Attach_2_-_Appendix_A__B_and_C.docx

Appendix A. Instructions for Completing the Pesticide Use Proposal Chemical Profile

The following instructions are for completing the Pesticide Use Proposal Chemical Profile. All sections and categories will be completed. If no information is listed for a section or category an explanatory note citing the reason for no data entry will be recorded in the appropriate section or category. Following a general review of pertinent literature resources (Appendix D) appropriate general information, toxicological endpoints, incident reports, environmental fate, ecological risk assessments, proposed pesticide use pattern, justification and possible alternatives for the proposed pesticide use pattern, and literature citations shall be recorded on the Pesticide Use Proposal Chemical Profile. Each data entry will be referenced with all applicable references cited. Following review of available data ecological risk assessments will be calculated and recorded in the ecological risks section of the Chemical Profile.

Date: Record the date in which the Chemical Profile is completed. Chemical Profile (e.g., currently approved pesticide use patterns) will be periodically reviewed and updated. Reviews will be every four years. Each review date should be recorded on the Profile to document when the Profile was reviewed and updated. All previous review dates should remain listed in reverse chronological order to establish a complete administrative record.

Trade Name: Record the trade name on the pesticide label. Include the full trade name and suffix that describes the formulation (i.e., WP, DG, EC, L, SP, I, II or 64) and concentration of the active ingredient. The suffix often distinguishes a specific product among several pesticides with the same name indicating differences in formulation or percent active ingredient, or other difference.

Common chemical name: Record the common name listed on the pesticide label or material safety data sheet for the active ingredient. The common name of a pesticide is the name listed as the active ingredient on the title page of the product label immediately following the trade name, and material safety data sheet, Section 2: Composition/ Information on Ingredients.

Pesticide Type: Record the type of pesticide. Use one of the following terms: dessicant, fungicide, fumigant, growth regulator, herbicide, insecticide, pisicide, rodenticide, etc.

EPA Registration Number: This number will be identified as the EPA Registration Number (e.g., EPA Reg. No.) appearing on the title page of the label and Material Safety Data Sheet, Section 1: Chemical Product and Company Description. Do not mistake the EPA Establishment Number for the EPA Registration Number which is usually located near the Registration Number.

Pesticide Class: List the general chemical class the pesticide represents. For example, malathion is an organophosphate, carbaryl is a carbamate, etc. It would also be helpful to list the group classification. For example, strobulin fungicides (e.g., azoxystrobulin) is a Group 11 fungicide.

CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) Number: This number is often located in the 2nd section (Composition/Information on Ingredients) of the Material Safety Data Sheet. The MSDS table listing components usually contains this number immediately prior to or following the percent composition.

California (CA) and Oregon (OR) Registration: Determine whether or not a pesticide and its proposed use pattern is registered for use in California and/or Oregon. Enter an “Active” if the pesticide product and use pattern is registered for use in the respective state, or “Not Active” if the proposed product and use pattern is not registered. This information can be retrieved from on-line databases maintained by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and Oregon Department of Agriculture (Appendix D).

Other Ingredients: Inspect the most recent Material Safety Data Sheet for the proposed pesticide product. Include any compounds in the pesticide formulation not listed as an active ingredient that are described as toxic or hazardous, or regulated under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CEECLA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), State Right-to-Know, or other listed authorities. These are usually found in sections of the Material Safety Data Sheet titled “Hazardous Identifications”, “Exposure Control/Personal Protection”, and “Regulatory Information”. If concentration of other ingredients is available for any compounds identified as toxic or hazardous include that information in the Chemical Profile, too. Material Safety Data Sheet(s) may be obtained from the manufacturer, manufacturer’s website or from an on-line database maintained by Crop Data Management Systems, Inc. (Appendix D).

Toxicological Endpoints: Toxicological endpoint data must be collected for acute and chronic toxicity to mammals, birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants. Data will be recorded for all species listed in the scientific literature. If no data is listed for a particular taxonomic group the statement “No data cited in references.” will be recorded in the appropriate data entry. Also all references used to select toxicological endpoint data will be cited enclosed in parentheses following the recorded data.

The toxicological endpoint used in the ecological risk assessment for each taxonomic group will be highlighted in the data set. This will usually be the endpoint associated with the most sensitive species in a taxonomic group. If a less sensitive species toxicological endpoint is selected for use a statement will be included in the data set briefly explaining the rationale for selecting an endpoint of a less sensitive species. Toxicological endpoints for aquatic species will be limited to freshwater species.

Mammalian LD50: For all test species listed in the scientific literature record the oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg bw (body weight) or mg/kg diet. Most common test species listed in scientific literature are rats and mice.

Mammalian Reproduction: For all test species listed in the scientific literature record the appropriate reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., generational studies (preferred), fertility, new born weight, etc.), test results (e.g., LOEC, NOEL, NOAEC, etc.) in mg/kg, and list references for each data entry. Most common test species listed in scientific literature are rats and mice.

Avian LD50: For all test species listed in the scientific literature record the oral lethal dose (LD50) in mg/kg bw (body weight) or mg/kg diet. Most common test species listed in scientific literature are bobwhite quail and mallard duck. Use of this data to select toxicological endpoints for risk assessment to birds will be subject to availability of and secondary to Avian Dietary LC50 data.

Avian Dietary LC50: For all test species listed in the scientific literature record the dietary lethal concentration (LC50) in ppm. Most common test species listed in scientific literature are bobwhite quail and mallard duck. Use of this data to select toxicological endpoints for risk assessment to birds is preferred over Avian LD50 data.

Avian Reproduction: For all test species listed in the scientific literature record the appropriate reproductive test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, reproductive, etc.), test results (e.g., LOEC, NOEL, NOAEC, LOAEC, etc.) in ppm, and list references for each data entry. Most common test species listed in scientific literature are bobwhite quail and mallard duck.

Fish LC50: For all test freshwater species listed in the scientific literature record the lethal concentration (LC50) in ppm. Most common test species listed in scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout and fathead minnow. Test results for many game species may also be available.

Fish Early Life Stage (ELS)/Life Cycle: For all test freshwater species listed in the scientific literature record the appropriate test procedure(s) (e.g., early life cycle, life cycle, etc.), test results (e.g., LOEC, NOEL, NOAEC, LOAEC, etc.) in ppm, and list references for each data entry. Most common test species listed in the scientific literature are bluegill, rainbow trout and fathead minnow. Test results for many game species may also be available.

Other: For all test aquatic invertebrate and non-vascular and vascular plant species listed in the scientific literature record the environmental concentration (EC50) in ppm. Most common test invertebrate species listed in scientific literature is the water flea, Daphnia magna. Green algae (Selenastrum capricornutum) and pondweed (Lemna minor) are frequent test species for aquatic non-vascular and vascular plants, respectively.

Environmental Fate: Environmental fate data is important for determining how long a pesticide will remain in the environment, expected environmental concentration over time, mechanisms for degradation and partitioning in the environment. This information will also indicate the potential for off-target movement of a pesticide and the environmental conditions conducive to off-target movement. Information will be recorded for pesticide mobility (i.e., water solubility), persistence, bioaccumulation, and whether or not a pesticide mode of action is systemic.

Mobility: Record the soil adsorption coefficient (Koc) and/or water solubility (mg/l or ppm) of the proposed pesticide. Also record any qualifying data that may be pertinent to interpreting the potential for a pesticide to move off-target and contaminate natural resources.

Persistence: Persistence is the potential for a pesticide to remain in the environment. Half-life is the amount of time required for one-half of the amount of a pesticide in the soil or water to dissipate or degrade. Half-life (DT50) units are usually expressed in days. Record all half-life data that may be useful for interpretation or inclusion in a quantitative or qualitative analysis. Half-life data is usually available for aquatic and terrestrial environments including the mechanisms for degradation/metabolism and by-products. Field dissipation half-life is the preferred half-life data. However, in lieu of field dissipation data soil half-life or aerobic soil metabolism is germane for terrestrial applications. Hydrolysis, aerobic or anaerobic metabolism depending upon habitat conditions is germane for aquatic habitats. Generally the longest aquatic and terrestrial half-life will be selected for inclusion in quantitative analysis. Record degradation mechanisms which may include photolysis, microbial, and chemical degradation and associated half-lifes.

Record first-order degradation and metabolism by-products if this information is cited in the literature. A separate risk assessment may be necessary for by-products.

Translocation: Indicate whether or not the pesticide will move (translocate) within plant tissue after application. Also include the translocation mechanism if cited in the scientific literature.

Bioaccumulation: Record the water/octanol partition coefficient (Kow), bioaccumulation factor (BAF), and/or the bioconcentration factor (BCF) reported in the literature. If the Kow, BAF or BCF is not reported, sometimes bioaccumulation potential is reported in general categories such as high, moderate, low or no potential for bioaccumulation.

Ecological Risk: Record results of the estimated risk quotient for birds, mammals (e.g., Kanaga nomogram), fish (e.g., AgDrift computer model), and other species of interest (e.g., AgDrift computer model).

Avian & Mammalian: Record the assessed pesticide use pattern (application rate, number of applications, method(s) of application). Record the calculated risk quotient for each food item category for both acute and chronic toxicities.

Fish: Record the treatment buffer distance, a minimum default distance equal to 25 feet, in which the calculated risk quotient is equal to one. Include risk assessments for acute and chronic toxicities, and all proposed methods of application. The AgDrift computer model reports estimated environmental exposure for both aerial and ground applications in parts per trillion (ppt). Convert parts per trillion to parts per million for ease of comparing estimated environmental concentration to the selected toxicological endpoint. Toxicological endpoints recorded in the pesticide use proposal chemical profile are reported in parts per million.

Other species: This includes risk assessments for aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants. Record the treatment buffer distance, a minimum default distance equal to 25 feet, in which the calculated risk quotient is equal to one. Include risk assessments for acute and chronic toxicities, and all proposed methods of application. The AgDrift computer model reports estimated environmental exposure for both aerial and ground applications in parts per trillion (ppt). Convert parts per trillion to parts per million for ease of comparing estimated environmental concentration to the selected toxicological endpoint. Toxicological endpoints recorded in the pesticide use proposal chemical profile are reported in parts per million.

Agronomics: Record the maximum number of applications, the maximum application rate (pounds active ingredient per acre) and the minimum application interval (days) proposed in the pesticide use proposal. Also report target pest(s) and alternative pesticide(s) previously approved for use or are currently under consideration for use under the proposed action. This information will be provided to the contractor.

References: List all scientific resources used to provide information for the Chemical Profile. Use standard literature citation procedures, and sequentially number the literature citations. All data entries will be individually referenced with all applicable references cited. Use the number sequence to reference data in the data entry sections of the Worksheet.

Appendix B. Example Chemical Profile (Glyphosate)

Glyphosate Pesticide Profile

Group 9

Aqua Star, AquaMaster, AquaNeat, Buccaneer, Buccaneer Plus, Cornerstone, Cornerstone Plus, Gly Star Plus, Glyfos Aquatic, Glyfos XTRA, Glypro, Honcho, Honcho Plus, Makaze, Razor Pro, Rodeo, Roundup Original, Roundup Original MAX, Roundup Pro, Roundup PRO Concentrate, Roundup WeatherMAX

42750-59, 524-343, 228-365, 55467-10, 55467-9, 1381-191, 524-454-1381, 42750-61, 4787-34, 4787-23, 62719-324, 524-445, 524-454, 34704-890, 228-366, 62719-324, 524-445, 524-539, 524-475, 524-529, 524-537

38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 70901-12-1, 38641-94-0, 38641-94-0, 70901-12-1

Toxicological Endpoints

Mammalian

LD50:

Glyphosate: (95.0-98.7%): Goat (female): (96-h) = 3,500 mg/kg bw (3);

Rat: (96-h) > 4,320 mg/kg (2,7,11), (96-h) = 4,873 mg/kg bw (3), (96-h) > 2000 mg/kg (6), (96-h) > 4,770 mg ae/kg bw (8), NOAEL < 3,125 mg/kg diet (10), Systemic Toxicity LOELs: males = 940 mg/kg/day, females = 1,183 mg/kg/day (11), Systemic Toxicity NOELs: males = 362 mg/kg/day, females = 457 mg/kg/day (11), (Acute oral) = 2,047 mg ae/kg/day (20); Mice: (96-h) = 1,568 mg/kg bw (3), NOAEL = 3,125 mg/kg diet (10); Rabbit: (96-h) = 3,800 mg/kg bw (3), (21-d NOAEL) = 175 mg ae/kg/day (20); Dog: NOEL = 500 mg/kg/day (11); (88.0%): Rat: (96-h) > 4,440 mg ae/kg bw (8); (76.0%): (96-h) > 3,800 mg ae/kg bw (8); AMPA: (95.4-97.2%): Rat: > 1,920 mg ae/kg bw (3), > 4,750 mg ae/kg bw (3), > 4,770 mg ae/kg bw (3), > 4,800 mg ae/kg bw (3), >4,860 mg ae/kg bw (3), (90-d NOEL) = 400 mg/kg/day, (90-d LOEL) = 1,200 mg/kg/day (20); Dog: (90-d NOEL) = 263 mg/kg/day (20); (88.0%): Rat: > 4,400 mg ae/kg bw (3); (76.0%): Rat: > 3,800 mg ae/kg bw (3); IPA: (62.0%): Rat: > 5,000 mg/kg (1c); Mouse: > 5,000 mg/kg (1c); (53.8%): Rat: > 5,000 mg/kg (1a), (41.0%): Rat: > 5,000 mg/kg (1i,m,o,r), = 5,108 mg/kg bw (1t); K: No information in references.

Mammalian

LC50:

Glyphosate: (95.0-98.7%): Rat: NOEL (diet) = 150 ppm (6);

Fiddler Crab: (96-h LC50) = 934 ppm (2,11,20); Honeybee: (48-h LD50, oral & contact) ≥ 100 µg/bee (6,7,8,10,11,20); Midge: (48-h LC50) = 53.2 ppm ae (8); Daphnia magna: (48-h EC50) = 930 ppm (1c,7), (48-h EC50, immobilization) = 40 ppm (6), (21-d NOEC) = 30 ppm (6), NOAEC = 49.9 ppm ae (8), (48-h EC50, w/ aeration) = 37 ppm (10), (48-h EC50, w/out aeration) = 24 ppm (10), (48-h EC50) = 13 ppm (10); Earthworm: (14-d LC50) > 5,000 mg kg dry soil (1c), (14-d LC50) > 480 mg/kg (6), (14-d NOEC, reproduction) > 28.8 mg/kg (6), (14-d LC50) > 3,750 mg/kg soil, 14-d NOEC = 118.7 (20); Green Algae: (96-h EC50, phytotoxicity) = 12.5 ppm (2), (72-h EC50 (growth inhibition) = 166 ppm (1c), (72-h EC50, growth) = 4.4 ppm (6); Duckweed: (7-d EC50, phytotoxicity) = 21.5 ppm (2), (7-d EC50, biomass) = 12 ppm (6), (7-d EC50) = 10 ppm ae (20), (14-d EC50, growth) = 25.5 ppm ae, NOEC = 16.6 ppm ae (20); (83.0%): Daphnia magna: (48-h LC50) = 780 ppm (1d,2), (21-d, life cycle) NOEC = 49.9 ppm, LOEC = 95.7 ppm (3); AMPA: (94.4-98.5%): Honeybee: (48-h LD50, contact) > 100 µg/bee (3); Daphnia magna: (48-h EC50) = 683 ppm, NOAEC = 320 ppm (3,8), (48-h LC or EC50) = 690 ppm (20); Duckweed: (7-d EC50, growth) = 46.9 ppm ae (3), (7-d EC10, growth) = 3.78 ppm ae (3); Green Algae: (48-h EC50, growth) = 270 ppm (3), (48-h EC10, growth) = 92.5 ppm (3), (96-h EC50, growth) = 55.9 ppm ae (3); (96-h IC50, growth) = 24.7 ppm (3); (83.0%): Daphnia magna: (48-h EC50) = 647.4 ppm ae, NOAEC = 464.8 ppm ae (3,8), (48-h EC50) = 128.1 ppm ae, NOAEC = 95.6 ppm ae (3); Ceriodaphnia dubia: (48-h LC50) = 147 ppm ae (3); IPA: (95.0%): Fatmucket Clam: (48-h LC50, larvae) = 5.0 ppm ae (4,5), (96-h LC50, juvenile) = 7.2 ppm ae (4,5); (62.4%): Daphnia magna: (48-h EC50) = 401.3 ppm ae, NOAEC = 147.8 ppm ae (3); (53.5-56.8%): Earthworm: (LC50) > 1,000 ppm (1a,l,q), Honeybee (contact LD50): > 100 µg/bee (1a,l,q); Midge: (48-h EC50, immobilization) = 5,600 ppm (3,4,5,20), (48-h LC50) = 1,216 ppm (3,5), (24-h EC50, immobilization) = 5,900 ppm (4,5); Fatmucket Mussel: (48-h EC50, larvae) > 148 ppm ae (3,4,5), (96-h LC50, juvenile) > 148 ppm ae (3,4,5), (28-d LC50) = 43 ppm ae (3,4,5); Daphnia magna: (48-h LC50) = 218 ppm (3,4,5), (48-h LC50) = 35.5 ppm, (NOEC, immobility) = 13 ppm (3), (48-d LC50) = 130 ppm (4); Ceriodaphnia dubia: (48-h LC50) = 415 ppm ae (3,4,5), (24-h LC50) = 707 ppm ae (4); Green Algae: (growth inhibition) = 127 ppm (1a,1l,1q), (96-h IC50, growth) = 41.0 ppm (3); Duckweed: (growth inhibition) = 24.4 ppm (1a,l,q); (41.0%): Daphnia magna: (48-h EC50) = 21.6 ppm (1k), (48-h LC50) = 11.0 ppm (1t), (21-d NOEC) = 1.5 ppm (1k,5), (48-h EC50, immobility, first instar, w/out suspended sediments @ 22⁰C) = 3 ppm (5,19); Daphnia pulex: (48-h EC50, immobility, w/out suspended sediments @ 15⁰C) = 7.9 ppm (4,5,19), (48-H EC50, immobility, w/ suspended sediments (50 mg clay/L) at 15⁰C) = 3.2 ppm (5,19); Honeybee: (24-h LD50 contact) > 20 µg/bee (1k); Earthworm: (14-d EC50) > 1,000 ppm (dry soil) (1k), (14-d EC50) > 1,250 mg/kg soil (1t); Green Algae: (72-h IC50) = 17.4 ppm (1k), (96-h IC50) = 2.2 ppm (1k); Duckweed: (7-d EC50) = 27.0 ppm (1k); (25.2%): Pouch Snail: (13-d NOEL) = 3.8 ppm (4,5); Marsh Rams-Horn: (13-d NOEL) = 3.8 ppm (4,5); Marsh Pond Snail: (13-d NOEL) = 3.8 ppm (4,5); K: No information in references; IPA: (41% w/ 10-20% POEA surfactants): Ceriodaphnia dubia: (24-h LC50) = 6.0 ppm ae (4,5), (48-h LC50) = 5.7 ppm ae (4,5); IPA: (41% w/ 15% POEA surfactants): Daphnia pulex: (96-h EC50) = 25.5 ppm (4,5,12,16); Midge: (48-h LC50) = 16 ppm (11); Duckweed: (7-d EC50, growth) = 15.1 ppm ae (20), (14-d EC50, growth) = 4.9 ppm ae (20); Earthworm: (14-d LC50) > 5,000 mg ae/kg soil (20), (14-d NOEC) = 500 mg ae/kg soil (20);

AMPA: Unknown (5); Teratogenic: Negative (10,11); Mutagenic: Negative (10); Endocrine disruption: Unknown (5), Negative in mammals (11);

Glyphosate: 1st- order degradate of glyphosate salts (e.g. isopropylamine (IPA) and potassium (K)) (1d); Aminomethylphosphonic Acid (AMPA): 2nd- order degradate of glyphosate salts (7,12).

Environmental Fate

Potential to Move to Groundwater (GUS score):

Glyphosate: Low potential (2,7,11,12); AMPA: Low potential (2)

Worst Case Ecological Risk Assessment

Max Application Rate (ai lbs/acre – ae basis) Habitat Management: 2.6 lbs. a.e./acre Croplands/Facilities Maintenance: 2.6 lbs. a.e./acre Assumes 2 applications w/ 20-day application interval.

Terrestrial (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 995 ppm Aquatic (Habitat Management): 0.956 ppm Aquatic (Croplands/Facilities Maintenance): 0.008717 ppm

Habitat Management Treatments:

Cropland/Facilities Maintenance Treatments:

References:

1a _____. 2008 & 2004, respectively. Accord Concentrate specimen label and MSDS. Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN. 17 & 3 pp.

1b _____. 2002 & 2011, respectively. Aqua Star specimen label and MSDS. Albaugh, Inc. Ankeny, IA. 16 & 4 pp.

1c _____. 2009 & 2005. AquaMaster label and MSDS. Monsanto Co., St.

Louis, MO. 21 & 8 pp.

1d _____. 2008 & 2007, respectively. AquaNeat specimen label and MSDS. Nufarm Americas, Inc., Burr Ridge, IL. 9 & 6 pp.

1e _____. 2009 & 2005, respectively. Buccaneer specimen label and MSDS. Tenkoz, Inc., Alpharetta, GA. 54 & 9 pp.

1f _____. 2009 & 2005, respectively. Buccaneer Plus specimen label and MSDS. Tenkoz, Inc., Alpharetta, GA. 51 & 8 pp.

1g _____. 2010. Cornerstone specimen label and MSDS. Winfield Solutions LLC, St. Paul, MN. 70 & 3 pp.

1h _____. 2010 & 2008, respectively. Cornerstone Plus specimen label and MSDS. Winfield Solutions LLC, St. Paul, MN. 79 & 9 pp.

1i _____. 2010 & 2008, respectively. Gly Star Plus specimen label and MSDS. Albaugh, Inc., Ankeny, IA. 72 & 4 pp.

1j _____. 2009 & 2006, respectively. Glyfos Aquatic specimen label and MSDS. Cheminova, Inc., Wayne, NJ. 20 & 6 pp.

1k _____. 2008 & 2005, respectively. Glyfos X-TRA specimen label and MSDS. Cheminova, Inc., Wayne, NJ. 21 & 5 pp.

1l _____. 2006 & 2004, respectively. Glypro specimen label and MSDS.

Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianopolis, IN. 17 & 3 pp.

1m _____. 2007. Honcho specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto, Co., St.

Louis, MO. 24 & 9 pp.

1n _____. 2010. Honcho Plus specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO. 26 & 9 pp.

1o ____. 2009. Makaze specimen label and MSDS. Loveland Products, Inc., Greeley, CO. 26 & 3 pp.

1p _____. 2011 & 2007, respectively. Razor Pro specimen label and MSDS. Nufarm Americas, Inc., 32 & 6 pp.

1q _____. 2006 & 2004, respectively. Rodeo specimen label and MSDS. Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN. 17 & 3 pp.

1r _____. 2008 & 2006, respectively. Roundup Original specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO. 23 & 9 pp.

1s _____. 2007 & 2006, respectively. Roundup Original MAX specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO. 27 & 9 pp.

1t _____. 2010 & 2011, respectively. Roundup PRO specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto, Co., St. Louis, MO. 21 & 9 pp.

1u _____. 2010 & 2011, respectively. Roundup PRO Concentrate specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO. 22 & 9 pp.

1v ____. 2009 & 2008, respectively. Roundup WeatherMAX specimen label and MSDS. Monsanto, Co., St. Louis, MO. 54 & 9 pp.

2 _____. 1993. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) – glyphosate.

USEPA, Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, D.C. 291 pp.

3 Durkin, P.R. 2011. Glyphosate: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc (USDA Contract#:

AG-3187-C-06-0010). 336 pp + Appendices.

4 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. ECOTOX User Guide:

ECOTOXicology Database System. Version 4.0:

http:/www.epa.gov/ecotox; Last accessed 27 October 2011.

5 _____. 2011. Kegley, S.E., B.R. Hill, S. Orme, and A.H. Choi., PAN Pesticide Database, Pesticide Action Network, San Francisco, CA; Last accessed 27 October 2011.

6 _____. 2009. The Pesticide Properties Database (PPDB) developed by the Agricultural & Environment Research Unit (AERU), University of Hertfordshire, funded by UK national sources and the EU-funded FOOTPRINT project (Hatfield, UK); Last accessed: 25 October 2011.

7 Schuette, J. 1998. Environmental Fate of Glyphosate, Environmental Monitoring and Pest Management Branch, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA. 18 pp.

8 Carey et al. 2008. Risks of Glyphosate Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 180 pp.

9 Govindarajulu, P.P. 2008. Literature review of impacts of glyphosate herbicide on amphibians: What risks can the silvicultural use of this herbicide pose for amphibians in B.C.? B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Wildlife Report No. R-28. 86 pp.

10_____. 2001. FAO specifications and evaluations for plant protection products – Glyphosate. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, New York, NY. 34 pp.

11 _____. 2002 . Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet, (NPIC) National Pesticide Information Center, Oregon State University and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. 14 pp.

12 Tu, et. al. 2001. Glyphosate. Weed control methods handbook. The Nature Conservancy. 10 pp.

13 _____. 1995 . USDA, Agricultural Research Services (ARS) pesticide properties database, Glyphosate; Last accessed 27 October 2011 14 Folmar , L.C. et. al. 1979. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch.

Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8:269-278.

15 Wan, M.T. et. al. 1989. Effects of different dilution water types on the acute toxicity to juvenile Pacific salmonids and rainbow trout of glyphosate and its formulated products. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 43:378-385.

16 Servizi, J.A. et. al. 1987. Acute toxicity of Garlon 4 and Roundup Herbicides to salmon, Daphnia, and Trout. Bull. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. 39:15-22.

17 Relyea, R.A. 2005. The lethal impacts of Roundup and predatory stress on six species of North American tadpoles. Arch. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. 48:351-357.

18 Relyea, R.A. and D.K. Jones. 2009. The toxicity of Roundup Original Max to 13 species of larval amphibians. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.

28:2004-2008.

19 Hartman, W.A. and D.B. Martin. 1984. Effect of suspended bentonite clay on the acute toxicity of glyphosate to Daphnia pulex and Lemna minor. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 33:355-361.

20 Giesy, J.P. et al. 2000. Ecotoxicological risk assessment of Roundup® herbicide. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 167:

35-120.

21 Dinehart, S.K. et al. 2009. Toxicity of a glufosinate- and several glyphosate-based herbicides to juvenile amphibians from the Southern High Plains, USA.

Science of the Total Environment 407:1065-1071.

Appendix C. Example Pesticide Summary (Glyphosate)

Klamath Basin Federal Lease Land PUP Committee Determination Summary for Pesticide Use Proposals 2013 Crop Season

Pesticide Use Proposal

PUP Request