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)