Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0061-0027
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-07-28T04:00Z

1
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
PC
Code:
058001
DP
Barcode:
D307567
12
July
2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Azinphos
Methyl
Insecticide:
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
Caneberries,
Cranberries,
Peaches,
Potatoes,
and
Southern
Pine
Seeds
(
Group
2
Uses)
IUPAC
Name:
O,
O­
dimethyl
S­[
4­
oxo­
1,2,3­
benzotriazin
3(
4H)­
yl)
methyl]
phosphoro­
dithioate
CAS
Registry
Number:
86­
50­
0
FROM:
Colleen
Flaherty,
Biologist
(
ERB
3)
R.
David
Jones,
Senior
Agronomist
(
ERB
4)
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

THRU:
Elizabeth
Behl,
Branch
Chief
(
ERB
4)
Daniel
Rieder,
Branch
Chief
(
ERB
3)
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

TO:
Diane
Isbell,
Risk
Manager
(
RRB
2)
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7505C)

In
1999,
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
assessed
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl,
an
organophosphate
insecticide,
on
a
variety
of
agricultural
uses.
EFED
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
posed
high
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
all
endangered
and
non­
endangered
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
for
all
uses.
Mitigation
efforts
following
the
2001
IRED
resulted
in
the
cancellation
(
with
a
phase­
out
period)
of
several
uses,
including
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds.
EFED
has
reassessed
the
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
these
uses,
taking
into
account
the
current
label
application
rates
and
other
mitigation
efforts,
such
as
buffers.
EFED
has
concluded
that
these
uses
of
azinphos
methyl
pose
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
endangered
and
non­
endangered
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals.
Environmental
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
toxicity
thresholds
(
i.
e.
LC
50,
NOAEC)
for
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals.
Table
of
Contents
2
I.
Executive
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
II.
Problem
Formulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
1.
Source
and
Intensity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
2.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
4.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
a.
Caneberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
b.
Cranberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
c.
Peaches
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
d.
Potatoes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
e.
Southern
Pine
Seeds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
B.
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
2.
Ecological
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
C.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
1.
Measures
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
a.
Aquatic
Exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
b.
Terrestrial
Exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
2.
Measures
of
Effect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
III.
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
A.
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
B.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
a.
Abiotic
Hydrolysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
b.
Photolysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
c.
Metabolism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
d.
Foliar
Degradation
and
Washoff
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
e.
Batch
Equilibrium/
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
f.
Bioaccumulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
g.
Field
Dissipation
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
h.
Field
Runoff
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
i.
Chemistry
Input
Parameters
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
b.
Southern
Pine
Seed
Environmental
Impact
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
3
b.
Southern
Pine
Seed
Environmental
Impact
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
a.
Acute
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
b.
Chronic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
c.
Sublethal
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
d.
Field
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
a.
Acute
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
b.
Chronic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
c.
Sublethal
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
d.
Field
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
IV.
Risk
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
a.
Peaches
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
b.
Potatoes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Insects
and
Other
Invertebrates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
a.
Caneberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
b.
Cranberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
c.
Peaches
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
d.
Potatoes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
e.
Southern
Pine
Seeds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
a.
Caneberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
b.
Cranberries
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
c.
Peaches
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
d.
Potatoes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
e.
Southern
Pine
Seeds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
C.
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
1.
General
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
a.
Maximum
Use
Scenario
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
b.
Additive
and/
or
Synergistic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
2.
Terrestrial
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
b.
Routes
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
c.
Incidental
Releases
Associated
With
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
d.
Residue
Levels
Selection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
e.
Dietary
Intake
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
71
4
3.
Effects
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
a.
Sublethal
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
b.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
73
Appendix
A
 
Terrestrial
Exposure
(
T­
REX)
Information
Appendix
B
 
Definitions
of
Levels
of
Concern
for
Risk
Assessment
Appendix
C
 
Detailed
Terrestrial
Risk
Quotients
Appendix
D
 
Adverse
Ecological
Incidents
Associated
With
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
in
the
U.
S
Appendix
E
 
Endangered
Species
Lists
Appendix
F
 
Literature
Cited
5
I.
Executive
Summary
This
ecological
risk
assessment
specifically
focuses
on
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
caneberries
in
Oregon,
cranberries
in
Wisconsin,
peaches
nationally
except
California,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds.
Current
label
application
rates
and
other
mitigation
efforts,
such
as
buffers,
were
taken
into
account
in
this
assessment.

To
assess
risk
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
aquatic
animals
for
peaches
and
potatoes,
surface
water
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl
were
modeled
using
the
Tier­
II
model
PRZM/
EXAMS
based
on
the
label­
recommended
usage
scenarios.
Aquatic
risks
for
caneberries,
cranberries,
and
southern
pine
seeds
were
evaluated
qualitatively.
A
terrestrial
exposure
model,
T­
REX,
was
used
to
estimate
exposures
and
risks
in
conservative
scenarios
to
avian
species
for
four
forage
food
types
and
to
mammalian
species
for
five
forage
food
types
for
application
rates
of
azinphos
methyl
to
all
five
of
the
assessed
uses
(
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
southern
pine
seeds).

Based
on
reduced
maximum
application
rates
and
mandatory
buffer
zones
the
results
of
this
ecological
risk
assessment
suggest
that
direct
adverse
effects
to
non­
target
fish
and
invertebrates
may
occur
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds.
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
fish
and
invertebrates,
which
were
calculated
for
peaches
and
potatoes,
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs.
Although
acute
risks
to
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
may
not
be
likely,
chronic
risks
cannot
be
precluded
at
this
time.
Azinphos
methyl
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
thresholds,
resulting
in
individual
mortality
or
sublethal
effects
(
i.
e.
reduced
fecundity
and/
or
growth).
Aquatic
animals
that
survive
initial
(
peak)
exposures
may
be
vulnerable
to
sublethal
effects
on
normal
life
processes,
such
as
growth
and
reproduction.
Widespread
mortality
and/
or
reproductive
impairment
in
a
given
population
could
have
profound
ecological
consequences.
These
risk
conclusions
are
supported
by
over
130
adverse
aquatic
incidents
that
have
resulted
in
the
deaths
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
aquatic
animals.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
federally­
listed
fish
and
invertebrates
that
inhabit
areas
where
these
crops
are
grown.

Birds
(
surrogate
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles)
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
dietary
residues
that
exceed
known
mortality
and
sublethal
(
i.
e.
reproduction,
growth)
effects
thresholds.
Based
on
maximum
and
mean
predicted
terrestrial
exposures,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs
for
herbivorous
and
insectivorous
birds
and
mammals
for
all
five
of
the
assessed
Group
2
uses.
Although
risks
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
were
not
quantitatively
assessed,
it
is
expected
that
azinphos
methyl,
an
insecticide,
poses
risks
to
non­
target
(
beneficial)
insects.
Depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effects
on
individual
fitness,
higher­
level
ecological
impacts
are
possible.
Terrestrial
field/
pen
studies
and
several
terrestrial
incidents
support
these
risk
conclusions.
Further
risk
mitigation
measures
(
i.
e.
application
rate
reduction)
are
unlikely
to
significantly
alter
these
acute
and
chronic
terrestrial
risk
conclusions.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
federally­
listed
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians,
and
terrestrial
invertebrates
that
inhabit
areas
where
these
crops
are
grown.
6
II.
Problem
Formulation
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Source
and
Intensity
In
1999,
the
EFED
assessed
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl,
an
organophosphate
insecticide,
on
a
variety
of
agricultural
uses.
Mitigation
efforts
following
the
2001
IRED
resulted
in
the
cancellation
(
with
a
phase­
out
period)
of
several
uses,
including
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds.
This
ecological
risk
assessment
specifically
focuses
on
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
caneberries
in
Oregon,
cranberries
in
Wisconsin,
peaches
nationally
except
California,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds
(
hereafter
referred
to
collectively
as
the
"
Group
2"
uses).
These
particular
locations
are
being
considered
in
this
assessment
because
growers
in
these
locations
have
requested
that
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
these
crops
be
extended
beyond
the
phase
out,
which
is
to
occur
in
2005.
Current
label
application
rates
and
other
mitigation
efforts,
such
as
buffers,
will
be
taken
into
account
in
this
assessment.

2.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
Common
Name:
azinphos
methyl
Chemical
Name:
O,
O­
dimethyl
S­[
4­
oxo­
1,2,3­
benzotriazin
3(
4H)­
yl)
methyl]
phosphoro­
dithioate
CAS
Number:
86­
50­
0
PC
Code:
058001
Molecular
Formula:
C
10
H
12
N
3
O
3
PS
2
Class:
organophosphate
Physical/
Chemical
Properties
Molecular
Mass:
317.32
g

mol­
1
Physical
State:
white
to
beige
granular
material
Melting
Point:
67­
70

C
K
ow:
543
Vapor
Pressure:
2.20
x
10­
7
torr
Solubility
in
Water:
25.10
mg

L­
1
at
25

C
Henry's
Law
Constant:
3.66
x
10­
9
m3

mol­
1
(
calculated)

Azinphos
methyl
(
Figure
1)
is
mobile
(
K
f
=
12­
27)
and
can
reach
surface
water
dissolved
in
runoff
but
not
likely
to
leach
to
ground
water
in
most
situations.
It
is
moderately
persistent
with
aerobic
soil
metabolism
DT
50
of
27
d.
It
degrades
rapidly
by
direct
aqueous
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
77
h),
but
rather
slowly
by
soil
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
180
d).
Hydrolysis
is
alkaline
catalyzed
and
is
fairly
rapid
at
high
pH,
on
the
order
of
several
days.
It
is
moderately
persistent
at
acid
and
neutral
pH.
There
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
assessment
of
the
hydrolysis
data
because
data
were
not
collected
below
30

C.
There
are
data
on
the
degradates
formed
through
aerobic
aquatic
7
Figure
1.
Molecular
structure
of
azinphos
methyl.
metabolism,
but
no
usable
rate
data
are
available.

Degradates
include
anthranilic
acid,
methyl
anthranilate,
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog,
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide,
benzazamide,
and
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide,
and
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid.
Because
of
the
limited
concentrations
of
the
identified
degradates
and
their
properties,
this
risk
assessment
has
been
based
solely
on
the
parent
compound.
This
is
not
a
major
limitation
of
the
assessment
since
all
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
by
the
parent
compound
alone,
and
the
fraction
of
additional
toxicity
that
could
be
due
to
degradates
will
be
small
to
that
due
to
the
parent.
Ecological
incident
data
support
the
risk
presumptions.

A
second
source
of
uncertainty
in
the
fate
assessment
is
due
to
the
field
dissipation
studies.
The
two
guideline
studies
are
both
from
California
and
are
of
limited
quality
due
to
very
poor
recoveries
at
initiation
of
the
study.
(
Two
new
field
dissipation
studies
have
been
submitted
in
support
of
the
Group
3
uses
but
were
not
reviewed
in
time
to
support
this
assessment.)
In
addition,
these
studies
were
run
on
fairly
alkaline
soils
(
pH
=
6.9
­
8.7),
so
they
represent
locations
where
azinphos
methyl
would
be
expected
to
be
least
persistent.
Two
non­
guideline
studies
from
Georgia
and
Mississippi
suggest
that
DT
50'
s
in
Southeast
may
be
relatively
short,
at
3
and
8
days
respectively.
However,
these
studies
only
sampled
the
top
inch
of
soil.

In
general,
the
laboratory
fate
data
for
parent
azinphos
methyl
provide
a
reasonable
level
of
confidence
for
the
risk
assessment.
In
contrast
to
most
other
pesticides,
there
is
a
fair
amount
(
7
values)
of
foliar
dissipation
data.
Additional
metabolism
data
would
increase
our
confidence
in
the
chronic
exposure
assessment
and
may
result
in
lower
terrestrial
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs).

3.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
Azinphos
methyl
is
an
organophosphate
insecticide
that
has
both
contact
and
stomach
action.
It
is
an
inhibitor
of
cholinesterase
activity
and
interferes
with
nervous
system
functioning.
Cholinesterase
inhibition
can
have
impacts
on
survivorship,
reproduction,
growth,
and
behavior
of
8
affected
animals.

4.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Azinphos
methyl
is
geographically
restricted
to
several
high
use
locations,
including
the
Mississippi
Delta,
the
Blue
Ridge
Mountains,
the
Texas
Panhandle,
central
Washington,
Central
Valley
of
California,
and
Michigan.
This
ecological
risk
assessment
specifically
focuses
on
the
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
caneberries
in
Oregon,
cranberries
in
Wisconsin,
peaches
across
the
nation
(
except
California),
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds.

a.
Caneberries
Caneberries
(
black
raspberries,
red
raspberries,
marion
blackberries,
evergreen
blackberries,
boysenberries,
loganberries)
are
grown
throughout
the
United
States
(
USDA
NASS,
2004);
however,
this
assessment
is
focuses
specifically
on
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
to
control
the
raspberry
crown
borer
in
Oregon
caneberries.
Oregon
produces
about
one­
third
of
the
nation's
caneberries.
Usage
information
is
summarized
in
Table
2.1.

Table
2.1
Azinphos
methyl
Use
on
Caneberries
in
Oregon
(
Source:
USDA/
NASS
Database
Agricultural
Chemical
Statistics;
crop
acreage
based
on
2002
data,
azinphos
methyl
usage
based
on
data
from
1990
to
2001.

Crop
Acreage
%
Crop
Treated
Average
Usage
(
lbs
a.
i./
yr)
Average
No.
Applications
Average
Single
Application
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)

Raspberries
3600
13
500
1.0
0.76
Blackberries
5980
15
360
1.1
0.39
b.
Cranberries
Approximately
38%
of
the
nation's
cranberry
crop
is
treated
with
azinphos
methyl,
which
adds
up
to
about
9,000
pounds
of
azinphos
methyl
being
applied
annually
to
cranberries.
This
assessment
focuses
on
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
to
control
the
cranberry
fruitworm
in
Wisconsin.
Wisconsin
cranberry
production
areas
are
located
mainly
in
the
central
and
northern
parts
of
the
state
(
Figure
2).
Wisconsin
leads
the
nation
in
cranberry
production
(
USDA
NASS,
2004)
and
is
the
largest
user
of
azinphos
methyl
on
cranberries,
with
approximately
61%
of
the
crop
treated.
9
Figure
2.
Distribution
of
Cranberry
Growing
Areas
in
Wisconsin
(
Source:
Wisconsin
State
Cranberry
Growers
Association;
http://
www.
wiscran.
org/
facts.
htm)

c.
Peaches
Peach
growing
areas
in
the
United
States
are
widespread
and
include
a
wide
range
of
soils,
climates,
altitude,
hydrology,
and
weather
patterns
that
can
support
different
and
distinct
ecosystems.
This
assessment
focuses
on
peaches
grown
everywhere
in
the
U.
S.
except
California.
Because
peaches
are
grown
practically
within
all
latitudes
of
the
country,
the
timings
of
planting
and
insect
emergence,
lengths
of
the
growing
season,
and
harvest
times
can
vary
considerably
from
region
to
region.

In
2003,
about
39,000
pounds
of
azinphos
methyl
were
applied
to
peaches
across
the
nation.
On
average,
approximately
16%
of
the
nation's
peaches
are
treated
annually
with
azinphos
methyl.
South
Carolina
was
the
largest
user
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches,
with
about
17,000
pounds
applied
to
48%
of
15,000
acres.
New
Jersey
had
the
highest
percentage
of
acres
treated
with
57%
of
8000
acres
(
about
11,000
pounds
of
azinphos
methyl
total).

d.
Potatoes
Although
potatoes
are
grown
throughout
the
country,
this
assessment
mainly
focuses
on
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
to
control
the
tuber
moth
on
potatoes
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
(
Washington,
Oregon).
The
National
Potato
Growers
has
requested
an
extension
of
the
use
to
mid­
Atlantic
and
Colorado.
In
2003,
about
4,000
pounds
of
azinphos
methyl
were
applied
to
potatoes
across
the
nation,
with
about
2­
3%
of
the
crop
treated.
In
Washington
and
Oregon,
only
about
1%
of
the
potato
crop
was
treated
with
azinphos
methyl.

e.
Southern
Pine
Seeds
10
Southern
pine
seed
orchards
are
located
throughout
the
southeastern
United
States
and
span
from
Texas
to
as
far
north
as
Delaware.
In
2004,
approximately
11%
the
southern
pine
seed
orchards
were
treated
with
azinphos
methyl.
Azinphos
methyl
is
used
to
control
coneworms
and
seed
bugs
in
southern
pine
seed
orchards.

B.
Assessment
Endpoints
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
The
terrestrial
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
include
the
treated
area
and
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
the
treated
area
that
might
receive
drift
or
runoff,
and
might
include
other
cultivated
fields,
fencerows
and
hedgerows,
meadows,
fallow
fields
or
grasslands,
woodlands,
riparian
habitats
and
other
uncultivated
areas.
For
Tier­
I
assessment
purposes,
risk
will
be
assessed
to
terrestrial
animals
assumed
to
exclusively
occur
in
the
treated
area.
Risks
to
terrestrial
plants
will
not
be
assessed
and
are
presumed
to
be
minimal.

Aquatic
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
include
water
bodies
adjacent
to,
or
downstream
from
the
treated
field
and
might
include
impounded
bodies
such
as
ponds,
lakes
and
reservoirs,
or
flowing
waterways
such
as
streams
or
rivers.
For
uses
in
coastal
areas,
aquatic
habitat
also
includes
marine
ecosystems,
including
estuaries.
For
Tier­
I
assessment
purposes,
risk
will
be
assessed
to
aquatic
animals
assumed
to
occur
in
small,
static
ponds
receiving
runoff
and
drift
from
treated
areas.
These
ponds
are
used
as
surrogates
for
a
number
of
small
vulnerable
waterbodies
that
occur
near
the
tops
of
watersheds
including
swamps,
bogs,
prairie
potholes,
vernal
pools,
playa
lakes,
and
first­
order
streams.
Risks
to
aquatic
plants
will
not
be
assessed
and
are
presumed
to
be
minimal.

2.
Ecological
Effects
For
azinphos
methyl,
ecological
measures
of
effect
are
based
on
multiple
lines
of
evidence,
including
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
as
well
as
field
studies
and
adverse
ecological
incidents.
Acute
and
chronic
endpoints
are
selected
from
available
test
data,
as
the
data
sets
allow.
A
complete
discussion
of
all
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measures
of
ecological
effect
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
included
in
the
Section
III.
C
of
this
document.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
endpoints
and
measures
of
ecological
effect
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
azinphos­
methyl
is
provided
in
Table
2.2.
Terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants
were
not
assessed.

Table
2.2
Summary
of
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Endpoints
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoint
1.
Survival,
reproduction
and
growth
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds
1a.
Oral
LD50
(
mallard
duck,
bobwhite
quail,
ring­
necked
pheasant,
chukar)
1b.
Dietary
LC50
(
mallard
duck;
bobwhite,
Japanese
quail;
ring­
necked
pheasant)
1c.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
bobwhite
quail,
mallard
duck)
11
2.
Survival,
reproduction
and
growth
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals
2a.
Oral
LD50
(
lab
rat;
lab,
house,
deer
mouse;
gray­
tailed
vole)
2b.
Dietary
LC50
(
lab,
deer
mouse;
gray­
tailed
vole)
2c.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
lab
rat)

3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
LC50
(
coho,
Atlantic
salmon;
rainbow,
brown,
brook
trout;
goldfish;
carp;
fathead
minnow;
black
bullhead;
channel
catfish;
green,
bluegill
sunfish;
largemouth
bass;
black
crappie;
yellow
perch;
gold
orfe;
northern
pike)
3b.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
rainbow
trout)
3c.
LC50
(
Daphnia
magna,
Asellus
brevicaudus,
Procambarus
sp.,
Gammarus
fasciatus,
Palaemonetes
kadiakemsis,
Pteronarcys
californica)
3d.
Reproductive
NOAEC,
LOAEC
(
Daphnia
magna)

4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
LC50
(
sheepshead
minnow,
spot,
striped
mullet)
4b.
LC50
(
Eastern
oyster,
brown
shrimp,
blue
crab,
mysid
shrimp)

5.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
amphibians
5a.
LC50
(
Fowler's
toad,
Western
chorus
frog)

6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
6a.
Contact
LD50
honeybee
acute
6b.
Foliar
residue
toxicity
to
honeybees
LC
50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
LD
50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
level.
LOAEC
=
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level.

C.
Analysis
Plan
1.
Measures
of
Exposure
a.
Aquatic
Exposures
Aquatic
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
and
potatoes
will
be
modeled
using
the
Tier­
II
linked
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model
(
version
3.1.2
beta;
Carsel
et
al.,
1997)
and
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
version
2.98.04;
Burns,
1997);
referred
to
as
PRZM/
EXAMS.
The
linked
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
is
typically
used
by
EFED
to
estimate
pesticide
concentrations
in
aquatic
systems.
PRZM
is
employed
to
evaluate
run­
off
loading
from
a
ten­
hectare
agricultural
field
to
a
receiving
surface
water
body
(
one­
hectare­
by­
two­
meter­
deep
"
standard"
pond).

Aquatic
exposures
for
the
other
three
uses
(
caneberries,
cranberries,
southern
pine
seeds)
will
be
estimated
in
a
qualitative
manner.
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
will
not
be
used
for
these
uses
because
there
are
no
appropriate
exposure
scenarios.
As
part
of
the
aquatic
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
southern
pine
seeds,
an
environmental
impact
statement
from
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
(
USDA,
1994)
will
also
be
reviewed
(
see
"
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure"
Section
B
for
more
details).
12
b.
Terrestrial
Exposures
Terrestrial
exposures
will
be
modeled
for
all
five
of
the
assessed
Group
2
uses.
Residues
in
potential
dietary
items
for
mammals
and
birds
(
e.
g.,
vegetation,
insects,
seeds)
will
be
estimated
using
the
conceptual
approach
given
in
the
model
T­
REX
(
Version
1.12,
2004).
In
addition,
an
environmental
impact
statement
for
southern
pine
seed
orchards
(
USDA,
1994)
will
be
reviewed
(
see
"
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure"
Section
B
for
more
details).

2.
Measures
of
Effect
Measures
of
effect
are
based
on
changes
in
the
attribute
of
an
entity
in
response
to
a
stressor
and
are
generally
based
on
the
results
of
a
toxicity
study,
although
monitoring
data
may
also
be
used
to
provide
supporting
lines
of
evidence
for
the
risk
characterization.
Examples
of
measures
of
acute
effects
(
e.
g.,
lethality)
include
an
oral
LD
50
for
birds
and
mammals
and
an
LC
50
for
fish
and
invertebrates.
Examples
of
measures
of
chronic
effects
include
the
reproductive
or
developmental
NOAEL
for
birds
and
mammals.
Table
4.1
summarizes
the
toxicity
endpoints
that
will
be
used
to
assess
ecological
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
and
potatoes.
This
risk
assessment
only
addresses
potential
risks
to
non­
target
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals;
given
the
low
phytotoxicity
of
azinphos
methyl,
risks
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants
are
presumed
to
be
minimal.

3.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
The
model
that
will
be
used
to
predict
aquatic
exposures
for
peaches
and
potatoes
is
the
Tier­
II
PRZM/
EXAMS
model.
Aquatic
exposure
and
risks
will
be
estimated
qualitatively
for
caneberries,
cranberries,
and
southern
pine
seeds.
The
Tier­
I
T­
REX
model
will
be
used
to
estimate
dietary
exposure
for
terrestrial
animals
for
all
of
the
assessed
Group
2
uses.
Selected
ecosystems
used
in
exposure
modeling
are
intended
to
be
generally
representative
of
any
aquatic
or
terrestrial
ecosystem
associated
with
areas
where
azinphos
methyl
is
used.
For
aquatic
assessments,
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
in
both
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
environments
are
represented.
For
terrestrial
assessments,
three
different
size
classes
of
small
mammals
are
represented,
along
with
five
potential
foraging
categories
(
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects,
and
seeds).
For
birds,
four
potential
foraging
categories
are
considered
(
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects,
and
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insects).

III.
Analysis
A.
Use
Characterization
Application
rate
information
for
assessed
uses
of
azinphos
methyl
on
Oregon
caneberries,
Wisconsin
cranberries,
peaches
across
the
nation
(
except
California),
potatoes
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
(
WA,
OR),
and
southern
pine
seeds
are
summarized
below
(
Table
3.1).
13
Table
3.1
Azinphos
methyl
application
rates
and
management
practices
for
the
"
Group
2
Uses".

Crop
Application
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Maximum
No.
Applications
Minimum
Application
Interval
(
Days)
Buffer
Width
(
feet)
Method
Caneberries
0.5
2
10
25
Ground
Cranberries
1.0
2
14
50
Aerial
Peaches
0.75
3
14
60,
100
Air
blast
Potatoes
0.75
2
7
150
Aerial
Southern
Pine
Seeds
1.5
2
30
50
Aerial
B.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
Azinphos
methyl
is
mobile
(
K
f
=
12­
27)
and
can
reach
surface
water
dissolved
in
runoff,
but
it
is
not
likely
to
leach
to
ground
water
in
most
situations.
It
is
moderately
persistent
with
aerobic
soil
metabolism
DT
50
of
27
d.
Azinphos
methyl
degrades
rapidly
by
direct
aqueous
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
77
h),
but
rather
slowly
by
soil
photolysis
(
T
1/
2
=
180
d).
Hydrolysis
is
alkaline
catalyzed
and
is
fairly
rapid
at
high
pH,
on
the
order
of
several
days.
It
is
moderately
persistent
at
acid
and
neutral
pH.
There
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
assessment
of
the
hydrolysis
data
because
data
were
not
collected
below
30

C.
There
are
data
on
the
degradates
formed
through
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism,
but
no
usable
rate
data
are
available.

Degradates
include
anthranilic
acid,
methyl
anthranilate,
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog,
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide,
benzazamide,
and
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide,
and
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid.
The
processes
which
produced
each
degradate
are
listed
in
Table
3­
c.
Because
of
the
limited
concentrations
of
the
identified
degradates
and
their
properties,
this
risk
assessment
has
been
based
solely
on
the
parent.
To
the
extent
that
toxic
degradates
were
present
but
not
considered,
the
risk
is
commensurately
increased.
However,
we
do
not
believe
this
to
be
a
major
limitation
of
this
assessment,
since
all
levels
of
concern
are
already
exceeded,
and
adverse
ecological
incident
provide
addition
support
of
the
risk
conclusions.
Furthermore,
none
of
the
degradates
that
are
produced
by
metabolic
pathways,
which
are
the
primary
routes
of
degradation
for
azinphos
methyl,
are
present
at
any
time
at
concentrations
greater
than
10%
of
the
nominal
starting
concentration
of
the
parent,
so
they
would
not
be
expected
to
contribute
substantially
to
the
total
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
in
the
environment.

A
second
source
of
uncertainty
in
the
fate
assessment
is
due
to
the
field
dissipation
studies.
The
two
guideline
studies
are
both
from
California
and
are
of
limited
quality
due
to
very
poor
recoveries
at
initiation
of
the
study.
In
addition,
these
studies
were
run
on
fairly
alkaline
soils
(
pH
=
6.9
­
8.7),
so
they
represent
locations
where
azinphos
methyl
is
somewhat
less
persistent.
Two
non­
guideline
studies
from
Georgia
and
Mississippi
suggest
that
DT
50'
s
in
the
Southeast
may
be
relatively
short,
at
3
and
8
days,
respectively.
However,
these
studies
only
14
sampled
the
top
inch
of
soil.

In
general,
the
laboratory
fate
data
for
parent
azinphos
methyl
provides
a
reasonable
level
of
confidence
for
the
risk
assessment.
In
contrast
to
most
other
pesticides,
there
is
a
fair
amount
(
7
values)
of
foliar
dissipation
data.
Additional
metabolism
data
would
increase
our
confidence
in
the
chronic
exposure
assessment
and
may
result
in
reduced
EEC
values.

a.
Abiotic
Hydrolysis
An
hydrolysis
study
(
MRID
40297001)
was
conducted
at
three
pH's
(
4,
7,
and
9)
and
two
temperatures
(
30

C
and
40

C).
This
study
was
acceptable
for
regulatory
purposes.
Note
that
the
standard
guideline
hydrolysis
study
is
conducted
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9
and
at
a
single
temperature
of
25

C.
Starting
concentrations
of
1
mg
L­
1
and
10
mg
L­
1
were
tested
for
each
set
of
conditions
for
a
total
of
12
test
systems.
Rate
constants
were
the
same
regardless
of
the
starting
concentration
as
would
be
expected
if
a
first
order
degradation
model
holds
true.
The
rate
constants
were
estimated
using
linear
regression
of
log­
transformed
data.
The
corresponding
half­
lives
as
a
function
of
pH
and
temperature
are
listed
in
Table
3.2.
The
Arrhenius
equation
was
used
to
correct
for
the
temperature
and
estimate
half­
lives
at
for
pH
5,
7,
and
9
by
extrapolation
from
the
higher
temperature
data.
These
25

C
half
lives
are
38
d,
37
d,
and
6.9
d
respectively.

Table
3.2
Half­
life
(
in
days)
of
azinphos
methyl
as
function
of
pH
and
temperature.

Temperature
ph
4
pH
7
pH
9
30
C
49
26
3.7
40
C
23
13
1.8
Several
degradates
were
found
at
concentrations
greater
than
10%
of
the
parent
(
Table
3.3).
In
general,
starting
concentration
and
temperature
did
not
appear
to
affect
the
amount
of
each
degradate
that
was
found
after
30
days.
Mercaptomethyl
benzazimide
was
found
at
4.9%
to
10.4%
after
30
days
in
pH
7,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide
and
benzazimide,
which
were
measured
as
single
analyte,
were
found
after
30
days
at
8.1%
to
12.2%
at
pH
4,
6.0
to
14.2%
at
pH
7,
and
32.4
to
38.9%
at
pH
9.
as
a
single
anthranilic
acid,
was
identified
a
concentration
above
10%
of
the
applied
parent.
Anthranilic
acid
was
found
at
between
18.1
and
22.8%
of
the
parent
a
30
days
in
the
pH
9
test
systems.
An
unidentified
degradate
which
was
possibly
an
ester
of
was
found
in
the
pH
9
test
systems
at
7.4%
to
14.5%.
Bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide
was
also
found
at
concentration
less
than
10%
of
the
applied
radioactivity.

b.
Photolysis
Azinphos
methyl
degrades
by
photolysis
on
both
soil
and
in
water.
In
the
aqueous
photolysis
experiment
(
MRID
40297001)
conducted
at
pH
4.35
and
30

C,
a
direct
photolysis
15
half­
life
of
76.7
hours
was
estimated
from
the
first
order
rate
constant
calculated
using
linear
regression
on
log­
transformed
data.
Note
that
while
the
standard
guidance
is
for
the
study
to
be
conducted
at
25

C
the
data
was
found
to
acceptable
for
regulatory
use
as
photolysis
is
usually
relatively
insensitive
to
temperature.
The
experiment
was
run
in
January
in
Kansas
City
with
natural
sunlight
over
87
hours.
Two
major
degradates
were
identified,
benzazimide
and
anthranilic
acid.
In
this
experiment,
each
`
degradate'
actually
is
a
complex
of
two
degradates
that
could
not
be
separately
identified
by
the
analytical
procedure
used
in
the
study.
The
benzazimide
complex
consisted
of
benzazimide
and
(
1N)­
methoxybenzazimide
while
the
anthranilic
acid
complex
consisted
of
anthranilic
acid
and
methyl
anthranilate
ester.
Benzazimide
complex
represented
39.1%
of
the
radiolabeled
residues
at
the
end
of
the
experiment,
the
anthranilic
acid
complex
reached
7.2%
of
the
radiolabeled
residues
at
the
end
of
experiment.

In
a
soil
photolysis
experiment
(
MRID
40297002)
done
with
natural
sunlight
in
January
through
April
in
Kansas
City,
Missouri,
the
photolysis
half­
life
corrected
for
the
dark
control
was
180
d.
The
data
from
this
study
is
acceptable
for
regulatory
use.
The
soil
was
an
unidentified
sandy
loam
from
Stanley,
Kansas
with
a
pH
of
5.1.
The
half­
life
was
estimated
from
rate
constants
calculated
by
linear
regression
on
log­
transformed
data.
Eighty­
nine
per
cent
of
the
initial
radioactivity
remained
after
31
d
in
the
dark
control
where
as
79%
was
present
in
the
irradiated
test
system.
The
soil
used
was
an
unidentified
sandy
loam.
No
specific
degradates
were
identified
and
none
exceeded
4%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
at
any
point
during
the
experiment.

c.
Metabolism
There
is
one
submitted
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
for
azinphos
methyl
(
MRID
29900).
The
study
was
conducted
on
an
unidentified
sandy
loam
soil.
Ten
measurements
were
made
over
the
course
of
1
year.
The
DT
50
was
27
d
and
the
DT
90
was
146
d
as
estimated
by
exponential
interpolation.
The
reaction
does
not
appear
to
follow
first­
order
kinetics,
hence
a
half­
life
estimate
is
inappropriate.
However,
since
the
current
environmental
fate
models
require
first
order
rate
constant,
an
estimate
was
generated
using
non­
linear
regression
on
the
untransformed
data.
This
method
often
provides
estimates
that
better
describe
the
data
when
there
is
significant
lack
of
fit
of
the
first
order
model,
as
is
the
case
here.
The
half­
life
estimate
generated
using
this
method
was
32
d.
No
single
identified
metabolite
was
found
at
greater
than
10%
of
the
applied
radioactivity;
the
oxygen
analog
of
azinphos
methyl
(
azinphos
methyl
oxon)
peaked
at
5.3%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
186
d
after
application.
Four
benzazamide
metabolites,
namely
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide,
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide,
benzazamide,
and
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide,
were
reported
as
a
single
analyte,
with
a
maximum
of
12%
of
the
applied
occurring
at
120
d.
Only
4.1
%
of
residues
were
trapped
as
volatiles
in
a
NaOH
trap;
this
is
likely
to
have
been
CO
2.
Seventy­
two
per
cent
of
the
radioactivity
was
in
unidentified
soil
bound
residues
at
the
end
of
the
experiment.

A
single
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
was
submitted
(
MRID
29900).
This
study
was
found
to
be
acceptable
for
regulatory
use.
In
this
study,
the
soil
was
incubated
aerobically
for
30
d,
prior
16
to
flooding
and
purging
with
nitrogen.
Three
samples
were
collected
and
analyzed
over
the
subsequent
60
d
duration
of
the
study.
Forty
four
percent
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
present
at
the
initiation
of
anaerobic
conditions
and
24%
was
present
as
azinphos
methyl
at
the
completion
of
the
study
60
d
later.
No
DT
50
was
estimated
as
the
less
than
50%
of
the
parent
that
was
present
at
the
initiation
of
anaerobic
conditions
was
degraded
during
the
course
of
the
study.
The
data
was
fit
to
a
first
order
degradation
model
using
linear
regression
of
log­
transformed
data,
resulting
in
a
half­
life
estimate
of
66
d.
The
confidence
in
this
estimate
is
low
since
it
is
based
on
only
three
measurements.
No
single
metabolite
was
present
at
greater
than
10%
of
the
application
rate.
At
the
conclusion
of
the
study,
50%
of
the
radioactivity
was
present
as
unidentified
soil
bound
residues.

A
single
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study
was
submitted
(
MRID
44411801).
This
study
was
found
to
provide
supplemental
data
on
the
degradates,
but
not
to
be
fully
acceptable.
The
study
is
not
upgradeable.
Eight
or
nine
degradates
of
azinphos
methyl
were
found
in
the
two
systems:
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl,
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl
S­
methyl
isomer,
methyl
benzazimide,
methylsulfinyl
methyl
benzazimide,
methylsulfonyl
methyl
benzazimide,
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid,
methylthiomethyl
benzazimide,
and
either/
or
hydroxy­
methyl
benzazimide/
benzazimide.
The
last
two
degradates
were
not
resolved
by
the
chromatography.
Only
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid
occurred
at
greater
than
10%
(
11.4%)
of
the
nominal
concentration.
The
study
could
not
be
used
to
establish
the
rate
of
azinphos
methyl
degradation
under
aerobic
aquatic
conditions.

Table
3.3
Degradates
found
in
azinphos
methyl
studies.

Degradate
Soil
Photolysis
Aqueous
Photolysis
Hydrolysis
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl
X
des­
methyl
azinphos
methyl
S­
methyl
isomer
X
anthranilic
acid
X
X
methyl
anthranilate
X
benzazimide
X
X
X
X
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog
X
X
hydroxymethyl
benzazimide
X
X
X
X
mercaptomethyl
benzazimide
X
X
bis­
methyl
benzazamide
sulfide
X
X
methyl
benzazimide
X
methylsulfinyl
methyl
benzazimide
X
17
methylsulfonyl
methyl
benzazimide
X
methyl
benzazimide
sulfonic
acid
X
methylthiomethyl
benzazimide
X
d.
Foliar
Degradation
and
Washoff
A
major
route
of
dissipation
for
azinphos
methyl
is
foliar
degradation
and
washoff.
There
are
seven
measurements
available
for
foliar
degradation
of
azinphos
methyl
(
Table
3.4),
six
from
the
open
literature
and
one
from
a
study
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Note
that
there
are
currently
no
requirements
nor
guidance
for
the
conduct
for
foliar
degradation
and
washoff
studies.
The
study
by
the
registrant
was
conducted
concurrently
with
a
runoff
study
at
Benoit,
Mississippi
(
Coody
1992).
The
mean
dissipation
half
life
over
these
studies
was
7.2
d.
The
background
variability
among
studies
is
fairly
high,
 
=
4.9
d.
Note
that
most
of
these
studies
are
field
studies,
so
they
may
include
washoff.
Note
also
that
there
is
some
evidence
(
see
Jones,
D190581.
McDowell,
1984)
that
foliar
dissipation
is
not
a
first
order
process,
so
the
half
lives
used
in
this
calculation
may
not
accurately
reflect
the
true
degradation
process
on
foliar
surfaces
for
azinphos
methyl.
There
were
no
degradate
data
in
these
studies.

One
washoff
estimate
was
available
for
azinphos
methyl
(
Gunther
et
al,
1977).
This
study
showed
that
60%
of
the
azinphos
methyl
of
leaf
surfaces
washed
of
with
0.33
cm
of
simulated
rainfall.
This
would
correspond
to
a
first
order
washoff
rate
constant
of
0.937
cm­
1.
A
description
of
the
method
of
estimating
the
washoff
rate
constant
is
in
Jones,
1998.

Table
3.4
Foliar
dissipation
half­
lives
for
azinphos
methyl.

Half­
life
(
days)
Source
1.6
Hoskins,
1961
7.9
Hoskins,
1961
5.2
Hoskins,
1961
7.4
Pree
et
al.,
1976
9.8
Pree
et
al.,
1976
16.0
Winterlin
et
al.,
1974
2.56
MRID
425167­
02
e.
Batch
Equilibrium/
Mobility
Soil
water
partition
coefficients
were
estimated
from
batch
equilibrium
studies
for
three
unidentified
soils
(
MRID
42959702).
K
f
values
for
adsorption
varied
from
7
to
17
and
varied
from
12
to
28
for
desorption
(
Table
3.5).
In
all
cases
1/
n
values
were
less
than
1,
indicating
that
the
adsorption/
desorption
isotherms
are
not
linear.
Binding
of
azinphos
methyl
to
soil
was
not
18
significantly
correlated
to
soil
organic
carbon
content
(
R2
=
51%).
These
values
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
should
not
be
particularly
mobile
by
leaching
but
should
be
relatively
mobile
to
surface
waters
in
the
dissolved
form
in
runoff.
An
aged
soil
column
leaching
study
(
MRID
00029887)
confirmed
the
low
mobility
by
leaching
of
azinphos
methyl
and
its
degradates:
90%
of
the
radioactivity
was
in
the
top
5
cm
of
the
column
after
leaching
with
35.5
cm
of
water
over
45
d.
The
soil
material
was
aged
for
28
d
and
then
dried
before
being
packed
into
the
column.
A
total
of
4.4%
of
the
radioactivity
leached
from
the
bottom
of
the
30.5
cm
column.

Table
3.5
Fruendlich
Adsorption
and
Desorption
constants
for
azinphos
methyl
on
four
soils.

Soil
Texture
%
Organic
Carbon
Kf
for
adsorption
1/
n
for
adsorption
Kf
for
desorption
1/
n
for
adsorption
sandy
loam
1.6
7.6
0.83
12.3
0.86
silt
loam
2.9
16.8
0.82
27.5
0.94
silty
clay
0.3
9.8
0.93
12.3
0.95
f.
Bioaccumulation
A
bioaccumulation
study
is
not
required
as
the
K
ow
is
less
than
1000.
The
K
ow
of
azinphos
methyl
is
543.

g.
Field
Dissipation
Studies
Four
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
are
available
for
azinphos
methyl.
Two
additional
field
dissipation
studies
have
been
submitted
are
currently
in
review.
The
first
two
were
submitted
to
satisfy
the
terrestrial
field
dissipation
guideline.
The
second
two
were
submitted
in
conjunction
with
runoff
studies.
They
provide
supporting
information
on
the
dissipation
of
azinphos
methyl
under
some
conditions
but
do
not
satisfy
the
guideline
requirement.
The
first
two
(
MRID
42647901)
were
conducted
in
California
on
alfalfa
fields.
There
were
no
uncropped
plots
at
either
site.
One
of
the
studies
was
conducted
at
Watsonville,
California
on
a
Salinas
silt
loam
where
azinphos
methyl
was
applied
in
July.
The
pH
of
the
soil
at
this
site
ranged
from
6.9
to
8.0.
We
would
expect
azinphos
methyl
to
degrade
more
rapidly
under
these
pH
conditions
when
compared
to
most
agricultural
fields
where
the
pH
is
acid
to
neutral.
The
duration
of
the
experiment
was
60
days.
There
were
two
plots,
one
receiving
one
application
of
3
lb
acre­
1,
and
the
other
receiving
two
applications
7
days
apart
at
the
same
rate.
Parent
azinphos
methyl
degraded
with
a
DT
50
of
9
days
(
estimated
by
exponential
interpolation)
from
the
upper
6
inches
of
soil
in
the
single
application
plot.
The
DT
50
was
bracketed
by
7
and
14
days
after
the
second
application
in
the
two
application
plot.
Azinphos
methyl
was
only
detected
in
one
sample
below
6
inches
after
28
days
in
the
single
application
plot.
Only
one
degradate,
azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog,
was
analyzed,
but
was
not
detected.
The
quantitation
limit
for
both
parent
and
degradate
was
0.01
mg

kg­
1.
A
total
of
12.9
inches
of
rain
plus
irrigation
was
applied
to
the
plots
during
the
course
of
the
study.
However,
no
evapotranspiration
data
was
supplied
so
it
is
not
possible
to
19
assess
leaching
with
the
data
provided.
The
value
of
this
study
is
limited,
because
the
recovery
at
time
0
was
only
55%
and
there
was
no
uncropped
plot.

The
same
experimental
setup
was
used
at
the
Fresno
site.
Applications
were
made
in
May.
The
soil
here
was
a
Hesperia
fine
sandy
loam.
The
pH
of
the
soil
at
this
site
ranged
from
7.6
to
8.7.
As
with
the
previous
study,
we
would
expect
azinphos
methyl
to
degrade
more
rapidly
under
pH
conditions
such
as
this
as
compared
to
most
other
agricultural
fields
where
the
pH
is
acid
to
neutral.
The
experiment
was
conducted
for
60
days.
The
DT
50,
estimated
by
exponential
interpolation
was
two
days
in
the
single
application
plot,
and
bracketed
by
7
and
14
days
in
the
2
application
plot.
No
azinphos
methyl
was
detected
below
the
top
6
inches.
Azinphos
methyl
oxygen
analog
was
detected
once
in
the
top
layer
at
the
quantitation
limit
of
0.01
mg

kg­
1.
A
total
of
16.2
inches
of
rainfall
and
irrigation
were
applied
to
the
plots
during
the
study,
but
as
in
the
previous
study,
no
evapotranspiration
data
was
collected
so
leaching
at
the
site
cannot
be
assessed.
The
recovery
of
azinphos
methyl
at
time
zero
was
60%
and
there
was
no
uncropped
plot,
limiting
the
utility
of
this
study.

The
two
other
field
dissipation
studies
were
conducted
in
conjunction
with
runoff
studies
in
cotton
fields
in
Colquitt
County,
Georgia
(
MRID
425167­
02)
and
Benoit,
Mississippi
(
MRID
425167­
01).
They
provide
marginal
data,
as
no
samples
were
collected
at
zero
time,
no
samples
were
collected
below
the
top
inch,
and
degradates
were
not
analyzed.
The
soils
at
the
Colquitt
County
site
were
an
Alapaha
sandy
loam,
a
Carnegie
sandy
loam,
a
Tifton
loamy
sand,
and
a
Tifton
sandy
loam.
The
soils
at
the
Benoit
site
were
dominantly
a
Bosket
very
fine
sandy
loam
with
smaller
amounts
of
Dubbs
very
sandy
loam.
A
single
application
of
0.25
lb

acre­
1
was
made
to
the
Colquitt
County
site
on
August
7
and
to
the
Benoit
site
on
August
22.
The
DT
50
at
the
Colquitt
County
site
was
3
d,
and
8.2
d
at
the
Benoit
site.
It
is
possible
that
these
dissipation
rates
include
a
substantial
amount
of
leaching
as
the
sampling
depth
was
so
shallow.

h.
Field
Runoff
Studies
Two
runoff
studies
were
conducted
to
measure
pesticide
runoff
under
field
conditions.
These
studies
provide
supplemental
information
on
runoff
potential
of
azinphos
methyl.
These
studies
were
voluntarily
submitted
by
the
registrant.
There
is
currently
no
requirement
nor
guidance
for
conducting
field
runoff
studies.
The
studies
were
conducted
in
Colquitt
County,
Georgia
(
MRID
425167­
02)
and
Benoit,
Mississippi
(
MRID
425167­
01)
in
cotton
fields.

At
the
Mississippi
site,
a
total
of
14.9
g
of
azinphos
methyl
ran
off
the
5.2
acre
plot
in
a
storm
of
3.08
inches
on
August
9,
1989.
Approximately
31.5%
of
the
precipitation
ran
off
the
plot
during
the
rainfall
event.
Although
the
study
was
otherwise
well­
conducted,
the
method
used
to
confirm
the
application
rate
(
collection
of
the
spray
on
cards
placed
in
the
field
during
application)
was
only
able
to
collect
~
20%
of
nominal
application
rate.
It
is
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
make
accurate
assessments
of
the
fate
of
the
pesticide
when
the
amount
and
distribution
of
the
pesticide
immediately
following
application
cannot
be
determined.
We
can
therefore
only
say
that
the
percent
of
azinphos
methyl
that
ran
off
the
field
was
between
0.9%
20
(
based
on
spray
tank
calibration
of
the
nominal
application
rate)
and
3.5%
(
based
on
the
spray
card
recovery).
It
is
more
likely
to
be
the
former
of
these
values
as
the
pesticide
mass
on
the
spray
cards
are
not
reflective
of
the
application
rate
due
to
interception
from
adjacent
foliage.

The
rainfall
event
represented
a
storm
with
a
one
in
seven
year
return
frequency
during
the
summer
in
this
part
of
Mississippi.
The
return
frequency
of
the
runoff
event
is
somewhat
less
than
that
for
the
precipitation
event,
as
the
soil
was
fairly
dry
due
to
lack
of
precipitation
in
the
week
prior
to
the
runoff
event.
Furthermore,
because
this
study
was
conducted
later
in
the
season
than
when
most
azinphos
methyl
is
applied,
the
canopy
was
more
closed
than
would
usually
be
the
case.
The
site
represents
what
appears
to
be
a
fairly
typical
site
for
cotton
culture.
However,
data
was
not
provided
that
would
allow
a
more
precise
estimate
of
how
likely
the
site
was
to
produce
adverse
aquatic
exposures,
as
compared
to
other
cotton
agricultural
sites.

To
summarize
the
results
from
Mississippi,
the
runoff
event
in
the
study
represents
a
less
than
one
in
seven
year
event
on
a
typical
site.
It
generated
between
0.9%
and
3.5%
of
the
applied
azinphos
methyl
in
the
runoff,
with
the
value
more
likely
to
be
close
to
the
0.9%
value.

At
the
Colquitt
County,
Georgia
site,
the
field
occupied
49
acres
of
a
50
acre
watershed
and
drained
into
a
3.5
acre
pond.
Nine
acres
of
the
field
was
separated
from
the
rest
of
the
field
with
a
berm.
This
isolated
area
was
used
to
quantify
the
runoff
and
the
azinphos
methyl
in
it.
Eight
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
were
made
at
three
day
intervals
starting
on
August
1.

A
total
of
13.3
g
of
azinphos
methyl
ran
off
the
9
acre
portion
of
the
field
in
four
storms
which
occurred
on
August
8
(
32
mm),
August
26
(
61
mm),
August
31
(
37
mm),
and
October
1
(
33
mm).
These
produced
3.6
g,
8.3
g,
1.3
g
and
0.0012
g
of
azinphos
methyl
in
the
runoff,
respectively.
The
method
used
to
confirm
the
application
rate
(
collection
of
the
spray
on
cards
placed
in
the
field
during
application)
showed
about
75%
of
nominal
application
rate
was
reaching
the
study
site
on
average.
A
second
method
of
confirmation,
using
the
tank
calibration
data,
along
with
measurements
of
the
azinphos
methyl
in
the
spray
solution
gave
a
separate
estimate
of
the
application
rate.
This
method
generally
gave
higher
estimates
than
the
spray
cards.
It
is
more
likely
that
the
tank
calibration
method
is
the
more
accurate
of
these
estimates,
as
the
pesticide
mass
on
the
spray
cards
may
not
be
reflective
of
the
application
rate
due
to
interception
from
adjacent
foliage.
The
percent
runoff
was
calculated
both
by
using
the
application
estimate
based
on
the
tank
calibration
measurements
and
upon
the
amount
found
on
the
spray
cards.
The
percent
azinphos
methyl
in
runoff
ranged
from
1.7
x
10­
4
to
0.17%
using
the
tank
calibration
data
and
from
2.2
x10­
4
to
0.26%
based
on
the
spray
cards.
The
total
applied
that
ran
off
was
0.18%
by
the
tank
calibration
method
and
0.24%
by
the
spray
card
method.
Measurements
of
the
sediment
transported
from
the
9
acre
study
area
ranged
from
22
kg
due
to
the
October
31
runoff
event
to
2,200
kg
for
the
August
26
event.
The
concentration
of
azinphos
methyl
on
the
sediment
was
not
determined.
The
mean
azinphos
methyl
concentration
in
the
pond
was
about
2
and
3
µ
g

L­
1.
However,
the
variance
among
the
measurements
in
the
pond
was
very
high
in
the
first
few
days
after
the
runoff
event
as
the
pond
did
not
yet
appear
to
be
well
mixed.
so
the
uncertainty
is
higher
than
would
normally
be
the
case.
21
Data
were
not
provided
on
the
return
frequency
of
the
runoff
events.
Some
anecdotal
information
(
a
tornado
occurred
nearby)
was
provided
on
the
return
frequency
of
the
August
26
storm,
indicating
that
storms
of
that
intensity
(
61
mm
in
30
to
40
min)
were
relatively
rare
in
that
area.
However,
given
the
soil
was
likely
to
have
been
fairly
dry
before
the
event,
it
is
likely
that
the
runoff
event
(
as
opposed
to
the
storm
event)
was
not
particularly
severe.
Furthermore,
because
this
study
was
conducted
later
in
the
season
than
when
most
azinphos
methyl
is
applied,
the
canopy
was
more
closed
than
would
usually
be
the
case.
The
site
represents
what
appears
to
be
a
fairly
typical
site
for
cotton
culture
in
Georgia,
but
data
was
not
provided
that
would
allow
a
more
precise
estimate
of
how
likely
the
site
was
to
produce
adverse
aquatic
exposures,
as
compared
to
other
cotton
agricultural
sites.
It
should
be
noted
that
a
fish
kill
of
500
to
1000
fish
occurred
in
the
pond
adjacent
to
the
site
two
days
following
the
August
26
storm.

To
summarize
the
results
from
Georgia,
four
runoff
events
occurred
in
the
study
that
moved
less
than
0.3%
of
the
applied
pesticide
in
runoff,
but
the
relative
frequency
of
the
events
and
the
relative
severity
of
the
site
cannot
be
determined
with
the
data
provided.

i.
Chemistry
Input
Parameters
Azinphos
methyl
is
an
organophosphate
insecticide
used
on
a
wide
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Azinphos
methyl
environmental
fate
data
used
for
generating
model
parameters
are
listed
in
Table
3­
j.
The
input
parameters
for
PRZM
and
EXAMS
are
in
Table
3­
k.
Descriptions
of
special
considerations
used
to
select
environmental
fate
parameters
or
to
generate
modeling
input
values
are
described
below.

Hydrolysis.
As
noted
above,
measurements
of
the
hydrolysis
rates
were
made
at
30

C
and
40

C
rather
than
the
standard
25

C.
The
Arrhenius
Rate
Law
was
used
to
calculate
the
degradation
rate
by
hydrolysis
at
25

C
for
use
EXAMS.

Soil
and
Aquatic
Metabolism.
Only
one
anaerobic
and
one
aerobic
soil
metabolism
value
was
available
for
azinphos
methyl.
No
aquatic
metabolism
data
are
currently
available.
Current
policy
for
generating
input
parameters
for
PRZM
3
when
only
one
value
is
available
is
to
multiply
the
half­
life
by
three
resulting
in
a
PRZM
input
parameter
for
aerobic
soil
degradation
of
95.3
d.
In
previous
modeling
for
azinphos
methyl,
the
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
value
was
used
as
input
to
PRZM
representing
the
degradation
rate
in
the
sub­
surface
horizons.
For
this
set
of
simulations,
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
was
used
for
all
depths.
This
will
have
no
effect
on
the
EECs.

Since
no
aquatic
metabolism
data
was
available,
current
policy
is
to
use
the
value
of
the
corresponding
half­
life
for
aerobic
soil
metabolism
and
multiply
that
value
by
2
to
represent
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism.
This
is
done
as
there
is
usually
some
correspondence
between
soil
and
aquatic
metabolism
rates
and
in
the
absence
of
aquatic
data
this
is
judged
to
be
a
reasonable
conservative
surrogate.
The
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
input
parameters
was
multiplies
by
2
again
to
estimate
the
degradation
rate
in
the
pond
sediment.
The
resulting
half
lives
for
aerobic
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
are
190.8
and
381.6
d
respectively.
In
practice
these
values
are
22
of
little
importance
as
the
degradation
in
the
water
column
will
be
dominated
by
hydrolysis.

Soil
Water
Partition
Coefficients.
In
previous
modeling,
a
K
oc
value
based
on
K
f's
was
used
in
the
simulations.
The
method
for
generating
soil­
water
partition
coefficient
input
values
has
changed
substantially
from
this
in
the
new
simulations.
In
selecting
a
value
for
the
soil­
water
partition
coefficient
to
use
in
the
simulations,
four
issues
needed
to
be
considered.
First,
adsorption
and
desorption
isotherms
are
not
equal,
so
it
must
be
decided
whether
to
use
the
adsorption
or
desorption
isotherm.
Current
policy
is
to
use
the
desorption
values
in
PRZM
because
the
dominant
process
during
a
runoff
event
is
desorption
and
to
use
the
adsorption
isotherm
in
EXAMS
as
that
it
is
the
dominant
process
in
the
pond.
Secondly,
the
data
for
each
of
the
three
soils
(
both
adsorption
and
desorption
processes)
were
fitted
to
a
Fruendlich
isotherm
and
the
1/
n
or
"
curvature"
term
in
the
equation
was
significantly
different
than
1,
indicating
that
concentration
adsorbed
to
soil
was
curvilinearly
related
to
concentration
in
solution.
Unfortunately,
PRZM
and
EXAMS
only
have
a
linear
(
K
d)
partition
model
for
handling
soil­
water
partitioning
of
pesticides.
For
the
desorption
isotherm,
this
was
handled
by
calculating
the
partitioning
between
soil
and
water
at
the
maximum
concentration
it
would
be
expected
to
occur
in
each
media.
While
this
method
does
not
give
the
most
accurate
soil­
water
partitioning
of
the
pesticide
over
the
range
of
the
isotherm,
it
should
be
most
accurate
at
near
application
rate,
where
the
greatest
portion
of
the
runoff
occurs.
For
the
calculated
desorption
K
d's
for
PRZM
2,
the
soil
concentration
of
17.2
µ
g

kg­
soil­
1
was
used,
which
corresponds
to
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
application
rate
being
mixed
into
the
top
1
cm
of
soil.
The
soil
water
was
content
was
assumed
to
be
0.35
cm3­
H
2
O

cm­
3­
soil
and
the
bulk
density
of
the
soil
was
assumed
to
be
1.3
kg

L­
1.
The
partitioning
under
these
conditions
was
used
to
calculate
a
K
d
appropriate
for
this
soil
content.
Note
that
for
each
soil,
four
different
desorption
experiments
were
done
and
Fruendlich
parameters
were
given
for
each
separate
experiment.
The
average
of
the
four
sets
of
parameters
was
used
to
calculate
a
single
K
d
for
the
soil
at
the
application
rate
rather
than
four
different
K
d's
being
calculated
and
then
averaged.

Finally,
a
Pearson's
Correlation
Analysis
of
the
of
the
calculated
K
d
with
organic
carbon
content
was
used
to
calculate
a
K
oc.
for
neither
adsorption
nor
desorption
was
there
a
significant
correlation
between
the
calculated
K
d's
and
organic
carbon
content,
so
the
K
d
value
for
the
silty
clay
soil,
8.414
L

kg­
1
for
desorption
and
7.55
L

kg­
1
for
adsorption
was
used.
Finally
it
should
be
noted
that
the
concentrations
in
the
soil­
water
partitioning
study
are
only
about
1
tenth
the
concentration
of
pesticide
that
could
be
found
in
the
soil
at
the
application
rate.
Hence,
we
are
extrapolating
considerably
beyond
the
range
of
the
experimental
data
for
calculating
the
EEC
and
this
usually
results
in
substantial
error.

Table
3­
j.
Environmental
fate
parameters
for
azinphos
methyl.

Fate
Parameter
Value
Source
Molecular
Mass
317.32
g

mol­
1
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Rate
Constant
2.17
x
10­
2
d­
1
MRID
29900
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Rate
Constant
1.04x10­
2
d­
1
MRID
29900
23
K
d
7.6
L

kg­
soil­
1
(
sandy
loam)
MRID
42959702
Solubility
25.10
mg

L­
1
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Vapor
Pressure
2.2x10­
7
torr
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Acidic
Hydrolysis
Rate
Constant
4.78
L

(
mol­
H+)­
1

d­
1
EFGWB
One­
Liner
Neutral
Hydrolysis
Constant
7.83x10­
4
d­
1
Wilkes
et
al.,
1979
Alkaline
Hydrolysis
Constant
82
L

(
mol­
OH+)­
1

d­
1
Wilkes
et
al.,
1979
Aqueous
Photolysis
Constant
3.19
d
MRID
40297001
Washoff
Fraction
0.937
Gunther
et
al.,
1977
Foliar
Degradation
Rate
Constant
7.2
d
see
text
Foliar
Washoff
and
Degradation.
Foliar
dissipation
is
an
important
process
for
estimating
the
EEC
of
azinphos
methyl.
Data
for
foliar
washoff
of
azinphos
methyl
(
Gunther
et
al.,
1977)
is
not
presented
in
a
manner
that
is
most
amenable
to
direct
use
in
PRZM
2.
The
value
available
for
foliar
washoff
is
60%
of
the
amount
applied
washed
off
in
the
first
0.33
cm
of
rainfall.
The
PRZM
foliar
washoff
parameter,
FEXTRC,
is
the
amount
of
pesticide
washed
off
in
1
cm
of
rainfall,
expressed
as
a
fraction.
There
is
some
indication
(
McDowell
et
al.,
1984)
that
a
hyperbolic
model
(
1/[
a+
bt])
best
predicts
the
concentration
profile
with
washing
volume
of
methyl
parathion,
a
similar
compound,
in
washoff,
but
integration
of
the
regression
equations
failed
to
provide
meaningful
estimates
of
the
percent
washed
off
in
1
cm
of
rainfall
(
Values
calculated
exceeded
the
initial
concentration).
To
obtain
a
meaningful,
if
not
particularly
accurate
or
precise
estimate
of
foliar
washoff,
the
following
assumptions
were
made:
first,
that
washoff
rate
was
proportional
to
the
amount
on
the
leaf
(
i.
e.
d[
AM]/
dV
=
­
k[
AM],
where
[
AM]
is
the
azinphos
methyl
concentration
on
the
leaf,
V
is
the
volume
of
runoff
expressed
as
cm
of
precipitation
and
k
is
the
washoff
rate
constant).
The
exponential
removal
model
which
was
selected
for
the
first
assumption
was
chosen
over
a
linear
model
as
there
is
some
indications
that
an
exponential
model
better
described
the
structure
of
the
data.
Based
on
the
first
assumption,
the
equation
describing
the
washoff
fraction
as
a
function
of
the
precipitation
amount,
V,
in
1
cm
is:

W

e

kV
where
W
is
the
fraction
remaining
on
the
foliage.
The
40%
remained
after
0.33
cm
of
precipitation
allows
to
calculate
a
point
estimate
of
k
as
2.78.
Using
this
value
for
k,
the
fraction
washed
off
(
1­
W)
with
1
cm
of
rainfall
is
0.937.

For
foliar
degradation,
7
foliar
half­
lives
measurements
are
available
(
Lindquist
and
Krueger,
1975;
Hoskins,
1962;
Pree
et
al.,
1976;
Winterlin
et
al.,
1974,
McDowell
et
al,
1984).
Assuming
these
values
are
distributed
normally,
the
value
which
represents
the
one
tail
upper
90%
confidence
limit
of
the
mean
is
9.8
d.
24
Table
3­
k.
Chemistry
input
parameters
for
Tier­
II
(
PRZM/
EXAMS)
simulation
of
azinphos
methyl
for
aquatic
assessment
of
the
peach
and
potato
uses.
Source
data
is
in
Table
10.

Input
Parameter
Value
Justification
Quality
Molecular
weight
317.32
g
mol­
1
calculated
excellent
Solubility
25.10
mg

L­
1
measured
very
good
Hydrolysis
39.4
(
pH
5)
adjusted
for
temperature
excellent
Photolysis
3.19
d
measured
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
95.4
d
single
value
x
3
fair
Water
Column
Metabolism
190.8
d
aerobic
soil
x
2
poor
Sediment
Metabolism
381.6
d
water
column
x
2
poor
Foliar
Degradation
9.8
d
UCB90
on
7
values
good
Foliar
Washoff
Coefficient
0.937
cm­
1
point
estimate
from
1
fair
Henry's
Law
Constant
3.66
x
10­
6
L
atm
mol­
1
estimated
from
solubility
poor
Vapor
Pressure
2.2
x
10­
7
torr
good
good
Soil
Water
Partition
Coefficient
7.6
L

kg­
soil­
1
lowest
non­
sand
Kd
good
The
following
changes
were
made
from
the
assessment
in
the
IRED
(
Homes
et
al,
1999)
and
the
current
assessment.
These
changes
reflect
changes
in
model
versions,
changes
in
policy
and
updated
scenarios:

The
version
of
PRZM
changed
from
PRZM
2.3
to
3.12beta.
While
there
are
substantial
differences
between
the
two
versions,
these
changes
do
not
substantially
affect
the
routines
used
to
calculate
the
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl.

The
version
of
EXAMS
changed
from
2.94
to
2.98.
The
changes
in
EXAMS
were
dominantly
in
output
reporting
and
the
use
of
weather
data.
This
results
in
minor
changes
in
the
EECs.

The
peach
scenario
was
upgraded
for
use
with
PRZM
3.12beta
and
revised
to
be
consistent
with
current
guidance
for
scenario
input
seelction
and
quality
assurance.
The
soil
was
changed
from
a
Boswell
sandy
loam
to
a
Greenville
fine
sandy
loam.
The
weather
location
was
moved
from
Augusta,
Georgia
to
Macon,
Georgia.

The
PE4
shell
was
used
to
run
PRZM
and
EXAMS.
Degradation
rates
are
entered
as
halflives
rather
than
as
rate
constants
into
PE4
which
converts
them
to
rate
constants
internally.
For
the
previous
simulations,
EXAMS
output
was
processed
withe
SZ2
postprocessor
Post­
processing
methods
in
SZ2
and
PE4
are
essentially
identical.

The
Henry's
Law
constant
was
externally
from
the
solubility
and
vapor
pressure
and
entered
directly
into
EXAMS
rather
than
have
the
program
calculate
it.
This
was
to
ensure
compatibility
with
the
PE4
shell.

The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
estimate
spray
drift
values
in
addition
to
using
the
default
values
currently
indicated
by
the
input
parameter
document.
This
allows
the
estimation
of
25
the
effect
of
spray
buffers
on
drift
reduction.

2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
Two
models
were
used
in
tandem
for
the
Tier­
II
surface
water
assessments
for
peaches
and
potatoes.
PRZM
simulates
fate
and
transport
on
the
agricultural
field.
The
version
of
PRZM
(
Carsel
et
al.,
1998)
used
was
PRZM
3.12
beta,
dated
May
24,
2001.
The
water
body
is
simulated
with
EXAMS
version
2.98,
dated
July
18,
2002
(
Burns,
1997).
Tier­
II
simulations
are
run
for
multiple
(
usually
30)
years
and
the
reported
EECs
are
the
concentrations
that
are
expected
once
every
ten
years
based
on
the
thirty
years
of
daily
values
generated
by
the
simulation.
PRZM
and
EXAMS
were
run
using
the
PE4
shell,
dated
May
14,
2003,
which
also
summarizes
the
output.
Spray
Drift
was
simulated
using
the
AgDrift
model
version
2.01
dated
May
24,
2001.

Three
scenarios
were
used
to
represent
high
exposure
sites
for
azinphos
methyl
use,
two
for
potatoes
and
one
for
peaches.
All
these
sites
represent
10
hectare
fields
draining
into
a
1
hectare
pond,
2
m
deep
with
no
outlet.
For
peaches,
this
scenario
is
essentially
the
same
as
a
meadow
at
the
same
site
and
is
appropriate
for
modeling
other
meadow­
like
fields,
such
as
vineyards,
which
is
reasonable
given
the
state
of
the
art
in
computer
modeling
of
agricultural
production
systems.
Metadata
for
the
scenarios
is
documented
in
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model
Field
and
Orchard
Crop
Scenario
Metadata,
dated
December
24,
2004
(
EFED,
2004).

The
field
used
to
represent
peach
production
in
Georgia
is
located
in
Peach
County
in
Southwest
Georgia
(
MLRA133)
and
the
weather
station
representing
the
orchard
is
in
MLRA
137
and
located
in
Macon,
GA.
Peaches
are
grown
throughout
the
state,
and
Peach
County
represents
the
highest
producing
county
in
Georgia
and
the
7th
highest
producing
county
in
the
U.
S.
Tree
row
spacing
is
generally
15
to
20
feet
and
within
row
spacing
varies
with
the
variety
and
maintenance
size
of
the
tree
from
as
little
as
8
feet
to
20
feet.
Tree
heights
are
maintained
from
8
feet
to
over
20
feet.
Tree
size
and
density
is
carefully
maintained
to
optimize
fruit
production
and
pesticide
and
growth
regulator
applications.
Flower
buds
begin
to
swell
in
late
Winter
to
early
Spring
in
the
South
as
heat
accumulates
followed
closely
by
bud
bloom.
At
the
time
of
flowering
the
fruiting
stage
commences
and
continues
through
harvest.
For
high
yields
of
quality
fruit,
proper
soil
and
site
management,
among
other
factors
are
necessary.
Soil
characteristics
have
a
significant
influences
on
tree
development,
fruit
bearing
capacity,
and
tree
life.
Of
these,
soil
texture
and
drainage
are
among
the
most
important
for
peach
tree
health.
Peach
trees
do
best
in
moderately
to
well
drained
soils
of
a
sandy
to
silt
loam
texture.
Trees
do
not
tolerate
wet
soils
for
prolonged
periods
of
time
(
days
to
weeks)
during
the
growing
period.
The
soil
selected
to
simulate
the
field
is
a
Greenville
fine
sandy
loam
in
the
Greenville­
Faceville­
Orangeburg
Association.
Greenville
fine
sandy
loam
is
a
fine,
kaolinitic,
thermic
Rhodic
Kandiudults.
These
soils
are
often
used
for
peach,
truck
crop
and
grain
production.
The
Greenville
fine
sandy
loam
is
a
very
deep,
well
drained,
medium
runoff,
moderately
permeable
soil
that
formed
in
clayey
marine
sediments
on
the
Coastal
Plain.
These
soil
are
generally
found
on
26
uplands
and
have
slopes
generally
less
than
8
percent,
but
may
range
up
to
18
percent.
The
soil
is
extensive
in
the
Coastal
Plains
of
the
South.
Greenville
fine
sandy
loam
is
a
Hydrologic
Group
B
soil.
The
scenario
input
file
for
PE4
is
GapeachC.
txt,
dated
March
1,
2002.

A
Maine
potato
scenario
was
selected
to
represent
potatoes
on
a
national
basis
and
specifically
to
represent
potatoes
in
the
Mid­
Atlantic
and
Colorado
as
there
is
a
request
to
extend
the
use
into
these
two
areas.
The
current
label
use
pattern
for
potatoes
is
restricted
to
Washington
and
Oregon.
The
field
used
to
represent
potato
production
in
Maine
is
located
in
Aroostook
County
(#
1
producing
county
in
Maine)
in
Northeastern
Maine
(
MLRA143/
146),
although
potato
production
areas
include
other
regions
of
Maine.
Aroostook
County
produces
approximately
90
percent
of
Maine's
potatoes.
A
wide
variety
of
potatoes
are
grown
in
Aroostook
County,
and
are
generally
classified
as
early­,
mid­,
and
late­
season.
According
to
the
1997
Census
of
Agriculture,
Maine
is
the
3rd
largest
producer
of
potatoes
in
the
U.
S.
behind
Idaho
and
Pennsylvania.
Potatoes
are
generally
grown
on
a
range
of
soils
from
sandy
to
clay
loam,
though
deep,
well­
drained
sandy
loam
is
ideal
because
they
tend
to
dry
out
and
warm
up
earlier
facilitating
early
planting.
Poorly
drained
soils
should
be
avoided.
Potato
seed
pieces,
3.5
to
5
cm
in
size,
are
planted
"
eyes"
facing
upward
about
10­
15
cm
deep
and
between
12
to
14
inches
apart.
Rows
are
generally
32­
36
inches
on
center,
but
may
be
less
or
greater
depending
on
equipment.
Planting
is
not
recommended
until
soil
temperatures
reach
45­
50oF.
In
Maine,
potatoes
should
not
be
planted
more
than
once
in
a
three
year
period
on
the
same
field
to
avoid
soil­
borne
diseases.
Rotations
with
strawberries,
tomatoes
or
legumes
should
be
avoided
because
these
crops
can
be
infected
with
the
same
diseases.
Rotation
with
crops
such
as
hay,
alfalfa
and
small
grains
is
common.
Planting
begins
in
May
and
harvest
begins
in
late
September
through
October.
The
soil
selected
to
simulate
the
field
is
an
Conant
gravelly
silt
loam.
Conant
gravelly
silt
loam
is
a
fine
loamy,
isotic,
frigid
Aquic
Haplorthods
These
soils
are
extensively
used
for
potatoes,
oats
and
peas.
Conant
gravelly
silt
loam
is
a
very
deep,
moderately
well
drained
and
somewhat
poor
drained,
slow
runoff,
moderately
permeable
soils
located
on
till
plains
and
lower
slopes
of
till
ridges
derived
mainly
from
metamorphosed
limestone
and
calcareous
sandstone
and
shale.
Slopes
are
0
to
15
percent
at
elevations
of
350
to
800
feet
above
mean
sea
level.
The
soil
is
of
moderate
extent
in
the
MLRA.
Conant
gravelly
silt
loam
is
a
Benchmark
soil
in
Hydrologic
Group
C.
The
scenario
input
file
for
PE4
is
MEpotatoC.
txt,
dated
August
6,
2002.

The
standard
Idaho
potato
scenario
was
selected
to
represent
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
for
the
currently
labeled
practice.
In
general,
crops
grown
on
the
west
coast
tend
to
be
less
vulnerable
to
runoff
than
eastern
coast
crop
due
to
the
lesser
precipitation
during
the
growing
season.
The
field
used
to
represent
potato
production
in
Idaho
is
located
in
Bingham
County
(#
1
producing
Idaho
county)
in
Southeast
Idaho
(
MLRA13),
although
potato
production
areas
include
other
regions
of
Idaho
such
as
the
southwest
and
south­
central
regions.
According
to
the
2002
Census
of
Agriculture,
Idaho
is
the
major
producer
of
potatoes
in
the
U.
S.
producing
29
percent
of
the
crop.
Potatoes
are
generally
grown
on
a
range
of
soils
from
sandy
to
clay
loam
of
volcanic
origin
along
the
Snake
River
Plain
of
southern
Idaho.
Potatoes
are
in
rotation
with
crops
such
as
hay
and
various
grains.
Potatoes
are
generally
grown
once
ever
three
years
on
the
same
field
to
limit
disease
pressures
(
Willem
Schrage,
Minnesota
Sept.
of
Agriculture).
Potato
seed
27
pieces
are
planted
"
eyes"
facing
upward
about
10­
12
cm
deep
and
between
12
to
14
inches
apart.
Rows
are
generally
36­
40
inches
on
center,
but
may
be
less
or
greater
depending
on
equipment.
Sprinkler
irrigation
is
used
on
about
99
percent
of
the
crop
and
furrow
and
rill
irrigation
is
used
on
the
remainder.
Planting
begins
April
and
runs
through
Mid­
June
depending
on
region.
Harvest
also
depends
on
regions,
beginning
in
mid­
July
and
running
through
November
15.

The
soil
selected
to
simulate
the
field
is
an
Malm
fine
sandy
loam.
Malm
soil
is
classified
as
a
Coarse­
loamy,
mixed,
superactive,
frigid
Xeric
Haplocalcids.
These
soils
are
mainly
used
for
irrigated
pasture,
potatoes,
and
small
grains,
but
some
are
used
as
rangeland.
The
Malm
series
consists
of
moderately
deep,
well
drained
soils
formed
mainly
in
aeolian
deposits.
Malm
soils
are
on
lava
plains
and
have
slopes
of
0
to
20
percent
at
elevations
of
4500
to
5200
feet
above
mean
sea
level.
Potatoes
were
planted
in
soils
with
0
to
8
percent
slopes.
The
soil
is
well
drained
with
slow
to
medium
runoff
and
moderately
rapid
permeability.
The
soil
is
moderately
extensive
in
southeastern
Idaho.
The
Malm
soil
is
a
Hydrologic
Group
C
soil.
The
scenario
input
file
for
PE4
is
IDpotatoC.
txt,
dated
May
10,
2002.

A
standard
watershed
is
used
for
all
assessments
consisting
of
a
10
ha
watershed
draining
into
a
1
ha
pond
2
m
deep
with
no
outlet.
Exposure
estimates
generated
using
the
standard
pond
are
intended
to
represent
a
wide
variety
of
vulnerable
water
bodies
that
occur
at
the
top
of
watersheds
including
prairie
pot
holes,
playa
lakes,
wetlands,
vernal
pools,
man­
made
and
natural
ponds,
and
intermittent
and
first­
order
streams.
As
a
group
there
are
factors
that
make
these
water
bodies
more
or
less
vulnerable
than
the
standard
surrogate
pond.
Static
water
bodies
that
have
larger
ratios
of
drainage
area
to
water
body
volume
would
be
expected
to
have
higher
peak
EECs
than
the
standard
pond.
These
water
bodies
will
be
either
shallower
or
have
large
drainage
areas
(
or
both).
Shallow
water
bodies
tend
to
have
limited
additional
storage
capacity
and
thus
tend
to
overflow
and
carry
pesticide
in
the
discharge
whereas
the
standard
pond
has
no
discharge.
As
watershed
size
increases
beyond
10
ha,
it
at
some
point
becomes
unlikely
that
the
entire
watershed
is
planted
to
a
single
crop,
which
is
all
treated
with
the
pesticide.
Headwater
streams
can
also
have
peak
concentrations
higher
than
the
standard
pond,
but
they
tend
to
persist
for
only
short
periods
of
time
and
are
then
carried
downstream.

Spray
Drift.
Current
policy
(
EFED,
2002)
is
to
model
spray
drift
with
a
set
fraction
of
the
application
rate
(
5%
for
aerial;
1%
for
ground
spray)
reaching
the
pond
for
each
application.
In
the
previous
modeling
for
azinphos
methyl,
spray
drift
from
spray
blast
application
was
simulated
using
3%
drift.
There
is
currently
no
guidance
regarding
spray
blast
drift
so
in
this
simulation
spray
blast
was
assumed
to
be
a
ground
spray.
While
this
is
standard
drift
policy,
this
approach
does
not
allow
the
consideration
of
the
mitigation
possible
with
a
spray
drift
buffer.

To
assess
different
buffer
widths,
the
AgDrift
model
was
used.
For
aerial
applications
Tier­
II
aerial
mode
was
used.
Aerial
application
was
simulated
assuming
the
aircraft
was
an
Air
Tractor
AT­
401.
Standard
weather
and
application
parameters
used
for
these
simulations
are
in
Table
3.6.
Other
parameters,
which
can
be
varied
with
the
management
practices
defined
on
the
label,
are
described
below,
along
with
management
practices
for
aerial
application
to
potatoes.
1Personal
communication,
Dan
Horton
to
Diane
Isbell,
March
2005.

28
Table
3.6
Standard
spray
drift
scenario
input
parameters
for
AgDrift.

Parameter
Value
Aircraft
Air
Tractor
AT­
401
Boom
length
(
fraction
of
wing
length)
76.3%

Swath
Width
(
fixed)
60
ft.

Flight
lines
20
Relative
Humidity
50%

Flux
Plane
0
ft
Air
blast
buffer
strips
for
peaches
were
modeled
with
AgDrift
in
Tier­
II
Orchard
Airblast
mode.
A
sparse
orchard
was
modeled,
and
the
output
value
for
the
loading
into
the
standard
pond
was
tripled
in
order
to
reflect
the
upper
95%
confidence
bound
on
the
drift.
The
only
management
practice
that
was
varied
was
the
buffer
strip
width.

Peaches
A
request
has
been
made
to
extend
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
to
help
control
the
occurrence
of
lesser
peach
tree
borer
in
the
Eastern
United
States.
The
peach
use
pattern
that
was
simulated
was
not
the
current
maximum
label
practice,
but
a
practice
proposed
by
Dan
Horton1,
a
representative
of
the
peach
industry
on
the
east
coast
of
the
United
States.
In
previous
peach
Tier­
II
modeling,
application
was
started
on
March
14,
at
anthesis
for
control
of
plum
curculio
and
use
of
azinphos
methyl
for
this
pest
is
still
allowed
on
the
label.
However,
because
the
pest
which
is
generating
the
request
for
the
use
extension
is
lesser
peach
tree
borer,
an
additional
run
with
the
60­
ft
buffer
and
a
date
for
the
first
application
of
July
4
was
performed
to
gauge
the
change
in
exposure
that
might
result
if
azinphos
methyl
use
shifted
to
control
this
pest.
Control
of
lesser
peach
tree
borer
can
continue
through
the
summer
into
late
fall,
and
may
occur
at
different
times
in
this
window
in
different
fields.

Aerial
application
is
generally
restricted
from
use
on
peaches.
However,
a
Special
Local
Needs
registration
exists
for
aerial
application
of
azinphos
methyl
to
peaches
in
Idaho.
This
use
was
not
evaluated
as
the
risk
from
use
on
the
east
coast
are
generally
expected
to
exceed
the
risks
in
Idaho
in
spite
of
the
difference
in
application
method.

Spray
drift
was
evaluated
in
five
different
ways
for
peaches
(
Table
3.7).
Two
buffer
strips
were
evaluated
using
AgDrift.
A
60­
foot
buffer
strip
was
suggested
by
Dr.
Horton
in
order
to
mitigate
spray
drift
to
water.
Secondly,
a
100­
foot
buffer
was
also
evaluated
at
the
request
of
SRRD.
The
modeled
drift
from
AgDrift
for
these
was
1.9%
and
0.9%
respectively.
For
comparison
purposes,
an
AgDrift
simulation
with
no
buffer
strip
was
done
which
resulted
in
12.4%
spray
drift.
An
application
efficiency
of
97.7%
was
used
for
all
three
of
these
management
practice
simulations,
as
estimated
by
AgDrift.
Also,
for
comparison
purposes,
a
simulation
was
done
with
no
spray
drift
and
100%
application
efficiency.
In
practice,
it
is
not
possible
to
29
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Peak
Day
4
Day
21
Day
60
Day
90
Mean
AZM
Concentration
(
ug/
L)
60­
ft
buffer
(
March)
100­
ft
buffer
(
March)
No
buffer
(
March)
60­
ft
buffer
(
July)
No
drift
(
March)
completely
stop
spray
drift
from
spray
blast
applications,
but
this
provide
an
idea
of
the
relative
potential
risk
reduction
that
can
be
gained
from
spray
drift
mitigation.
Finally,
a
simulation
using
the
spray
drift
percentile
of
1%
for
ground
application
with
a
99%
application
efficiency
was
performed
in
accordance
with
our
current
policy.

Table
3.7
Management
practices
simulated
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches*.

Crop
App
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Max.
No.
Apps.
App.
Interval
(
days)
Buffer
Width
(
ft)
App.
Method
(%
drift)
First
App.
Date
Peaches
0
0.75
3
14
NA
no
drift
(
0%)
March
14
Peaches
1
0.75
3
14
100
air
blast
(
9.0%)
March
14
Peaches
2
0.75
3
14
60
air
blast
(
1.9%)
March
14
Peaches
3
0.75
3
14
0
air
blast
(
12.4%)
March
14
Peaches
4
0.75
3
14
NA
air
blast
(
1%)
March
14
Peaches
5
0.75
3
14
60
air
blast
(
9.0%)
July
4
*
For
all
simulations,
IPSCND,
the
disposition
of
foliar
pesticide
residues
on
foliage
at
harvest
was
set
to
1,
so
that
the
residues
are
applied
to
the
soil.

Figure
3
displays
the
range
of
aquatic
EECs
for
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
Georgia
peaches.
The
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
suggests
that
the
addition
of
a
60­
ft
buffer
could
potentially
reduce
peak
azinphos
methyl
exposures
by
more
than
50%
(
from
14
to
6
µ
g/
L).
Assuming
that
a
60­
or
100­
foot
buffer
zone
is
present
at
the
application
site,
the
peak
1
in
10­
year
average
aquatic
EEC
for
Georgia
peaches
is
about
6
µ
g/
L,
and
the
90­
day
average
is
approximately
2
µ
g/
L.
There
is
no
appreciable
difference
between
EECs
with
a
60­
foot
or
a
100­
foot
buffer.
Aquatic
exposures
could
further
be
reduced
if
azinphos
methyl
is
applied
later
in
the
season.

Figure
3.
Aquatic
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
Georgia
peaches.
30
Potatoes
The
potato
use
is
currently
restricted
to
Columbia
River
Basin
in
Washington
and
Oregon.
Potatoes
is
a
group
2
use
which
is
to
be
phased
out
in
2005.
A
request
has
been
made
to
extend
this
use
because
tuber
worm
has
now
been
found
in
the
Columbia
River
Basin.
However,
as
noted
above,
a
request
has
been
made
by
the
National
Potato
Growers
to
extend
the
use
to
mid­
Atlantic
and
Colorado.
Aerial
application
is
allowed
for
this
use,
but
a
150­
foot
buffer
is
required
around
`
rivers,
natural
ponds,
lakes,
streams,
reservoirs,
marshes,
estuaries,
and
commercial
fish
ponds.'

The
simulated
use
pattern
(
Table
3.8)
reflects
the
maximum
application
practice
on
the
current
label.
The
dates
of
application
were
set
to
be
as
close
to
harvest
as
possible
as
this
is
the
best
time
to
apply
for
the
control
of
tuber
worm.
In
the
Idaho
scenario,
harvest
is
on
October
10
and
azinphos
methyl
has
a
7
day
pre­
harvest
interval
for
potatoes,
so
the
two
applications
are
made
7
and
14
days
prior
to
harvest.
By
similar
reasoning,
the
first
application
date
for
Maine
was
September
26.
Four
different
management
practices
were
simulated
for
potatoes.
First,
the
standard
5%
drift
with
95%
application
efficiency
was
simulated,
which
is
current
EFED
policy.
Three
different
AgDrift
runs
were
simulated.

Table
3.8
Management
practices
simulated
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes*.

Crop
App
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Max.
No.
Apps.
App.
Interval
(
days)
Buffer
Width
(
ft)
App.
Method
(%
drift)
First
App.
Date
Potatoes
0
0.75
2
7
NA
aerial
(
5%)
September
26
Potatoes
1
0.75
2
7
NA
no
drift
(
0%)
September
26
Potatoes
2
0.75
2
7
150
aerial
(
4.6%)
September
26
Potatoes
3,
0.75
2
7
150
aerial
(
4.6%)
September
26
Potatoes
4
0.75
2
7
0
aerial
(
21.8%)
September
26
*
For
all
simulations,
IPSCND,
the
disposition
of
foliar
pesticide
residues
on
foliage
at
harvest
was
set
to
1,
so
that
the
residues
are
applied
to
the
soil.

As
opposed
to
the
orchard
air
blast
simulation,
there
are
a
number
of
input
parameters
in
AgDrift
which
can
be
varied
to
reflect
management
practices
on
the
label
(
Table
3.9).
The
azinphos
methyl
labels
restrict
application
height
over
the
canopy
to
10
ft,
so
the
`
boom
height'
parameter
was
set
to
this
value.
Droplet
size
distribution
was
set
to
`
fine
to
medium'
as
the
label
indicates
that
medium
spray
should
be
used.
The
non­
volatile,
and
active
rates
were
set
to
maximum
application
rate
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
of
0.75
lb
acre.
The
spray
volume
was
set
to
a
default
value
of
2
gal/
acre
as
no
spray
volume
limitation
was
indicated
on
the
label.
A
maximum
wind
speed
of
10
mph
is
specified
so
this
value
was
used
in
the
simulation.
Finally,
the
carrier
type
was
set
to
water
to
reflect
common
practice
for
the
pesticide.
31
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Peak
Day
4
Day
21
Day
60
Day
90
Mean
Azinphos
Methyl
Concentration
(
ug/
L)
ID
Potatoes,
150
ft
buffer
ME
Potatoes,
150
ft
buffer
ID
Potatoes,
no
buffer
ID
Potatoes,
no
drift
Table
3.9
Label
Spray
Drift
Management
practice
for
aerial
Application
height
above
canopy
(
boom
height)
10
ft.

Swath
displacement
(
fraction
of
swath)
0
ft
Droplet
Size
Distribution
fine
to
medium
Non­
volatile
rate
0.75
lb/
acre
Active
Rate
0.75
lb/
acre
Spray
Volume
2
gal/
acre
Carrier
Type
Water
Wind
Speed
10
mph
Figure
4
displays
the
range
of
aquatic
EECs
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes.
Due
to
the
frequency
of
rainfall
events
in
the
eastern
U.
S.,
aquatic
EECs
for
the
Maine
potato
scenario
are
considerably
higher
than
those
for
the
Pacific
Northwest
(
i.
e.
Idaho).
With
a
150­
foot
buffer,
the
Maine
scenario
yields
a
peak
EEC
of
11
µ
g/
L
while
the
Idaho
scenario
is
about
5
µ
g/
L.
The
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
suggests
that
the
addition
of
a
150­
ft
buffer
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
could
potentially
reduce
peak
azinphos
methyl
exposures
by
about
70%
(
from
17
to
5
µ
g/
L).

Figure
4.
Aquatic
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes
in
Idaho
and
Maine
with
various
buffer
widths.

b.
Southern
Pine
Seed
Environmental
Impact
Statement
As
part
of
the
aquatic
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
southern
pine
seeds,
an
environmental
impact
statement
from
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
(
USDA,
1994)
was
reviewed.
Although
there
are
notable
differences
between
the
ecological
risk
assessment
methodologies
employed
by
USDA
and
USEPA,
the
environmental
impact
statement
(
EIS)
provides
a
useful
comparative
risk
analysis
for
several
pesticides
used
in
southern
pine
seed
orchards.
The
following
summary
is
meant
to
highlight
the
EIS
conclusions
related
specifically
to
32
azinphos
methyl
and
to
identify
key
differences
and
similarities
between
the
methodologies
that
may
impact
exposure
and
risk
estimations.

The
EIS
assumed
that
chemical
pesticides
have
the
potential
to
directly
or
indirectly
affect
aquatic
species
if
the
chemicals
enter
water
bodies
via
runoff
or
leaching.
Uncertainties
in
the
aquatic
risk
assessment,
such
as
differences
among
species
sensitivities,
the
influence
of
water
quality
parameters
(
i.
e.
pH,
temperature,
etc.),
were
acknowledged
in
the
EIS.
Aquatic
EECs
were
calculated
for
relevant
water
bodies.

In
the
EIS,
application
patterns
listed
were
different
for
aerial
and
spray
blast
applications,
although
aerial
application
is
apparently
used
much
more
frequently
for
southern
pine
seed
orchards
than
spray
blast.
For
aerial
application,
the
typical
application
pattern
was
1.5
lb
acre­
1
applied
6
times
at
28
day
intervals,
and
the
maximum
application
pattern
was
3
lb
acre­
1
applied
in
the
same
temporal
pattern.
For
spray
blast,
the
typical
application
practice
was
4
lb
acre­
1
and
the
maximum
application
rate
was
8
lb
acre­
1
with
20
acres
treated
per
day,
but
no
maximum
number
of
treatments
for
each
site
listed.
The
use
pattern
as
modeled
for
the
aquatic
exposure
assessment
was
somewhat
different.
A
single
application
at
either
the
typical
rate
or
the
maximum
rate
was
made
with
a
2
inch
storm
the
day
after
application
for
the
maximum
application
practice
or
two
days
after
application
for
the
typical
practice.

The
GLEAMS
model
(
Leonard
et
al.,
1988)
was
used
to
estimate
runoff.
Spray
drift
was
apparently
not
considered
as
an
exposure
route
in
the
aquatic
exposure
assessment.
The
model
was
run
to
estimate
the
runoff
from
a
single
hectare
in
a
24­
hour
period.
Pesticide
was
applied
on
March
24,
and
then
2
inches
of
precipitation
was
applied
either
on
March
25
or
26
depending
upon
whether
a
typical
or
maximum
application
was
made,
as
noted
above.
The
authors
assert
that
the
2­
inch
storm
was
assumed
to
be
a
`
95%'
event,
but
no
documentation
of
storm
exceedance
probability
distribution
was
provided.
The
runoff
mass
from
1
hectare
was
divided
by
the
flow
estimated
to
leave
the
Cypress
Creek
watershed
(
the
watershed
for
the
Erambert
Seed
Orchard)
in
a
day
based
on
the
flow
that
equaled
or
exceeded
95%
of
the
days
(
or
the
one­
in­
20­
day
return
frequency).
It
is
not
clear
whether
the
loading
of
azinphos
methyl
in
runoff
was
scaled
for
the
size
of
the
watershed.

The
chemical
input
parameters
used
in
GLEAMS
were:
a
foliar
half­
life
of
2
days;
a
soil
half­
life
of
28
days;
a
K
oc
of
638
L/
kg
;
and
a
foliar
washoff
fraction
of
0.638
cm­
1.
EFED's
best
estimates
of
the
mean
value
for
each
of
these
parameters
(
based
on
data
provided
to
the
Agency
in
support
of
registration)
is
7.2
days;
32
days;
579
L
kg­
1
(
median)
and
0.937
cm­
1,
respectively.
The
source
of
the
data
for
the
chemistry
input
parameters
used
by
USDA
was
not
provided.
It
would
appear,
based
on
comparison
with
the
environmental
fate
values
evaluated
by
USEPA,
that
the
values
used
in
the
EIS
will
underestimate
the
exposure
and
risk.

It
is
important
to
point
out
that
the
risk
assessment
in
the
EIS
is
about
2
orders
of
magnitude
less
protective
than
that
developed
by
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
based
on
the
chosen
return
frequency.
OPP
uses
a
1­
in­
10­
year
return
frequency,
as
opposed
to
the
1­
in­
20­
day
33
(
or,
1­
in­
0.05­
year)
value
used
in
the
EIS.
The
impact
of
this
short
return
frequency
is
equivalent
to
allowing
a
pesticide
concentration
to
be
above
the
level
of
concern
for
18
days
per
year.
This
level
of
concern
could
result
in
substantial
adverse
impacts
on
the
aquatic
life
in
the
water
body
without
exceedence
of
the
risk
threshold.

3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
The
EFED
terrestrial
exposure
model,
T­
REX
(
Version
1.1,
dated
February
24,
2005),
is
used
to
estimate
exposures
and
risks
to
avian
and
mammalian
species.
This
model
was
used
to
assess
the
dietary
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
for
all
5
of
the
assessed
Group
2
uses.
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
generates
estimated
exposure
concentrations
(
EECs)
and
calculates
risk
quotients
(
RQs).
Specifically,
the
model
provides
estimates
of
upper
bound
and
mean
concentrations
of
chemical
residues
on
the
surfaces
of
different
food
items
that
may
be
sources
of
dietary
exposure
to
avian,
mammalian,
reptilian,
or
terrestrial­
phase
amphibian
receptors.
The
surface
residue
concentration
(
ppm)
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
application
rate
(
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre)
by
a
value
specific
to
each
food
item.
These
values
(
termed
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates)
along
with
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
methodology
implemented
by
T­
REX,
are
presented
in
Appendix
A.
T­
REX
was
run
using
the
inputs
provided
in
Table
3.10.

Table
3.10
T­
REX
(
Terrestrial
Exposure)
Model
Inputs
for
Azinphos
Methyl.

Use
Application
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Minimum
Application
Interval
(
Days)
Maximum
Number
of
Applications
Per
Year
Half­
life
(
Days)

Caneberries
0.5
10
2
9.8
Cranberries
1.0
14
2
9.8
Peaches
0.75
14
3
9.8
Potatoes
0.75
7
2
9.8
Southern
Pine
Seeds
1.5
30
2
9.8
EECs
on
food
items
may
be
compared
directly
with
dietary
toxicity
data
or
converted
to
an
oral
dose,
as
is
done
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
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
azinphos
methyl
uses
upper
bound
predicted
residues
as
the
measure
of
exposure.
A
graphical
display
of
the
predicted
upper
bound
residues
of
azinphos
methyl
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
is
presented
in
Figure
5.
34
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Caneberries
Cranberries
Peaches
Potatoes
Southern
Pine
Seed
Orchards
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
Maximum
Terrestrial
EEC
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Plants,
Small
Insects
Fruits,
Pods,
Seeds,
Large
Insects
Figure
5.
Maximum
(
upper­
bound)
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
azinphos
methyl
application
to
a
variety
of
agricultural
crops.

This
terrestrial
exposure
model
assumes
that
exposure
is
a
direct
function
of
the
application
rate
and
that
non­
target,
small
mammals
are
not
likely
to
reduce
pesticide
exposure
by
moving
out
of
the
contaminated
area.
Wang
et
al.
(
1999)
tested
this
assumption
by
placing
graytailed
voles
into
enclosures
planted
with
a
mixture
of
pasture
grasses
and
applying
1.5
kg
a.
i/
ha
(
1.34
lbs
a.
i./
A)
azinphos
methyl
(
Guthion
®
2S)
in
three
treatments:
full
spray
(
100%
of
habitat
sprayed),
half
spray
(
50%
habitat
sprayed
with
azinphos
methyl;
50%
sprayed
with
water),
and
control
(
100%
habitat
sprayed
with
water).
Forty­
four
female
and
three
male
voles
were
tracked
before
and
after
azinphos
methyl
applications
using
radio
telemetry.
Following
treatment,
none
of
the
47
voles
moved
out
of
their
established
home
ranges
or
from
contaminated
to
uncontaminated
areas.
Home
range
size
and
daily
movement
patterns
were
not
significantly
affected
by
azinphos
methyl
treatment.
Given
access
to
uncontaminated
habitat,
gray­
tailed
voles
did
not
move
away
from
contaminated
habitat
to
avoid
azinphos
methyl
exposure.
For
this
ecological
risk
assessment,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
is
directly
related
to
the
application
rate
of
azinphos
methyl.

b.
Southern
Pine
Seed
Environmental
Impact
Statement
As
part
of
the
evaluation
of
potential
risks
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
southern
pine
seeds,
EFED
reviewed
an
environmental
impact
statement
(
USDA,
1994).
Terrestrial
exposures
in
the
EIS
were
estimated
for
wildlife
species
that
may
be
found
in
the
seed
orchard
area
and
that
represent
different
body
sizes,
diets,
and
habitat
niches.
The
terrestrial
exposure
analysis
estimated
doses
from
direct
and
indirect
dermal
contact;
oral
doses
from
diet
items,
water,
and
grooming;
and
inhalation.
The
methodology
used
to
determine
terrestrial
exposures
is
consistent
with
that
used
in
the
EISs
prepared
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Justice,
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
on
the
eradication
of
cannabis
with
herbicides
(
DEA
1985,
35
1986);
and
the
EISs
prepared
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
the
Interior,
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
on
the
control
of
noxious
weeds
with
herbicides
(
DOI
1987),
and
on
vegetation
treatment
on
BLM
lands
(
DOI
1989).
Average
and
above­
average
(
upper­
bound)
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
were
modeled.
The
EIS
risk
analysis
compared
estimated
exposures
to
LD
50
s
and
LC
50
s
for
tested
species.
The
EIS
risk
assessment
criteria
for
terrestrial
species
are
similar
to
EFED's
levels
of
concern
for
terrestrial
animals.
However,
the
EIS
did
not
consider
chronic
exposure.

C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
Aquatic
and
terrestrial
effects
characterization
for
azinphos
methyl
is
based
on
registrantsubmitted
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
studies
for
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
as
well
as
toxicity
information
from
the
open
literature,
field
studies,
and
adverse
ecological
incidents.
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
and
bird
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
the
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Testing
for
reptiles
and
amphibians
is
not
required,
but
in
this
case,
amphibian
toxicity
data
are
available.
Terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants
were
not
assessed;
azinphos
methyl
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
plants
and
poses
minimal
risks
to
plants.

In
general,
categories
of
acute
toxicity
ranging
from
"
practically
nontoxic"
to
"
very
highly
toxic"
have
been
established
for
aquatic
organisms
(
based
on
LD
50,
LC
50,
and
EC
50
values),
terrestrial
mammals
(
based
on
LD
50
values),
avian
species
(
based
on
LC
50
and
LD
50
values),
and
non­
target
insects
(
based
on
LD
50
values
for
honey
bees)
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2001).

In
addition
to
data
submitted
in
support
of
registration,
several
studies
from
peer­
reviewed
journals
(
i.
e.
the
open
literature)
have
been
reviewed
and
incorporated
into
this
assessment.
An
"
official"
search
of
the
ECOTOX
database
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox)
was
not
performed.
Given
the
vast
amount
of
literature
on
the
ecological
effects
of
azinphos
methyl,
only
the
most
salient
studies
were
selected
for
review.

1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
Relevant
acute
data
are
derived
from
standardized
toxicity
tests
with
lethality
as
the
primary
endpoint.
These
tests
are
conducted
with
what
is
generally
accepted
as
the
most
sensitive
life
stage
of
aquatic
animals
(
i.
e.
very
young
fish
from
0.5­
5
grams
in
weight)
and
with
species
that
are
usually
among
the
most
sensitive.
The
intent
of
acute
tests
with
aquatic
animals
is
to
statistically
derive
a
median
effect
level
for
lethality
(
LC
50).
Based
on
this
endpoint,
toxicity
categories
can
be
assigned
(
Table
3.11).
36
Table
3.11
Qualitative
descriptors
for
categories
of
aquatic
animal
acute
toxicity
(
US
EPA,
2001)

LC50
Toxicity
Category
<
0.1
mg/
L
Very
highly
toxic
0.1­
1
mg/
L
Highly
toxic
1
­
10
mg/
L
Moderately
toxic
10
­
100
mg/
L
Slightly
toxic
>
100
mg/
L
Practically
non­
toxic
Laboratory
and
field
tests
have
revealed
that
azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
a
variety
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
implicated
in
over
130
adverse
aquatic
incidents
(
i.
e.
fish
kills).
Freshwater
organisms
appear
to
be
slightly
more
sensitive
than
their
saltwater
counterparts.
The
most
sensitive
freshwater
fish,
the
northern
pike,
has
an
LC
50
of
0.36
µ
g/
L,
and
the
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
fish
has
an
LC
50
of
2.7
µ
g/
L.
For
aquatic
invertebrates,
the
most
sensitive
freshwater
invertebrate,
the
scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus),
has
an
LC
50
(
mortality)
of
0.16
µ
g/
L,
and
the
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate,
the
mysid
shrimp,
has
an
LC
50
(
mortality)
of
0.21
µ
g/
L.
These
endpoints
will
be
used
to
calculate
risk
quotients
for
aquatic
organisms
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl.

a.
Acute
Effects
Freshwater
Fish
There
is
a
wealth
of
acute
toxicity
data
for
freshwater
fish.
These
data
indicate
that
technical­
grade
azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
most
fishes,
including
salmonids
(
Table
3.12).
A
static
acute
toxicity
test
(
MRID
40098001)
revealed
that
the
northern
pike
appears
to
be
the
most
sensitive
fish
species,
with
an
LC
50
of
0.36
(
0.27­
0.48)
µ
g/
L.
Catfish
and
bullheads
appear
to
be
somewhat
less
sensitive
than
the
other
species
tested.
For
some
species,
multiple
tests
were
conducted
at
various
temperatures
and
pH,
and
the
toxicity
range
is
provided.

Table
3.12
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
fish.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
Northern
pike
Esox
lucius
TGAI
93
0.36a
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Brook
trout
Salvelinus
fontinalis
TGAI
93
1.2
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Atlantic
salmon
Salmo
salar
TGAI
93
1.8­
18
(
5
tests)
a
2.1­
3.6
(
7
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Yellow
perch
Perca
flavescens
TGAI
93
2.4­
40
(
13
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Unspecified
Degradate
10­
33
(
days
0­
21)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Rainbow
trout
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
TGAI
93
2.9­
7.1
(
4
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
00158231
Table
3.12
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
fish.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
37
Guthion
50WP
8.8
(
4.4
a.
i)
very
highly
toxic
EPA
Reg.
No.
3125193
22
Guthion
2S
27.5
(
6.2
a.
i.)
very
highly
toxic
00066046
Black
crappie
Pomoxis
nigromaculatus
TGAI
93
3
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Coho
salmon
Oncorhynchus
kisutch
TGAI
93
3.2­
6.1
(
4
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Brown
trout
Salmo
trutta
TGAI
93
3.5­
6.6
(
6
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Bluegill
sunfish
Lepomis
macrochirus
TGAI
93
4.1­
34
(
7
tests)
very
highly
toxic
40098001
22
Guthion
2S
40.4
(
8.8
a.
i.)
very
highly
toxic
00066046
Largemouth
bass
Micropterus
salmoides
TGAI
93
4.8
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Green
sunfish
Lepomis
cyanellus
TGAI
93
52
very
highly
toxic
40098001
Golden
orfe
Leuciscus
idus
melanotus
TGAI
93
120
highly
toxic
00067596
Fathead
minnow
Pimephales
promelas
TGAI
93
148­
293
(
2
tests)
highly
toxic
40098001
Carp
Cyprinus
carpio
TGAI
93
695
highly
toxic
40098001
Channel
catfish
Ictalarus
punctatus
TGAI
93
3290
moderately
toxic
40098001
Black
bullhead
Ictalurus
melas
TGAI
93
3500­
4810
(
3
tests)
moderately
toxic
40098001
a
Yolk­
sac
fry
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Estuarine/
marine
fish
appear
to
be
about
as
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl
as
their
freshwater
counterparts.
Acute
exposure
toxicity
data
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
3.13).
The
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
fish,
the
sheepshead
minnow,
has
a
96­
hour
LC
50
for
technical
grade
azinphos
methyl
of
2.0
(
1.8­
2.2)
µ
g
a.
i/
L
with
a
probit
slope
of
8.8.
This
flow­
through
toxicity
test
was
procured
from
the
open
literature
(
Morton
et
al.,
1997).
This
study
assessed
the
acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
the
sheepshead
minnow
at
the
following
nominal
(
measured)
treatments:
0
(
control),
0
(
solvent
control),
0.38
(
0.33)
0.75
(
0.78),
1.5
(
1.3),
3.0
(
2.8),
and
6.0
(
5.6)
µ
g
a.
i/
L.
Recoveries
ranged
from
78
to
103%.
At
96
hours,
the
NOAEC
for
mortality
was
0.78
µ
g
a.
i/
L.

A
study
with
the
formulated
product,
Guthion
2L
(
22%
active
ingredient)
reported
a
sheepshead
minnow
LC
50
of
1.86
(
1.51­
2.3)
µ
g
a.
i/
L
with
a
probit
slope
of
5.0.
This
flowthrough
study
(
MRID
41202001)
assessed
the
acute
toxicity
of
Guthion
2L
to
the
sheepshead
38
minnow
at
mean­
measured
concentrations
of
0.235,
0.386,
0.703,
1.36,
and
3.14
µ
g
a.
i/
L.
The
NOAEC
for
mortality
was
0.703
µ
g
a.
i/
L.
Fish
exposed
to
the
highest
treatment
concentration
exhibited
lethargy
and
loss
of
equilibrium
after
24
hours,
and
fish
in
the
1.36
µ
g
a.
i/
L
treatment
group
were
showed
the
same
sublethal
effects
after
48
hours.
For
both
groups,
these
effects
continued
until
mortality
occurred
or
test
termination.

Table
3.13
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
fish.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Sheepshead
minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
98
2.0
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
88.8
2.7
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40380501
Guthion
2L
22.3
1.86
a.
i.
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
41202001
Striped
mullet
Mugil
cephalus
96
3.2a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40228401
Spot
Leiostomus
xanthurus
96
28a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40228401
a
48­
h
test
Amphibians
EFED
typically
uses
fish
toxicity
data
as
a
surrogate
for
amphibian
species.
In
this
case,
azinphos
methyl
toxicity
information
is
available
for
two
amphibian
species.
These
data
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
amphibians.
Based
on
these
studies
(
Table
3.14)
it
appears
that
amphibians
may
be
less
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl
than
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates;
nevertheless,
azinphos
methyl
is
still
categorized
as
highly
toxic
to
amphibians.
The
LC
50
for
the
most
sensitive
amphibian,
the
Fowlers
toad,
is
109
µ
g
a.
i/
L,
which
is
approximately
three
orders
of
magnitude
higher
than
that
of
the
most
sensitive
aquatic
invertebrate,
the
scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus).
Sensitivity
differences
between
fish
and
amphibians
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
have
been
previously
observed.
Ferrari
et
al.
(
2004)
reported
that
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
are
approximately
three
orders
of
magnitude
more
sensitive
than
the
toad,
Bufo
arenarum.

Table
3.14
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
amphibians.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
Reference
Fowlers
toad
Bufo
fowleri
93
109
Highly
toxic
Supplemental
MRID
40098001
Western
chorus
frog
Pseudacris
triseriata
93
3200
Moderately
toxic
Supplemental
MRID
40098001
Argentine
Toad
Bufo
arenarum
99
10,440
Slightly
toxic
Supplemental
Ferrari
et
al.
2004
39
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Toxicity
studies
are
available
for
a
wide
range
of
freshwater
invertebrates.
The
most
sensitive
species
appears
to
be
a
common
amphipod,
the
scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus),
which
has
a
96­
hour
LC
50
of
0.16
(
0.08­
0.32)
µ
g/
L
(
Table
3.15).
Crayfish
may
be
relatively
less
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl.
Azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates.

Table
3.15
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
48­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Scud
Gammarus
fasciatus
TGAI
93
0.16­
0.25
(
2
tests)
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40098001
Water
flea
Daphnia
magna
TGAI
91
1.13
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
00068678
Guthion
50WP
4.8
(
2.4
a.
i.)
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40301302
Glass
shrimp
Palaemonetes
kadiakemsis
TGAI
93
1.2a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40098001
Stonefly
Pteronarcys
californica
TGAI
93
1.9a
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40098001
Sowbug
Asellus
brevicaudus
TGAI
93
21a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40098001
Crayfish
Procambarus
sp.
TGAI
93
56a
very
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40098001
a
96­
h
test
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Azinphos
methyl
is
very
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Bivalves,
such
as
the
Eastern
oyster,
may
be
slightly
more
tolerant
to
azinphos
methyl
than
other
aquatic
invertebrates
(
Table
3.16).
The
mysid
shrimp
is
the
most
sensitive
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate,
with
an
LC
50
of
0.21
µ
g/
L.
This
flow­
through
study
(
MRID
40380502)
evaluated
the
acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mysid
shrimp
at
mean­
measured
concentrations
of
0.13,
0.26,
0.63,
1.1,
and
1.8
µ
g/
L.
The
LC
50
was
estimated
to
be
0.21
(
±
0.04)
µ
g/
L
with
a
probit
slope
of
5.8.
The
NOAEC
was
determined
to
be
less
than
the
lowest
concentration
tested,
0.13
µ
g/
L.

Table
3.16
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Mysid
shrimp
Mysidopsis
bahia
88.8
0.21
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40380502
22.3
Guthion
2L
0.26
a.
i.
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
41202002
98
0.29
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
Table
3.16
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
96­
h
LC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
40
Brown
shrimp
Penaeus
aztecus
96
2.4
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40228401
Blue
crab
Callinectes
sapidus
96
320
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40228401
Eastern
oyster
Crassostrea
virginica
96
1000
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40228401
88.8
>
3100
not
determined
Acceptable
40452001
b.
Chronic
Effects
Freshwater
Fish
Azinphos
methyl
triggers
adverse
effects
on
the
normal
life
processes
(
i.
e.
growth,
reproduction)
of
fish
at
very
low
levels
(
less
than
one
part
per
billion).
Chronic
toxicity
information
is
available
for
the
rainbow
trout
from
a
fish
early
life
stage
study
(
Table
3.17).
Rainbow
trout
were
exposed
to
mean­
measured
azinphos
methyl
treatments
of
0.051,
0.14,
0.23,
0.44,
and
0.98
µ
g/
L
for
60
days.

Table
3.17.
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
fish
during
an
early
life­
stage
toxicity
test
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
LOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
Classification
Rainbow
trout
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
88.8
0.44a
0.98
Larval
survival,
length,
and
growth
at
day
60
40579601
Acceptable
a
NOAEC
for
behavioral
effects
(
lethargy)
is
0.23
µ
g/
L
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Available
data
indicate
that
chronic
exposure
to
low
levels
(
less
than
one
part
per
billion)
of
azinphos
methyl
adversely
affects
survivorship
and
reproduction
of
the
sheepshead
minnow,
an
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
3.18).
In
a
28­
day,
flow­
through
fish
early
life
stage
toxicity
test
(
Morton
et
al.,
1997),
sheepshead
minnows
were
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
at
the
following
nominal
(
measured
±
standard
deviation)
treatments:
0
(
control),
0
(
solvent
control),
0.12
(
0.17
±
0.03),
0.25
(
0.34
±
0.07),
0.50
±
(
0.62
±
0.04),
1.0
(
1.2
±
0.13),
and
2.0
(
2.3
±
0.29)
µ
g/
L.
Recoveries
ranged
from
79
to
107%.
After
28
days,
the
mortality
rate
was
100%
for
fish
exposed
to
1.2
and
2.3
µ
g/
L.
The
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
for
survival
were
0.17
and
0.34
µ
g/
L,
respectively.
There
were
no
statistically
significant
effects
on
growth
(
weight,
length)
at
concentrations
below
0.62
µ
g/
L.
41
Table
3.18
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
Species
Test
Type
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
LOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Sheepshead
minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
Early
Life
Stage
98
0.17
0.34
Survival
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
Life­
cycle
92.5
0.20
0.41
2nd
generation
embryo
survival;
hatchling
success
Acceptable
42021601
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Available
data
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
also
adversely
affects
the
normal
life
processes
of
a
common
freshwater
zooplankton,
Daphnia
magna.
Sublethal
effects
in
freshwater
invertebrates
and
fish
are
triggered
at
approximately
the
same
level
of
azinphos
methyl.
Daphnids
were
exposed
to
five
test
concentrations
(
0.070,
0.12,
0.24,
0.42,
and
0.97
µ
g/
L)
in
a
21­
day
flow­
through
chronic
toxicity
study.
Survivorship,
length,
and
fecundity
(
mean
number
of
young
per
adult
per
reproductive
day)
were
significantly
reduced
in
the
0.40
and
0.99
µ
g/
L
(
meanmeasured
treatments
(
Table
3.19).

Table
3.19
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
freshwater
invertebrates
during
a
life­
cycle
toxicity
test
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
LOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Water
flea
Daphnia
magna
99.6
0.25
0.40
Adult
length,
survival,
number
of
young/
adult/
day
Acceptable
00073606
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Chronic
toxicity
information
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
is
available
in
the
open
literature
(
Table
3.20).
Morton
et
al.
(
1997)
performed
a
26­
day,
flow­
through
test
with
mysid
shrimp
to
assess
the
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
at
the
following
nominal
(
measured
±
standard
deviation)
treatments:
0
(
control),
0
(
solvent
control),
0.022
(
0.020),
0.036
(
0.030
±
0.005),
0.06
(
0.061
±
0.022),
0.10
(
0.097
±
0.026),
0.17
(
0.18
±
0.054),
and
0.28
(
0.28
±
0.072)
µ
g/
L.
Recoveries
were95
to
109%.
The
mean
day
of
first
brood
release
in
the
pooled
control
was
day
19.2,
and
initiation
of
reproduction
was
not
significantly
affected
by
azinphos
methyl
exposure.
Survival
was
significantly
affected
at
0.18
and
0.28
µ
g/
L;
mortality
was
100%
in
the
0.28
µ
g/
L
treatment
group.
Thus,
the
NOAEC
for
mortality
was
0.097
µ
g/
L.
Fecundity
(
number
of
young/
female)
was
significantly
reduced
in
the
0.030,
0.061,
and
0.097
µ
g/
L
treatment
groups.
Mysids
in
the
0.030
µ
g/
L
group
produced
an
average
of
4.6
offspring,
about
one­
third
fewer
than
their
control
counterparts,
which
produced
an
average
of
6.9.
The
NOAEC
for
sublethal
(
reproductive)
effects
was
0.020
µ
g/
L.
42
Table
3.20
Chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
LOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
Reference
Mysid
Shrimp
Mysidopsis
bahia
98
0.02
0.03
Fecundity
(
Number
of
offspring/
female)
Acceptable
Morton
et
al.
1997
c.
Sublethal
Effects
Several
studies
have
shown
that
very
low
levels
of
azinphos
methyl
and
other
organophosphates
inhibit
cholinesterase
(
ChE)
activity
in
aquatic
animals,
such
as
fish
and
frogs.
Ferrari
et
al.
(
2004)
reported
that
the
azinphos
methyl
IC
50
(
i.
e.
concentration
that
produces
50%
cholinesterase
inhibition)
for
rainbow
trout,
is
0.4
(
±
0.1)
µ
g/
L,
which
is
approximately
one
order
of
magnitude
below
the
LC
50.
The
IC
50
for
the
toad
(
Bufo
arenarum)
is
5610
(
±
810)
µ
g/
L,
which
is
about
half
of
the
LC
50.
Sublethal
ChE
inhibition
of
70­
90%
has
been
observed
in
other
fish
species
as
well
(
Gruber
and
Munn,
1998;
Varó
et
al.,
2003).

The
relationship
between
sublethal
ChE
inhibition
and
the
ultimate
fitness
of
a
given
aquatic
species
is
not
well
understood
(
Fulton
and
Key,
2001).
However,
Beauvais
et
al.
(
2000)
reported
that
two
organophosphate
insecticides
altered
the
normal
behavior
of
larval
rainbow
trout
through
cholinesterase
inhibition.
As
cholinesterase
activity
declined,
fish
swimming
speed
and
distance
were
significantly
reduced.
These
types
of
behavioral
responses
have
the
potential
trigger
serious
ecological
consequences
by
altering
predator/
prey
relationships,
reproductive
strategies,
migration
patterns,
etc.

d.
Field
Studies
Sierszen
and
Lozano
(
1997)
studied
the
effects
of
a
single
application
of
0.2,
1.0,
4.0,
and
20.0
µ
g/
L
azinphos
methyl
on
natural
zooplankton
communities
using
littoral
ecosystem
enclosures.
Mean­
measured
concentrations
were
1.33,
4.72,
and
20.4
µ
g/
L
in
the
1.0,
4.0,
and
20.0
µ
g/
L
nominal
treatments,
respectively.
(
The
0.2
nominal
treatment
was
below
the
LOQ
µ
g/
L).
Zooplankton
were
sampled
10
times
 
twice
pre­
treatment
and
8
times
post­
treatment.
Of
the
three
main
groups
of
zooplankton
(
cladocerans,
copepods,
and
rotifers),
cladocerans
were
most
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl.
Cladoceran
taxa
accounted
for
82%
of
all
significant
treatment
effects
on
individual
taxa.
Most
of
the
effects
were
observed
at
the
20
µ
g/
L
treatment
level;
however,
8
of
the
12
cladoceran
taxa
were
significantly
affected
at
the
4
µ
g/
L
treatment.
Azinphos
methyl
exposure
did
not
elicit
consistent,
adverse
effects
on
copepods,
rotifers,
or
ostracods.
Taxon
richness
(
diversity)
decreased
with
increasing
azinphos
methyl
exposure
and
was
significantly
different
in
the
4.0
and
20.0
µ
g/
L
treatments.
Recovery
of
populations
and
communities
ranged
from
one
month
(
at
4.0
µ
g/
L)
to
longer
than
78
days
(
at
20
µ
g/
L)
following
a
single
application
of
azinphos
methyl.
Peak
aquatic
EECs
generated
by
PRZM/
EXAMS
are
in
the
range
of
Sierszen
and
Lozano's
test
concentrations.
Based
on
their
results,
azinphos
methyl
has
the
potential
to
elicit
population­
or
community­
level
effects
on
zooplankton.
The
consequences
may
trigger
cascading
effects
on
organisms
that
are
higher
(
i.
e.
fish)
and/
or
lower
43
(
i.
e.
algae)
in
the
food
chain.

Schulz
and
Thiere
(
2002)
evaluated
the
impacts
of
azinphos
methyl
on
stream
macroinvertebrate
communities
using
a
combined
microcosm
and
field
approach.
Stones
were
collected
from
the
Lourens
River
(
South
Africa)
from
a
control
site
(
free
of
pesticide
contamination)
upstream
of
a
400­
ha
orchard
and
transferred
to
outdoor
microcosms
so
that
each
microcosm
had
12
core
macroinvertebrate
species
and
approximately
350
individuals.
Microcosms
were
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
at
0
(
control),
0.2,
1,
5,
or
20
µ
g/
L
(
meanmeasured
concentrations
were
<
0.01
(
LOQ),
0.2,
1.0,
4.9,
and
19.2
µ
g/
L).
Survivorship
was
assessed
6
days
after
treatment.
Microcosms
treated
with
4.9
and
19.2
µ
g/
L
had
significantly
lower
invertebrate
densities.
Species
diversity
was
significantly
lower
in
the
19.2
µ
g/
L
treatment
group,
which
had
an
average
of
9.7
species
compared
to
14
in
the
control
group.
Schulz
and
Thiere
conducted
a
parallel
macroinvertebrate
survey
at
the
control
site
and
a
contaminated
site
(
downstream
of
the
orchard)
on
the
Lourens
River.
Species
number
was
similar
at
both
sites,
but
abundance
and
diversity
were
significantly
different.
Five
of
the
eight
species
that
were
affected
by
azinphos
methyl
in
the
microcosm
studies
occurred
at
significantly
lower
densities
or
were
completely
absent
at
the
contaminated
field
site.
Of
the
four
species
that
were
unaffected
by
azinphos
methyl
in
the
microcosm
studies,
all
of
them
occurred
at
significantly
higher
densities
at
the
contaminated
field
site.

To
evaluate
the
potential
impacts
of
pesticide
exposure
and
other
abiotic
factors
on
species
abundance
and
diversity
in
the
Lourens
River,
Thiere
and
Schulz
(
2004)
surveyed
stream
macroinvertebrates
above
and
below
a
400­
ha
orchard
area.
The
sampling
site
above
the
orchard
(
LR1)
was
free
of
pesticide
contamination,
and
the
site
4000
m
downstream
of
the
orchard
(
LR2)
received
transient
peaks
of
azinphos
methyl,
chlorpyrifos,
malathion,
and
endosulfan.
The
two
sampling
sites
were
similar
in
bottom
substrate
composition
and
most
abiotic
factors,
except
turbidity
and
pesticide
concentration.
The
macroinvertebrate
communities
were
similar
in
terms
of
number
of
total
individuals,
but
LR1
had
significantly
more
taxa
(
11.7)
compared
to
LR2
(
8.9).
Seven
out
of
17
taxa
occurred
had
a
significantly
reduced
population
or
were
completely
absent
at
LR2.
Based
on
a
community
indices
for
water
quality
bioassessment,
LR2
had
a
less
sensitive
community
structure,
indicating
poorer
water
quality
compared
to
LR1.
The
authors
concluded
that
pesticide
exposure
and
increased
turbidity
were
the
most
important
factors
impacting
community
structure.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
Relevant
acute
data
are
derived
from
standardized
toxicity
tests
with
lethality
as
the
primary
endpoint.
These
tests
are
conducted
with
what
is
generally
accepted
as
the
most
sensitive
life
stage
and
with
species
that
are
usually
among
the
most
sensitive.
Acute
toxicity
tests
with
birds
and
mammals
are
intended
to
statistically
derive
a
median
effect
level
for
acute
oral
exposure
(
LD
50)
and
subacute
dietary
exposure
(
LC
50).
Based
on
these
endpoints,
toxicity
categories
can
be
assigned
(
Table
3.21).
44
Table
3.21
Qualitative
descriptors
for
avian
and
mammalian
toxicity
(
US
EPA,
2001)

Toxicity
Category
Oral
LD50
Dietary
LC50
Very
highly
toxic
<
10
mg/
kg
<
50
ppm
Highly
toxic
10
­
50
mg/
kg
50
­
500
ppm
Moderately
toxic
51
­
500
mg/
kg
501
­
1000
ppm
Slightly
toxic
501
­
2000
mg/
kg
1001
­
5000
ppm
Practically
non­
toxic
>
2000
mg/
kg
>
5000
ppm
Available
laboratory
and
field
toxicity
data
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
terrestrial
animals,
including
birds
and
mammals.
The
acute
oral
LD
50
for
the
most
sensitive
bird
(
bobwhite
quail)
is
32
mg/
kg,
and
for
the
most
sensitive
mammal
the
laboratory
rat,
the
LD
50
is
7.8
mg/
kg.
Subacute
dietary
LC
50
is
488
ppm
for
the
bobwhite
quail
and
406
ppm
for
the
graytailed
vole.
The
NOAEC
for
sublethal
effects
on
growth,
development,
and
reproduction
occur
at
10.5
ppm
for
the
mallard
duck
and
5
ppm
for
the
laboratory
rat.
Field
studies
have
confirmed
the
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
terrestrial
animals,
and
several
adverse
terrestrial
incidents
have
provided
additional
corroboration.

Azinphos
methyl
exhibits
high
acute
toxicity
due
to
irreversible
inhibition
of
cholinesterase
enzymes.
As
with
humans,
exposure
of
wildlife
to
cholinesterase
inhibiting
pesticides
disrupts
normal
neuromuscular
control.
Death
can
occur
rapidly,
due
primarily
to
respiratory
failure.
Organophosphate
exposure
can
also
result
in
chronic
effects
in
animals
such
as
reproduction
impairment
and
delayed
neuropathy.

a.
Acute
Effects
Birds
Acute
oral
toxicity
data
are
available
for
a
number
of
avian
species.
These
studies
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
ranges
from
moderately
to
highly
toxic
to
birds
(
Table
3.22).
The
most
sensitive
species,
the
bobwhite
quail,
has
an
LD
50
of
32
(
25­
41)
mg/
kg
with
a
probit
slope
of
8.8.
In
this
study
(
MRID
40254801),
adult
(
15­
week)
bobwhite
quail
were
exposed
to
5.6,
11.2,
23.0,
45.0,
and
90.0
mg
a.
i./
kg
bw.
The
NOAEL
for
mortality
was
11.2
mg/
kg.
Sublethal
effects
including
ataxia,
wing
drop,
wing
spasms,
hyporeactivity,
immobility,
labored
breathing,
salivation,
and
convulsion
were
observed
in
all
treatments
except
the
lowest
dose;
thus,
the
NOAEL
for
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
was
5.6
mg/
kg.

Table
3.22
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg
a.
i./
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
TGAI
88.8
32
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40254801
TGAI
Not
specified
33
highly
toxic
Supplemental
40605801
Table
3.22
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg
a.
i./
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
45
TGAI
90
60
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
TGAI
90
136
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Ring­
necked
pheasant
Phasianus
colchicus
TGAI
90
74.9
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Formulation
Not
specified
283
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Chukar
Alectoris
chukar
TGAI
90
84.2
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00160000
Bobwhite
quail
is
also
the
most
sensitive
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
toxicity
basis,
with
an
LC
50
of
488
(
394­
601)
ppm
(
Table
3.23).
Based
on
this
endpoint,
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
birds
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.

Table
3.23
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Northern
bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
TGAI
92
488
highly
toxic
Acceptable
00022923
Japanese
Quail
Coturnix
japonica
TGAI
92
639
moderately
toxic
Supplemental
00022923
Ring­
necked
pheasant
Phasianus
colchicus
TGAI
92
1821
slightly
toxic
Acceptable
00022923
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
TGAI
92
1940
slightly
toxic
Acceptable
00022923
Acute
oral
toxicity
studies
indicate
that
the
most
sensitive
mammalian
species
is
the
laboratory
rat,
which
has
an
LD
50
of
7.8
mg/
kg
(
Table
3.24)
for
azinphos
methyl.
Based
on
this
endpoint,
azinphos
methyl
is
categorized
as
very
highly
toxic
to
mammals.

Table
3.24
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mammals.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID/
Reference
Laboratory
rat
Rattus
norvegicus
85
7.8
very
highly
toxic
Acceptable
40280101
House
mouse
(
wild)
Mus
musculus
99.1
10
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Laboratory
mouse
Mus
musculus
99.1
11
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Gray­
tailed
vole
Microtus
canicaudus
99.1
32
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Table
3.24
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mammals.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LD50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID/
Reference
46
Deer
mouse
Peromyscus
maniculatus
99.1
48
highly
toxic
Supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
data
are
available
for
three
mammalian
species
(
Table
3.25).
These
data
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
mammals
on
a
subacute
dietary
toxicity
basis.
The
gray­
tailed
vole
is
the
most
sensitive
species,
with
a
5­
day
LC
50
of
406
(
312­
858)
ppm
(
Meyers
and
Wolff,
1994).

Table
3.25
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
mammals.

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
LC50
(
ppm)
Slope
(
SE)
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID/
Reference
Gray­
tailed
vole
Microtus
canicaudus
99.1
406
1.93
(
0.6)
highly
toxic
supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Laboratory
mouse
Mus
musculus
99.1
543
2.57
(
0.84)
moderately
toxic
supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
Deer
mouse
Peromyscus
maniculatus
99.1
2425
1.45
(
0.35)
slightly
toxic
supplemental
Meyers
and
Wolff
1994
92
>
5000
­­
practically
nontoxic
supplemental
40858301
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
agricultural
crops
such
as
peaches
and
potatoes
may
result
in
exposure
to
non­
target
beneficial
insects,
such
as
the
honey
bee.
Given
that
azinphos
methyl
acts
as
an
insecticide,
it
is
not
surprising
that
this
chemical
is
highly
toxic
to
beneficial
insects
as
well
as
pest
insects.
Acute
oral
and
contact
studies
suggest
that
azinphos
methyl
highly
toxic
to
honey
bees
(
Table
3.26).
In
addition,
a
foliar
residue
study
with
Guthion
50WP
indicates
that
toxic
residues
can
persist
on
vegetation
for
up
to
13
days
post­
treatment.

Table
3.26
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
honey
bees.
(
TGAI
=
Technical
Grade
Active
Ingredient)

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
Test
Type
Results
Toxicity
Category
Study
Classification
MRID
Honey
bee
Apis
mellifera
TGAI
acute
contact
(
48­
h
LD50)
LD50
=
0.063

g/
bee
highly
toxic
Acceptable
05004151
TGAI
acute
oral
(
48­
h
LD50)
LD50
=
0.15

g/
bee
highly
toxic
Acceptable
05004151
TGAI
(%
NR)
acute
contact
(
48­
h
LD50)
LD50
=
0.423

g/
bee
highly
toxic
Acceptable
00066220
Guthion
50
WP
foliar
residue
(
3
lb
ai/
A)
Residues
highly
toxic
for
4­
13
days
post­
treatment
not
applicable
Acceptable
40466301
Additional
toxicity
data
for
non­
target
soil
and
surface
insects
and
mites
are
available
47
(
Table
3.27).
Results
indicate
that
azinphos
methyl
is
highly
toxic
to
non­
target
beneficial
insects,
including
bees,
wasps,
beetles,
and
mites.

Table
3.27
Acute
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
beneficial
insects
(
other
than
honey
bees).

Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
Application
Rate
Results
MRID
Parasitic
wasp
Aphytis
melinus
Guthion
50
WP
380
ppm
(
on
lemons)
Highly
toxic
05004003
Predaceous
beetles
(
2
spp.)
Parasitic
wasps
(
2
spp.)
Guthion
25
WP
0.0477%
a.
i.
(
in
honey
bait)
Highly
toxic
05005640
Predaceous
beetles
(
6
spp.)
Predaceous
wasps
(
5
spp.)
Guthion
25
WP
0.5
lb
ai/
100
gal
(
on
waxed
paper)
Highly
toxic
05003978
Predaceous
mite
Amblyseius
hibisci
Guthion
25
WP
0.5
lb
ai/
100
gal
Highly
toxic
05004148
b.
Chronic
Effects
Birds
Chronic
avian
toxicity
data
are
available
for
two
species
(
Table
3.28).
The
most
sensitive
species
is
the
mallard
duck,
with
a
reproductive
NOAEC
of
10.5
ppm.
This
one­
generation
reproduction
study
(
MRID
40844201)
evaluated
the
chronic
dietary
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
18­
week
old
mallard
ducks
at
mean­
measured
treatment
concentrations
of
10.5,
32.5,
and
96.5
ppm.
No
treatment­
related
mortalities
or
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
were
observed
in
adults
throughout
the
course
of
the
study.
Females
in
the
32.5
and
96.5
ppm
groups
weighed
significantly
(
approximately
20%)
less
than
their
control
counterparts.

Table
3.28
Chronic
avian
toxicity
information
for
azinphos
methyl
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
ppm)
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
88.8
10.5
32.5
Female
weight
gain
Acceptable
40844201
Northern
bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
88.8
36.5
87.4
Eggs
laid
Eggs
set
Viable
embryos
Surviving
embryos
Surviving
hatchlings
Acceptable
41056101
Mammals
Chronic
mammalian
data
are
available
for
one
species,
the
laboratory
rat
(
Table
3.29).
In
a
two­
generation
reproduction
study
in
Wistar
rats
(
MRID
40332601),
azinphos
methyl
(
87.2%)
was
administered
at
dietary
concentrations
of
0,
5,
15,
or
45
ppm
(
equivalent
to
0.25,
0.75,
or
2.25
mg/
kg/
day).
The
systemic
parental
NOAEL
was
15
ppm
(
0.75
mg/
kg/
day),
based
upon
mortality
of
dams,
decreased
body
weight
for
P
males
and
F1
males
and
females,
and
clinical
signs
of
toxicity,
including
poor
condition
and
convulsions,
at
the
systemic
LOAEL
of
45
ppm
(
2.25
48
mg/
kg/
day).
The
reproductive
(
offspring)
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
were
5
and
15
ppm
(
0.25
and
0.75
mg/
kg/
day),
respectively.
The
LOAEL
was
based
on
a
reduction
in
pup
viability
and
lactation
indices
(
death
of
the
offspring
between
the
time
periods
of
postnatal
days
0­
5
and
5­
28)
and
decreased
mean
total
litter
weights
at
weaning
on
postnatal
Day
28.
No
cholinesterase
measurements
were
taken
for
either
parental
animals
or
pups.

Table
3.29
Chronic
mammalian
toxicity
information
for
azinphos
methyl
Species
Purity
(%
a.
i.)
NOAEC
(
ppm)
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
Study
Classification
MRID
Laboratory
rat
Rattus
norvegicus
87.2
5
15
Pup
mortality,
viability,
lactation,
litter
weight
Acceptable
40332601
c.
Sublethal
Effects
Burgess
et
al.
(
1999)
investigated
the
impact
of
azinphos
methyl
spray
applications
in
apple
orchards
on
ChE
activity
of
tree
swallows
(
Tachycineta
bicolor)
and
Eastern
bluebirds
(
Sialia
sialis)
nesting
in
the
application
area.
Mean
plasma
ChE
levels
in
adult
tree
swallows
were
significantly
inhibited
41%
after
a
second
application
of
azinphos
methyl.
In
nestlings,
brain
ChE
activity
post­
spray
often
fell
below
predicted
activity
from
control
siblings.
Survivorship
appeared
not
to
be
compromised
as
a
result
of
the
observed
ChE
inhibition.

Gill
et
al.
(
2000)
assessed
azinphos
methyl
exposure
to
American
robins
in
fruit
orchards
by
measuring
plasma
ChE
activities
in
nestlings
before
and
after
spray
events
and
brain
ChE
in
dead
nestlings
as
well
as
azinphos
methyl
residues
deposited
in
model
nests
placed
in
trees
for
spray
events.
After
standardizing
for
age
variations,
plasma
and
brain
ChE
levels
in
nestlings
sampled
from
1
to
4
days
post
exposure
were
significantly
lower
than
those
sampled
before
spraying.
One
day
after
the
spray
event,
plasma
and
brain
ChE
levels
in
nestling
robins
were
significantly
inhibited;
maximum
inhibition
for
plasma
(
34.5%)
and
brain
(
53.8%)
occurred
4
days
after
exposure.
A
number
of
reproductive
endpoints
were
assessed,
but
only
one
significant
effect
was
observed
 
the
proportion
of
nests
with
unhatched
eggs
was
significantly
higher
in
exposed
orchards.

Gill
et
al.
(
2004)
evaluated
the
effects
of
azinphos
methyl
on
ChE
activity
and
general
health
in
zebra
finches
(
Taeniopygia
guttata)
that
were
previously
exposed
to
p,
p'­
DDE
(
a
commonly
detected
metabolite
of
DDT).
Zebra
finches
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
exhibited
a
dose­
response
increase
in
brain
and
plasma
ChE
inhibition.
Maximum
brain
ChE
inhibition
(
42.9%)
was
observed
at
45.3
mg/
kg,
the
highest
dose
tested.
Birds
in
this
treatment
group
did
not
behave
abnormally
or
die.
Given
that
the
LD
50
for
other
songbirds
is
considerably
lower
(
e.
g.
red­
winged
blackbird
LD
50
=
8.5
mg/
kg;
European
starling
LD
50
=
27
mg/
kg),
the
zebra
finch
appears
to
be
relatively
less
sensitive
to
azinphos
methyl.
The
authors
also
found
that
pretreatment
of
p,
p'­
DDE
followed
by
azinphos
methyl
exposure
did
not
change
azinphos
methyl
ChE
inhibition.
Immunostimulation
was
observed
in
birds
dosed
1­
year
previously
with
p,
p'­
49
DDE,
and
anemia
was
observed
when
p,
p'­
DDE
and
azinphos
methyl
were
combined;
these
effects
were
not
dose­
dependent.

d.
Field
Studies
An
extensive
literature
exists
regarding
the
adverse
ecological
impacts
of
azinphos
methyl
on
terrestrial
wildlife.
Field
studies
conducted
in
apple
orchards
in
Washington
(
MRID
41139701)
and
Michigan
(
MRID
41195901)
suggest
that
spray
azinphos
methyl
(
Guthion
35WP)
applications
can
result
in
the
poisoning
of
a
variety
of
terrestrial
animals,
including
birds,
mammals,
and
reptiles.
Other
studies
have
indicated
that
azinphos
methyl
can
elicit
populationlevel
effects
on
gray­
tailed
voles
(
Microtus
canicaudus)
and
deer
mice
(
Peromyscus
maniculatus)
(
Edge
et
al.,
1996;
Peterson,
1996;
Schauber
et
al.,
1997).
For
a
complete
discussion
of
these
studies
see
the
1999
EFED
azinphos
methyl
ecological
risk
assessment
(
Holmes
et
al.,
1999).

Matz
et
al.
(
1998)
compared
avian
toxicity
results
from
a
controlled
field
study
to
those
from
a
dietary
toxicity
laboratory
test.
In
the
field
study,
12­
day
old
northern
bobwhite
quail
were
enclosed
in
alfalfa
fields
and
exposed
to
spray
applications
of
aziphos
methyl
at
0
(
control),
0.77,
and
3.11
kg
a.
i./
ha
(
equivalent
to
0.69
and
2.75
lb
a.
i./
A).
Chick
survival
was
significantly
reduced
in
the
3.11
kg
a.
i./
ha
treatment
group
up
to
5
days
postspray
and
at
both
application
rates
from
6
to
10
days
postspray
(
p
<
0.05).
Brain
acetylcholinesterase
(
AChE)
activity,
growth,
and
weight
of
crop
contents
(
measure
of
food
consumption)
were
significantly
lower
at
both
treatment
concentrations.
Based
on
the
Kenaga
nomogram
employed
by
OPP
to
estimate
terrestrial
exposures,
the
authors
performed
a
5­
day
laboratory
dietary
toxicity
test
with
10­
day
old
northern
bobwhite
quail
using
equivalent
azinphos
methyl
treatments:
0,
150
(
equivalent
to
0.77
kg
a.
i./
A),
240,
380,
and
600
(
equivalent
to
3.11
kg
a.
i./
A)
ppm.
Survivorship
was
significantly
lower
for
chicks
exposed
to
600
ppm,
and
brain
AChE
and
growth
were
significantly
reduced
at
all
azinphos
methyl
concentrations.
Chick
survival,
brain
AChE,
and
growth
in
the
field
were
significantly
different
from
equivalent
exposures
in
the
laboratory
due
to
differences
in
exposure
routes
(
i.
e.
inhalation,
dermal),
behavioral
responses,
spatial/
temporal
variability,
and
indirect
effects.

IV.
Risk
Characterization
Risk
characterization
is
the
integration
of
exposure
and
ecological
effects
characterization
to
determine
the
ecological
risk
from
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl,
and
the
likelihood
of
effects
on
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
based
on
varying
pesticide­
use
scenarios.
The
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
was
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
were
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values
for
the
most
sensitive
species
(
Table
4.1).
The
resulting
RQs
were
then
compared
to
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
(
Appendix
B)
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
use
as
directed
on
the
label
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.
50
Table
4.1
Summary
of
Toxicity
Endpoints
Used
to
Assess
Ecological
Risks
of
Azinphos
Methyl
Assessment
Endpoint
Most
Sensitive
Toxicity
Endpoint
1.
Abundance
(
survival,
reproduction,
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds
1a.
Northern
bobwhite
quail
acute
oral
LD50
=
32
mg
a.
i./
kg
1b.
Northern
bobwhite
quail
subacute
dietary
LC50
=
488
ppm
1c.
Mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
=
10.5
ppm
2.
Abundance
(
survival,
reproduction,
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals
2a.
Lab
rat
acute
oral
LD50
=
7.8
mg
a.
i./
kg
2b.
Gray­
tailed
vole
subacute
dietary
LC50
=
406
ppm
2c.
Lab
rat
developmental
and
chronic
NOAEC
=
5
ppm
3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
Northern
pike
acute
LC50
=
0.36
µ
g
a.
i./
L
3b.
Rainbow
trout
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
=
0.29
µ
g
a.
i./
L
3c.
Gammarus
fasciatus
acute
LC50
=
0.16
µ
g
a.
i./
L
3d.
Daphnia
magna
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
=
0.25
µ
g
a.
i./
L
4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
populations
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
=
2.0
µ
g
a.
i./
L
4b.
Mysid
shrimp
acute
LC50
=
0.21
µ
g
a.
i./
L
4c.
Sheepshead
minnow
chronic
NOAEC
=
0.17
µ
g
a.
i./
L
4d.
Mysid
shrimp
chronic
NOAEC
=
0.02
µ
g
a.
i./
L
5.
Survival
of
individuals
and
populations
of
amphibians
5a.
Fowler's
toad
LC50
=
109
µ
g
a.
i./
L
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
=
0.063
µ
g
a.
i./
La
a
Risks
to
beneficial
insects
were
evaluated
qualitatively
(
i.
e.
RQs
were
not
calculated)

A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
azinphos
methyl
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
was
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
RQs
are
typically
calculated
using
the
most
sensitive
species
in
a
given
taxanomic
group;
in
this
case,
RQs
calculated
with
other
species
are
also
discussed
in
the
Risk
Description
(
Section
IV.
B).
RQs
are
compared
to
the
Agency's
pre­
determined
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
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.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
use
as
directed
on
the
label
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.
Appendix
B
of
this
document
summarizes
the
LOCs
used
in
this
risk
assessment.

1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
To
assess
risk
of
azinphos
methyl
to
non­
target
aquatic
animals
for
peaches
and
potatoes,
surface
water
EECs
for
azinphos
methyl
were
modeled
using
the
Tier­
II
model
PRZM/
EXAMS
based
on
the
label­
recommended
usage
scenarios.
This
risk
assessment
uses
the
highest
peak
24­
hour
concentration
in
surface
water
generated
from
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
model
to
represent
acute
51
exposure
to
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
and
aquatic­
phase
amphibians.
Chronic
exposures
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
estimated
by
the
60­
day
mean
EEC
and
the
21­
day
mean
EEC,
respectively.

The
following
risk
estimation
section
for
aquatic
animals
will
focus
on
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
and
potatoes.
Aquatic
exposures
were
the
other
uses
were
not
modeled;
thus,
quantitative
risk
estimation
(
calculation
of
RQs)
is
not
possible.
See
the
Risk
Description
(
Section
IV.
B)
for
a
complete
discussion
of
the
qualitative
aquatic
assessments
for
caneberries,
cranberries,
and
southern
pine
seeds.

a.
Peaches
Based
on
the
projected
aquatic
EECs
(
from
PRZM/
EXAMS),
peak
exposures
resulting
from
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches
will
likely
exceed
acute
toxicity
thresholds
(
i.
e.
LC
50)
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
poses
acute
risks
to
listed
and
non­
listed
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
(
Table
4.2).
The
estimated
peak
exposure
for
peaches
with
a
100­
foot
buffer
is
37­
times
higher
than
the
LC
50
for
a
common
freshwater
amphipod,
the
scud,
and
16­
times
higher
than
the
LC
50
for
Northern
pike.
No
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians.

Table
4.2
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches.

Peach
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(
µ
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Amphibiane
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
GA,
60'
buffer
6.6
18
41
3
31
0.06
GA,
100'
buffer
5.9
16
37
3
28
0.05
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
Northern
pike
LC
50
=
0.36
µ
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
scud
LC
50
=
0.16
µ
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
LC
50
=
2.0
µ
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on
mysid
shrimp
LC
50
=
0.21
µ
g
a.
i./
L
e
Amphibian
RQ
based
on
Fowler's
toad
LC
50
=
109
µ
g
a.
i./
L
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
also
poses
chronic
risks
to
listed
and
non­
listed
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
invertebrates.
Chronic
RQs
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
animals
exceed
the
Agency's
chronic
LOC
(
1.0)
(
Table
4.3).
In
the
absence
of
chronic
data
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
it
is
assumed
that
they
are
approximately
as
sensitive
as
freshwater
fish.
Since
chronic
RQs
for
freshwater
fish
exceed
the
LOC,
chronic
risks
for
amphibians
are
assumed.
52
Table
4.3
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches;
60­
day
mean
EEC
for
fish
RQ
calculations;
21­
day
mean
EEC
for
aquatic
invertebrate
calculations
Peach
Scenario
21­
day
EEC
(
µ
g
a.
i./
L)
60­
day
EEC
(
µ
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
GA,
60'
buffer
4.8
3.0
10
19
28
240
GA,
100'
buffer
4.2
2.6
9
17
25
210
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.29
µ
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
µ
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
µ
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
µ
g
a.
i./
L
b.
Potatoes
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
for
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
will
likely
exceed
mortality
thresholds
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
RQs
calculated
for
these
taxonomic
groups
are
considerably
higher
than
the
acute
risk
LOC
(
0.5)
(
Table
4.4).
The
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
poses
acute
risks
to
listed
and
non­
listed
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOCs
(
0.10
and
0.05,
respectively)
are
exceeded
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
only
in
the
Maine
potato
scenario.

Table
4.4
Acute
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50)
for
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes
Scenario
Peak
EEC
(
µ
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Amphibiane
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
ID,
150'
buffer
4.6
13
29
2
22
0.04
ME,
150'
buffer
11.1
31
69
6
53
0.10
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
Northern
pike
LC
50
=
0.36
µ
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
scud
LC
50
=
0.16
µ
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
LC
50
=
2.0
µ
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on
mysid
shrimp
LC
50
=
0.21
µ
g
a.
i./
L
e
Amphibian
RQ
based
on
Fowler's
toad
LC
50
=
109
µ
g
a.
i./
L
Chronic
aquatic
exposures
resulting
from
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
are
also
likely
to
exceed
sublethal
(
i.
e.
reproductive,
growth)
toxicity
thresholds.
Chronic
RQs
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
animals
exceed
the
Agency's
chronic
LOC
(
1.0)
for
surrogate
potato
scenarios
representing
the
Northwest
and
the
mid­
Atlantic
regions
(
Table
4.3).
In
the
absence
of
chronic
data
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
it
is
assumed
that
they
are
approximately
as
sensitive
as
freshwater
fish.
Since
chronic
RQs
for
freshwater
fish
exceed
the
LOC,
chronic
risks
for
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
are
assumed.
53
Table
4.5
Chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes;
60­
day
mean
EEC
for
fish
RQ
calculations;
21­
day
mean
EEC
for
aquatic
invertebrate
calculations
Scenario
21­
day
EEC
(
µ
g
a.
i./
L)
60­
day
EEC
(
µ
g
a.
i./
L)
Freshwater
Estuarine/
Marine
Fisha
Invertebrateb
Fishc
Invertebrated
ID,
150'
buffer
3.4
2.3
7.9
13.6
20.0
170.0
ME,
150'
buffer
8.5
6.5
22.4
34.0
50.0
425.0
a
Freshwater
fish
RQ
based
on
rainbow
trout
NOAEC
=
0.29
µ
g
a.
i./
L
b
Freshwater
invertebrates
RQ
based
on
water
flea
(
Daphnia)
NOAEC
=
0.25
µ
g
a.
i./
L
c
Estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
based
on
sheepshead
minnow
NOAEC
=
0.17
µ
g
a.
i./
L
d
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
based
on.
NOAEC
=
0.02
µ
g
a.
i./
L
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
The
EFED
terrestrial
exposure
model
T­
REX
was
used
to
estimate
exposures
and
risks
in
conservative
scenarios
to
avian
species
for
four
forage
food
types
and
to
mammalian
species
for
five
forage
food
types
for
application
rates
of
azinphos
methyl
to
all
five
of
the
assessed
uses
(
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
southern
pine
seeds)
as
described
in
Section
3a
of
the
Exposure
Characterization.
Risk
quotients
were
calculated
using
upper­
bound
EECs
for
each
of
these
usage
scenarios.
Appendix
C
provides
specific
dose­
and
dietary­
based
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
terrestrial
animals
(
birds,
mammals).

Both
the
dose­
and
dietary­
based
acute
risk
quotients
are
reported;
however,
for
azinphos
methyl,
the
dose­
based
RQs
are
likely
a
better
estimate
of
actual
risk.
In
general,
for
pesticides
(
i.
e.
azinphos
methyl)
with
LD
50
values
less
than
or
equal
to
50
mg/
kg,
the
LD
50
is
a
better
indicator
of
acute
toxicity
to
birds
than
the
LC
50
value
(
Urban
2000).
This
is
due
to
the
inherent
uncertainties
associated
with
the
subacute
dietary
tests,
in
which
dose
is
a
function
of
how
much
food
is
consumed.
In
addition,
Matz
et
al.
(
1998)
demonstrated
that
laboratory
dietary
toxicity
tests
for
azinphos
methyl
may
underestimate
toxic
effects
because
they
fail
to
account
for
dermal
and
inhalation
exposure
and
behavioral
responses
(
for
study
details
see
Section
III.
C.
2.
D).
Thus,
for
azinphos
methyl,
dose­
based
avian
acute
risk
quotients
are
preferred
over
dietary­
based.

The
assessed
azinphos
methyl
uses
(
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds)
are
likely
to
result
in
dietary
exposures
that
exceed
lethal
and
sublethal
toxicity
thresholds
in
non­
target
terrestrial
animals.
Acute
and
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
LOCs
for
listed
and
non­
listed
birds
(
which
are
also
surrogates
for
reptiles)
and
mammals
(
Table
4.6).
The
acute
and
chronic
LOC
exceedences
suggest
that
birds
and
mammals
of
all
sizes
(
up
to
1000
g)
may
be
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
54
Table
4.6
Terrestrial
RQs
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Group
2
Uses
Use
Rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Number
of
Apps.
Minimum
Interval
(
Days)
Acute
RQsa
Chronic
RQsb
Birds
Mammals
Birds
Mammals
Caneberries
0.5
2
10
<
0.1
­
9
<
0.1
­
10
1
­
17
2
­
310
Cranberries
1.0
2
14
<
0.1
­
17
<
0.1
­
18
2
­
31
3
­
570
Peaches
0.75
3
14
<
0.1
­
14
<
0.1
­
15
2
­
26
3
­
470
Potatoes
0.75
2
7
<
0.1
­
15
<
0.1
­
16
2
­
28
3
­
501
So.
Pine
Seeds
1.5
2
30
<
0.1
­
20
<
0.1
­
22
2
­
39
4
­
697
a
Acute
risk
LOC
=
0.5;
restricted
use
LOC
=
0.2;
endangered
species
LOC
=
0.1
b
Chronic
LOC
=
1
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Insects
and
Other
Invertebrates
EFED
currently
does
not
compute
RQs
for
non­
target
insects.
However,
based
on
the
high
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
all
insects,
including
beneficial
ones
(
i.
e.
honey
bees,
wasps,
beetles,
mites),
risks
are
likely.
Toxicity
information
indicates
that
the
acute
contact
LD
50
for
the
honey
bee
is
as
low
as
0.063

g/
bee
(
MRID
05004151).
Given
the
application
rates,
if
non­
target
beneficial
insects
are
present
when
azinphos
methyl
is
applied
to
peaches
or
potatoes,
lethal
exposures
are
likely.
Endangered
and
non­
endangered
terrestrial
invertebrates
are
expected
to
be
at
risk.

B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Animals
Based
on
reduced
maximum
application
rates
and
mandatory
buffer
zones
the
results
of
this
ecological
risk
assessment
suggest
that
direct
adverse
effects
to
non­
target
fish
and
invertebrates
may
occur
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
caneberries,
cranberries,
peaches,
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seeds.
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
which
were
calculated
for
peaches
and
potatoes,
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs.
Although
acute
risks
to
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
may
not
be
likely,
chronic
risks
cannot
be
precluded
at
this
time.

Azinphos
methyl
exposures
are
likely
to
exceed
known
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
thresholds,
resulting
in
individual
mortality
or
sublethal
effects
(
i.
e.
reduced
fecundity
or
growth).
Aquatic
animals
that
survive
initial
(
peak)
exposures
may
be
vulnerable
to
sublethal
effects
on
normal
life
processes,
such
as
growth
and
reproduction.
Dramatic
reductions
in
offspring
production
are
known
to
occur
at
very
low
levels
of
azinphos
methyl
(
e.
g.
rainbow
trout
larval
survival
is
reduced
by
70%
at
1
µ
g/
L).
Widespread
mortality
and/
or
reproductive
impairment
in
a
given
population
could
have
profound
ecological
consequences.
A
dramatic
55
change
in
population
size
can
lead
to
instability
in
the
trophic
cascade
(
i.
e.
food
web)
and
alteration
of
predator­
prey
relationships.
Prolonged
azinphos
methyl
exposure
may
shift
an
ecosystem
toward
less
sensitive
species
and
can
lead
to
lower
biodiversity
(
Sierzen
and
Lozano,
1997).
In
severe
cases,
the
overall
function
of
an
ecosystem
may
be
compromised.
These
risk
conclusions
are
supported
by
over
130
adverse
aquatic
incidents
that
have
resulted
in
the
deaths
of
hundreds
of
thousands
of
aquatic
animals
(
Appendix
D).

a.
Caneberries
Summary:
Oregon
caneberries
are
predominantly
grown
in
the
Willamette
Valley,
and
freshwater
bodies
adjacent
to
or
downstream
of
the
application
site
have
the
potential
to
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
via
runoff
and/
or
drift.
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
were
not
modeled
for
this
use;
however,
the
weight
of
the
evidence
suggests
that
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
are
likely
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
application
to
caneberries
(
2
applications,
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
A,
at
least
10
days
apart).
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
ground
spray
application
to
caneberries.
It
is
further
supported
by
the
history
of
adverse
aquatic
incidents,
and
an
endangered
species
assessment
(
see
below).
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
listed
species,
including
(
but
not
limited
to)
salmonids
(
Appendix
E,
Part
1).

Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
Because
of
the
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
identified
in
the
IRED
and
subsequent
litigation,
a
risk
assessment
was
conducted
to
determine
whether
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
threatened
and
endangered
Pacific
anadromous
salmon
and
steelhead
and
their
designated
critical
habitat
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
in
spite
of
the
mitigation
measures
taken
(
i.
e.
reduction
of
maximum
application
rates,
cancellations,
phase­
outs),
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
25
out
of
26
salmonid
Evolutionarily
Significant
Units
(
ESUs)
of
concern.

Effect
determinations
for
listed
salmonids
were
made
based
on
total
azinphos
methyl
usage;
however,
some
inferences
can
be
made
regarding
azinphos
methyl
use
on
Oregon
caneberries
alone.
According
to
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003),
Oregon
counties
where
caneberries
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
for
over
a
dozen
salmonid
ESUs
(
Table
4.7).
The
endangered
species
assessment
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.
EFED
has
identified
additional
listed
species
that
are
co­
located
with
caneberry­
producing
counties
in
Oregon
(
Appendix
E,
Part
1).
2
http://
www.
wiscran.
org/
wetlands.
htm
(
Accessed
on
14
March
05)

56
Table
4.7
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Caneberry­
Producing
Counties
in
Oregon
(
Based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Caneberries)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

Benton
(
5
acres)
Clackamas
(
2409
acres)
Coos
(
1
acre)
Douglas
(
28
acres)
Jackson
(
13
acres)
Lane
(
122
acres)
Linn
(
422
acres)
Marion
(
4182
acres)
Multnomah
(
814
acres)
Polk
(
157
acres)
Umatilla
(
7
acres)
Washington
(
2227
acres)
Yamhill
(
453
acres)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Upper
Willamette
River
Lower
Columbia
River
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
salmon
Snake
River
fall­
run
Lower
Columbia
River
Upper
Willamette
River
Upper
Columbia
River
Coho
salmon
Southern
Oregon/
Northern
California
coastal
Oregon
coast
Chum
salmon
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
b.
Cranberries
Summary:
Wisconsin
cranberry
wetlands
(
bogs)
attract
and
support
a
wide
variety
of
aquatic
animals.
Some
aquatic
species
that
are
known
to
inhabit
cranberry
bogs
or
adjacent
waters
include
amphibians
(
green
frog,
leopard
frog)
and
fish
(
black
bullhead,
black
crappie,
blackchin
shiner,
central
mudminnow,
golden
shiner,
green
sunfish,
largemouth
bass,
pearl
dace,
pumpkinseed,
walleye,
yellow
perch)
2.
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
were
not
modeled
for
this
use;
however,
the
weight
of
the
evidence
suggests
that
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
are
likely
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
application
to
cranberries
(
2
applications,
1.0
lbs
a.
i./
A,
at
least
14
days
apart).
This
risk
conclusion
is
primarily
based
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
aerial
application
to
cranberries.
It
is
further
supported
by
the
history
of
adverse
aquatic
incidents,
including
two
that
are
linked
to
azinphos
methyl
use
specifically
on
cranberries.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
on
two
federally­
listed
freshwater
mussels,
Higgins'
eye
(
Lampsilis
higginsi)
and
winged
mapleleaf
(
Quadrula
fragosa),
which
are
known
to
inhabit
cranberry­
producing
areas
in
Wisconsin.

Incidents
Associated
With
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
on
Cranberries
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
linked
to
over
130
fish
kills,
and
EFED
is
aware
of
two
fish
kills
specifically
related
to
its
use
on
cranberries.
In
2001,
over
one
thousand
bluegill
sunfish
and
57
largemouth
bass
were
killed
in
Plymouth,
MA
in
two
incidents
in
the
span
of
a
month
(
Table
4.8).
Azinphos
methyl
is
one
of
two
insecticides
that
was
implicated
in
these
incidents,
and
it
is
unknown
which
chemical
was
responsible
or
if
they
exhibited
additivity
(
or
synergism).

Table
4.8
Adverse
Ecological
Incidents
Associated
With
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
Cranberries.

EIIS
Incident
No.
(
Date)
Location
Species
Affected
Magnitude
of
Effect
Incident
Summary
Certainty
Index
I013530­
001
(
July
2001)
Plymouth,
MA
Bluegill
Sunfish
Largemouth
Bass
>
1000
Two
fish
kills
over
about
a
month;
suspected
to
be
the
result
of
azinphos
methyl
application
to
nearby
cranberry
bogs;
azinphos
methyl
and
another
insecticide
were
detected
in
water
(
levels
not
reported)
Possible
c.
Peaches
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches
in
the
U.
S.
(
except
California).
The
efficacy
of
reduced
application
rates
and
buffer
strips
were
evaluated
for
this
use,
and
based
on
the
magnitude
of
the
resulting
RQs,
it
is
unlikely
that
these
efforts
will
mitigate
the
risks
to
aquatic
animals.
Specifically,
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
at
a
rate
of
3
applications
at
least
14
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
A
yields
risks
quotients
that
exceed
the
acute
and
chronic
LOCs,
regardless
of
60­
or
100­
foot
buffer
strips.
Even
if
all
spray
drift
could
be
eliminated,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
There
have
been
numerous
adverse
aquatic
incidents
related
to
azinphos
methyl
use
in
the
Southeast;
one
incident
is
linked
specifically
to
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
many
listed
aquatic
animals
(
Appendix
E,
Part
3).

Risk
Estimates
for
Freshwater
Fish
Screening
risk
assessment
typically
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
(
i.
e.
LC
50)
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.
In
this
case,
acute
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
fish
were
calculated
using
the
northern
pike
LC
50
of
0.36

g/
L,
the
most
sensitive
endpoint
from
the
available
data
set.
This
endpoint
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
sensitivity
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
a
given
environment;
in
reality,
the
most
sensitive
species
may
be
more
or
less
sensitive.
Northern
pike
are
not
commonly
found
in
Southeastern
peach­
growing
areas
(
i.
e.
Georgia);
however,
their
taxonomic
cousin,
the
chain
pickerel
(
Esox
niger)
is
distributed
across
the
Southeast,
and
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
these
two
species
have
similar
sensitivities
to
azinphos
methyl.
In
an
effort
to
provide
a
lower­
bound
for
acute
risk
estimates,
RQs
have
been
also
been
calculated
for
other
freshwater
fish
species,
which
are
indigenous
to
peach­
growing
58
Rainbow
Trout
96­
Hour
Acute
Toxicity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AZM
Concentration
(
ug/
L)
%
Mortality
Modeled
4­
day
mean
EEC
with
100­
ft
buffer
(
5.5
ug/
L)
regions
in
the
Southeast
(
Table
4.9).
All
of
these
RQs
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
risk
LOC
(
0.5).

Table
4.9
Acute
risk
estimates
for
a
variety
of
freshwater
fish;
based
on
peak
EEC
for
GA
peaches
with
100­
ft
buffer
(
5.9

g/
L)

Species
LC50
(

g
a.
i./
L)
Acute
RQ
Bluegill
Sunfish
8.8
0.67
Largemouth
Bass
4.8
1.2
Rainbow
Trout
3.0
2
Northern
Pike
0.36
16
Since
the
peak
EEC
for
peaches
with
a
100­
foot
buffer
is
5.9

g/
L,
and
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
0.05,
any
LC
50
that
is
lower
than
118

g/
L
will
result
in
an
RQ
that
exceeds
the
LOC.
Based
on
the
available
aquatic
toxicity
data,
most
freshwater
fishes
have
LC
50
s
below
10

g/
L.
Comparative
toxicology
has
demonstrated
that
various
species
of
scaled
fish
generally
have
equivalent
sensitivity,
within
an
order
of
magnitude,
to
other
species
of
scaled
fish
tested
under
the
same
conditions.
Sappington
et
al.
(
2001),
Beyers
et
al.
(
1994)
and
Dwyer
et
al.
(
1999),
among
others,
have
shown
that
endangered
and
threatened
fish
tested
to
date
are
similarly
sensitive,
on
an
acute
basis,
to
a
variety
of
pesticides
and
other
chemicals
as
their
non­
endangered
counterparts.

Dose­
Response
Relationship
When
actual
aquatic
exposures
are
similar
to
the
modeled
EECs
for
Georgia
peaches,
dramatic
impacts
on
fish
populations
are
expected.
The
dose­
response
slope
is
very
steep
for
aquatic
animals
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl.
For
example,
in
a
rainbow
trout
acute
toxicity
test
(
MRID
00158231),
there
were
no
mortalities
at
2

g/
L
and
90%
mortality
at
4

g/
L.
If
exposure
is
equivalent
to
the
modeled
4­
day
mean
for
peaches
with
a
100­
foot
buffer
(
5.5

g/
L),
rainbow
trout
(
or
a
species
with
similar
sensitivity
to
azinphos
methyl)
may
experience
over
90%
mortality
(
Figure
6).
This
may
actually
be
a
conservative
estimate
since
the
most
sensitive
fish
species,
the
northern
pike,
is
about
one
order
of
magnitude
more
sensitive
than
the
rainbow
trout.
59
Peaches
in
Georgia,
60­
ft
buffer
Rainbow
Trout,
96
hour
exposure
Annual
Exceedance
Probability
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Fraction
Annual
Mortality
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
best
estimate
lower
limit
Figure
6.
Georgia
peach
4­
day
mean
EEC
relative
to
rainbow
trout
toxicity
data;
96­
hour
LC50
=
3

g/
L.

Probabilities
of
Annual
Mortality
Using
these
same
rainbow
trout
toxicity
data,
an
analysis
to
determine
the
probability
of
annual
mortality
was
performed
(
Figure
7).
Based
on
the
modeled
4­
day
mean
EECs
for
Georgia
peaches
with
a
60­
foot
buffer,
mortality
rates
for
rainbow
trout
will
be
approximately
95­
100%
every
5
years
(
0.2
annual
exceedance
probability
(
AEP)),
65­
100%
every
3
years
(
0.33
AEP),
and
30­
100%
every
other
year
(
0.5
AEP).
This
may
be
a
conservative
estimate
since
rainbow
trout
are
10­
times
less
sensitive
than
the
most
sensitive
freshwater
fish
and
the
aquatic
exposures
are
based
on
4­
day
mean
EECs,
not
the
peak
modeled
EECs.
Although
the
"
standard
pond
scenario"
may
not
be
representative
of
every
water
body
in
a
given
peach­
growing
area,
as
previously
mentioned,
it
is
an
acceptable
surrogate
for
small
vulnerable
waterbodies
that
occur
near
the
tops
of
watersheds,
including
swamps,
bogs,
prairie
potholes,
vernal
pools,
playa
lakes,
first­
order
streams.

Figure
7.
Probability
of
annual
mortality
for
rainbow
trout
based
on
4­
day
mean
EECs
for
Georgia
peaches.

Increasing
buffer
zone
width
is
unlikely
to
reduce
aquatic
exposures
to
levels
below
known
aquatic
toxicity
thresholds.
In
fact,
even
complete
elimination
of
azinphos
methyl
spray
drift
during
application
to
peaches
results
in
exposures
that
are
high
enough
to
decimate
a
fish
population.
Assuming
zero
drift,
mortality
rates
for
rainbow
trout
(
surrogate
fish)
would
be
approximately
70%
every
five
years,
20%
every
three
years,
and
5%
every
other
year
(
Figure
8).
60
Peaches
in
Georgia
No
Drift
vs
60
ft
Buffer
Rainbow
Trout,
96
hour
lower
limit
Annual
Exceedance
Probability
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Fraction
Annual
Mortality
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
60
foot
buffer
no
drift
Figure
8.
Probability
of
annual
mortality
for
rainbow
trout
based
on
4­
day
mean
EECs
for
Georgia
peaches.

Adverse
Aquatic
Incidents
The
Agency's
presumption
of
acute
risk
to
aquatic
animals
is
supported
by
over
130
fish
kills
associated
with
azinphos
methyl
usage.
Most
of
these
have
occurred
in
the
Southeastern
part
of
the
United
States
due
to
a
combination
of
factors,
including
the
higher
likelihood
for
rainfall
events,
relatively
high
percent
crop
treated
with
azinphos
methyl,
and
proximity
of
application
sites
to
surface
waters.
There
is
one
known
adverse
ecological
incident
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches
(
Table
4.10).

Table
4.10
Adverse
Ecological
Incident
Associated
With
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
Peaches.

EIIS
Incident
No.
(
Date)
Location
Species
Affected
Magnitude
of
Effect
Incident
Summary
Certainty
Index
I003622­
001
(
31
May
1996)
Jackson,
MO
Fish
(
species
not
reported)
Unknown
Runoff
of
azinphos
methyl
from
peach
orchard
into
fish
pond;
no
residue
analysis
data
reported
Probable
d.
Potatoes
Summary:
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
(
Idaho
potato
scenario)
as
well
as
the
mid­
Atlantic
states
(
Maine
potato
scenario).
The
efficacy
of
reduced
application
rates
and
buffer
strips
were
evaluated
for
this
use,
and
based
on
the
magnitude
of
the
resulting
RQs,
it
is
unlikely
that
these
efforts
will
mitigate
the
61
risks
to
aquatic
animals.
Specifically,
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
at
a
rate
of
2
applications
at
least
7
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
A
yields
risks
quotients
that
exceed
the
acute
and
chronic
LOCs,
regardless
of
a
150­
foot
buffer
strip.
Even
if
all
spray
drift
could
be
eliminated,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
aquatic
animals
would
still
exceed
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern.
There
have
been
several
adverse
aquatic
incidents
related
to
azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes.
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
many
listed
aquatic
animals
(
Appendix
E,
Part
4).

Adverse
Aquatic
Incidents
The
presumption
of
acute
risks
to
aquatic
animals
is
supported
by
several
known
adverse
ecological
incidents
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes.
Details
of
these
fish
kills
are
summarized
in
Table
4.11.

Table
4.11
Adverse
Ecological
Incidents
Associated
With
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
Potatoes.

EIIS
Incident
No.
(
Date)
Location
Species
Affected
Magnitude
of
Effect
Incident
Summary
Certainty
Index
B0000­
300­
51
(
14
July
1972)
Maine
(
Webster
Brook)
Trout
750
Runoff
of
azinphos
methyl
from
potato
field;
trout
tissue
samples
revealed
0.17­
0.38
ppm
Probable
I012265­
003
(
26
July
1994)
Prince
Edward
Island,
Canada
(
Big
Pierre
Jacques
River
System)
Brook
Trout
Stickleback
Sculpin
Hundreds
Hundreds
Hundreds
Runoff
of
azinphos
methyl
and
carbofuran
from
potato
field;
no
tissue
analysis;
water
analysis
revealed
measurable
concentrations
of
azinphos
methyl
and
carbofuran
(
levels
not
reported)
Probable
I012265­
004
(
21
July
1995)
Prince
Edward
Island,
Canada
(
Big
Pierre
Jacques
River
System)
Fish
(
species
not
reported)
Thousands
Presumed
runoff
of
azinphos
methyl
and
carbofuran
from
potato
field;
no
tissue
or
water
analyses
Possible
I012265­
002
(
23
July
1998)
Prince
Edward
Island,
Canada
(
Huntley
River)
Fish
(
species
not
reported)
Unknown
Runoff
of
azinphos
methyl
and
endosulfan
from
potato
field;
no
tissue
analysis;
75
ppm
azinphos
methyl
in
water;
910
ppm
azinphos
methyl
in
sediment
Probable
62
I012265­
001
(
19
July
1999)
Prince
Edward
Island,
Canada
(
Lords
Pond
on
the
Tryon
River)
Fish
(
species
not
reported)
>
1200
Runoff
of
azinphos
methyl
and
carbofuran
from
potato
field;
azinphos
methyl
levels
were
up
to
5.43
ppb
in
water,
55.3
ppb
in
sediment,
0.28
ppm
in
fish
liver,
0.46
ppm
in
fish
gills
Highly
probable
Salmonid
Endangered
Species
Assessment
The
Erickson
and
Turner
(
2003)
assessment
evaluated
the
impacts
of
all
azinphos
methyl
uses
on
listed
salmonids;
however,
there
is
sufficient
crop­
specific
information
to
tease
out
potential
ecological
impacts
associated
with
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
in
Washington
and
Oregon
(
Table
4.12).
In
Washington,
from
1990
to
2001,
170,000
acres
of
potatoes
were
grown
with
12%
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
(
average
8200
lbs
a.
i./
year).
The
average
number
of
applications
was
1.3,
and
the
average
single
application
rate
was
0.36
lbs.
a.
i./
A.
Washington
counties
where
potatoes
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
of
7
salmonid
ESUs.
In
Oregon,
based
on
data
from
1990
to
2001,
50,000
acres
of
potatoes
were
grown
with
10%
treated
with
azinphos
methyl
(
average
2000
lbs
a.
i./
year).
The
average
number
of
applications
was
1.3,
and
the
average
single
application
rate
was
0.32
lbs
a.
i./
A.
Oregon
counties
where
potatoes
are
grown
overlap
with
the
spawning,
rearing,
and/
or
migration
corridors
of
5
salmonid
ESUs.

Table
4.12
Salmonid
ESUs
That
Overlap
With
Potato­
Producing
Counties
in
Washington
and
Oregon
(
based
on
1997
USDA
Agricultural
Census
data);
the
assessment
(
Erickson
and
Turner,
2003)
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
may
affect
all
of
these
ESUs.

County
(
Acres
of
Potatoes)
Fish
Species
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)

Washington:
Adams
(
27,914
acres)
Benton
(
25,317
acres)
Franklin
(
35,770
acres)
Grant
(
44,263
acres)
Walla
Walla
(
9256
acres)
Yakima
(
1929
acres)
Steelhead
Upper
Columbia
River
Snake
River
Basin
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
salmon
Snake
River
Fall
Run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
Oregon
Counties:
Jefferson
(
973
acres)
Morrow
(
17,030
acres)
Umatilla
(
15,030
acres)
Union
(
660)
Steelhead
Middle
Columbia
River
Chinook
salmon
Snake
River
Fall
Run
Snake
River
Spring/
Summer
Run
Upper
Columbia
River
Sockeye
Salmon
Snake
River
e.
Southern
Pine
Seeds
63
Summary:
Southern
pine
seed
orchards
stretch
across
the
southeastern
U.
S.,
and
listed
and
nonlisted
aquatic
animals
have
the
potential
to
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
as
a
result
of
this
use.
Estimated
aquatic
exposures
were
not
modeled
for
this
use;
however,
the
weight
of
the
evidence
suggests
that
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
are
likely
as
a
result
of
aerial
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
to
southern
pine
seed
orchards
(
2
applications,
1.5
lbs
a.
i./
A,
at
least
30
days
apart).
These
risk
conclusions
are
based
primarily
on
aquatic
toxicity
information
and
the
likelihood
for
aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
aerial
application
of
azinphos
methyl
to
southern
pine
seeds
and
are
further
supported
by
the
history
of
adverse
aquatic
incidents
in
the
Southeast
and
a
USDA
Forest
Service
environmental
impact
statement
(
EIS)
(
discussed
in
the
Aquatic
Exposure
Section,
part
C).
Mortality
and/
or
sublethal
(
reproduction,
growth)
effects
on
aquatic
animals
are
expected.
A
number
of
federally­
listed
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
located
in
Alabama,
Florida,
Georgia,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
North
Carolina,
Oklahoma,
and
South
Carolina
counties
with
southern
pine
seed
orchards
(
that
were
known
to
use
pesticides
as
of
1999)
(
Appendix
E,
Part
5).

Environmental
Impact
Statement
According
to
the
EIS,
which
assessed
more
than
10
pesticides
on
2
seed
orchards,
none
of
the
assessed
chemicals
were
expected
to
present
any
risk
to
aquatic
species
at
estimated
average
exposures,
except
azinphos
methyl.
This
is
in
spite
of
using
EECs
that
are
considerably
less
protective
than
those
calculated
by
PRZM/
EXAMS.
At
one
of
the
orchards,
it
was
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl,
when
applied
aerially
at
the
high
rate
(
3.0
lbs/
A)
or
by
airblast
sprayer,
posed
risks
to
a
variety
of
aquatic
species
(
i.
e.
water
flea,
dragonfly,
freshwater
scud,
various
fish).
At
the
lower
aerial
rate
(
1.5
lbs/
A),
which
is
the
current
label
rate,
the
freshwater
scud
and
the
water
flea
were
considered
to
be
at
risk.
At
the
other
orchard,
both
aerial
rates
and
airblast
azinphos
methyl
applications
posed
a
risk
to
all
surrogate
aquatic
species
(
except
crayfish).
The
EIS
also
concluded
that
above­
average
exposures
to
azinphos
methyl
from
airblast
spray
posed
significant
risks
to
aquatic
animals
(
except
crayfish)
at
both
orchards.

Adverse
Aquatic
Incidents
As
previously
mentioned
in
the
risk
description
for
peaches,
the
risk
conclusion
of
acute
risks
to
aquatic
organisms
is
supported
by
the
extensive
history
of
fish
kills
linked
to
azinphos
methyl
use
in
the
Southeast.
Given
that
the
application
rate
for
southern
pine
seeds
is
the
highest
of
all
of
the
assessed
uses
and
that
the
only
viable
application
method
is
aerial,
adverse
ecological
incidents
(
fish
kills)
linked
to
this
use
are
likely.
However,
according
to
EFED's
incident
database,
there
are
none
specifically
linked
to
southern
pine
seeds.
(
This
may
be
related
to
the
isolated
nature
of
southern
pine
seed
orchards;
incidents
may
not
be
as
obvious
in
dense,
forested
areas).
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Like
other
organophosphate
pesticides,
azinphos
methyl
exhibits
high
acute
toxicity
by
64
irreversibly
inhibiting
cholinesterase
enzymes,
which
can
lead
to
a
disruption
of
normal
neuromuscular
control
in
terrestrial
animals.
Significant
inhibition
of
brain
and
blood
cholinesterase
by
azinphos
methyl
can
occur
at
doses
as
low
as
1
ppm
in
rats,
and
mammalian
fecundity
is
significantly
reduced
at
levels
as
low
as
15
ppm.

Results
from
risk
estimation
for
terrestrial
animals
suggest
that
birds
(
surrogate
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles)
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
dietary
residues
that
exceed
known
mortality
and
sublethal
(
i.
e.
reproduction,
growth)
effects
thresholds.
Based
on
maximum
and
mean
predicted
terrestrial
exposures,
acute
and
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs
for
herbivorous
and
insectivorous
birds
and
mammals
for
all
five
of
the
assessed
Group
2
uses.
Although
risks
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
were
not
quantitatively
assessed,
risks
to
non­
target
(
beneficial)
insects
cannot
be
precluded.
The
48­
hour
acute
contact
LD
50
=
0.063

g/
bee;
any
chemical
with
an
acute
contact
LD
50
of
less
than
2

g/
bee
is
considered
"
highly
toxic."

Further
risk
mitigation
measures,
such
as
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
applications,
an
increase
in
the
minimum
application
interval,
and/
or
a
decrease
in
the
maximum
single
application,
are
unlikely
to
significantly
alter
these
acute
and
chronic
terrestrial
risk
conclusions.
Given
the
high
toxicity
of
azinphos
methyl
to
birds
and
mammals,
virtually
every
efficacious
use
pattern
for
azinphos
methyl
will
yield
terrestrial
risk
quotients
that
exceed
the
Agency's
LOCs.

Depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effects
on
individual
fitness,
higher­
level
ecological
impacts
on
populations,
communities,
and/
or
ecosystems
are
possible.
Terrestrial
field
and
pen
studies
have
documented
the
population­
level
effects
on
a
variety
of
avian
and
mammalian
species
(
i.
e.
gray­
tailed
voles,
deer
mice,
northern
bobwhite
chicks)
as
a
result
of
azinphos
methyl
exposure
in
fruit
orchards
has
been
documented.
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
linked
to
several
incidents
in
which
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
and
beneficial
insects
have
been
killed
(
Appendix
D).
Azinphos
methyl
has
been
implicated
in
14
adverse
ecological
incidents
in
which
honey
bee
colonies/
hives
were
destroyed.
Adverse
behavioral
and
reproductive
effects
have
also
been
linked
to
azinphos
methyl
exposure
in
the
field.

There
is
a
potential
for
direct
effects
to
federally­
listed
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians,
and
terrestrial
invertebrates
that
inhabit
areas
where
these
crops
are
grown
(
Appendix
E).
Listed
terrestrial
animals
are
known
to
occur
in
the
vicinity
of
the
all
five
of
the
assessed
uses
(
caneberries
in
OR,
cranberries
in
WI,
peaches
across
the
nation
(
except
CA),
potatoes,
and
southern
pine
seed
orchards).

a.
Caneberries
Summary:
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
Oregon
caneberries
at
a
rate
of
2
applications
at
least
10
days
apart
at
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
A
was
assessed
to
evaluate
the
potential
risks
to
terrestrial
animals.
Results
indicate
that
dietary
exposures
as
a
result
of
this
use
will
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
65
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
35
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
9).

Figure
9.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
caneberries:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

A
number
of
listed
terrestrial
animals
are
known
to
inhabit
caneberry­
producing
counties
in
Oregon
(
Appendix
E,
Part
1).
The
endangered
brown
pelican
and
the
threatened
bald
eagle,
northern
spotted
owl,
western
snowy
plover,
and
the
marbled
murrelet
are
predominantly
carnivores,
and
dietary
exposure
for
carnivores
is
uncertain.
The
endangered
Columbian
whitetailed
deer
is
the
only
known
endangered
or
threatened
mammal
that
inhabits
caneberry­
producing
counties
in
Oregon.
There
are
potential
risks
to
beneficial
insects
as
well,
particularly
the
endangered
Fender's
blue
butterfly
and
the
threatened
Oregon
silver
spot
butterfly.

b.
Cranberries
Summary:
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs
for
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
Wisconsin
cranberries
(
2
applications
at
least
10
days
apart
at
1.0
lbs
a.
i./
A).
Results
indicate
that
dietary
exposures
as
a
result
of
this
use
will
exceed
known
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
thresholds
for
birds
and
mammals.
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
Based
on
the
modeled
dietary
exposures,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm)
is
exceeded
for
about
45
days
for
those
mammals
that
prefer
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
insects
(
Figure
10).
66
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
Figure
10.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
cranberries:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
terrestrial
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Wisconsin
cranberry
bogs
are
known
to
provide
habitat
for
many
terrestrial
animals2
(
listed
below),
which
may
be
exposed
to
azinphos
methyl
as
a
result
of
aerial
application.

Mammals
Beaver,
Eastern
Chipmunk,
Eastern
Cottontail,
Gray
Squirrel,
Meadow
Jumping
Mouse,
Meadow
Vole,
Muskrat,
Raccoon,
Red
Fox,
Red
Squirrel,
River
Otter,
Virginia
Opossum,
Whitefooted
Mouse,
White­
Tailed
Deer
Birds
Accipiter,
American
Bittern,
American
Crow,
American
Goldfinch,
American
Redstart,
American
Robin,
Bald
Eagle,
Barn
Swallow,
Barred
Owl,
Belted
Kingfisher,
Black
and
White
Warbler,
Black­
capped
Chickadee,
Blue
Jay,
Cedar
Waxwing,
Chestnut­
sided
Warbler,
Common
Loon,
Common
Nighthawk,
Common
Raven,
Common
Snipe,
Common
Yellowthroat,
Doublecrested
Cormorant,
Down
Woodpecker,
Eastern
Kingbird,
Eastern
Phoebe,
Eastern
Wood
Pewee,
Field
Sparrow,
Golden­
winged
Warbler,
Gray
Catbird,
Gray­
checked
Thrush,
Great
Blue
Heron,
Great
Horned
Owl,
Green­
backed
Heron,
Green­
winged
Teal,
Indigo
Bunting,
Killdeer,
Least
Flycatcher,
Lesser
Yellowlegs,
Magnolia
Warbler,
Mallard,
Merlin,
Nashville
Warbler,
Northern
Flicker,
Northern
Waterthrush,
Ovenbird,
Pleated
Woodpecker,
Pine
Warbler,
Red­
eyed
Vireo,
Red­
tailed
Hawk,
Red­
winged
Blackbird,
Rose­
breasted
Grosbeak,
Ruby­
throated
Hummingbird,
Rufous­
sided
Towhee,
Sandhill
Crane,
Scarlet
Tanager,
Solitary
Sandpiper,
Song
Sparrow,
Sora,
Spotted
Sandpiper,
Tennessee
Warbler,
Tree
Swallow,
White­
breasted
Nuthatch,
Wilson's
Warbler,
Wood
Duck
Reptiles
Garter
Snake,
Northern
Water
Snake,
Painted
Turtle,
Smooth
Green
Snake
Several
listed
terrestrial
animals
are
known
to
inhabit
Wisconsin
cranberry­
producing
counties
(
Appendix
E,
Part
2).
In
addition
to
the
threatened
bald
eagle,
according
to
the
EFED
LOCATES
endangered
species
database,
the
endangered
Kirtland's
warbler
and
the
threatened
gray
wolf
known
to
inhabit
cranberry­
producing
Wisconsin
counties.
There
are
also
potential
67
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
risks
to
beneficial
and
endangered
insects,
particularly
the
Karner
blue
butterfly,
which
is
known
to
exist
in
several
cranberry­
producing
Wisconsin
counties.

c.
Peaches
Summary:
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches
at
a
rate
of
3
applications
at
least
14
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
A
was
assessed
to
determine
the
potential
risks
to
terrestrial
organisms.
Results
indicate
that
avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
According
to
the
T­
REX
model,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
Exceedence
of
the
acute
risk
LOC
suggests
that
survivorship
may
be
compromised
by
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
peaches.
Exceedance
of
the
chronic
level
of
concern
for
terrestrial
animals
suggests
that
sublethal
exposures
to
azinphos
methyl
are
likely
to
elicit
adverse
effects
on
the
normal
life
processes
of
avian
and
mammalian
species.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
is
15
ppm;
at
this
level,
there
were
significant
effects
on
pup
survivorship
and
viability,
adverse
effects
on
lactation,
and
decreased
litter
weight.
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
exceed
this
mammalian
LOAEC
for
approximately
two
months
for
peaches
(
Figure
11).
These
effects
on
growth,
development,
and/
or
reproduction
are
more
subtle
than
lethal
effects;
however,
depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effect
on
individual
fitness
as
well
as
the
distribution
of
effects
throughout
a
population,
there
may
be
significant
ecological
consequences.

Figure
11.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

According
to
the
Georgia
Game
and
Fish
Commission,
bobwhite
quail
and
songbirds
are
known
to
feed,
nest,
roost,
and/
or
brood
in
peach
orchards
at
a
high
rate
from
March
through
September
(
Gusey
and
Maturgo,
1973).
This
is
the
window
of
time
that
azinphos
methyl
could
be
applied
to
peach
orchards
for
control
of
the
lesser
peach
tree
borer.
In
addition,
there
are
potential
direct
effects
to
vast
numbers
of
federally­
listed
terrestrial
species
that
are
known
to
68
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
100
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
occur
in
peach­
producing
counties
(
Appendix
E,
Part
3).

d.
Potatoes
Summary:
Avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs
for
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes
(
2
applications
at
least
7
days
apart
at
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
A).
Results
indicate
that
avian
and
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceed
the
Agency's
acute
and
chronic
risk
LOCs.
According
to
the
T­
REX
model,
small,
medium,
and
large
birds
and
mammals
(
up
to
1000
g)
are
at
risk
regardless
of
their
preferred
food
items.
Exceedence
of
the
acute
risk
LOC
suggests
that
survivorship
may
be
compromised
by
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
potatoes.
Exceedance
of
the
chronic
level
of
concern
for
terrestrial
animals
suggests
that
sublethal
exposures
to
azinphos
methyl
are
likely
to
elicit
adverse
effects
on
the
normal
life
processes
of
avian
and
mammalian
species.
The
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
is
15
ppm;
at
this
level,
there
were
significant
effects
on
pup
survivorship
and
viability,
adverse
effects
on
lactation,
and
decreased
litter
weight.
Terrestrial
EECs
exceed
this
mammalian
LOAEC
for
approximately
one
month
for
potatoes
(
Figure
12).
These
effects
on
growth,
development,
and/
or
reproduction
are
more
subtle
than
lethal
effects;
however,
depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
effect
on
individual
fitness
as
well
as
the
distribution
of
effects
throughout
a
population,
there
may
be
significant
ecological
consequences.

Figure
12.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
potatoes:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Gusey
and
Maturgo
(
1973)
suggest
that
various
avian
species
are
known
to
use
potato
field
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
during
the
time
that
azinphos
methyl
would
be
applied
for
control
of
the
tuber
moth.
According
to
the
Oregon
State
Game
Commission,
ring­
necked
pheasant
use
potato
fields
for
cover
from
June
through
September.
According
to
the
Washington
State
Department
of
Game,
songbirds
feed
and
nest
on
potato
fields
from
March
through
August,
and
chukar
partridge
feed
from
June
through
November.
In
addition,
there
are
potential
direct
69
Terrestrial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
3
6
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96
10
0
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)

Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
For
Risk
Discussion
Purposes
effects
to
several
federally­
listed
terrestrial
species
that
are
known
to
occur
in
potato­
producing
counties
in
the
Columbia
River
basin
(
Appendix
E,
Part
4).

e.
Southern
Pine
Seeds
Summary:
According
to
the
T­
REX
model,
the
residues
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
following
azinphos
methyl
application
to
southern
pine
seed
orchards
are
the
greatest;
thus,
the
RQs
associated
with
this
use
are
the
highest
of
all
of
the
modeled
scenarios.
Southern
pine
seed
orchards
provide
habitat
for
a
number
of
wildlife
and
plant
species,
which
are
adapted
to
early
forest
succession
and
open
environments.
Based
on
two
azinphos
methyl
applications
at
1.5
lbs
a.
i./
A,
maximum
EECs
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
range
from
about
25
to
403
ppm,
and
mean
EECs
range
from
about
12
to
143
ppm.
Azinphos
methyl
use
in
southern
pine
seed
orchards
poses
acute
and
chronic
risks
to
listed
and
non­
listed
birds.
Terrestrial
EECs
exceed
the
mammalian
LOAEC
for
approximately
two
months
for
southern
pine
seeds
(
Figure
13).
In
addition
to
terrestrial
toxicity
information,
the
history
of
adverse
terrestrial
incidents,
and
the
likelihood
for
dietary
exposures
resulting
from
aerial
application
of
azinphos
methyl
to
southern
pine
seeds,
the
USDA
Forest
Service
environmental
impact
statement
(
EIS)
(
discussed
in
the
Terrestrial
Exposure
Section,
part
C)
provides
additional
information
to
support
the
terrestrial
risk
conclusions.

Figure
13.
Azinphos
methyl
use
on
southern
pine
seeds:
Upper­
bound
terrestrial
EECs
on
various
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
relative
to
mammalian
reproductive
LOAEC
(
15
ppm;
pup
mortality
and
viability).

Environmental
Impact
Statement
The
two
orchards
that
were
assessed
in
the
EIS
provided
habitat
for
non­
endangered
as
well
as
endangered
and
threatened
species.
When
the
EIS
was
written,
two
endangered
birds
 
the
bald
eagle
and
the
red­
cockaded
woodpecker
 
existed
in
national
forest
lands
in
the
vicinity
of
70
these
seed
orchards.
In
addition,
the
threatened
American
alligator,
Eastern
indigo
snake,
gopher
tortoise,
and
black
bear
were
known
to
exist
in
the
vicinity.
The
woodpecker,
tortoise,
and
snake
are
known
to
occur
or
could
occur
within
either
or
both
orchards.

According
to
the
EIS,
none
of
the
assessed
chemicals
were
expected
to
pose
any
risk
to
terrestrial
species
at
estimated
average
or
above­
average
exposures,
except
azinphos
methyl.
At
average­
level
exposures,
azinphos
methyl
exposure
from
airblast
applications
posed
risks
to
terrestrial
animals
(
i.
e.
birds,
rabbits,
squirrels,
foxes,
cattle,
cats,
cotton
mice).
At
above­
average
(
upper­
bound)
exposure
levels,
there
were
significant
risks
to
endangered
and
non­
endangered
terrestrial
animals
from
aerial
(
1.5
and
3.0
lbs
a.
i./
A)
and
airblast
applications.

Azinphos
methyl
was
the
only
pesticide
that
posed
any
risk
to
endangered
and
threatened
species
in
and
around
seed
orchards.
It
was
recommended
that
restrictions
on
azinphos
methyl
use
within
150
feet
of
active
gopher
tortoise
burrows
be
required.
The
predicted
risk
to
the
redcockaded
woodpecker
from
azinphos
methyl
was
considered
"
unacceptable"
for
airblast
applications
for
average
and
above­
average
exposures.
It
was
also
speculated
that
azinphos
methyl
may
adversely
impact
the
Bachman's
sparrow
(
a
sensitive
species)
if
the
bird
ingests
contaminated
insects.
The
EIS
concluded
that
azinphos
methyl
posed
significant
risks
to
a
variety
of
listed
and
non­
listed
terrestrial
animals.
It
was
recommended
that
less
toxic
chemicals
be
substituted
for
azinphos
methyl
whenever
possible.

C.
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
and
Data
Gaps
1.
General
Exposure
a.
Maximum
Use
Scenario
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
focuses
on
characterizing
potential
ecological
risks
resulting
from
a
maximum
use
scenario,
which
is
determined
from
labeled
statements
of
maximum
flonicamid
application
rate
and
number
of
applications
with
the
shortest
time
interval
between
applications.
The
frequency
at
which
actual
uses
approach
this
maximum
use
scenario
may
be
dependant
on
insecticide
resistance,
timing
of
applications,
cultural
practices,
and
market
forces.

b.
Additive
and/
or
Synergistic
Effects
It
was
assumed
that
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
were
exposed
only
to
azinphos
methyl
insecticide.
Ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
a
mixture
of
azinphos
methyl
and
its
degradates,
other
pesticides,
adjuvants,
heavy
metals,
industrial
chemicals,
pharmaceuticals,
etc.
were
not
considered
in
this
risk
assessment.

2.
Terrestrial
Assessment
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
71
For
this
screening­
level
terrestrial
risk
assessment,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
was
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
azinphos
methyl
at
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
Actual
habitat
requirements
of
any
particular
terrestrial
species
were
not
considered,
and
it
was
assumed
that
species
occupy,
exclusively
and
permanently,
the
modeled
treatment
area.
Spray
drift
model
predictions
suggest
that
this
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
to
species
that
do
not
occupy
the
treated
field
exclusively
and
permanently.

b.
Routes
of
Exposure
This
screening­
level
terrestrial
assessment
for
spray
applications
of
azinphos
methyl
only
considered
dietary
exposure.
Other
routes
of
exposure
that
were
not
considered
in
the
assessment
are
incidental
soil
ingestion
exposure,
inhalation
exposure,
dermal
exposure,
and
drinking
water
exposure.

c.
Incidental
Releases
Associated
With
Use
This
risk
assessment
was
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
entire
treatment
area
is
subject
to
pesticide
application
at
the
rates
specified
on
the
label.
Uneven
application
of
the
pesticide
through
changes
in
calibration
of
application
equipment,
spillage,
and
localized
releases
at
specific
areas
of
the
treated
field
that
are
associated
with
specifics
of
the
type
of
application
equipment
were
not
accounted
for
in
this
assessment.

d.
Residue
Levels
Selection
The
Agency
relies
on
the
work
of
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
for
setting
the
assumed
pesticide
residues
in
wildlife
dietary
items.
These
residue
assumptions
are
believed
to
reflect
a
realistic
upper­
bound
residue
estimate,
although
the
degree
to
which
this
assumption
reflects
a
specific
percentile
estimate
is
difficult
to
quantify.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
field
measurement
efforts
used
to
develop
the
Fletcher
estimates
of
exposure
involve
highly
varied
sampling
techniques.
It
is
entirely
possible
that
much
of
these
data
reflect
residues
averaged
over
entire
above
ground
plants
in
the
case
of
grass
and
forage
sampling.
Depending
upon
a
specific
wildlife
species'
foraging
habits,
whole
aboveground
plant
samples
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
actual
exposure.

e.
Dietary
Intake
It
was
assumed
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
differences.
Direct
comparison
of
a
laboratory
dietary
concentrationbased
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.
72
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,
there
may
be
potential
for
avoidance
(
animals
respond
to
the
presence
of
noxious
chemicals
in
food
by
reducing
consumption
of
treated
dietary
elements).
This
response
is
seen
in
nature
where
herbivores
avoid
plant
secondary
compounds.

Risk
quotients
calculated
using
the
dose­
based
toxicity
values
are
generally
higher
than
RQs
calculated
using
the
dietary­
based
toxicity
values.

3.
Effects
Assessment
a.
Sublethal
Effects
For
an
acute
risk
assessment,
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
the
acute
mortality
endpoint
as
well
as
a
suite
of
sublethal
responses
to
the
pesticide,
as
determined
by
the
testing
of
species
response
to
chronic
exposure
conditions
and
subsequent
chronic
risk
assessment.
Consideration
of
additional
sublethal
data
in
the
assessment
is
exercised
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
and
only
after
careful
consideration
of
the
nature
of
the
sublethal
effect
measured
and
the
extent
73
and
quality
of
available
data
to
support
establishing
a
plausible
relationship
between
the
measure
of
effect
(
sublethal
endpoint)
and
the
assessment
endpoints.

b.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
Testing
of
juvenile
organisms
may
overestimate
toxicity
at
older
age
classes
for
pesticidal
active
ingredients
that
act
directly
(
without
metabolic
transformation)
because
younger
age
classes
may
not
have
the
enzymatic
systems
associated
with
detoxifying
xenobiotics.
However,
the
influence
of
age
may
not
be
uniform
for
all
compounds,
and
compounds
requiring
metabolic
activation
may
be
more
toxic
in
older
age
classes.
The
risk
assessment
uses
the
most
sensitive
life­
stage
information
as
the
conservative
screening
endpoint.
74
Appendix
A
 
Terrestrial
Exposure
(
T­
REX)
Information
1.
Introduction
This
spreadsheet
based
model
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
It
uses
the
same
principle
as
the
batch
code
models
FATE
and
TERREEC
for
calculating
terrestrial
estimates
exposure
(
TEEC)
concentrations
on
plant
surfaces
following
application.
A
first
order
decay
assumption
is
used
to
determine
the
concentration
at
each
day
after
initial
application
based
on
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
decay
is
calculated
by
from
the
first
order
rate
equation:

C
T
=
C
i
e­
kT
or
in
log
form:
ln
(
C
T/
C
i)
=
kT
Where:
CT
=
concentration
at
time
T
=
day
zero.
Ci
=
concentration,
in
parts
per
million
(
PPM)
present
initially
(
on
day
zero)
on
the
surfaces.
Ci
is
calculated
based
on
Kenaga
and
Fletcher
by
multiplying
the
Ci
based
on
the
Kenaga
nomogram
(
Hoerger
and
Kenaga,
(
1972)
as
modified
Fletcher
(
1994).
For
maximum
concentration
the
application
rate,
in
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre,
is
multiplied
by
240
for
Short
Grass,
110
for
Tall
Grass,
and
135
for
Broad
leafed
plants/
small
insects
and
15
for
fruits/
pods/
lg
insects.
Additional
applications
are
converted
from
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
to
PPM
on
the
plant
surface
and
the
additional
mass
added
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application.
k
=
If
the
foliar
dissipation
data
submitted
to
EFED
are
found
scientifically
valid
and
statistically
robust
for
a
specific
pesticide,
the
90%
upper
confidence
limit
of
the
mean
half­
lives
should
be
used.
When
scientifically
valid,
statistically
robust
data
are
not
available
TETT
recommends
the
using
a
default
half­
life
value
of
35
days.
The
use
of
the
35
day
half­
life
is
based
on
the
highest
reported
value
(
36.9
days)
reported
by
Willis
and
McDowell
(
Pesticide
persistence
on
foliage,
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol,
100:
23­
73,
1987).
T
=
time,
in
days,
since
the
start
of
the
simulation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0.
The
simulation
is
designed
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
are
calculated
for
both
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
inputs
used
to
calculate
the
amount
of
the
chemical
present
are
in
highlighted
in
light
blue
on
the
spread
sheet.
Outputs
are
in
yellow.
The
inputs
required
are:

Application
Rate:
The
maximum
label
application
rate
(
in
pounds
ai/
acre)
Half­
life:
The
degradation
half­
life
for
the
dominate
process(
in
days)
Frequency
of
Application:
The
interval
between
repeated
applications,
from
the
label
(
in
days)
Maximum
#
Applications
per
year:
From
the
label
75
The
actual
input
parameters
used
to
determine
terrestrial
EECs
on
food
items
for
azinphos
methyl
use
on
peaches
and
potatoes
are
summarized
in
Tables
B1­
5.

Table
B­
1.
T­
REX
Model
Inputs
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Application
to
CANEBERRIES
Chemical
Name:
Azinphos
methyl
Use
Caneberries
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
0.5
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
9.8
days
Application
Interval
10
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
15.00
(
ppm)
Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
Avian
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
32
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
488
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Mallard
duck
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
10.5
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
7.8
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
406
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0.25
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
5
Table
B­
2.
T­
REX
Model
Inputs
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Application
to
CRANBERRIES.
Chemical
Name:
Azinphos
methyl
Use
Cranberries
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
1
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
9.8
days
Application
Interval
14
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
15.00
(
ppm)
Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
Avian
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
32
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
488
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Mallard
duck
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
10.5
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
7.8
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
406
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0.25
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
5
76
Table
B­
3.
T­
REX
Model
Inputs
for
the
Use
of
Azinphos­
Methyl
on
PEACHES
Chemical
Name:
Azinphos­
methyl
Use
Peaches
Formulation
Application
Rate
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
9.8
days
Application
Interval
14
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
15.00
(
ppm)
Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
Avian
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
32
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
488
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Mallard
duck
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
10.5
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
7.8
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
406
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0.25
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
5
Table
B­
4.
T­
REX
Model
Inputs
For
the
Use
of
Azinphos
Methyl
on
POTATOES
Chemical
Name:
Azinphos­
methyl
Use
Potatoes
Formulation
Application
Rate
0.75
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
9.8
days
Application
Interval
7
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
15.00
(
ppm)
Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
Avian
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
32
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
488
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Mallard
duck
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
10.5
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
7.8
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
406
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0.25
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
5
77
Table
B­
5.
T­
REX
Model
Inputs
for
Azinphos
Methyl
Application
to
SOUTHERN
PINE
SEED
ORCHARDS
Chemical
Name:
Azinphos
methyl
Use
Southern
Pine
Seed
Orchards
%
a.
i.
100
Application
Rate
1.5
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
9.8
days
Application
Interval
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
15.00
(
ppm)
Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Mammal
chronic
LOAEC
Endpoints
Avian
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
32
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
488
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Mallard
duck
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
10.5
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
7.8
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
406
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0.25
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
5
2.
Avian
Species
For
calculating
dose­
based
RQs
in
birds,
the
upper
bound
and
mean
Kenaga
residue
values
are
adjusted
for
avian
class
and
food
consumption
based
on
the
following
scaling
factor
(
USEPA,
1993):
FI
(
g/
d)
=
0.648
(
g
bw)^
0.651
For
the
3
avian
weight
classes
considered
(
20,
100
and
1000
g),
this
results
in
%
body
weight
consumption
of:

Weight(
g)
FI
wet
FI
%
bw
consumed
20
4.555599463
22.77799731
114
100
12.98897874
64.94489369
65
1000
58.15338588
290.7669294
29
A.
Dose­
Based
Acute
RQs
Dose­
based
acute
RQs
are
then
calculated
using
the
formula:

RQ
=
adjusted
EEC/
LD
50
or
NOAEL
78
where
the
adjusted
EEC
is
considered
to
be
the
daily
dose
weighted
for
%
body
weight
consumed
of
a
given
food
source.

B.
Dietary­
Based
RQs
For
dietary­
based
RQs,
two
values
are
given
for
each
food
group.
First,
the
consumptionweighted
RQ
for
each
weight
class
(
20,
100,
and
1000g
birds)
is
displayed
and
calculated
using
the
equation:

RQ
=
EEC/((
LC
50
or
NOAEC)/(%
bw
consumed))

In
the
second
method,
no
adjustment
is
made
for
consumption
differences
among
the
weight
classes.
This
RQ
is
calculated:

RQ
=
EEC/
LC
50
or
NOAEC
3.
Mammalian
Species
A.
Dose­
Based
RQs
For
calculating
dose­
based
RQs
in
mammals,
the
upper
bound
and
mean
Kenaga
values
are
adjusted
for
mammalian
class
and
food
consumption
(
0.95,
0.66
and
0.15
body
weight
for
herbivores
and
insectivores
and
0.21,
0.15,
and
0.03
body
wt.
for
granivores).
Dose­
based
acute
and
chronic
RQs
are
then
calculated
by
dividing
the
adjusted
EECs
(
daily
dose)
by
the
LD
50
or
NOAEL.

B.
Dietary­
Based
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
are
calculated
using
the
equation:

RQ
=
EEC/((
LC
50
or
NOAEC)/(%
bw
consumed))

4.
New
Version
Notes
A
new
look
is
used
in
this
update
in
an
effort
to
decrease
confusion
and
increase
transparency
in
the
risk
assessment
process.
This
version
of
T­
REX
(
v1.1)
incorporates
the
ability
to
calculate
EECs
and
RQs
for
upper
bound
and
mean
residues.
Mean
residues
are
calculated
exactly
as
the
upper
bound
residues
are,
except
the
corresponding
Kenaga
values
are:
85
for
Short
Grass,
36
for
Tall
Grass,
and
45
for
Broad
leafed
plants/
small
insects
and
7
for
fruits/
pods/
lg
insects.

5.
References
Fletcher,
J.
S.,
J.
E.
Nellesson
and
T.
G.
Pfleeger.
1994.
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
the
79
EPA
food­
chain
(
Kenaga)
nomogram,
an
instrument
for
estimating
pesticide
residues
on
plants.
Environ.
Tox.
and
Chem.
13(
9):
1383­
1391.

Hoerger,
F.
and
E.
E.
Kenaga.
1972.
Pesticide
residues
on
plants:
correlation
of
representative
data
as
a
basis
for
estimation
of
their
magnitude
in
the
environment.
IN:
F.
Coulston
and
F.
Corte,
eds.,
Environmental
Quality
and
Safety:
Chemistry,
Toxicology
and
Technology.
Vol
1.
Georg
Theime
Publishers,
Stuttgart,
Germany.
pp.
9­
28.

USEPA.
1993.
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Volume
I
of
II.
EPA/
600/
R­
93/
187a.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Willis
and
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
persistence
on
foliage.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
100:
23­
73.
80
Appendix
B
 
Definitions
of
Levels
of
Concern
for
Risk
Assessment
TERRESTRIAL
BIRDS
AND
WILD
MAMMALS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LD50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LC50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
AQUATIC
ANIMALS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC2/
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/
MATC
or
NOAEC
1.0
TERRESTRIAL
AND
SEMI­
AQUATIC
PLANTS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC3/
EC25
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
AQUATIC
PLANTS
Risk
Presumption
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC)

Acute
Risk
EEC2/
EC50
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
1
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
ppm
or
ppb
in
water
3
lbs
a.
i./
A
81
Appendix
C
 
Detailed
Terrestrial
Risk
Quotients
The
following
tables
summarize
the
avian
and
mammalian
acute
and
chronic
RQs
associated
with
the
use
of
azinphos
methyl
on
a
variety
of
agricultural
crops.
For
each
of
these
tables,
the
following
coding
system
is
used
emphasize
LOC
exceedences:

***
RQ
exceeds
acute
risk
(
0.5),
acute
restricted
use
(
0.2),
AND
the
acute
endangered
species
(
0.1)
LOCs
**
RQ
exceeds
acute
restricted
use
(
0.2)
AND
the
acute
endangered
species
(
0.1)
LOCs
*
RQ
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
(
0.1)
LOC
+
exceeds
the
chronic
LOC
(
1)

CANEBERRIES
Caneberries:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
9.02***
4.04***
1.28***
0.37**
17.065+
Tall
Grass
4.13***
1.85***
0.58***
0.17*
7.82+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
5.07***
2.27***
0.72***
0.21**
9.60+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.56***
0.25**
0.08
0.02
1.07+

Caneberries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
9.93***
309.76+
8.52***
265.97+
4.48***
139.76+

Tall
Grass
4.55***
141.97+
3.91***
121.90+
2.05***
64.05+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
5.58***
174.24+
4.80***
149.61+
2.52***
78.61+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.62***
19.36+
0.53***
16.62+
0.28**
8.73+

Seeds
(
granivore)
0.14*
4.28+
0.12*
3.78+
0.06
1.75+

Caneberries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.44**
35.83+

Tall
Grass
0.20**
16.42+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.25**
20.16+

Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.03
2.24+
82
CRANBERRIES
Cranberries:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
16.56***
7.42***
2.34***
0.67***
31.35+
Tall
Grass
7.59***
3.40***
1.07***
0.31**
14.37+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
9.32***
4.17***
1.32***
0.38**
17.63+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.04***
0.46**
0.15*
0.04
1.96+

Cranberries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
18.24***
569.11
+
15.66***
488.66
+
8.23***
256.77
+

Tall
Grass
8.36***
260.84
+
7.18***
223.97
+
3.77***
117.69
+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
10.26***
320.12
+
8.81***
274.87
+
4.63***
144.43
+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
1.14***
35.57
+
0.98***
30.54
+
0.51***
16.05
+

Seeds
(
granivore)
0.25**
7.86
+
0.22**
6.94
+
0.10*
3.21
+

Cranberries:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.81***
65.83+
Tall
Grass
0.37**
30.17+
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.46**
37.03+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.05
4.11+

PEACHES
Peaches:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
13.67***
6.12***
1.93***
0.56***
25.88+
Tall
Grass
6.27***
2.81***
0.89***
0.26**
11.86+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
7.69***
3.44***
1.09***
0.31**
14.56+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.85***
0.38**
0.12*
0.03
1.62+
83
Peaches:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
15.06***
469.78+
12.93***
403.38+
6.79***
211.95+

Tall
Grass
6.90***
215.32+
5.93***
184.88+
3.11***
97.15+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
8.47***
264.25+
7.27***
226.90+
3.82***
119.22+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.94***
29.36+
0.81***
25.21+
0.42**
13.25+
Seeds
0.21**
6.49+
0.18*
5.73+
0.08
2.65+

Peaches:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.67***
54.34+
Tall
Grass
0.31**
24.91+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.38**
30.57+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.04
3.40+

POTATOES
Potatoes:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
14.58***
6.53***
2.06***
0.59***
27.59+
Tall
Grass
6.68***
2.99***
0.95***
0.27**
12.65+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
8.20***
3.67***
1.16***
0.33**
15.52+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
0.91***
0.41**
0.13*
0.04
1.72+

Potatoes:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
16.05***
500.90+
13.79***
430.10+
7.24***
226.00+

Tall
Grass
7.36***
229.58+
6.32***
197.13+
3.32***
103.58+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
9.03***
281.76+
7.75***
241.93+
4.07***
127.12+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.00***
31.31+
0.86***
26.88+
0.45**
14.12+
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.22**
6.92+
0.20**
6.11+
0.09
2.82+

Potatoes:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.71***
57.94+
Tall
Grass
0.33**
26.56+
Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
0.40**
32.59+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
Large
insects
0.04
3.62+
84
SOUTHERN
PINE
SEEDS
Southern
Pine
Seeds:
Maximum
Avian
RQs
Food
Items
ACUTE
RQs
CHRONIC
RQs
Dose­
based
Dietary­
based
Dietary­
based
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
20.29***
9.09***
2.87***
0.83***
39+
Tall
Grass
9.30***
4.16***
1.32***
0.38**
18+

Broadleaf
plants/
Small
insects
11.41***
5.11***
1.61***
0.46**
22+

Fruits/
pods/
Large
insects
1.27***
0.57***
0.18*
0.05
2+

Southern
Pine
Seeds:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dose­
based
RQs
Food
Items
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
22.34***
697+
19.18***
598+
10.08***
314+

Tall
Grass
10.24***
319+
8.79***
274+
4.62***
144+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
12.57***
392+
10.79***
337+
5.67***
177+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
1.40***
44+
1.20***
37+
0.63***
20+
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.31**
10+
0.27**
9+
0.13*
4+

Southern
Pine
Seeds:
Maximum
Mammalian
Dietary­
based
RQs
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.99***
81+

Tall
Grass
0.46**
37+
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.56***
45+
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.06
5+
85
Appendix
D
 
Adverse
Ecological
Incidents
Associated
With
Azinphos
Methyl
Use
in
the
U.
S
(
Source:
EFED
Ecological
Incident
Information
System;
Accessed
29
March
05)

Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
1
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
015
LA
7/
28/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

ST
JAMES
MA
16000
TERRESTRIAL/
AQUATIC
1
Count:

2
I014341­
002
WA
1/
1/
1996
Yakima
UN
76
hives
TERRESTRIAL
15
Count:

Agricultural
Area
3
I003826­
014
NC
6/
21/
199
N/
R
POLK
UN
UNKNOWN
Agricultural
Area
2
I002508­
001
AR
8/
10/
199
Spray
Emulsifiable
Conc.

JEFFERSON
RU
14
Bean
2
I014341­
017
WA
1/
1/
1998
Chelan
UN
102
hives
N/
R
3
I014405­
029
WA
6/
5/
1996
Yakima
UN
N/
R
2
I013587­
009
WA
6/
10/
199
Grant
UN
Unknown
ORCHARD
1
I003654­
013
NC
6/
10/
199
Spray
LINCOLN
RU
UNKNOWN
ORCHARD
1
I003654­
014
NC
6/
16/
199
Spray
HENDERSON
RU
UNKNOWN
ORCHARD
4
I003654­
017
NC
8/
17/
199
Spray
HENDERSON
UN
UNKNOWN
ORCHARD
1
I003826­
022
NC
6/
26/
199
N/
R
POLK
RU
UNKNOWN
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I014341­
001
WA
1/
1/
1996
Yakima
UN
9
bee
hives
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I014341­
003
WA
1/
1/
1996
Yakima
UN
430
hives
Orchard
(
unspecified)
3
I014405­
028
WA
6/
3/
1996
Yakima
UN
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I013883­
032
WA
5/
15/
199
Yakima
RU
20
Colonies
Orchard
(
unspecified)
2
I014341­
030
WA
1/
1/
1999
Grant
UN
150
hives
3
I013587­
010
WA
7/
2/
1999
Chelan
M
N/
R
PLANTS
2
Count:

Apple
2
I013883­
033
WA
5/
15/
199
Direct
Yakima
RU
Not
given
2
I013436­
001
CA
10/
16/
20
SAN
JOAQUIN
UN
Several
thousand
AQUATIC
148
Count:

Agricultural
Area
3
I000109­
001
LA
7/
2/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

MA
THOUSANDS
Agricultural
Area
3
I000109­
007
LA
7/
8/
1991
N/
R
IBERIA
UN
500
Agricultural
Area
3
I000203­
003
LA
6/
27/
199
AERIAL
FLOWABLE
IBERIA
RU
6000
Agricultural
Area
4
I000203­
002
LA
7/
6/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
RU
1000
Agricultural
Area
4
I000203­
001
LA
7/
10/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

AVOYELLES
RU
20000
Agricultural
Area
3
I001863­
003
LA
9/
2/
1994
AERIAL
AVOYELLES
RU
4000
Apple
3
I004374­
006
MO
6/
1/
1996
JACKSON
RU
325
BUILDING
2
I011662­
003
TX
5/
15/
200
SPILL
LIQUID
WHARTON
MA
UNKNOWN
CITRUS
3
I002363­
001
FL
5/
13/
199
N/
R
N/
R
ST
LUCIE
RU
THOUSANDS
86
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
2
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Corn,
sweet
3
B0000­
501­
28
GA
9/
10/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
THOUSANDS
Corn,
sweet
2
B0000­
500­
61
GA
9/
13/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

RU
THOUSANDS
Corn,
sweet
3
B0000­
500­
93
GA
9/
16/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
249­
01
AL
8/
20/
197
Spray
RU
17000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
89
GA
9/
2/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
ALL
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
27
GA
9/
5/
1987
Spray
COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
77
GA
9/
5/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
2500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
17
GA
9/
6/
1987
Spray
BROOKS
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
36
GA
9/
6/
1987
Spray
THOMAS
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
71
GA
9/
6/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TIFT
UN
10,000
TO
12,000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
18
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
COOK
RU
SEVERAL
HUNDR
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
23
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
COLQUITT
RU
2500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
78
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
SEVERE
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
79
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
80
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
UN
ALL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
82
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
85
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
ALL
Cotton
3
B00000000037
GA
9/
7/
1987
Spray
BROOKS
RU
100%
fish
kill
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
37
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
COLQUITT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
74
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
ALL
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
84
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
400
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
90
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
94
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
25
GA
9/
8/
1987
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
19
GA
9/
9/
1987
Spray
COLQUITT
RU
200
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
88
GA
9/
10/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
95
GA
9/
10/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

LOWNDES
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
81
GA
9/
11/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
86
GA
9/
11/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
29
GA
9/
11/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
22
GA
9/
12/
198
Spray
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
70
GA
9/
12/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
4000
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
31
GA
9/
12/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
64
GA
9/
13/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
69
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
63
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
ALL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
73
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
87
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
3
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
76
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
300
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
30
GA
9/
14/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TURNER
RU
ALL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
26
GA
9/
15/
198
COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
91
GA
9/
15/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TIFT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
92
GA
9/
15/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
UN
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
501­
26
GA
9/
15/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

WILCOX
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
20
GA
9/
17/
198
Spray
TIFT
RU
1000
Cotton
2
B0000­
500­
25
GA
9/
17/
198
Spray
UN
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
28
GA
9/
17/
198
Spray
LANIER
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
24
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
CRISP
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
33
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
DOOLY
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
35
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
TIFT
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
68
GA
9/
18/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BERRIEN
RU
1500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
55
GA
9/
19/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
10000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
62
GA
9/
19/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
60
GA
9/
22/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

LANIER
RU
60%
TO
70%

Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
49
GA
9/
23/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TIFT
RU
3
Cotton
3
B00000000048
GA
9/
24/
198
Spray
BLECKLEY
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
72
GA
9/
24/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

DOOLY
RU
LARGE
NUMBER
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
52
GA
9/
26/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
53
GA
9/
28/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
2000
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
67
GA
9/
28/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BLECKLEY
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
66
GA
9/
28/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
48
GA
9/
29/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
55
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
50
GA
10/
2/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
54
GA
10/
5/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
500
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
38
GA
10/
6/
198
Spray
CALHOUN
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
51
GA
10/
13/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COOK
RU
8
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
39
GA
10/
18/
19
Spray
BAKER
RU
THOUSANDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
40
GA
10/
25/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BROOKS
RU
HUNDREDS
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
47
GA
10/
26/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

PULASKI
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
45
GA
10/
27/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

TURNER
RU
SEVERAL
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
41
GA
10/
28/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

OCONEE
RU
EXTENSIVE
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
42
GA
10/
28/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

THOMAS
RU
125
Cotton
B0000­
500­
43
GA
10/
28/
19
Emulsifiable
conc.

CALHOUN
LARGE
NUMBER
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
65
GA
10/
30/
19
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

BLECKLEY
RU
UNKNOWN
Cotton
3
B0000­
500­
46
GA
11/
4/
198
Spray
Emulsifiable
conc.

COLQUITT
RU
UNKNOWN
88
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
4
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
COTTON
3
I000592­
001
TX
6/
13/
199
AERIAL
MILAM
RU
40
COTTON
3
I000721­
001
MS
6/
29/
199
N/
R
N/
R
TALLAHATCHIE
MA
NUMEROUS
COTTON
3
I000603­
001
TX
7/
29/
199
N/
R
MILAM
UN
UNKNOWN
Agricultural
Area
3
I002211­
001
MS
8/
7/
1994
AERIAL
RANKIN
MA
3000
COTTON
2
I001838­
001
TN
8/
16/
199
RU
UNKNOWN
COTTON
3
I002338­
001
TN
6/
7/
1995
SPRAY
FLOWABLE
MADISON
RU
N/
R
COTTON
3
I004875­
004
LA
8/
2/
1996
N/
R
RICHLAND
RU
150000
COTTON
2
I004668­
011
LA
8/
7/
1996
RICHLAND
UN
600
Cranberries
2
I013530­
001
MA
7/
14/
200
N/
R
Plymouth
UN
More
than
1000
Equipment
Washing
3
B0000­
501­
43
LA
8/
29/
199
Emulsifiable
conc.

AVOYELLES
M
200
FOREST
3
I003439­
001
AR
5/
4/
1996
AERIAL
PULASKI
MA
UNKNOWN
Golf
course
4
I015523­
001
2/
13/
200
Spill
MA
4.16
tons
N/
R
3
I005148­
001
NY
N/
R
N/
R
UN
UNKNOWN
N/
R
3
I005148­
002
NY
N/
R
UN
UNKNOWN
N/
R
3
I005148­
003
WA
N/
R
N/
R
UN
N/
R
N/
R
2
B0000­
300­
50
LA
7/
9/
1970
Spray
Granular
UN
ALL
N/
R
3
I000109­
013
LA
7/
17/
199
N/
R
VERMILION
MA
UNKNOWN
N/
R
3
I000109­
025
LA
8/
1/
1991
N/
R
TERREBONNE
UN
N/
R
N/
R
3
I000109­
019
LA
8/
5/
1991
N/
R
ST
MARY
MA
6560
N/
R
3
I000200­
037
WI
7/
1/
1992
N/
R
N/
R
UN
450
N/
R
3
I000454­
014
LA
8/
10/
199
N/
R
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
UN
N/
R
N/
R
3
B0000­
501­
45
LA
8/
2/
1993
Emulsifiable
conc.

TERREBONNE
UN
50
N/
R
3
B0000­
501­
44
LA
8/
9/
1993
Emulsifiable
conc.

MOREHOUSE
UN
400
N/
R
3
I004875­
011
LA
8/
7/
1996
N/
R
RICHLAND
UN
600
N/
R
3
I010460­
009
MI
6/
30/
200
AERIAL
N/
R
MUSKEGON
MA
THOUSANDS
NURSERY
3
I002335­
001
GA
5/
22/
199
N/
R
FLOWABLE
GRADY
MA
N/
R
Nut
2
I000769­
001
CA
7/
26/
199
FLOWABLE
GLENN
RU
2000
ORCHARD
3
I000799­
006
NC
7/
13/
199
Spray
MC
DOWELL
MA
THOUSANDS
PEACH
3
I003622­
001
MO
5/
31/
199
N/
R
Wettable
Powder
JACKSON
RU
UNKNOWN
Potato
3
B0000­
300­
51
ME
7/
14/
197
U/
K
RU
750
Potato
3
I012265­
003
7/
26/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
2000
Potato
2
I012265­
004
7/
21/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
MORE
THAN
2100
Potato
3
I012265­
002
7/
23/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
UNKNOWN
Potato
4
I012265­
001
7/
19/
199
N/
R
N/
R
RU
OVER
1200
STREAM
4
I000109­
003
LA
7/
2/
1991
RINSATE
RELEA
VERMILION
MA
EXTENSIVE
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
010
LA
AERIAL
IBERIA
MA
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
002
LA
6/
27/
199
AERIAL
IBERIA
MA
5000
89
Tuesday,
March
29,
2005
Page
5
Certainty
Index:
0=
Unrelated,
1=
Unlikely,
2=
Possible,
3=
Probable,
4=
Highly
Probable
Legality:
RU=
Registered
Use,
MA=
Misuse
(
accidental),
MI=
Misuse
(
intentioanl),
UN=
Undetermined
Certainty
Treatment
Site
Print
Back
to
Main
Menu
Incident
#
State
Date
Appl.
Method
Formulation
Go
to
Part
B
058001
P.
C.
Code:
Azinphos­
methyl
Pesticide:

EIIS
Pesticide
Report
Part
A:
General
Information
County
Legality
Magnitude
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
004
LA
7/
6/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

LAFOURCHE
MA
133837
Sugarcane
2
I000109­
008
LA
7/
6/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
MA
3000
Sugarcane
2
I000109­
005
LA
7/
6/
1991
AERIAL
ST
JAMES
UN
26400
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
006
LA
7/
8/
1991
AERIAL
VERMILION
MA
3000
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
009
LA
7/
8/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERVILLE
RU
2365
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
012
LA
7/
13/
199
AERIAL
IBERIA
MA
50
Sugarcane
3
I000114­
001
LA
7/
21/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

AVOYELLES
UN
15000
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
032
LA
8/
1/
1991
EC
Emulsifiable
Conc.

TERREBONNE
MA
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
016
LA
8/
5/
1991
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

ASSUMPTION
MA
200000
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
030
LA
8/
7/
1991
AERIAL
TERREBONNE
RU
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
017
LA
8/
12/
199
N/
R
ASSUMPTION
MA
500
Sugarcane
3
I000109­
018
LA
8/
15/
199
AERIAL
N/
R
ST
MARY
RU
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
001
LA
7/
18/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

AVOYELLES
RU
15000
Sugarcane
3
I000114­
002
LA
8/
5/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
RU
4500
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
002
LA
8/
8/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
UN
1000
Sugarcane
3
I000114­
003
LA
8/
9/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
UN
N/
R
Sugarcane
3
I000247­
004
LA
8/
15/
199
AERIAL
N/
R
LAFOURCHE
RU
2
MILES
LONG
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
004
LA
8/
16/
199
N/
R
Emulsifiable
Conc.

LAFOURCHE
RU
NUMEROUS
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
005
LA
8/
17/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

ST
JAMES
RU
133
Sugarcane
3
I000247­
003
LA
8/
17/
199
AERIAL
N/
R
ST
JAMES
RU
133
Sugarcane
3
I000146­
006
LA
8/
18/
199
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

LAFOURCHE
RU
LARGE
KILL
Sugarcane
3
I001849­
010
LA
8/
10/
199
N/
R
N/
R
MA
20
Sugarcane
3
I001863­
002
LA
8/
10/
199
AERIAL
ST
LANDRY
RU
32
Sugarcane
3
I001849­
011
LA
9/
6/
1994
N/
R
N/
R
RU
1000
Sugarcane
2
I001929­
001
LA
2/
21/
199
AERIAL
MA
UNKNOWN
Sugarcane/
Soybean
3
I000146­
003
LA
8/
5/
1992
AERIAL
Emulsifiable
Conc.

IBERIA
RU
5,000­
6,000
Tomato
3
I003659­
001
VA
7/
1/
1996
Spray
ACCOMACK
UN
THOUSANDS
166
Total
Number
of
Incidents
90
Appendix
E
 
Endangered
Species
Lists
Part
1:
Oregon
Caneberries
Oregon
Counties
in
which
caneberries
(>
1
acre)
are
grown
(
Source:
EFED
LOCATES
database,
Version
2.4.1,
11
March
2005)

Oregon
County
Status
presence
Benton
(
434536
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
known
Clackamas
(
1202554
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
known
Columbia
(
436345
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
91
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SPRING/
SUMMER)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
known
SPRING)

SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
known
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
known
Coos
(
1040931
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
known
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
Douglas
(
3244601
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
possible
COAST)

Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
delisted
Hood
River
(
341471
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
92
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SPRING/
SUMMER)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
known
SPRING)

SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
known
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
known
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
known
Jackson
(
1793090
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Crustacean
SHRIMP,
VERNAL
POOL
FAIRY
Branchinecta
lynchi
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
COAST)

Josephine
(
1050607
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
COAST)

Lane
(
2953478
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
known
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
known
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
93
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
known
BUTTERFLY,
OREGON
SILVERSPOT
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta
Threatened
known
Lincoln
(
629153
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
known
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
OREGON
SILVERSPOT
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta
Threatened
known
Linn
(
1477826
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
Marion
(
764860
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
Multnomah
(
298018
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
94
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SPRING/
SUMMER)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
known
SPRING)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
known
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
known
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
known
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
known
Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
known
Polk
(
476251
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
known
Umatilla
(
2067898
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SPRING/
SUMMER)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
known
SPRING)
95
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
known
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
known
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
known
Washington
(
464874
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
Yamhill
(
459752
Acres)

Bird
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
known
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
known
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
known
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
known
POPULATION
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
known
BUTTERFLY,
OREGON
SILVERSPOT
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta
Threatened
known
96
PART
2:
Wisconsin
Cranberries
Wisconsin
counties
in
which
cranberries
(

1
acre)
are
grown.
(
EFED
LOCATES
Database,
Version
2.4.1;
Accessed
11
March
2005)

Wisconsin
County
County
Status
presence
Adams
(
440655
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
Burnett
(
563436
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
Mammal
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
known
Jackson
(
639992
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Dendroica
kirtlandii
Endangered
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
Juneau
(
514651
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
Monroe
(
581371
Acres)

Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
Plant
MONKSHOOD,
NORTHERN
WILD
Aconitum
noveboracense
Threatened
known
Oneida
(
791057
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Mammal
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
known
Portage
(
526558
Acres)
97
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
Plant
LOCOWEED,
FASSETT'S
Oxytropis
campestris
var.
chartacea
Threatened
known
Sawyer
(
864213
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Mammal
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
known
Vilas
(
651410
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Mammal
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
known
Washburn
(
545957
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Dendroica
kirtlandii
Endangered
known
Mammal
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
known
Wood
(
518049
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Endangered
known
98
Part
3:
Peaches
Nationally
Except
California
(
Source:
EFED
LOCATES
database,
Version
2.9.7,
01
July
2005)

Alabama
(
71)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Ambystoma
cingulatum)

SALAMANDER,
RED
HILLS
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Phaeognathus
hubrichti)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Mycteria
americana)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

ACORNSHELL,
SOUTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
othcaloogensis)

CLUBSHELL,
OVATE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
perovatum)

CLUBSHELL,
SOUTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
decisum)

COMBSHELL,
CUMBERLAND
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
brevidens)

COMBSHELL,
SOUTHERN
(=
PENITENT
MUSSEL)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
penita)

COMBSHELL,
UPLAND
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
metastriata)

HEELSPLITTER,
INFLATED
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
inflatus)

KIDNEYSHELL,
TRIANGULAR
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Ptychobranchus
greeni)

MOCCASINSHELL,
ALABAMA
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
acutissimus)

MOCCASINSHELL,
COOSA
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
parvulus)

MUCKET,
ORANGE­
NACRE
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
perovalis)

MUSSEL,
RING
PINK
(=
GOLF
STICK
PEARLY)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Obovaria
retusa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
ALABAMA
LAMP
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
virescens)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CRACKING
Endangered
Clam
No
99
(
Hemistena
lata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CUMBERLAND
MONKEYFACE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
intermedia)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
ORANGE­
FOOTED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cooperianus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PALE
LILLIPUT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Toxolasma
cylindrellus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
TURGID­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
turgidula)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
WHITE
WARTYBACK
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cicatricosus)

PIGTOE,
DARK
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
furvum)

PIGTOE,
FINE­
RAYED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Fusconaia
cuneolus)

PIGTOE,
FLAT
(=
MARSHALL'S
MUSSEL)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
marshalli)

PIGTOE,
HEAVY
(=
JUDGE
TAIT'S
MUSSEL)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
taitianum)

PIGTOE,
ROUGH
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
plenum)

PIGTOE,
SHINY
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Fusconaia
cor)

PIGTOE,
SOUTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
georgianum)

POCKETBOOK,
FINE­
LINED
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
altilis)

POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
subangulata)

STIRRUP
SHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
stapes)

SHRIMP,
ALABAMA
CAVE
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Palaemonias
alabamae)

CAVEFISH,
ALABAMA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Speoplatyrhinus
poulsoni)

CHUB,
SPOTFIN
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Erimonax
monachus)

DARTER,
BOULDER
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
wapiti)

DARTER,
GOLDLINE
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Percina
aurolineata)

DARTER,
SLACKWATER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Etheostoma
boschungi)
100
DARTER,
SNAIL
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Percina
tanasi)

DARTER,
VERMILION
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
chermocki)

DARTER,
WATERCRESS
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
nuchale)

MADTOM,
YELLOWFIN
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Noturus
flavipinnis)

SCULPIN,
PYGMY
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Cottus
paulus
(=
pygmaeus))

SHINER,
BLUE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Cyprinella
caerulea)

SHINER,
CAHABA
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Notropis
cahabae)

SHINER,
PALEZONE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Notropis
albizonatus)

STURGEON,
ALABAMA
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
suttkusi)

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

MOUSE,
ALABAMA
BEACH
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Peromyscus
polionotus
ammobates)

MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Peromyscus
polionotus
trissyllepsis)

SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Drymarchon
corais
couperi)

TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Gopherus
polyphemus)

TURTLE,
ALABAMA
RED­
BELLIED
Endangered
Reptile
No
(
Pseudemys
alabamensis)

TURTLE,
FLATTENED
MUSK
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Sternotherus
depressus)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

CAMPELOMA,
SLENDER
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Campeloma
decampi)

ELIMIA,
LACY
Threatened
Snail
No
(
Elimia
crenatella)

LIOPLAX,
CYLINDRICAL
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Lioplax
cyclostomaformis)
101
PEBBLESNAIL,
FLAT
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Lepyrium
showalteri)

RIVERSNAIL,
ANTHONY'S
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Athearnia
anthonyi)

ROCKSNAIL,
PAINTED
Threatened
Snail
No
(
Leptoxis
taeniata)

ROCKSNAIL,
PLICATE
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Leptoxis
plicata)

ROCKSNAIL,
ROUND
Threatened
Snail
No
(
Leptoxis
ampla)

SNAIL,
ARMORED
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Pyrgulopsis
(=
Marstonia)
pachyta)

SNAIL,
TULOTOMA
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Tulotoma
magnifica)

Arizona
(
37)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
FROG,
CHIRICAHUA
LEOPARD
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Rana
chiricahuensis)

SALAMANDER,
SONORA
TIGER
Endangered
Amphibian
No
(
Ambystoma
tigrinum
stebbinsi)

BOBWHITE,
MASKED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Colinus
virginianus
ridgwayi)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

FALCON,
NORTHERN
APLOMADO
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Falco
femoralis
septentrionalis)

FLYCATCHER,
SOUTHWESTERN
WILLOW
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Empidonax
traillii
extimus)

OWL,
MEXICAN
SPOTTED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Strix
occidentalis
lucida)

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Pelecanus
occidentalis)

PYGMY­
OWL,
CACTUS
FERRUGINOUS
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Glaucidium
brasilianum
cactorum)

RAIL,
YUMA
CLAPPER
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Rallus
longirostris
yumanensis)

CATFISH,
YAQUI
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Ictalurus
pricei)

CHUB,
BONYTAIL
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
elegans)

CHUB,
HUMPBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
cypha)

CHUB,
VIRGIN
RIVER
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
seminuda
(=
robusta))

CHUB,
YAQUI
Endangered
Fish
Yes
102
(
Gila
purpurea)

MINNOW,
LOACH
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Tiaroga
cobitis)

PUPFISH,
DESERT
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Cyprinodon
macularius)

SHINER,
BEAUTIFUL
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Cyprinella
formosa)

SPIKEDACE
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Meda
fulgida)

SPINEDACE,
LITTLE
COLORADO
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Lepidomeda
vittata)

SQUAWFISH,
COLORADO
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Ptychocheilus
lucius)

SUCKER,
RAZORBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Xyrauchen
texanus)

TOPMINNOW,
GILA
(
YAQUI)
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Poeciliopsis
occidentalis)

TROUT,
APACHE
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
apache)

TROUT,
GILA
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
gilae)

WOUNDFIN
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Plagopterus
argentissimus)

BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
LONG­
NOSED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae)

JAGUAR
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Panthera
onca)

Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
tolteca)

OCELOT
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis)

PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Antilocapra
americana
sonoriensis)

SQUIRREL,
MOUNT
GRAHAM
RED
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
grahamensis)

VOLE,
HUALAPAI
MEXICAN
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Microtus
mexicanus
hualpaiensis)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)

RATTLESNAKE,
NEW
MEXICAN
RIDGE­
NOSED
Threatened
Reptile
Yes
(
Crotalus
willardi
obscurus)

TORTOISE,
DESERT
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Gopherus
agassizii)

AMBERSNAIL,
KANAB
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Oxyloma
haydeni
kanabensis)
103
Arkansas
(
18)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

FATMUCKET,
ARKANSAS
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
powelli)

MUSSEL,
SCALESHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Leptodea
leptodon)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

POCKETBOOK,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
capax)

POCKETBOOK,
SPECKLED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
streckeri)

ROCK­
POCKETBOOK,
OUACHITA
(=
WHEELER'S
PM)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Arkansia
wheeleri)

CRAYFISH,
CAVE
(
CAMBARUS
ACULABRUM)
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Cambarus
aculabrum)

CRAYFISH,
CAVE
(
CAMBARUS
ZOPHONASTES)
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Cambarus
zophonastes)

CAVEFISH,
OZARK
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Amblyopsis
rosae)

DARTER,
LEOPARD
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Percina
pantherina)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

BAT,
OZARK
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)
townsendii
ingens)

Colorado
(
12)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

OWL,
MEXICAN
SPOTTED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Strix
occidentalis
lucida)
104
CHUB,
BONYTAIL
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
elegans)

CHUB,
HUMPBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
cypha)

SQUAWFISH,
COLORADO
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Ptychocheilus
lucius)

SUCKER,
RAZORBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Xyrauchen
texanus)

TROUT,
GREENBACK
CUTTHROAT
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
clarki
stomias)

BUTTERFLY,
UNCOMPAHGRE
FRITILLARY
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Boloria
acrocnema)

SKIPPER,
PAWNEE
MONTANE
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Hesperia
leonardus
montana)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

MOUSE,
PREBLE'S
MEADOW
JUMPING
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei)

Connecticut
(
7)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
ROSEATE
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BEETLE,
PURITAN
TIGER
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Cicindela
puritana)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

Delaware
(
4)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Sciurus
niger
cinereus)

Florida
(
36)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
105
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Ambystoma
cingulatum)

CARACARA,
AUDUBON'S
CRESTED
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Polyborus
plancus
audubonii)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

JAY,
FLORIDA
SCRUB
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Aphelocoma
coerulescens)

KITE,
EVERGLADE
SNAIL
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Rostrhamus
sociabilis
plumbeus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

SPARROW,
CAPE
SABLE
SEASIDE
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Ammodramus
maritimus
mirabilis)

SPARROW,
FLORIDA
GRASSHOPPER
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Ammodramus
savannarum
floridanus)

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Mycteria
americana)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

BANKCLIMBER,
PURPLE
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Elliptoideus
sloatianus)

MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
penicillatus)

MOCCASINSHELL,
OCHLOCKONEE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
simpsonianus)

PIGTOE,
OVAL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
pyriforme)

POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
subangulata)

SLABSHELL,
CHIPOLA
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Elliptio
chipolaensis)

SHRIMP,
SQUIRREL
CHIMNEY
CAVE
Threatened
Crustacean
No
(
Palaemonetes
cummingi)

DARTER,
OKALOOSA
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
okaloosae)

SAWFISH,
SMALLTOOTH
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Pristis
pectinata)

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi)

BUTTERFLY,
SCHAUS
SWALLOWTAIL
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Heraclides
aristodemus
ponceanus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)
106
BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Trichechus
manatus)

MOUSE,
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
BEACH
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Peromyscus
polionotus
allophrys)

MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Peromyscus
polionotus
trissyllepsis)

PANTHER,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Puma
(=
Felis)
concolor
coryi)

CROCODILE,
AMERICAN
Endangered
Reptile
Yes
(
Crocodylus
acutus)

SKINK,
SAND
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Neoseps
reynoldsi)

SNAKE,
ATLANTIC
SALT
MARSH
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Nerodia
clarkii
taeniata)

SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Drymarchon
corais
couperi)

TURTLE,
GREEN
SEA
Endangered
Reptile
Yes
(
Chelonia
mydas)

TURTLE,
HAWKSBILL
SEA
Endangered
Reptile
Yes
(
Eretmochelys
imbricata)

TURTLE,
KEMP'S
(
ATLANTIC)
RIDLEY
SEA
Endangered
Reptile
No
(
Lepidochelys
kempii)

TURTLE,
LEATHERBACK
SEA
Endangered
Reptile
Yes
(
Dermochelys
coriacea)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

Georgia
(
34)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Ambystoma
cingulatum)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Mycteria
americana)

WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Dendroica
kirtlandii)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

BANKCLIMBER,
PURPLE
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Elliptoideus
sloatianus)

CLUBSHELL,
OVATE
Endangered
Clam
No
107
(
Pleurobema
perovatum)

CLUBSHELL,
SOUTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
decisum)

COMBSHELL,
UPLAND
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
metastriata)

KIDNEYSHELL,
TRIANGULAR
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Ptychobranchus
greeni)

MOCCASINSHELL,
ALABAMA
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
acutissimus)

MOCCASINSHELL,
COOSA
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
parvulus)

MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Medionidus
penicillatus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PIGTOE,
OVAL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
pyriforme)

PIGTOE,
SOUTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
georgianum)

POCKETBOOK,
FINE­
LINED
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
altilis)

POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
subangulata)

THREERIDGE,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Amblema
neislerii)

DARTER,
AMBER
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Percina
antesella)

DARTER,
CHEROKEE
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
scotti)

DARTER,
ETOWAH
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
etowahae)

DARTER,
GOLDLINE
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Percina
aurolineata)

LOGPERCH,
CONASAUGA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Percina
jenkinsi)

SHINER,
BLUE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Cyprinella
caerulea)

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)
108
BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Trichechus
manatus)

SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Drymarchon
corais
couperi)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

Idaho
(
17)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka)

STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

TROUT,
BULL
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Threatened
Mammal
No
(
Ursus
arctos
horribilis)

CARIBOU,
WOODLAND
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Rangifer
tarandus
caribou)

SQUIRREL,
NORTHERN
IDAHO
GROUND
Threatened
Mammal
No
(
Spermophilus
brunneus
brunneus)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)

LIMPET,
BANBURY
SPRINGS
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Lanx
sp.)

SNAIL,
BLISS
RAPIDS
Threatened
Snail
No
(
Taylorconcha
serpenticola)

SNAIL,
SNAKE
RIVER
PHYSA
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Physa
natricina)

SNAIL,
UTAH
VALVATA
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Valvata
utahensis)

SPRINGSNAIL,
IDAHO
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Fontelicella
idahoensis)

Illinois
(
16)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
109
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
HIGGINS'
EYE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
higginsii)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
ORANGE­
FOOTED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cooperianus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
WHITE
WARTYBACK
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cicatricosus)

POCKETBOOK,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
capax)

AMPHIPOD,
ILLINOIS
CAVE
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Gammarus
acherondytes)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis)

DRAGONFLY,
HINES
EMERALD
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Somatochlora
hineana)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SNAIL,
IOWA
PLEISTOCENE
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Discus
macclintocki)

Indiana
(
17)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

CLUBSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
clava)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

MUSSEL,
RING
PINK
(=
GOLF
STICK
PEARLY)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Obovaria
retusa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
ORANGE­
FOOTED
Endangered
Clam
No
110
(
Plethobasus
cooperianus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
TUBERCLED­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
torulosa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
WHITE
CAT'S
PAW
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
obliquata
perobliqua)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
WHITE
WARTYBACK
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cicatricosus)

PIGTOE,
ROUGH
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
plenum)

POCKETBOOK,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
capax)

BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis)

BUTTERFLY,
MITCHELL'S
SATYR
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Neonympha
mitchellii
mitchellii)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SNAKE,
NORTHERN
COPPERBELLY
WATER
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Nerodia
erythrogaster
neglecta)

Iowa
(
9)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
HIGGINS'
EYE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
higginsii)

POCKETBOOK,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
capax)

SHINER,
TOPEKA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis))

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SNAIL,
IOWA
PLEISTOCENE
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Discus
macclintocki)

Kansas
(
11)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
111
(
Grus
americana)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

MADTOM,
NEOSHO
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Noturus
placidus)

SHINER,
ARKANSAS
RIVER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
girardi)

SHINER,
TOPEKA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis))

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

Kentucky
(
32)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

CLUBSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
clava)

COMBSHELL,
CUMBERLAND
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
brevidens)

ELKTOE,
CUMBERLAND
Endangered
Clam
Yes
(
Alasmidonta
atropurpurea)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

MUSSEL,
OYSTER
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
capsaeformis)

MUSSEL,
RING
PINK
(=
GOLF
STICK
PEARLY)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Obovaria
retusa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
APPALACHIAN
MONKEYFACE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
sparsa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CRACKING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Hemistena
lata)
112
PEARLYMUSSEL,
CUMBERLAND
BEAN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Villosa
trabalis)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
DROMEDARY
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Dromus
dromas)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
LITTLE­
WING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pegias
fabula)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
ORANGE­
FOOTED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cooperianus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PURPLE
CAT'S
PAW
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
obliquata
obliquata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
TUBERCLED­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
torulosa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
WHITE
WARTYBACK
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cicatricosus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
YELLOW­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
florentina
florentina)

PIGTOE,
ROUGH
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
plenum)

POCKETBOOK,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
capax)

RIFFLESHELL,
NORTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
rangiana)

RIFFLESHELL,
TAN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri
(=
E.
walkeri))

SHRIMP,
KENTUCKY
CAVE
Endangered
Crustacean
Yes
(
Palaemonias
ganteri)

DACE,
BLACKSIDE
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Phoxinus
cumberlandensis)

DARTER,
RELICT
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
chienense)

SHINER,
PALEZONE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Notropis
albizonatus)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)
townsendii
virginianus)

Louisiana
(
12)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
113
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Pelecanus
occidentalis)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
CALIFORNIA
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum
browni)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

HEELSPLITTER,
INFLATED
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
inflatus)

PEARLSHELL,
LOUISIANA
Threatened
Clam
No
(
Margaritifera
hembeli)

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Ursus
americanus
luteolus)

TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Gopherus
polyphemus)

TURTLE,
RINGED
SAWBACK
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Graptemys
oculifera)

Maine
(
5)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
ROSEATE
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii)

SALMON,
ATLANTIC
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Salmo
salar)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

Maryland
(
9)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

DARTER,
MARYLAND
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Etheostoma
sellare)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
114
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BEETLE,
NORTHEASTERN
BEACH
TIGER
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Cicindela
dorsalis
dorsalis)

BEETLE,
PURITAN
TIGER
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Cicindela
puritana)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Sciurus
niger
cinereus)

Massachusetts
(
9)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
ROSEATE
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BEETLE,
NORTHEASTERN
BEACH
TIGER
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Cicindela
dorsalis
dorsalis)

BEETLE,
PURITAN
TIGER
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Cicindela
puritana)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

TURTLE,
PLYMOUTH
RED­
BELLIED
Endangered
Reptile
Yes
(
Pseudemys
rubriventris
bangsi)

Michigan
(
11)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Dendroica
kirtlandii)

CLUBSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
clava)

RIFFLESHELL,
NORTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
rangiana)

BEETLE,
HUNGERFORD'S
CRAWLING
WATER
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Brychius
hungerfordi)

BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis)

BUTTERFLY,
MITCHELL'S
SATYR
Endangered
Insect
No
115
(
Neonympha
mitchellii
mitchellii)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)

SNAKE,
NORTHERN
COPPERBELLY
WATER
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Nerodia
erythrogaster
neglecta)

Minnesota
(
4)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
HIGGINS'
EYE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
higginsii)

SHINER,
TOPEKA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis))

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)

Mississippi
(
19)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
FROG,
DUSKY
GOPHER
(
MISSISSIPPI
DPS)
Endangered
Amphibian
No
(
Rana
capito
sevosa)

CRANE,
MISSISSIPPI
SANDHILL
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
canadensis
pulla)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Pelecanus
occidentalis)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

CLUBSHELL,
BLACK
(=
CURTUS'
MUSSEL)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
curtum)

COMBSHELL,
SOUTHERN
(=
PENITENT
MUSSEL)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
penita)

PIGTOE,
HEAVY
(=
JUDGE
TAIT'S
MUSSEL)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
taitianum)

DARTER,
BAYOU
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
rubrum)

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
116
(
Ursus
americanus
luteolus)

SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Drymarchon
corais
couperi)

TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Gopherus
polyphemus)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

TURTLE,
RINGED
SAWBACK
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Graptemys
oculifera)

TURTLE,
YELLOW­
BLOTCHED
MAP
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Graptemys
flavimaculata)

Missouri
(
17)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

MUSSEL,
SCALESHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Leptodea
leptodon)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CURTIS'
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
florentina
curtisii)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
HIGGINS'
EYE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
higginsii)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

POCKETBOOK,
FAT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Potamilus
capax)

CAVEFISH,
OZARK
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Amblyopsis
rosae)

DARTER,
NIANGUA
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Etheostoma
nianguae)

MADTOM,
NEOSHO
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Noturus
placidus)

SHINER,
TOPEKA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis))

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)
117
CAVESNAIL,
TUMBLING
CREEK
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Antrobia
culveri)

Montana
(
5)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

TROUT,
BULL
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Threatened
Mammal
No
(
Ursus
arctos
horribilis)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)

Nebraska
(
6)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

Nevada
(
20)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

RAIL,
YUMA
CLAPPER
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Rallus
longirostris
yumanensis)

CHUB,
BONYTAIL
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
elegans)

CHUB,
VIRGIN
RIVER
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
seminuda
(=
robusta))

CUI­
UI
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Chasmistes
cujus)

DACE,
ASH
MEADOWS
SPECKLED
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Rhinichthys
osculus
nevadensis)

DACE,
MOAPA
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Moapa
coriacea)

POOLFISH,
PAHRUMP
(=
PAHRUMP
KILLIFISH)
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Empetrichthys
latos)
118
PUPFISH,
ASH
MEADOWS
AMARGOSA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Cyprinodon
nevadensis
mionectes)

PUPFISH,
DEVILS
HOLE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Cyprinodon
diabolis)

PUPFISH,
WARM
SPRINGS
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Cyprinodon
nevadensis
pectoralis)

SPINEDACE,
WHITE
RIVER
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Lepidomeda
albivallis)

SPRINGFISH,
RAILROAD
VALLEY
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Crenichthys
nevadae)

SUCKER,
RAZORBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Xyrauchen
texanus)

SUCKER,
WARNER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Catostomus
warnerensis)

TROUT,
LAHONTAN
CUTTHROAT
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
clarki
henshawi)

WOUNDFIN
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Plagopterus
argentissimus)

NAUCORID,
ASH
MEADOWS
Threatened
Insect
Yes
(
Ambrysus
amargosus)

SKIPPER,
CARSON
WANDERING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Pseudocopaeodes
eunus
obscurus)

TORTOISE,
DESERT
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Gopherus
agassizii)

New
Hampshire
(
4)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

New
Jersey
(
5)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
CURLEW,
ESKIMO
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Numenius
borealis)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)
119
New
Mexico
(
24)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
FROG,
CHIRICAHUA
LEOPARD
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Rana
chiricahuensis)

CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

FALCON,
NORTHERN
APLOMADO
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Falco
femoralis
septentrionalis)

FLYCATCHER,
SOUTHWESTERN
WILLOW
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Empidonax
traillii
extimus)

OWL,
MEXICAN
SPOTTED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Strix
occidentalis
lucida)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

ISOPOD,
SOCORRO
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Thermosphaeroma
thermophilus)

CHUB,
CHIHUAHUA
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Gila
nigrescens)

GAMBUSIA,
PECOS
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Gambusia
nobilis)

MINNOW,
LOACH
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Tiaroga
cobitis)

MINNOW,
RIO
GRANDE
SILVERY
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Hybognathus
amarus)

SHINER,
ARKANSAS
RIVER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
girardi)

SHINER,
BEAUTIFUL
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Cyprinella
formosa)

SHINER,
PECOS
BLUNTNOSE
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
simus
pecosensis)

SPIKEDACE
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Meda
fulgida)

SQUAWFISH,
COLORADO
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Ptychocheilus
lucius)

SUCKER,
RAZORBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Xyrauchen
texanus)

TOPMINNOW,
GILA
(
YAQUI)
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Poeciliopsis
occidentalis)

TROUT,
GILA
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
gilae)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
120
(
Canis
lupus)

SPRINGSNAIL,
ALAMOSA
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Tryonia
alamosae)

SPRINGSNAIL,
SOCORRO
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Pyrgulopsis
neomexicana)

New
York
(
8)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
ROSEATE
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SNAIL,
CHITTENANGO
OVATE
AMBER
Threatened
Snail
No
(
Succinea
chittenangoensis)

North
Carolina
(
20)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SPIDER,
SPRUCE­
FIR
MOSS
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Microhexura
montivaga)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Mycteria
americana)

TERN,
ROSEATE
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

ELKTOE,
APPALACHIAN
Endangered
Clam
Yes
(
Alasmidonta
raveneliana)

HEELSPLITTER,
CAROLINA
Endangered
Clam
Yes
(
Lasmigona
decorata)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

SPINYMUSSEL,
TAR
RIVER
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Elliptio
steinstansana)

SHINER,
CAPE
FEAR
Endangered
Fish
Yes
121
(
Notropis
mekistocholas)

SILVERSIDE,
WACCAMAW
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Menidia
extensa)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BUTTERFLY,
SAINT
FRANCIS'
SATYR
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Neonympha
mitchellii
francisci)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)
townsendii
virginianus)

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Trichechus
manatus)

SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Glaucomys
sabrinus
coloratus)

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Canis
rufus)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

Ohio
(
11)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

CLUBSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
clava)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PURPLE
CAT'S
PAW
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
obliquata
obliquata)

RIFFLESHELL,
NORTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
rangiana)

MADTOM,
SCIOTO
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Noturus
trautmani)

DRAGONFLY,
HINES
EMERALD
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Somatochlora
hineana)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SNAKE,
LAKE
ERIE
WATER
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Nerodia
sipedon
insularum)

Oklahoma
(
17)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
122
CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

CURLEW,
ESKIMO
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Numenius
borealis)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

VIREO,
BLACK­
CAPPED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Vireo
atricapilla)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

MUSSEL,
SCALESHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Leptodea
leptodon)

ROCK­
POCKETBOOK,
OUACHITA
(=
WHEELER'S
PM)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Arkansia
wheeleri)

CAVEFISH,
OZARK
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Amblyopsis
rosae)

DARTER,
LEOPARD
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Percina
pantherina)

MADTOM,
NEOSHO
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Noturus
placidus)

SHINER,
ARKANSAS
RIVER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
girardi)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

BAT,
OZARK
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)
townsendii
ingens)

Oregon
(
26)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

MURRELET,
MARBLED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus)

OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Strix
occidentalis
caurina)

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Pelecanus
occidentalis)

PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Threatened
Bird
No
123
(
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus)

SHRIMP,
VERNAL
POOL
FAIRY
Threatened
Crustacean
Yes
(
Branchinecta
lynchi)

CHUB,
OREGON
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Oregonichthys
crameri)
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta)

SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch)

SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
COAST)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch)

SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka)

STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

TROUT,
BULL
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi)

BUTTERFLY,
OREGON
SILVERSPOT
Threatened
Insect
Yes
(
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta)

DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus)

Pennsylvania
(
6)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
124
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

CLUBSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
clava)

RIFFLESHELL,
NORTHERN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
rangiana)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Sciurus
niger
cinereus)

Rhode
Island
(
4)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

BEETLE,
AMERICAN
BURYING
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Nicrophorus
americanus)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

South
Carolina
(
11)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Ambystoma
cingulatum)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Mycteria
americana)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

HEELSPLITTER,
CAROLINA
Endangered
Clam
Yes
(
Lasmigona
decorata)

STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Acipenser
brevirostrum)

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Trichechus
manatus)

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Canis
rufus)

SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Drymarchon
corais
couperi)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)
125
South
Dakota
(
5)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

SHINER,
TOPEKA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis))

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

Tennessee
(
44)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SPIDER,
SPRUCE­
FIR
MOSS
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Microhexura
montivaga)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

BEAN,
PURPLE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Villosa
perpurpurea)

COMBSHELL,
CUMBERLAND
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
brevidens)

ELKTOE,
CUMBERLAND
Endangered
Clam
Yes
(
Alasmidonta
atropurpurea)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

MUSSEL,
OYSTER
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
capsaeformis)

MUSSEL,
RING
PINK
(=
GOLF
STICK
PEARLY)
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Obovaria
retusa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
BIRDWING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Conradilla
caelata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CRACKING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Hemistena
lata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CUMBERLAND
MONKEYFACE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
intermedia)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
DROMEDARY
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Dromus
dromas)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
GREEN­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
gubernaculum)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
ORANGE­
FOOTED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cooperianus)
126
PEARLYMUSSEL,
PALE
LILLIPUT
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Toxolasma
cylindrellus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PURPLE
CAT'S
PAW
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
obliquata
obliquata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
TURGID­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
turgidula)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
WHITE
WARTYBACK
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Plethobasus
cicatricosus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
YELLOW­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
florentina
florentina)

PIGTOE,
CUMBERLAND
(=
CUMBERLAND
PIGTOE
MUSSEL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
gibberum)

PIGTOE,
FINE­
RAYED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Fusconaia
cuneolus)

PIGTOE,
ROUGH
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
plenum)

PIGTOE,
SHINY
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Fusconaia
cor)

RIFFLESHELL,
TAN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri
(=
E.
walkeri))

CRAYFISH,
NASHVILLE
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Orconectes
shoupi)

CHUB,
SLENDER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Erimystax
cahni)

CHUB,
SPOTFIN
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Erimonax
monachus)

DACE,
BLACKSIDE
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Phoxinus
cumberlandensis)

DARTER,
AMBER
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Percina
antesella)

DARTER,
BOULDER
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
wapiti)

DARTER,
DUSKYTAIL
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
percnurum)

DARTER,
SNAIL
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Percina
tanasi)

LOGPERCH,
CONASAUGA
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Percina
jenkinsi)

MADTOM,
SMOKY
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Noturus
baileyi)

MADTOM,
YELLOWFIN
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Noturus
flavipinnis)
127
SHINER,
BLUE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Cyprinella
caerulea)

STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Scaphirhynchus
albus)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Glaucomys
sabrinus
coloratus)

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Canis
rufus)

Texas
(
49)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SALAMANDER,
BARTON
SPRINGS
Endangered
Amphibian
No
(
Eurycea
sosorum)

SALAMANDER,
SAN
MARCOS
Threatened
Amphibian
Yes
(
Eurycea
nana)

SALAMANDER,
TEXAS
BLIND
Endangered
Amphibian
No
(
Typhlomolge
rathbuni)

TOAD,
HOUSTON
Endangered
Amphibian
Yes
(
Bufo
houstonensis)

CICURINA
VENII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Cicurina
venii)

HARVESTMAN,
BEE
CREEK
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
No
(
Texella
reddelli)

HARVESTMAN,
BONE
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
No
(
Texella
reyesi)

HARVESTMAN,
ROBBER
BARON
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Texella
cokendolpheri)

PSEUDOSCORPION,
TOOTH
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
No
(
Tartarocreagris
texana)

SPIDER,
GOVERNMENT
CANYON
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Neoleptoneta
microps)

SPIDER,
MADLA'S
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Cicurina
madla)

SPIDER,
ROBBER
BARON
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Cicurina
baronia)

SPIDER,
TOOTH
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
No
(
Neoleptoneta
myopica)

SPIDER,
VESPER
CAVE
Endangered
Arachnid
Yes
(
Cicurina
vespera)

CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Grus
americana)

CURLEW,
ESKIMO
Endangered
Bird
No
128
(
Numenius
borealis)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

FALCON,
NORTHERN
APLOMADO
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Falco
femoralis
septentrionalis)

FLYCATCHER,
SOUTHWESTERN
WILLOW
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Empidonax
traillii
extimus)

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Pelecanus
occidentalis)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

PRAIRIE­
CHICKEN,
ATTWATER'S
GREATER
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Tympanuchus
cupido
attwateri)

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Sterna
antillarum)

VIREO,
BLACK­
CAPPED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Vireo
atricapilla)

WARBLER
(
WOOD),
GOLDEN­
CHEEKED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Dendroica
chrysoparia)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

AMPHIPOD,
PECK'S
CAVE
Endangered
Crustacean
No
(
Stygobromus
(=
Stygonectes)
pecki)

DARTER,
FOUNTAIN
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Etheostoma
fonticola)

GAMBUSIA,
BIG
BEND
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Gambusia
gaigei)

GAMBUSIA,
PECOS
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Gambusia
nobilis)

GAMBUSIA,
SAN
MARCOS
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gambusia
georgei)

PUPFISH,
COMANCHE
SPRINGS
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Cyprinodon
elegans)

SHINER,
ARKANSAS
RIVER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Notropis
girardi)

BEETLE,
COFFIN
CAVE
MOLD
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Batrisodes
texanus)

BEETLE,
COMAL
SPRINGS
DRYOPID
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Stygoparnus
comalensis)

BEETLE,
COMAL
SPRINGS
RIFFLE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Heterelmis
comalensis)

BEETLE,
HELOTES
MOLD
Endangered
Insect
Yes
(
Batrisodes
venyivi)

BEETLE,
KRETSCHMARR
CAVE
MOLD
Endangered
Insect
No
129
(
Texamaurops
reddelli)

BEETLE,
TOOTH
CAVE
GROUND
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Rhadine
persephone)

RHADINE
EXILIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Insect
Yes
(
Rhadine
exilis)

RHADINE
INFERNALIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Insect
Yes
(
Rhadine
infernalis)

BAT,
MEXICAN
LONG­
NOSED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Leptonycteris
nivalis)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Ursus
americanus
luteolus)

JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
cacomitli)

Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
tolteca)

OCELOT
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis)

SNAKE,
CONCHO
WATER
Threatened
Reptile
Yes
(
Nerodia
paucimaculata)

TURTLE,
KEMP'S
(
ATLANTIC)
RIDLEY
SEA
Endangered
Reptile
No
(
Lepidochelys
kempii)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

Utah
(
13)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

OWL,
MEXICAN
SPOTTED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Strix
occidentalis
lucida)

CHUB,
BONYTAIL
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
elegans)

CHUB,
HUMPBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
cypha)

CHUB,
VIRGIN
RIVER
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Gila
seminuda
(=
robusta))

SQUAWFISH,
COLORADO
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Ptychocheilus
lucius)

SUCKER,
JUNE
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Chasmistes
liorus)

SUCKER,
RAZORBACK
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Xyrauchen
texanus)

TROUT,
LAHONTAN
CUTTHROAT
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
clarki
henshawi)

WOUNDFIN
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Plagopterus
argentissimus)
130
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

PRAIRIE
DOG,
UTAH
Threatened
Mammal
No
(
Cynomys
parvidens)

TORTOISE,
DESERT
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Gopherus
agassizii)

Vermont
(
3)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

Virginia
(
36)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SALAMANDER,
SHENANDOAH
Endangered
Amphibian
No
(
Plethodon
shenandoah)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Picoides
borealis)

BEAN,
PURPLE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Villosa
perpurpurea)

COMBSHELL,
CUMBERLAND
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
brevidens)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

MUSSEL,
DWARF
WEDGE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Alasmidonta
heterodon)

MUSSEL,
OYSTER
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
capsaeformis)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
APPALACHIAN
MONKEYFACE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
sparsa)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
BIRDWING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Conradilla
caelata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CRACKING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Hemistena
lata)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
CUMBERLAND
MONKEYFACE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
intermedia)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
DROMEDARY
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Dromus
dromas)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
GREEN­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
gubernaculum)
131
PEARLYMUSSEL,
LITTLE­
WING
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pegias
fabula)

PIGTOE,
FINE­
RAYED
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Fusconaia
cuneolus)

PIGTOE,
ROUGH
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
plenum)

PIGTOE,
SHINY
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Fusconaia
cor)

RABBITSFOOT,
ROUGH
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Quadrula
cylindrica
strigillata)

RIFFLESHELL,
TAN
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri
(=
E.
walkeri))

SPINYMUSSEL,
JAMES
RIVER
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
collina)

ISOPOD,
MADISON
CAVE
Threatened
Crustacean
No
(
Antrolana
lira)

CHUB,
SLENDER
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Erimystax
cahni)

CHUB,
SPOTFIN
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Erimonax
monachus)

DARTER,
DUSKYTAIL
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Etheostoma
percnurum)

LOGPERCH,
ROANOKE
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Percina
rex)

MADTOM,
YELLOWFIN
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Noturus
flavipinnis)

BEETLE,
NORTHEASTERN
BEACH
TIGER
Threatened
Insect
No
(
Cicindela
dorsalis
dorsalis)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)
townsendii
virginianus)

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Sciurus
niger
cinereus)

SQUIRREL,
VIRGINIA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Glaucomys
sabrinus
fuscus)

TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Threatened
Reptile
No
(
Caretta
caretta)

SNAIL,
VIRGINIA
FRINGED
MOUNTAIN
Endangered
Snail
No
(
Polygyriscus
virginianus)

Washington
(
25)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
132
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

MURRELET,
MARBLED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus)

OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Threatened
Bird
Yes
(
Strix
occidentalis
caurina)

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Bird
No
(
Pelecanus
occidentalis)

PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha)

SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta)

SALMON,
CHUM
(
HOOD
CANAL
SUMMER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta)

SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Endangered
Fish
No
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka)

STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Endangered
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Threatened
Fish
Yes
(
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss)

TROUT,
BULL
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Threatened
Fish
No
(
Salvelinus
confluentus)

BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Threatened
Mammal
No
(
Ursus
arctos
horribilis)

DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus)
133
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Brachylagus
idahoensis)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)

West
Virginia
(
13)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
SALAMANDER,
CHEAT
MOUNTAIN
Threatened
Amphibian
No
(
Plethodon
nettingi)

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

CLUBSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
clava)

FANSHELL
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Cyprogenia
stegaria)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
PINK
MUCKET
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
abrupta)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
TUBERCLED­
BLOSSOM
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Epioblasma
torulosa
torulosa)

SPINYMUSSEL,
JAMES
RIVER
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Pleurobema
collina)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Myotis
grisescens)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Myotis
sodalis)

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Mammal
Yes
(
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)
townsendii
virginianus)

SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Glaucomys
sabrinus
coloratus)

SQUIRREL,
VIRGINIA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Glaucomys
sabrinus
fuscus)

SNAIL,
FLAT­
SPIRED
THREE­
TOOTHED
Threatened
Snail
No
(
Triodopsis
platysayoides)

Wisconsin
(
6)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Bird
Yes
(
Charadrius
melodus)

PEARLYMUSSEL,
HIGGINS'
EYE
Endangered
Clam
No
(
Lampsilis
higginsii)

BUTTERFLY,
KARNER
BLUE
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis)

DRAGONFLY,
HINES
EMERALD
Endangered
Insect
No
(
Somatochlora
hineana)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)
134
Wyoming
(
4)
species
affected
Taxa
Critical
Habitat
EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Bird
No
(
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)

BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Threatened
Mammal
No
(
Ursus
arctos
horribilis)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Mammal
No
(
Mustela
nigripes)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Mammal
Yes
(
Canis
lupus)
135
Part
4:
Potatoes
in
the
Washington
and
Oregon
(
Source:
EFED
LOCATES
database,
Version
2.9.7,
01
July
2005)

Oregon
Max
02
Acres:
Diff
02­
97:

Baker
(
1976535
Acres)
1,997
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Benton
(
434535.6
Acres)
16
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
Clackamas
(
1202554
Acres)
3
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Crook
(
1911876
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
136
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Curry
(
1045786
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
COAST)

Deschutes
(
1955029
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Douglas
(
3244601
Acres)
1
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
COAST)

Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
Gilliam
(
782606.3
Acres)
0
no
data
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
137
Hood
River
(
341471
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Jefferson
(
1146317
Acres)
1,151
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Josephine
(
1050607
Acres)
2
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
COAST)

Klamath
(
3926778
Acres)
6,801
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
SOUTHERN
OR/
NORTHERN
CA
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
COAST)

SUCKER,
LOST
RIVER
Deltistes
luxatus
Endangered
SUCKER,
SHORTNOSE
Chasmistes
brevirostris
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
138
Lake
(
5349370
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
CHUB,
HUTTON
TUI
Gila
bicolor
ssp.
Threatened
DACE,
FOSKETT
SPECKLED
Rhinichthys
osculus
ssp.
Threatened
SUCKER,
WARNER
Catostomus
warnerensis
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Lane
(
2953478
Acres)
17
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
BUTTERFLY,
OREGON
SILVERSPOT
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta
Threatened
Lincoln
(
629153.1
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
OREGON
SILVERSPOT
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta
Threatened
Linn
(
1477826
Acres)
2
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
139
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Malheur
(
6354990
Acres)
7,776
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Marion
(
764859.7
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
Morrow
(
1311041
Acres)
15,347
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Multnomah
(
298017.8
Acres)
279
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
140
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
Polk
(
476251.5
Acres)
2
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
CHUB,
OREGON
Oregonichthys
crameri
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Insect
BUTTERFLY,
FENDER'S
BLUE
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Endangered
Sherman
(
531994.2
Acres)
0
no
data
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Umatilla
(
2067898
Acres)
11,842
no
data
Bird
141
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Union
(
1304649
Acres)
1,240
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Wallowa
(
2016984
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Wasco
(
1532952
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
142
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Washington
(
464874.3
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
SALMON,
COHO
(
OREGON
COAST
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
Washington
Max
02
Acres:
Diff
02­
97:

Adams
(
1234916
Acres)
20,751
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Mammal
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Brachylagus
idahoensis
Endangered
Benton
(
1126434
Acres)
24,426
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Brachylagus
idahoensis
Endangered
Clallam
(
1141259
Acres)
4
no
data
143
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
HOOD
CANAL
SUMMER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
OZETTE
LAKE
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Clark
(
419975.8
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Cowlitz
(
746442.6
Acres)
2
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
144
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
LOWER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
WILLAMETTE
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Endangered
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Douglas
(
1183088
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Brachylagus
idahoensis
Endangered
Franklin
(
809780.1
Acres)
41,442
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Grant
(
1786322
Acres)
45,475
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
145
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Brachylagus
idahoensis
Endangered
Grays
Harbor
(
1234726
Acres)
23
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
PLOVER,
WESTERN
SNOWY
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Island
(
134556.1
Acres)
24
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
HOOD
CANAL
SUMMER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
Jefferson
(
1161131
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
PELICAN,
BROWN
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Endangered
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
HOOD
CANAL
SUMMER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
King
(
1400877
Acres)
6
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
146
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Kitsap
(
254291.9
Acres)
3
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHUM
(
HOOD
CANAL
SUMMER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Threatened
Kittitas
(
1493167
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Klickitat
(
1218633
Acres)
280
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Lincoln
(
1497323
Acres)
1,713
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
147
Fish
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Brachylagus
idahoensis
Endangered
Okanogan
(
3401101
Acres)
9
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Pierce
(
1081538
Acres)
7
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
San
Juan
(
106218.2
Acres)
0
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
Skagit
(
1124349
Acres)
11,205
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
148
Snohomish
(
1349204
Acres)
134
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Spokane
(
1139614
Acres)
192
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Stevens
(
1625663
Acres)
30
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Thurston
(
470807.1
Acres)
3
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
Walla
Walla
(
831438.2
Acres)
9,806
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
FALL
RUN)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
SNAKE
RIVER
SPRING/
SUMMER)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
SALMON,
SOCKEYE
(
SNAKE
RIVER
POPULATION)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
SNAKE
RIVER
BASIN
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
149
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Whatcom
(
1383587
Acres)
1,641
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
MURRELET,
MARBLED
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
PUGET
SOUND)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
Yakima
(
2759373
Acres)
1,737
no
data
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
OWL,
NORTHERN
SPOTTED
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Threatened
Fish
SALMON,
CHINOOK
(
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
SPRING)
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Endangered
STEELHEAD,
MIDDLE
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Threatened
STEELHEAD,
UPPER
COLUMBIA
RIVER
POPULATION
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Endangered
TROUT,
BULL
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
TROUT,
BULL
(
KLAMATH
RIVER
POPULATION)
Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened
Mammal
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Threatened
WOLF,
GRAY
Canis
lupus
Threatened
150
Part
5:
Southern
Pine
Seed
Orchards
Listed
Species
in
Counties
With
Southern
Pine
Seed
Orchards
(
Treated
With
a
Pesticide
in
1999)
(
Source:
EFED
LOCATES
database,
Version
2.4.1,
11
April
2005)

Alabama
County
County
Status
presence
Autauga
(
386849
Acres)

Bird
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
Choctaw
(
589335
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
Clam
HEELSPLITTER,
INFLATED
Potamilus
inflatus
Threatened
known
Fish
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Reptile
TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Gopherus
polyphemus
Threatened
known
Dallas
(
635758
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Clam
CLUBSHELL,
SOUTHERN
Pleurobema
decisum
Endangered
known
PIGTOE,
HEAVY
(=
JUDGE
TAIT'S
MUSSEL)
Pleurobema
taitianum
Endangered
known
POCKETBOOK,
FINE­
LINED
Lampsilis
altilis
Threatened
known
Escambia
(
609898
Acres)

Bird
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Reptile
151
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
possible
Wilcox
(
580779
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
Fish
STURGEON,
ALABAMA
Scaphirhynchus
suttkusi
Endangered
known
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Arkansas
County
County
Status
presence
Bradley
(
418802
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Florida
County
County
Status
presence
Jackson
(
610944
Acres)

Amphibian
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Threatened
known
Bird
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Clam
BANKCLIMBER,
PURPLE
Elliptoideus
sloatianus
Threatened
known
MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Medionidus
penicillatus
Endangered
known
PIGTOE,
OVAL
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Endangered
known
POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Lampsilis
subangulata
Endangered
known
SLABSHELL,
CHIPOLA
Elliptio
chipolaensis
Threatened
known
Fish
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Mammal
BAT,
GRAY
Myotis
grisescens
Endangered
known
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Putnam
(
529374
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
152
JAY,
FLORIDA
SCRUB
Aphelocoma
coerulescens
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Mammal
MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Trichechus
manatus
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Santa
Rosa
(
652684
Acres)

Amphibian
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Threatened
known
Bird
PLOVER,
PIPING
Charadrius
melodus
Endangered
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
TURTLE,
GREEN
SEA
Chelonia
mydas
Endangered
known
TURTLE,
LEATHERBACK
SEA
Dermochelys
coriacea
Endangered
known
TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Caretta
caretta
Threatened
known
Georgia
County
County
Status
presence
Baldwin
(
171194
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Brantley
(
286349
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Dooly
(
254158
Acres)
153
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Clam
BANKCLIMBER,
PURPLE
Elliptoideus
sloatianus
Threatened
known
MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Medionidus
penicillatus
Endangered
known
PIGTOE,
OVAL
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Early
(
330414
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Clam
PIGTOE,
OVAL
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Endangered
known
POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Lampsilis
subangulata
Endangered
known
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Effingham
(
309024
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Evans
(
119606
Acres)

Amphibian
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Threatened
known
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
154
Glynn
(
258260
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
PLOVER,
PIPING
Charadrius
melodus
Endangered
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Dendroica
kirtlandii
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Mammal
MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Trichechus
manatus
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Caretta
caretta
Threatened
known
Screven
(
419587
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
possible
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
possible
Sumter
(
315228
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Clam
MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Medionidus
penicillatus
Endangered
known
PIGTOE,
OVAL
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Endangered
known
POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Lampsilis
subangulata
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Terrell
(
216088
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Clam
155
MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Medionidus
penicillatus
Endangered
known
PIGTOE,
OVAL
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Endangered
known
POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Lampsilis
subangulata
Endangered
known
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
possible
Toombs
(
235931
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Wayne
(
415233
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
known
Louisiana
County
County
Status
presence
Beauregard
(
746216
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
La
Salle
(
423920
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Morehouse
(
515329
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
156
Fish
STURGEON,
PALLID
Scaphirhynchus
albus
Endangered
possible
Vernon
(
858569
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Washington
(
432620
Acres)

Fish
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
Reptile
TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Gopherus
polyphemus
Threatened
known
TURTLE,
RINGED
SAWBACK
Graptemys
oculifera
Threatened
known
Webster
(
393648
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Maryland
County
County
Status
presence
Worcester
(
303123
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
PLOVER,
PIPING
Charadrius
melodus
Endangered
known
Mammal
SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Sciurus
niger
cinereus
Endangered
known
Mississippi
County
County
Status
presence
Jones
(
447830
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
GULF
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Threatened
known
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
Reptile
TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Gopherus
polyphemus
Threatened
known
TURTLE,
YELLOW­
BLOTCHED
MAP
Graptemys
flavimaculata
Threatened
known
157
Lamar
(
320299
Acres)

Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
known
Reptile
TORTOISE,
GOPHER
Gopherus
polyphemus
Threatened
known
North
Carolina
County
County
Status
presence
Beaufort
(
534367
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Mammal
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
Reptile
TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Caretta
caretta
Threatened
known
Bladen
(
567736
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Jones
(
303809
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
possible
Robeson
(
608638
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Wayne
(
356274
Acres)

Bird
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Oklahoma
County
County
Status
presence
McCurtain
(
1216827
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Sterna
antillarum
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
158
Clam
MUSSEL,
SCALESHELL
Leptodea
leptodon
Endangered
known
Fish
DARTER,
LEOPARD
Percina
pantherina
Threatened
known
Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
South
Carolina
County
County
Status
presence
Berkeley
(
786649
Acres)

Amphibian
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Threatened
known
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Charleston
(
640296
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
PLOVER,
PIPING
Charadrius
melodus
Endangered
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
Mammal
MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Trichechus
manatus
Endangered
possible
WOLF,
RED
Canis
rufus
Endangered
known
Reptile
TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Caretta
caretta
Threatened
known
Jasper
(
428448
Acres)

Amphibian
SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Threatened
known
Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
STORK,
WOOD
Mycteria
americana
Endangered
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Fish
STURGEON,
SHORTNOSE
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Endangered
known
159
Reptile
SNAKE,
EASTERN
INDIGO
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Threatened
possible
TURTLE,
LOGGERHEAD
SEA
Caretta
caretta
Threatened
known
Tennessee
County
County
Status
presence
Madison
(
357524
Acres)

Mammal
BAT,
INDIANA
Myotis
sodalis
Endangered
possible
Texas
County
County
Status
presence
Jasper
(
620552
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Nacogdoches
(
628062
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
possible
Mammal
BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Threatened
possible
Newton
(
601275
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Polk
(
710288
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
known
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
Tyler
(
598848
Acres)

Bird
EAGLE,
BALD
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Threatened
possible
WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Picoides
borealis
Endangered
known
160
Appendix
F
 
Literature
Cited
Beauvais,
S.
L.,
S.
B.
Jones,
S.
K.
Brewer,
and
E.
E.
Little.
2000.
Physiological
measures
of
neurotoxicity
of
diazinon
and
malathion
to
larval
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
and
their
correlation
with
behavioral
measures.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
19:
1875­
1880.

Beyers,
D.
W.,
T.
J.
Keefe,
and
C.
A.
Carlson.
1994.
Toxicity
of
carbaryl
and
malathion
to
two
federally
endangered
fishes,
as
estimated
by
regression
and
ANOVA.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
13:
101­
107.

Burns,
L.
A.
1997.
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
EXAMSII)
Users
Guide
for
Version
2.97.5,
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

Burgess,
N.
M.,
K.
A.
Hunt,
C.
Bishop,
and
D.
V.
(
Chip)
Weseloh.
1999.
Cholinesterase
inhibition
in
tree
swallows
(
Tachycineta
bicolor)
and
eastern
bluebirds
(
Sialia
sialis)
exposed
to
organophosphorus
insecticides
in
apple
orchards
in
Ontario,
Canada.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
18:
708­
716.

Carsel,
R.
F.
,
J.
C.
Imhoff,
P.
R.
Hummel,
J.
M.
Cheplick
and
J.
S.
Donigian,
Jr.
1997.
PRZM­
3,
A
Model
for
Predicting
Pesticide
and
Nitrogen
Fate
in
Crop
Root
and
Unsaturated
Soil
Zones:
Users
Manual
for
Release
3.0;
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

Dionne,
E.
1991.
Guthion
­
The
Chronic
Toxicity
to
the
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus).
Report
No.
101297.
Prepared
by
Springborn
Laboratories,
Inc.,
Wareham,
MA.
Submitted
by
Mobay
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
EPA
MRID
No.
420216­
01.

Dwyer,
F.
J.,
D.
K.
Hardesty,
C.
E.
Henke,
C.
G.
Ingersoll,
G.
W.
Whites,
D.
R.
Mount,
and
C.
M.
Bridges.
1999.
Assessing
contaminant
sensitivity
of
endangered
and
threatened
species:
Toxicant
classes.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Report
No.
EPA/
600/
R­
99/
098,
Washington,
DC.
15
p.

Edge,
W.
D.,
R.
L.
Carey,
J.
O.
Wolff,
L.
M.
Ganio,
and
T.
Manning.
1996.
Effects
of
Guthion
®
2S
on
Microtus
canicaudus:
a
risk
assessment
validation.
J.
Appl.
Ecol.
33:
269­
278.

Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.
2002.
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Washington,
D.
C.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models
water/
input_
guidance2_
28_
02.
htm/
161
Erickson,
W.,
and
Turner,
L.
2003.
Azinphos
methyl:
Analysis
of
Risks
to
Endangered
and
Threatened
Salmon
and
Steelhead.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Field
Branch.

Ferrari
A.,
O.
L.
Anguiano,
J.
Soleño,
A.
Venturino,
A.
M.
Pechen
de
D'Angelo.
2004.
Different
susceptibility
of
two
aquatic
vertebrates
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
and
Bufo
arenarum)
to
azinphos
methyl
and
carbaryl.
Comp.
Biochem.
Phys.,
Part
C
139:
239­
243.

Forbis,
A.
D.
1984.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
14C­
Guthion
to
Daphnia
magna
Under
Flow­
Through
Test
Conditions;
Final
Report
#
31802;
Prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Chemical
Corp.,
17745
Metcalf,
Stilwell,
Kansas
66085.
EPA
Accession
No.
073606.

Fulton
M.
H.
and
P.
B.
Key.
2001.
Acetylcholinesterase
inhibition
in
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates
as
indicator
of
organophosphorus
insecticide
exposure
and
effects.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
20:
37­
45.

Gill,
H.,
T.
D.
Williams,
C.
A.
Bishop,
K.
M.
Cheng,
and
J.
E.
Elliott.
2004.
Effects
of
azinphosmethyl
on
cholinergic
responses
and
general
health
in
zebra
finches
(
Taeniopygia
guttata)
after
previous
treatment
with
p,
p'­
DDE.
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
48:
118­
126.

Gill,
H.,
L.
K.
Wilson,
K.
M.
Cheng,
S.
Trudeau,
and
J.
E.
Elliott.
2000.
Effects
of
azinphos­
methyl
on
American
robins
breeding
in
fruit
orchards.
Bull.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
65:
756­
763.

Gruber,
S.
J.
and
M.
D.
Munn.
1998.
Organophosphate
and
carbamate
insecticides
in
agricultural
waters
and
cholinesterase
(
ChE)
inhibition
in
common
carp
(
Cyprinus
carpio).
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
35:
391­
396.

Gunther,
F.
A.,
Y.
Iwata,
G.
E.
Carman,
and
C.
A.
Smith.
1977.
The
citrus
reentry
problem:
Research
on
its
causes
and
effects
and
approaches
to
its
minimization.
Residue
Reviews
67:
1­
139.

Gusey,
W.
F.
and
Maturgo,
Z.
D.
1973.
Wildlife
utilization
of
croplands.
Shell
Oil
Company,
Houston,
TX.

Holmes,
J.,
D.
Jones,
W.
Erickson,
and
A.
Bryceland.
1999.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Risk
Assessment:
Azinphos­
methyl.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.

Hoskins,
W.
M.
1961.
Methods
for
expressing
the
persistence
of
pesticidal
residues
on
plants.
Final
Report
to
regional
project
W­
45.
Department
of
Entomology
and
Parasitology,
University
of
California,
Berkeley.
162
Johnson,
W.
and
M.
Finley.
1980.
Handbook
of
acute
toxicity
of
chemicals
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
USDI
Publication
No.
137.
Washington,
DC.
MRID
40094602.

Matz,
A.
C.,
R.
S.
Bennett,
and
W.
G.
Landis.
1998.
Effects
of
azinphos­
methyl
on
bobwhite:
a
comparison
of
laboratory
and
field
results.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
17:
1364­
1370.

Mayer,
F.
1986.
Acute
Toxicity
Handbook
of
Chemicals
to
Estuarine
Organisms:
EPA/
600/
X­
86/
231.
Prepared
by
US
EPA
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Gulf
Breeze,
FL.
MRID
No.:
40228401
Mayer,
F.
L.,
and
M.
R.
Ellersieck.
1986.
Manual
of
Acute
Toxicity:
Interpretation
and
Data
Base
for
410
Chemicals
and
66
Species
of
Freshwater
Animals.
U.
S.
Department
of
The
Interior,
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service.
Resource
Publication
60.
Washington,
D.
C.
MRID
No.:
40098001
McDowell,
L.
L.,
G.
H.
Willis,
L.
M.
Southwick,
and
S.
Smith.
1984.
Methyl
parathion
and
EPN
washoff
from
cotton
plants
by
simulated
rainfall.
Environ.
Sci.
Tech.
18(
6):
423­
427.

Meyers,
S.
M.
and
J.
O.
Wolff.
1994.
Comparative
Toxicity
of
Azinphos­
Methyl
to
House
Mice,
Laboratory
Mice,
Deer
Mice,
and
Gray­
Tailed
Voles.
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
26:
478­
482.

Morton
M.
G.,
F.
L.
Mayer
(
Jr.),
K.
L.
Dickson,
W.
T.
Waller,
and
J.
C.
Moore.
1997.
Acute
and
chronic
toxicity
of
azinphos­
methyl
to
two
estuarine
species,
Mysidopsis
bahia
and
Cyprinodon
variegatus.
Arch.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
32:
436­
441.

Peterson,
J.
A.
1996.
Gray­
tailed
vole
population
responses
to
inbreeding
and
environmental
stress.
Doctoral
dissertation,
University
of
California,
Berkeley.

Pree,
D.
J.,
K.
P.
butler,
E.
R.
Kimball,
and
D.
K.
R.
Stewart.
1976.
Persistence
of
foliar
residues
of
dimethoate
and
azinphos
methyl
and
their
toxicity
to
apple
maggot.
Journal
of
Economic
Entomology
69:
473­
478.

Sappington,
L.
C.,
F.
L.
Mayer,
F.
J.
Dwyer,
D.
R.
Buckler,
J.
R.
Jones,
and
M.
R.
Ellersieck.
2001.
Contaminant
sensitivity
of
threatened
and
endangered
fishes
compared
to
standard
surrogate
species.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
20:
2869­
2876.

Schauber,
E.
M.,
W.
D.
Edge,
and
J.
O.
Wolff.
1997.
Insecticide
effects
on
small
mammals:
influence
of
vegetation
structure
and
diet.
Ecol.
App.
7:
143­
157.

Schulz
R.
and
G.
Thiere.
2002.
A
combined
microcosm
and
field
approach
to
evaluate
the
aquatic
toxicity
of
azinphosmethyl
to
stream
communities.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
21:
2172­
2178.
163
Sierszen,
M.
E.
and
S.
J.
Lozano.
1997.
Zooplankton
population
and
community
responses
to
the
pesticide
azinphos­
methyl
in
freshwater
littoral
enclosures.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
17:
907­
914.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Azinphos
methyl
(
Trade
Name
Guthion)
to
Mysid
Shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
Under
Flow­
Through
Conditions;
Study
No.
274.0587.6141.505;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40380501.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Azinphos
methyl
(
Trade
Name
Guthion)
to
Daphnids
(
Daphnia
magna)
Under
Flow­
Through
Conditions;
Study
No.
87­
8­
2466;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40301302.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Technical
Grade
Azinphos
methyl
(
Trade
Name
Guthion)
to
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus);
Study
No.
274.0487.6139.515;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40380502.

Surprenant,
D.
C.
1987.
Fish
Early
Life
Stage
Toxicity
­
Rainbow
Trout
(
Onchorhyncus
mykiss);
Study
No.
274.0587.6150.121;
Prepared
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.,
for
Mobay
Corporation,
Stilwell,
Kansas.
EPA
MRID
No.
40579601.

Thiere,
G.
and
R.
Schulz.
2004.
Runoff­
related
agricultural
impact
in
relation
to
macroinvertebrate
communities
of
the
Lourens
River,
South
Africa.
Water
Res.
38:
3092­
3102.

Urban,
D.
J.
2000.
Guidance
for
Conducting
Screening
Level
Avian
Risk
Assessments
for
Spray
Applications
of
Pesticides.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ecological
Fate
and
Effects
Division.

United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)
Forest
Service).
1994.
Environmental
Impact
Statement:
Pest
Management
for
G.
F.
Erambert
and
Black
Creek
Seed
Orchards.

United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(
USDA
NASS).
2002.
Census
Of
Agriculture.
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
census/

United
States
Department
of
the
Interior
(
DOI).
1987.
Final
environmental
impact
statement:
Supplement
to
the
northweat
area
noxious
weed
control
program.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
Washington,
DC.

United
States
Department
of
the
Interior
(
DOI).
1989.
Draft
environmental
impact
statement:
Vegetation
treatment
on
BLM
lands
in
thirteen
western
states.
Bureau
of
Land
Management,
Washington,
DC.
164
United
States
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
(
DEA).
1985.
Final
environmental
impact
statement:
Eradication
of
cannabis
on
federal
lands
in
the
continental
United
States.
U.
S.
Department
of
Justice,
Washington,
DC.

United
States
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
(
DEA).
1986.
Final
environmental
impact
statement:
Eradication
of
cannabis
on
non­
federal
and
Indian
lands
in
the
contiguous
United
States
and
Hawaii.
U.
S.
Department
of
Justice,
Washington,
DC.

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
2001.
Ecological
Risk
Assessor
Orientation
Package.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ecological
Fate
and
Effects
Division.
Draft
Version,
August
2001.

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
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.

Urban,
D.
J.
2000.
Guidance
for
Conducting
Screening
Level
Avian
Risk
Assessments
for
Spray
Applications
of
Pesticides.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.

Varó,
I.,
J.
C.
Navarro,
F.
Amat,
and
L.
Guilhermino.
2003.
Effects
of
dichlorvos
on
cholinesterase
activity
of
European
sea
bass
(
Dicentrarchus
labrax).
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
75:
61­
72.

Wang,
G.,
J.
O.
Wolff,
and
W.
D.
Edge.
1999.
Gray­
tailed
voles
do
not
move
to
avoid
exposure
to
the
insecticide
Guthion
®
2S.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
18:
1824­
1828.

Willis,
G.
H.,
W.
F.
Spencer,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1980.
Chapter
18.
The
interception
of
applied
pesticides
by
foliage
and
their
persistence
and
washoff
potential.
p
595­
606.
In
Knisel,
G.,
editor.
1980.
CREAMS:
A
Field
Scale
Model
for
Chemicals,
Runoff,
and
Erosion,
from
Agricultural
Management
Systems.
U.
S.
Department
of
Agriculture,
Conservation
Research
Report
No.
26,
640
p.

Willis,
G.
H.,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
Persistence
on
Foliage
in
Reviews
of
Env.
Contam.
Toxicol.
100:
23­
73.

Winterlin,
W.,
C.
Mourer,
and
J.
B.
Bailey.
1974.
Degradation
of
four
organophosphate
insecticides
in
grape
tissues.
Pesticide
Monitoring
Journal
8:
59­
65.

Zaugg,
Steven
D.,
Mark
W.
Sandstrom,
Steven
G.
Smith,
and
Kevin
M.
Fehlberg.
1995.
Methods
of
Analysis
by
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
National
Water
Quality
Laboratory
­
Determination
of
165
Pesticides
in
Water
by
C­
18
Solid­
Phase
Extraction
and
Capillary­
Column
Gas
Chromatography/
Mass
Spectrometry
with
Selected
Ion
Method.
U.
S
Geological
Survey
Open
File
Report
No.
95­
181.

MRID
436498­
01.
J.
C.
Lin.
1995.
Guthion
Use
on
Almonds:
An
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
with
Consideration
of
Mitigation
Measures.
submitted
by
Miles,
Inc.,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Report
No.
106903.

MRID
442665­
01.
M.
G.
Dobbs.
1997.
Summary
of
Aquatic
Exposure
Issues
for
Guthion
Use
on
Apples.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107708.

MRID
444118­
01.
R.
Fritz.
1988.
Aerobic
Metabolism
of
Azinphos­
methyl
in
the
Aquatic
Environment.
Submitted
by
Mobay
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Report
99195.

MRID
444118­
02.
J.
C.
Lin.
1997.
An
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
of
Azinphos
methyl:
Guthion
Use
on
Apples.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107680.

MRID
444118­
03.
C.
G.
Crabtree,
E.
B.
Henrickson,
S.
A.
Kay,
and
R.
S.
Pearson.
1997.
Proximity
of
Apple
Orchards
to
Aquatic
Habitat.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107698.

MRID
444118­
04.
Jeffrey
G.
Arnold,
Ranjan
S.
Muttah,
and
Raghavan
Srinivasan.
1997.
Watershed
Assessment
of
Guthion
Application
in
Apple
Orchards.
Submitted
by
Bayer
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.
Bayer
Report
107699.

D190581.
R.
David
Jones.
1995.
Review
of
Two
Unsolicited
Small
Plot
Runoff
Studies
,
with
a
Concurrent
Pond
Monitoring
Study
and
a
Fish
Kill.

MRID
00029885.
S.
Atwell
and
C.
Close.
1976.
Leaching
Characteristics
of
Guthion
on
Aged
Soil.
ChemAgro
Agricultural
Division.
April
30,
1976.
Accession
No.
099216.
Tab
No.
48466.

MRID
00029899.
Wilkes,
L.
C.,
J.
P.
Wargo,
and
R.
R.
Gronberg.
1979.
Dissipation
of
Guthion
in
Buffered
Aqueous
Solution.
Analytical
Development
Crop.,
Monument,
Colorado.
ADC
Project
378­
F,
notebook
reference
79­
R­
126,127,
Acc.
No.
099216,
Tab
No.
67983.

MRID
00029887.
M.
F.
Lenz.
1979.
Soil
Adsorption
and
Desorption
of
Guthion.
Mobay
Chemical
Corp.
April
11,
1979.
Accession
No.
099216.
Tab
No.
66848.

MRID
00029900.
Gronberg,
R.
R.,
R
.
J.
Polluck
and
J.
P.
Wargo.
1979.
The
Metabolism
of
Guthion
in
sandy
loam
soil.
Mobay
Chemical,
August
27,
1979,
Accession
No.
099216,
Tab
No
68030.
166
MRID
40297001.
J.
G.
Morgan.
The
Aqueous
Photolysis
of
GUTHION­
Phenyl­
UL­
14C.
Report
No.
94709.
14
July
1987.
Accession
No.
4029701.

MRID
40297002.
J.
G.
Morgan.
The
Photodegradation
of
GUTHION­
Phenyl­
UL­
14C
on
soil.
Report
No.
94708.
13
July
1987.
Accession
No.
4029702.

MRID
42647901.
Grace,
T.
J.
and
Cain,
K.
S.
1990.
Dissipation
of
azinphos­
methyl
in
California
soils.
PSI
Project
Nos.
89.026
and
89.035;
Ricerca
Project
No.
89­
0082;
Siemer
Project
Nos.
892010.1­
9;
Mobay
Project
Nos.
GU830089R01
and
ML022101;
and
Mobay
Report
No.
100164.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Plant
Sciences,
Inc.,
Watsonville,
CA;
Ricerca,
Inc.,
Painesville,
OH;
Siemer
and
Associates,
Inc.
Fresno,
CA;
and
Mobay
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO.

MRID
425167­
01
P.
N.
Coody,
March
5,
1992.
Field
Measurement
of
Azinphos
methyl
Fate
and
Runoff
from
a
Cotton
Field
in
Benoit,
Mississippi.
Bayer
Report
Number
102619.

MRID
425167­
02
P.
N.
Coody,
May
28,
1991.
Field
Measurement
of
Azinphos
methyl
Fate
and
Runoff
from
a
Cotton
Field
in
Georgia.
Bayer
Report
Number
101333.

MRID
00068678.
1984.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Azinphos
methyl
(
Guthion)
Technical
to
Daphnia
magna
(
68678).
(
Unpublished
study
conducted
May
1,
1980,
received
10­
30­
84,
submitted
by
Mobay
Chemical
Corporation,
Kansas
City,
MO:
CDL
25241).

Water
Resources
D189129.
Jones,
R.
David.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Cotton.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
July
11,
1994.

D189505.
Jones,
R.
David.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Pome
Fruits.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
May
3,
1994.

D189494.
Jones,
R.
David.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Potatoes.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
July
25,
1994.

D189497.
Jones,
R.
David
.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Stone
Fruits.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
June
27,
1995.

D189508.
Jones,
R.
David
.
Azinphos
methyl
EEC's
for
Guthion
Products
on
Nuts.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
dated
August
31,
1994.

Barrett,
M.
1997.
Sci­
Grow.
Initial
Tier
Screening
for
Ground
Water
Concentrations
Using
the
SCI­
GROW
Model.
Internal
EPA
Document
dated
June
30,
1997.
167
Hoheisel,
Constance,
Joan
Karrie,
Susan
Lees,
Leslie
Davies­
Hilliard,
Patrick
Hannon,
Roy
Bingham,
Elizabeth
Behl,
David
Wells,
and
Estella
Waldman.
1992.
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database,
A
Compilation
of
Monitoring
Studies:
1971­
1991,
National
Summary.
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
EPA
734­
12­
92­
001.

Goodell,
H.
Grant.
1987.
The
Effects
of
Agricultural
Chemicals
on
Ground
Water
Quality
in
the
Northern
Shenandoah
Valley,
Virginia.
Final
Report
to
the
Virginia
Environmental
Endowment,
Richmond,
Virginia,
dated
December
18,
1987.

Jones,
R.
David.
Revised
Tier
2
EEC's
for
Azinphos
methyl.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Lisa
Engstrom
date
April
11,
1995.

Jones,
R.
David.
Revised
Tier
2
EEC's
for
Azinphos
methyl.
Internal
EPA
memorandum
to
Barry
O'Keefe
dated
xxxxx,
1998.

Miles,
C.
J.
and
R.
J.
Pfeuffer.
1994.
Pesticide
Residue
Monitoring
in
Sediment
and
Surface
Waters.
South
Florida
Water
Management
District.

Miles,
C.
J.
and
R.
J.
Pfeuffer.
1997.
Pesticide
in
Canals
of
South
Florida.
Archives
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
32:
337­
345.

Thurman,
E.
Michael,
Lisa
R.
Zimmerman,
Elisabeth
A.
Scribner,
and
Richard
H.
Coupe,
Jr.
1998.
Occurrence
of
Cotton
Pesticides
in
Surface
Water
of
the
Mississippi
Embayment.
USGS
Fact
Sheet
FS­
022­
98
Leahy,
P.
P.
and
Thompson
T.
H.,
1994.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program.
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
Open
File
Report
94­
70.

United
States
Geological
Survey
National
Synthesis
Project.
1998a.
Pesticides
in
Surface
and
Ground
Water
of
the
United
States:
Preliminary
Results
of
the
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
(
NAWQA).
http://
water.
wr.
usgs.
gov.
pnsp/
gwsw1.
html
dated
3/
27/
98
United
States
Geological
Survey
National
Synthesis
Project.
1998b.
Pesticides
Analyzed
in
NAWQA
Samples:
Use
Chemical
Analyses,
And
Water
Quality
Criteria.
http://
water.
wr.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
anstrat/
dated
3/
27/
98
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
1990.
National
Survey
of
Pesticides
in
Drinking
Water
Wells:
Phase
1
Report.
EPA
570/
9­
90­
015
November
1990.