
Ducklings.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.,
Neillsville,
WI.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41955902.

Pederson,
C.
A.
1991.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Oral
LD50
Study
in
Mallard
Ducks.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Bio­
Life
Associates,
Ltd.,
Neillsville,
WI.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41955901.

Richards,
C.
and
F.
E.
Kaiser.
1982.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Harvade
to
Selenastrum
­
196­
capricornutum
Printz.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Analytical
BioChemistry
Laboratories
Inc.,
Columbia,
MO.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
29462.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41264605.

Suprenant,
D.
C.
and
Altshul.
1982.
The
Toxicity
of
Harvade
to
Water
Flea
(
Daphnia
magna).
Unpublished
study
performed
by
EG
&
G,
Bionomics,
Aquatic
Toxicology
Laboratory,
Wareham,
ME.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
BW­
82­
4­
1159.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
00126070.

Ward,
G.
S.
1990.
Harvade
®
Technical:
Acute
Effect
on
New
Shell
Growth
of
the
Eastern
Oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
Under
Flow­
through
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41666501.

Ward,
G.
S.
1990.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Mysid,
Mysidopsis
bahia,
Under
Flow­
through
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41663902.

Ward,
G.
S.
1990.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Rainbow
Trout
(
Oncorynchus
mykiss)
Under
Flow­
through
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41945903.

Ward,
G.
S.
1991.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
Under
Flow­
through
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41663901.

Ward,
G.
S.
1991.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Bluegill
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
Under
Flowthrough
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41945902.

Ward,
G.
S.
1991.
Harvade
Technical:
Acute
Toxicity
to
the
Water
Flea
(
Dapnia
magna)
Under
Flowthrough
Test
Conditions.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental,
Jupiter,
FL.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported
in
DER.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
41945904.
­
197­
Invalid
Studies
Blem,
A.
R.
1981.
Response
of
Greenhouse­
grown
Plants
to
Harvade
®
Applied
as
an
Irrigation
Water
Contaminant
and
as
a
Spray
Drift
to
Freshly
Sown
Soil
or
to
Plant
Foliage.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Uniroyal
Chemical.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
 
not
reported.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical.
MRID
00085676;
Acc.
No.
070239.

Suprenant,
D.
C.
and
Altshul.
1982.
The
Toxicity
of
Harvade
to
water
Flea
(
Daphnia
magna).
Unpublished
study
performed
by
EG
&
G,
Bionomics,
Aquatic
Toxicology
Laboratory,
Wareham,
ME.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
BW­
82­
4­
1159.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
00126070.

Wilson,
B.
F.
and
Altshul.
1982.
The
Toxicity
of
Harvade
to
Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
Embryos
and
Larvae.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
EG
&
G,
Bionomics,
Aquatic
Toxicology
Laboratory,
Wareham,
ME.
Laboratory
Report
Identification
BW­
82­
4­
1147.
Study
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Bethany,
CT.
MRID
00126069.