# 2 

# NEW CHEMICAL REGISTRATION

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Cyflumetofen

CAS Number 400882-07-7

US EPA PC CODE 138831

P

repared b y : Robin Sternberg, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist

Stephen Wente, Ph.D., Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch I

R eviewed b y : Meghan Radtke, Ph.D., Biologist

Faruque Khan, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist

Environmental Risk Branch I

Environmental Fate and Effects Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch I

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

# 3 

# Contents

1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ... 6

2 Problem Formulation ........................................................................................................... ... 7

2.1 Stressor: Source and Distribution ................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 Source and Intensity .................................................................................................. 8

2.1.2 Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action .............................................................. 9

2.1.3 Physical/Chemical/Fate and Transport Properties .................................................... 9

2.1.4 Overview of Pesticide Usage .................................................................................. 10

2.2 Receptors: The Biological Entitie s Exposed to the Stressor ......................................... 10

2.2.1 Effects to Aquatic and Terrestrial Organisms ......................................................... 10

2.2.2 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk ............................................................................... 11

2.3 Assessment Endpoints .................................................................................................. 11

2.4 Conceptual Model ......................................................................................................... 13

2.4.1 Risk Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 13

2.4.2 Exposure Pathways of Concern .............................................................................. 13

2.5 Analysis Plan ................................................................................................................ 14

2.5.1 Stressors of Concern ............................................................................................... 14

2.5.2 Measures of Exposure ............................................................................................. 15

2.5.3 Measures of Effect .................................................................................................. 17

2.5.4 Integration of Exposure and Effects ....................................................................... 18

2.5.5 Endangered Species Assessments ........................................................................... 19

2.5.6 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ................................................................ 19

2.6 Data Gaps ..................................................................................................................... . 20

2.6.1 Environmental fate .................................................................................................. 20

2.6.2 Ecological Effects ................................................................................................... 22

3 Fate and Transport Characterization ..................................................................................... 24

3.1 Degradation ................................................................................................................... 26

3.1.1 Hydrolysis ............................................................................................................... 26

3.1.2 Aquatic Photolysis .................................................................................................. 26

3.1.3 Soil photolysis ......................................................................................................... 26

3.1.4 Aerobic Soil Metabolism ........................................................................................ 27

3.1.5 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism .................................................................................... 27

3.1.6 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism .................................................................................. 28

3.1.7 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism .............................................................................. 28

# 4 3.2 Mobility....................................................................................................................... .. 28

3.2.1 Volatility ................................................................................................................. 28

3.2.2 Adsorption/desorption – Parent .............................................................................. 28

3.2.3 Adsorption/desorption – Degradates....................................................................... 29

3.3 Field Studies.................................................................................................................. 29

3.4 Bioconcentration ........................................................................................................... 30

4 Exposure Assessment............................................................................................................ 30

4.1 Terrestrial Exposure ...................................................................................................... 30

4.1.1 Birds, Mammals, and Terre strial Invertebrates ....................................................... 30

4.1.2 Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants ........................................................ 31

4.2 Aquatic Exposure .......................................................................................................... 32

4.2.1 Aquatic Bioaccumulation........................................................................................ 37

5 Effects Characterization ...................................................................................................... .. 38

5.1 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms ................................................................................... 38

5.1.1 Birds ........................................................................................................................ 38

5.1.2 Mammals................................................................................................................. 43

5.1.3 Terrestrial Invertebrates .......................................................................................... 44

5.1.4 Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants ........................................................ 44

5.2 Effects to Aquatic Organisms ....................................................................................... 46

5.2.1 Parent Cyflumetofen ............................................................................................... 46

5.2.2 Degradates of Cyflumetofen ................................................................................... 52

5.3 Review of Incident Data ............................................................................................... 53

6 Risk Characterization ......................................................................................................... ... 54

6.1 Risk Estimation ............................................................................................................. 5 4

6.1.1 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Organisms .................................................................. 54

6.1.2 Direct Effects to Aquatic Organisms ...................................................................... 56

6.2 Risk Description............................................................................................................ 60

6.2.1 Direct Effects to Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians ..................... 61

6.2.2 Direct Effects to Mammals ..................................................................................... 61

6.2.3 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Invertebrates ............................................................... 62

6.2.4 Direct Effects to Terrestrial (U pland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants ............................ 63

6.2.5 Direct Effects to Fish, Aquatic-Phase Am phibians, and Aquatic Invertebrates ..... 64

6.2.6 Direct Effects to Sediment-Dwe lling (Benthic) In vertebrates ................................ 65

6.2.7 Direct Effects to Aquatic Plants .............................................................................. 65

# 5 6.3 Summary of Direct Effects ........................................................................................... 66

6.4 Indirect Effects .............................................................................................................. 66

6.5 Federally Threatened and Endangere d (Listed) Species Concerns ............................... 67

6.5.1 Action Area ............................................................................................................. 67

6.5.2 Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk ................................................................... 67

7 Uncertainties ................................................................................................................. ........ 70

7.1 Data Gaps ..................................................................................................................... . 70

7.1.1 Environmental Fate ................................................................................................. 70

7.1.2 Ecological Effects ................................................................................................... 71

8 References .................................................................................................................... ......... 71

9 Bibliography of Cited MRIDs .............................................................................................. 72

Appendix A: Input and Results of Screen ing Imbibition Progra m (SIP v. 1.0) ........................... 80

Appendix B: Input and Output of Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v. 1.0) .................. 82

Appendix C: Cyflumetofen and Its Environmen tal Transformation Products and Degradation

Pathways ...................................................................................................................... ................. 85

Appendix D: Parent and Total Toxic Residue (TTR) PestDF Degradation Half-life Estimation

Output and Available Degradate Stu dy Half-life Estimation Output ........................................... 98

Appendix E: Example PRZM/EXAMS Modeling Ou tput and AgDRIFT® Input Data Summary

............................................................................................................................... ...................... 114

Appendix F: Listed Species That Overlap at th e County Level with Areas Where Cyflumetofen

Is Proposed To Be Used as Id entified by LOCATES (v. 2.2.5) ................................................. 120

# 6 

# 1 Executive Summary

The purpose of this screening-leve l ecological risk assessment is to evaluate potential risks to

non-target species, both non-liste d and federally-listed endange red and threatened species

(hereafter referred to as non-liste d and listed species, respectively ), from proposed uses of the

new insecticide, cyflumetofen.

Cyflumetofen (2-methoxyethyl ( RS )-2-(4- tert -butylphenyl)-2-cyano-3-oxo-3-( α

, α

, α -trifluoro- o

tolyl)propionate) is a non-sy stemic, contact miticide that provides knockdown and residual

control of tetranychid mites. Cyflumetofen act s as a mitochondria complex II electron transport

inhibitor and is classified as a Group 25 acaricide by the Insecticide Resistance Action

Committee (IRAC).

Proposed uses of cyflumetofen include citrus, po me fruits, grapes, strawberries, tomatoes, tree

nuts, and ornamentals. The proposed maxi mum single applicati on rate and maximum

application rate per crop cycle or year are 0.2 lb a.i./A a nd 0.4 lb a.i./A, respectively,

corresponding to a maximum of 2 applications per crop cycle or year. The proposed minimum

application interval is 14 days. Cyflumetofen is formulated as a suspension concentrate and is

proposed to be applied via ground equipment. Aeri al application is proposed only for tomatoes.

The parent chemical, cyflumetofen, is expected to degrade rapidly in the environment, but

undergoes a complex series of transformations th at result in the production of many degradates

of concern. Some of the degradates of concer n are much more persistent than the parent.

A summary of direct and indirect effects to non-listed and list ed taxa from the proposed uses of

cyflumetofen is provided in Table 1-1 . Direct or indir ect effects to specific listed species have

not been definitively determined; further in vestigation into tempor al, geographical, and

biological associations between the proposed uses and affected taxa is needed before definitive

effects determinations can be made.

Based on Agency Level of Concern (LOC) ex ceedances, results of this screening-level

ecological risk assessment indicate that the propos ed uses of cyflumetofen have the potential for

direct adverse effects to listed and non-listed mammals and listed dicots. Risk quotients (RQs)

could not be calculated for monocots due to th e lack of appropriate endpoints for seedling

emergence. However, direct adverse effect s to listed monocots are expected based on a

comparison of terrestrial plant EECs and availabl e seedling emergence data. In addition, given

the inability to determine a seedling emergence EC 25 

# for monocots, risk to non-listed monocots

cannot be precluded. A Tier II seedling emerge nce continuation study is necessary to reduce

uncertainty in the character ization of risk to liste d and non-listed monocots.

Table 1-1. Summary of Direct a nd Indirect Effects Associated with Proposed Uses of

Cyflumetofen

Taxon Risk Concern for

Direct Effects?* Risk Concern for

Indirect Effects to

Listed Species?** Non-Listed Listed**

Birds No No Yes a,b



## Reptiles No No Yes a,b

# 7 Taxon Risk Concern for

Direct Effects?* Risk Concern for

Indirect Effects to

Listed Species?** Non-Listed Listed**

Terrestrial-phase amphibians No No Yes a,b



## Mammals Yes (chronic

exposure c 

## ) Yes (chronic

exposure c 

## ) Yes b



## Terrestrial invertebrates No d 

## No d 

## Yes a,b



## Terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) plants : monocots Yes e 

## Yes f 

## Yes a



## Terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) plants: dicots No Yes Yes a



## Freshwater fish No No Yes b



## Aquatic-phase amphibians No No Yes b



## Freshwater invertebrates No No Yes b



## Estuarine/marine fish No No Yes b



## Estuarine/marine invertebrates No No Yes b



## Sediment-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates No No Yes b



## Aquatic vascular plants No No Yes b



## Aquatic non-vascular plants No NA Yes b



## NA = not applicable because there are no listed aquatic non-vascular plants

* Unless otherwise specified, the Agency Level of Concern (LOC) was exceeded.

** Direct or indirect effects to specific species have not been definitively determined; further investigation into

temporal, geographical, and biological associations between the proposed uses and affected taxa is needed before

definitive effects determinations can be made.

a 

## due to direct effects to non-listed mammals

b 

## due to direct effects to non-listed monocots which cannot be precluded given the inability to determine a seedling

emergence EC 25 

## for monocots

c 

## small and medium mammals consuming short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, or arthropods and large mammals

consuming short grass or tall grass

d 

## Given the insecticidal mode of action of cyflumetofen, th e potential for risk to sensitive, non-target terrestrial

invertebrates exists.

e 

## Given the inability to determine a seedling emergence EC 25 

## for monocots, risk to non-listed monocots cannot be

precluded.

f 

## Although RQs could not be calculated for listed monocots due to the lack of a NOAEC for seedling emergence,

adverse direct effects to listed monocots are expected based on a comparison of terrestrial plant EECs and the

available seedling emergence data.



# 2 Problem Formulation

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate th e environmental fate and ecological risks for the

registration of the new chemical, cyflumetofen. As a new insecticide being proposed for use in

the United States, EPA is required under the Fede ral Insecticide, Fungici de, and Rodenticide Act

(FIFRA) to ensure that cyflumetofen does not have the potential to cau se unreasonable adverse

effects to the environment. A “preliminary assessment” to determine the potential for direct and

indirect effects to federally-lis ted endangered and threatened species (hereafter referred to listed

species) is also conducted. Furt her investigation into tempor al, geographical, and biological

associations between the proposed us es of cyflumetofen and affected listed taxa is needed before

definitive effects determinations can be made. To these ends, this assessment follows EPA

guidance on conducting ecological risk assessments (USEPA, 1998) and the Office of Pesticide

Program’s policies for assessing risk to non-ta rget and listed organisms (USEPA, 2004).

Among the end products of the EPA pesticide regist ration process is a determination of whether

a product is eligible for registra tion and, if so, a description of how the product may be used. A

# 8 label represents the legal document that stipulates how and where a given pe sticide may be used.

End-use labels describe the formulation type, acceptable methods of application, where the

product may be applied, and any restrictions on how applications may be conducted. Thus, the

use, or potential use, described by the pesticid e’s labels is considered “the action” being

assessed. This assessment is in support of th e new chemical registra tion of cyflumetofen.

2.1 Stressor: Source and Distribution

2.1.1 Source and Intensity

Cyflumetofen, a non-systemic, contact miticide, is a new chemical that is undergoing registration

by BASF. In addition to the technical, two e nd-use products are being proposed for registration

in the United States ( Table 2-1 ). According to the proposed la bels, the products would provide

knockdown and residual control of tetranychid mites ( Table 2-2 ) in citrus, grapes, pome fruits,

strawberries, tomatoes, tree nuts, and ornamentals ( Table 2-3 ).

Table 2-1. Proposed End-Use Products of Cyflumetofen

End-Use Product Use % Active

Ingredient Type of Formulation Registration

Number

Nealta TM 

## miticide Citrus, grapes, pome fruits,

strawberries, tree nuts, tomatoes 18.7 Suspension co ncentrate 7969-GGA

Sultan TM 

## miticide Ornamentals 18.7 Su spension concen trate 7969-GGT



# Table 2-2. Tetranychid Mites Controlled by Pr oposed End-Use Products of Cyflumetofen

Common Name Scientific name

Carmine Tetranychus cinnabarinus

Citrus red Panonychus citri

Banks grass Oligonychus pratensis

Brown almond Bryobia rubrioculus

Brown wheat Petrobia lateens

European red Panonychus ulmi

Texas citrus Eutetranychus banks

Spider mites

McDaniel Tetranychus mcdaniel

Pacific spider Tetranychus pacificus

Spruce spider Oligonychus ununguis

Strawberry spider Tetranychus turkestan

Two spotted Tetranychus urticae

Willamette Eotetranychus willamettei

Yuma Eotetranychus yumensis



# Table 2-3. Proposed Uses of Cyflumetofen

Citrus Fruit Group

Calamondin Citrus citron Citrus hybrids Chironja

Grapefruit Kumquat Lemon Lime

Mandarin orange

(sweet and sour) Pummelo

Tangerine Satsuma

Tangor Tangelo

Grapes

Pome Fruit Group

Apple Crabapple Loquat Mayhaw

Oriental Pear Pear Quince

# 9 Strawberry

Tomato

Tree Nuts Group

Almonds Beech nut Brazil nut Butternut

Cashew Chestnut Chinquapin Filbert

Hickory nut Macadamia nut Pecan Walnuts

(black and English)

Ornamentals

annual and perennial herbaceous plants woody trees and shrubs



# 2.1.2 Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action

Cyflumetofen is a non-systemic, contact miticide th at belongs to the benzoylacetonitrile class of

compounds. It is classified as a Group 25 acaricide by the Insecticide Resistance Action

Committee (IRAC); the only other active ingredient in this group – cyenopyrafen – is not

registered in the United States. Cyflumetof en acts as a mitochondria complex II electron

transport inhibitor resulting in knockdown and residual control of the egg, nymph, and adult

stages of tetranychid mites.

2.1.3 Physical/Chemical/Fate a nd Transport Properties

Cyflumetofen is non-volatile, has limited solubility in water, and is quite lipophilic and therefore

would be expected to absorb to fo liage surfaces and so il (Koc of 1.3 x 10 5 

# ml/g) at the site of

application. Selected ph ysical and chemical prope rties are summarized in Table 2-4 . Once

deposited, either at the site of application or fa rther afield through runoff and/or spray drift, the

parent molecule is expected to degrade quickly through multiple fate processes (half-lives of

hours to several days) under environmental conditions.

Table 2-4. Selected Physical and Ch emical Properties for Cyflumetofen

Property Value

Common Name Cyflumetofen

Chemical Name 2-methoxyethyl ( RS )-2-(4- tert -butylphenyl)-2-cyano-3-oxo-3-( α

, α

, α -trifluoro- o

tolyl)propionate

CAS Number 400882-07-7

Pesticide Class Mitochondria complex II electron transport inhibitor (IRA C Group 25) – Acaricide

Molecular Formula C 24 

### H 24 

### F 3 

### NO 4 

## Molecular Weight 447.45g/mol

Physical State Milky white, odorless suspension concentrated liquid, with density of 1.0682 g/cm3

@ 20oC

Vapor Pressure < 4.43 × 10 -8 

## torr at 25oC

Water Solubility 28 μg/L

Henry’s Law Constant < 9.3 × 10 -7 

## Pa*m 3 

## /mol at 20oC

Log Kow 4.3 at 25°C

IRAC = Insecticide Resistance Action Committee



# Cyflumetofen forms many degradates w ith a wide range of fate properties ( e.g. , from highly

soluble to less soluble than the pa rent). Many of these degradates were considered degradates of

concern by EFED due to the presence of a cyano group (C ≡ N). However, the reason for

developing a very broad and inclus ive set of degradates of concer n is more out of a concern for

efficiency in the Ecological Risk Assessment, ra ther than the toxicological properties of the

# 10 individual degradates. Attempts to quantify expo sure and effects for each of the many individual

degradates of cyflumetofen would produce consid erable uncertainty in the risk assessment.

Instead, a strategy was devised to estimate a maxi mum exposure to total cyflumetofen degradates

and show that even in the most conservative cas e with all of the potentia l degradates of concern

assumed to be the most toxic degradate that the degradates would not pose a risk individually or

as a group. Note that this strategy is applied to the aquatic portions of the risk assessment. Other

arguments are provided for the terrestrial portions of this assessment. This definition of the

degradates of concern for the Ecological Risk As sessment differs from the degradates of concern

in the drinking water assessment conducted for huma n health concerns by the Agency’s Health

Effects Division, which included only the pare nt and “AB” degradates (described in Section 3 ;

Negrón-Encarnación, 2013).

2.1.4 Overview of Pesticide Usage

Proposed uses of cyflumetofen include citrus, po me fruits, grapes, strawberries, tomatoes, tree

nuts, and ornamentals. Cyflumetofen is formul ated as a suspension concentrate and is proposed

to be applied via ground equipment. Aerial application is proposed only for tomatoes.

Application information is provided in Table 2-5 . Since this a new chemical, the Agency does

not have any usage information for cyflumetofe n. The assessment assumes one crop cycle per

year.

Table 2-5. Application Information fo r Proposed Uses of Cyflumetofen

Use Form. App. Method Max.

Single

App.

Rate

(lb a.i./A) Max.

Number of

App. Max. App.

Rate Per

Crop Cycle

or Year

(lb a.i./A) Min.

App.

Interval

(Days) PHI

(Days)

Citrus

Nealta TM



## miticide Ground 0.2 2/crop cycle 0.4 14 7

Grapes 0.2 2/crop cycle 0.4 14 14

Pome fruits 0.2 2/crop cycle 0.4 14 7

Strawberries 0.2 2/cr op cycle 0.4 14 1

Tree nuts 0.2 2/crop cycle 0.4 14 7

Tomatoes Aerial, ground 0. 2 2/crop cycle 0.4 14 3

Ornamentals a 

## Sultan TM



## miticide Ground 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 NA

App. = application; Form. = formulation; Max. = maximum; Min. = minimum; NA = not applicable; PHI =

Preharvest interval

a 

## annual and perennial herbaceous plants and woody trees and shrubs



# 2.2 Receptors: The Biological Entities Exposed to the Stressor

2.2.1 Effects to Aquatic a nd Terrestrial Organisms

Table 2-6 provides examples of taxonomic groups and sp ecies that are tested to help understand

potential ecological effects of pe sticides to non-target organisms. Within each of these very

broad taxonomic groups, a measure of effect from acute and/or chronic exposure is selected from

the available data.

Table 2-6. Taxonomic Groups and Test Species Evaluated for Ecological Effects in

Screening-Level Risk Assessments

# 11 Taxonomic Group Example(s) of Representative Species

Birds 1 

## Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos )

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus )

Mammals Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus )

Terrestrial invertebrates Honeybee ( Apis mellifera )

Freshwater fish 2 

## Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus )

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss )

Freshwater invertebrates Water flea ( Daphnia magna )

Estuarine/marine fish Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus )

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Mysid ( Americamysis bahia)

Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica )

Terrestrial plants 3 

## Monocots – corn ( Zea mays )

Dicots – soybean ( Glycine max )

Aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba )

Aquatic non-vascular plants Green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata )

Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa )

Marine diatom ( Skeletonema costatum )

Cyanobacterium ( Anabaena flos-aquae )

1 

## Birds serve as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.

2 

## Freshwater fish serve as surroga tes for aquatic-phase amphibians.

3 

## Four species of two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six species of at least four dicot families, of which

one is soybeans.



# 2.2.2 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems potentially at risk include aquatic and terrestrial ar eas adjacent to or downstream

from the application site. In addition, organisms that use the application site as part of their

habitat ( e.g., birds foraging for insects within application ar eas) are also consider ed to be part of

the ecosystems potentially at risk.

2.3 Assessment Endpoints

FIFRA Part 158 guideline toxicity tests (C FR 40 §158.630, 2009) are intended to determine

pesticide effects on a variety of organisms, incl uding birds, mammals, fish, terrestrial and aquatic

invertebrates, and plants. These tests include both short-term and long-term exposure periods

and evaluate the survival, reproduc tion, and/or growth of laborator y species. The studies, when

available, are used to evaluate the potential of a pesticide to cause adverse effects, to determine

whether further testing is required, and to determ ine the need for precautionary label statements

to minimize the potential adverse effects to non-target animals and plants (CFR 40 §158.630,

2009).

Assessment endpoints are intended to represent valued at tributes of the e nvironment that, if

detrimentally altered, could pose a risk to the environment. The assessment endpoints of this

ecological risk assessment include terrestrial a nd aquatic animal and plant mortality following

acute exposure to cyflumetofen and terrestria l and aquatic animal reproduction, growth and

survival effects from chronic exposure to cyflumet ofen. Surrogate species are used to represent

all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) spec ies in the United States. For mammals, acute

studies are usually limited to the Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) or the house mouse ( Mus

musculus ). Usually data from estuarine/marine tes ting are limited to a crustacean, a mollusk, and

a fish. The assessment of risk or hazard makes th e assumption that avian toxicity is similar to

# 12 terrestrial-phase amphibians and re ptiles, unless more a ppropriate data are available. The same

assumption is made for fish and aquatic-phase amphibians. The most sensitive toxicity

endpoints are used from surrogate test species to estimate treatment-related direct effects on

mortality and reproductive and gr owth assessment endpoints.

For terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants, the scre ening assessment endpoints for non-target species

(crops and non-crop plant species) are based on the emergence and growth of seedlings and

vegetative vigor of annuals. Measures of effect for this assessment focu s on alterations to plant

emergence and/or to active growth.

For aquatic plants, the assessment endpoint is th e maintenance and growth of standing crop or

biomass. Measures of effect for this assessment focus on non-vascular, e.g. , algae, and vascular

plant, e.g. , duckweed ( Lemna gibba ), growth rates and biomass measurements.

The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have th e potential to exert i ndirect effects upon listed

organisms by, for example, perturbing forage or pr ey availability, altering the extent of nesting

habitat, and creating gaps in th e food chain. In conducting a scr een for indirect effects, the

endpoints for each taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the potential for

indirect effects upon listed species that rely upon non-listed organisms as resources critical to

their life cycle.

The endpoints are typically derived from regi strant-submitted studies which have undergone

review and were classified as “acceptable” (c onducted under guideline conditions and considered

to be scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results

are considered to be scientifi cally valid). Additional details on EFED’s study classification

system and study guidelines can be found in the Agency’s Overview Document (USEPA, 2004).

Assessment endpoints can also be derived from the open literature. Toxicity data from the open

literature are identified via the ECOTOX 1 

# search engine which is maintained by the U.S. EPA

Office of Research and Development (ORD). To be included in the ECOTOX database, papers

must meet several criteria. Da ta that pass the ECOTOX screen ar e evaluated relative to the data

provided by the registrant and may be incorporated qualitatively or quantitatively into the risk

assessment after a formal review conducted in a ccordance with current guidelines for evaluating

ecological toxicity data in the open literature. 2 

# Specific studies may warrant inclusion in the

ecological risk assessment when:

 tested endpoints are more sensitive than those in registrant data;

 the test data are based on under-represented taxa; and/or

 the data include ecologically relevant endpoi nts not normally evaluated in registrant

studies

Although all endpoints are measured at the individual level, they can provide some insight about

the potential for adverse effects at highe r levels of biological organization ( e.g . populations and

1 

## USEPA 2011. Ecotoxicity database http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

2



## http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/policy_guidan ce/team_authors/endangered_s pecies_reregistration_work

group/esa_evaluation_open_literature.htm

# 13 communities). For example, pesticide effect s on individual survivorship have important

implications for both population rate s and habitat carrying capacity.

No cyflumetofen studies from the open literature were identified usi ng the public version of

ECOTOX 3



# .

2.4 Conceptual Model

2.4.1 Risk Hypothesis

The Agency presumes the following risk hypothesi s for this screening-level ecological risk

assessment:

Based on mode of action, the proposed use pattern s, and the sensitivity of non-target aquatic and

terrestrial species, the proposed uses of cyflu metofen have the potential to reduce survival,

reproduction, and/or growth in non-target te rrestrial and aquatic animals and plants through

direct application, spray drift and/or runoff. Thes e non-target organisms include Federally-listed

threatened and endangered species as well as non-listed species.

To pose an ecological risk, a chemical must r each non-target organisms at concentrations found

to cause adverse effects. The analysis of ecological exposure pathways in this assessment

includes an examination of the source and pot ential migration pathways of cyflumetofen

exposure and the determination of potential adverse effect s to non-target species.

2.4.2 Exposure Pathways of Concern

This screening-level ecological ri sk assessment considers potential exposure to cyflumetofen as a

result of direct application, spray drift, and runoff.

For terrestrial vertebrates, the major route of expo sure to cyflumetofen is considered to be via

dietary ingestion of food items such as seeds, plants, and/or animals th at have cyflumetofen

residues as a result of direct application, sp ray drift, and runoff. Exposure to parent

cyflumetofen through the consumption of drinki ng water alone is not considered a potential

concern for birds or mammals based on the results of EFED’s Screening Imbibition Program

(SIP v. 1.0) 4 

# using parent cyflumetofen’s solubility (0.0281 mg/L) and non- definitive endpoints

for mammalian and avian acute oral toxicity (rat and bobwhite quail LD 50 

# > 2000 mg/kg-bw,

MRIDs 48542669 and 48542772, respectively) and endpoi nts for mammalian and avian chronic

toxicity (rat NOAEC = 9.21 mg/kg-bw/da y, MRID 48542702; mallard NOAEC = 930 mg/kgdiet, MRID 48542778; bobwhite quail NOAE C = 154 mg/kg-diet, MRID 48542777; Appendix

A ). Exposure to terrestrial vertebrates th rough inhalation is considered unlikely given

cyflumetofen’s low vapor pressure and the result s of EFED’s Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

(STIR v. 1.0) 5 

# using conservative non-definitive endpoi nts for mammalian and avian acute oral

toxicity (LD 50 

# > 2000 mg/kg-bw) and a conservative non -definitive endpoint for mammalian

acute inhalation toxicity (LC 50 

# > 2.65 mg/L, MRID 48542672) ( Appendix B ).

3 

## Quick Database Query conducted on CAS number 400882-07-7 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

4 

## http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm#sip

5 

## http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm#stir

# 14 For terrestrial invertebrates, the major routes of exposure to cyflumetofen are considered to be

direct contact as a result of direct application and spray drift and dietary ingestion of

plants/pollen/nectar, animals, a nd/or soil that have cyflumetofen residues as a result of direct

application, spray drif t, and runoff.

For terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) non-targ et plants, the major routes of exposure to

cyflumetofen are considered to be direct contact as a result of direct application and spray drift

and root uptake via soil contamin ated via spray drift and runoff.

For aquatic animals, the major route of exposure to cyflumetofen is considered to be uptake via

the respiratory surface (gills) or the integum ent from surface water/sediment that has

cyflumetofen residues as a result of spray drif t, runoff, and leaching to groundwater from soil.

For aquatic plants, the major routes of exposure to cyflumetofen are considered to be uptake

from surface water/sediment containing cyflumetofen residues as a result of spray drift, runoff,

and leaching to groundwater from soil.

2.5 Analysis Plan

As with any pesticide, there is concern regarding the potential effects cyflumetofen use may pose

to non-target animals and plants. This docum ent characterizes the e nvironmental fate of

cyflumetofen to assess whether its use as propo sed on the label provides a means of exposure to

non-target species. Additionally, the toxicity of cyflumetofen is characterized. Then both

potential exposure and effects are integrated to estimate the likelihood of adverse effects (risk) to

non-target listed and non-listed anim als and plants that could poten tially affect the registration

decision of cyflumetofen under FIFRA, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the

Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2.5.1 Stressors of Concern

Cyflumetofen forms many degradates. Eleven of these degradates are considered degradates of

concern by EFED due to the presence of a cyano group (C ≡ N) and for some degradates,

similarity in structure to the parent molecule. Ten of the 11 degradates of concern are considered

to be major degradates (occurring as >10% ofthe applied radioactivity) in the registrantsubmitted fate studies. Only AB-12 was a minor degradate (<10% of the applied radioactivity).

Again as stated in Section 2.1.3, the purpose of identifying a large a nd inclusive list of

degradates of concern is to make the risk as sessment more efficient by addressing the maximum

possible exposure to degradates of potential con cern, comparing this exposure to the most toxic

degradate endpoints, and showing that the degr adates individually and as a group do not pose

risks to the environment.

2.5.1.1 Aquatic Assessment

For the aquatic exposure assessment, both cyflum etofen and its degradates of concern were

included in the risk assessment. Calculating exposure to the parent was accomplished using

standard EFED methods. However, estimating e xposure to the degradates is more challenging

# 15 and was accomplished by making conservative assumptions of the estimated environmental

concentrations (EECs) using a modified total to xic residue (TTR) approa ch. Typically in the

TTR approach, all of the degradates of concern are assumed as toxic as the parent . This

assumption is considered conservative (protect ive of the environment) for most chemicals

because structural changes in molecules as pesticid es degrade tend to result in chemicals that are

less toxic. Additionally, degrad ates are typically smaller and of ten more water soluble than the

parent molecule, which typically results in a mol ecule that is easier to excrete from target and

non-target organisms resulting in more limited exposure durations.

In the case of cyflumetofen and its degradates, the available toxicity data indicates that

cyflumetofen is more toxic than its degradates. However, toxicity data is only available for

selected degradates ( Section 5 ). In the modified TTR approach used in this assessment, all of

the degradates of concern are assumed to be as toxic as the most toxic degradate for which data

is available rather than as toxic as the parent. The modified TTR approach essentially treats the

parent and degradates of concern as a single chemical that 1) persists as lo ng as any of the parent

and degradates of concern persist in fate studie s; and 2) occurs at concentrations over time

commensurate with the sum of the concentrations of the parent and all degradates of concern at

each sampling date in the fate studies. The ch emicals included in the TTR approach include:

cyflumetofen, A-1, A-2, A-18, AB-1, AB-7, AB-11, AB-12, AB-15, AB-1 dimer (which is dimer

of two AB-1 molecules joined together), AU16 (which is dime r of two A-1 molecules joined

together), and AU17 (which is dimer of an A-1 and AB-1 molecules joined together). The TTR

half-lives are discussed in Section 3 . Structures of cyflumetofen and its degradates are presented

in Appendix Table C-1

.

This modified TTR approach is considered cons ervative (protective of environmental concerns)

because the EECs of the most toxic degradate is likely to be le ss than the TTR EECs ( i.e. , not all

of the TTR exposure is to that most toxic degradat e). Further, the potential of the degradates of

concern for which toxicity data is unavailable is discussed in terms of how much more toxic

would that degradate have to be than the most toxi c degradate for there to be an effect to aquatic

ecological listed and non-listed species.

2.5.1.2 Terrestrial Assessment

For the terrestrial exposure assessment, exposure is based on the parent cy flumetofen alone since

there is no defined process for including specifi c degradates in terres trial exposure estimates

using the current model ( i.e. , T-REX). Additionally, while cons ideration of degradates in the

terrestrial assessment would lengthen the window of exposure, it would not affect the resulting

RQs.

2.5.2 Measures of Exposure

To estimate risks to aquatic and terrestrial organisms from exposure to cyflumetofen, all

exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusions are made based on maximum application rates,

application methods, and any mitigation measures specifically indicated on the label. Models

used to predict estimated environmental concentrations (EEC s) of cyflumetofen are discussed on

# 16 OPP’s model website 6 

# and include: PRZM (P esticide R oot Z one M odel) and EXAMS (EX posure

A nalysis M odeling S ystem), T-REX, and TerrPlant.

2.5.2.1 PRZM and EXAMS

PRZM and EXAMS are simulation models coupled with the linkage program shell, PE5, which

incorporates the standard scenarios developed by EFED. The models ge nerate daily exposures

and calculate 1-in-10 year EECs that may occur in surface water bodies adjacent to application

sites. PRZM simulates pesticide fate and transpor t as a result of leaching, direct spray drift,

runoff and erosion from an agricultural field, and EXAMS estimates environmental fate and

transport of pesticides in a surface water body for a 30-year period. The standard scenarios used

for ecological pesticide assessments assume appli cation to a 10-hectare ag ricultural field that

drains into an adjacent 1-hectare wa ter body that is 2 meters deep (20,000 m 3 

# volume) with no

outlet. The combined models ( i.e. , PRZM/EXAMS) are designed to estimate pesticide

concentrations found in the water body (standard pond) at the edge of the treated field. As such,

they provide high-end values of the pesticide co ncentrations that might be found in ecologically

sensitive environments following pe sticide application. The locati on of the field is specific to

the crop being simulated using site-specific information on the soils, weather, cropping, and

management factors associated with the scenari o. The crop/location scenario is intended to

represent a high-end exposure site on which th e crop is normally grown. Based on historical

rainfall patterns, the receivi ng water body receives multiple runoff events during the years

simulated. Weather and agricultural practices ar e simulated for 30 years so that the 10-year

exceedance probability at the site can be estimat ed. The simulation is generated using 30 years

of meteorological data, typi cally, encompassing the years from 1961 to 1990. Additional

information on these models can be found at OPP’s model website 7



# .

2.5.2.2 T-REX

The T-REX model (v1.5.1; August 20, 2012), a Tier 1 model for sc reening-level assessments of

pesticides, is used to estimate terrestrial animal exposure values resulting from possible dietary

ingestion of cyflumetofen residues on vege tative matter and insects present on non-food and

food items from exposure to cyflumetofen. This model incorporates the Kenaga nomograph, as

modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The

upper limit values from the nomograph represent the 95 th 

# percentile of residue values from actual

field measurements (Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972) . In all screening-level assessments, the

organisms are assumed to consume 100% of th eir diet as one food type. The T-REX model

determines (1) EECs for different food items of birds and mammals, (2) risk to birds and

mammals via calculation of risk quotients (RQs), and (3) EECs ( i.e. , for tall grass) to evaluate

risk to terrestrial invertebra tes from dietary exposure.

2.5.2.3 TerrPlant

TerrPlant (v1.2.2; October 29, 2009), a Tier 1 m odel for screening-level assessments of

pesticides, is used to estimate exposure to terrestrial plants from single pesticide applications; the

model does not consider exposures to plants fr om multiple pesticide applications. TerrPlant

6 

## http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm

7 

## http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm

# 17 determines (1) EECs in runoff and in spray drift and (2) risk to non-liste d and listed species of

monocots and dicots inhabiting dry (upland) and semi-aquatic areas via calculation of RQs.

2.5.2.4 AgDRIFT

The AgDRIFT (v 2.1.1) model 8 

# is used to estimate spray drift from aerial and ground spray

applications. In addition, AgDRIFT is used to estimate buffer distances, i.e. , the distance offsite

where effects to non-target organisms are no long er expected, in cases where a proposed use of

cyflumetofen results in a LOC exceedance. The AgDRIFT spray drift model has undergone

thorough peer review and can be used to provide estimates of off-target spray drift deposition

from aerial and ground boom application met hods (USEPA 1997, 1999). Tier 1 AgDRIFT

conditions are used to estimate spray drift deposition from pesticide applications as allowed by

product labels.

2.5.2.5 KABAM

KABAM (K OW 

# (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model; v. 1.0; April 9, 2009 ) is used to

estimate potential bioaccumulati on of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic food

webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of contaminated aquatic prey.

KABAM is composed of two parts: 1) a bioaccumulation model estimating pesticide

concentrations in aquatic organisms and 2) a risk component translating exposure and

toxicological effects of a pesticide into ri sk estimates for mammals and birds consuming

contaminated aquatic prey. The bioaccumula tion portion of KABAM is based on an aquatic

food web bioaccumulation model published by Ar not and Gobas (2004). The bioaccumulation

portion of KABAM relies on a pesticide’s octanol-water partition coefficient (K OW 

# ) to estimate

uptake and elimination constants through respiration and diet of aquatic organisms in different

trophic levels. Pesticide tissue c oncentrations in aquatic organi sms are calculated for different

trophic levels of a food web thr ough diet and respiration. In the risk component of KABAM,

pesticide concentrations in aquatic organisms are used to estimate dose- and dietary-based

exposures and associated risk quotients for mamm als and birds consuming aquatic organisms.

2.5.3 Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies conducted

with a limited number of surrogate species or studies found in the open literature. The test

species are not intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather are selected

based on their ability to thrive under laborator y conditions. The acute measures of effect

routinely used for listed and non-listed animal s in screening level assessments are the LD 50 

# , LC 50



# or EC 50 

# , depending on taxon ( Table 2-6 ). LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD 50 

# is the amount

of a material ( e.g. , mg/kg-bw), given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of a

group of test organisms. LC stands for “Lethal Concentration”, and LC 50 

# is the concentration of

a chemical ( e.g. , mg/kg-diet; mg/L) that is estimated to kill 50% of a sa mple population. EC

stands for “Effective Concentration”, and the EC 50 

# is the concentration of a chemical that is

estimated to produce some measured effect ( e.g. , mortality; reduced grow th and/or reproduction)

in 50% of the test population. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non-

8 

## http://www.agdrift.com

# 18 listed organisms are the NOAEL or NOAEC. NOA EL stands for “No Observed-Adverse-EffectLevel” and refers to the highest tested dose ( e.g. , mg/kg-bw) of a subs tance that has been

reported to have no harmful (adverse) e ffects on a test population. The NOAEC ( i.e ., “NoObserved-Adverse-Effect-Concentration”) is the highest test concentration ( e.g. , mg/kg-diet;

mg/L) at which none of the observed results were statistically different from the control. For

non-listed plants, the Agency uses EC 25 

# (IC 25 

# ) for terrestrial plants and EC 50 

# (IC 50 

# ) for aquatic

plants; for listed plants, the Agency uses the EC 05 

# (IC 05 

# ) or NOAEC ( Table 2-7 ).

Table 2-7. Acute and Chronic Measures of Effect

Taxon Assessment Measure of Effect

Birds Acute/sub-acute Lowest LD 50 

## (single oral dose)/LC 50 

## (sub-acute dietary)

Chronic Lowest NOAEC (21-week reproduction)

Mammals Acute Lowest LD 50 

## (single oral dose)

Chronic Lowest NOAEC (two-generation reproduction)

Terrestrial invertebra tes Acute Lowest LD 50 

## (acute contact)

Terrestrial plants:

monocots and dicots Acute/chronic Non-listed : Lowest EC 25 

## (IC 25 

## ) (seedling emergence and

vegetative vigor)

Listed : EC 05 

## (IC 05 

## ) or NOAEC associated with the lowest EC 25 

## (IC 25 

## ) (seedling emergence and vegetative vigor)

Fish and aquatic

invertebrates Acute Lowest EC 50 

## or LC 50 

## (acute toxicity tests)

Chronic Lowest NOAEC (early life- stage or full life-cycle tests)

Aquatic plants:

vascular and non-vascular Acute/chronic Non-listed : Lowest EC 50 

## (IC 50 

## )

Listed : EC 05 

## (IC 05 

## ) or NOAEC associated with the lowest EC 50



# Where available, sublethal effects observed in both registrant-submitted and open literature

studies will be evaluated qualit atively. Such effects may include behavioral changes ( e.g.

, lethargy and changes in coloration). However, qua ntitative assessments of risks are limited to

those endpoints that can be directly linked to the Agency’s assessment endpoints of impaired

survival, growth, and reproduction.

Information on the potential effect s of cyflumetofen to non-target organisms is also collected

from reviews of incidents associat ed with the use of cyflumetofen.

The assessment of risk for direct effects to non- target organisms makes the assumption that the

toxicity of cyflumetofen to bi rds is similar to terrestrial-pha se amphibians and reptiles. The

same assumption is made for the relationship between fish and aquatic-phase amphibians.

2.5.4 Integration of Exposure and Effects

Risk characterization is the inte gration of exposure and ecological effect characterizations to

determine the potential ecological risk from the us e of cyflumetofen and th e likelihood of direct

and indirect effects to non-target organisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and

effects data are integrated to evaluate potential adverse ecologi cal effects on non-target species.

The risk quotient (RQ) method will be used to compare estimated exposure and measured

toxicity values. Acute and chronic EECs will be divided by acute and chronic toxicity values.

The resulting, unitless RQs will then be compared to the Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOC)

(USEPA, 2004). As outlined in the Overview Document (U SEPA, 2004), the likelihood of

effects to individual organisms fr om particular uses of a chemi cal may also be estimated using

the probit dose-response slope and ei ther the LOC or the actual cal culated risk quotient value.

# 19 Collectively, these methods are used to indicate when cyflumetofen’s use, as directed on the

labels, has the potential to cause adverse direct or indirect effects to non -target organisms.

2.5.5 Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the

Agency evaluates risks to Federally-listed threat ened and/or endangered (listed) species from

registered uses of cyflumetofen. This assessm ent is conducted in accordance with the Overview

Document (USEPA, 2004), provisions of the Enda ngered Species Act (ESA), and the Services’

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998).

The assessment of effects associated with the re gistration of cyflumetofen is based on an action

area. The action area is considered to be the area direc tly or indirectly a ffected by the federal

action, as indicated by the exceedance of Agency LO Cs used to evaluate direct or indirect

effects. The Agency’s approach to defining the action area under the provisions of the Overview

Document (USEPA, 2004) considers the results of the risk assessment process to establish

boundaries for that action area with the understa nding that exposures below the Agency’s

defined LOCs constitute a no-effect threshold. For the purposes of this assessment, attention is

focused on the footprint of the action ( i.e ., the area where cyflumetofen application occurs) and

all areas where offsite transport ( i.e ., spray drift, runoff, etc .) may result in potential exposure

that exceeds the Agency’s LOCs. Specific measur es of ecological effect that define the action

area for listed species include any direct and indi rect effects and/or poten tial modification of its

critical habitat, including reduction in survival , growth, and reproduction as well as the full suite

of sublethal effects available in the effects litera ture. Therefore, the action area extends to a

point where environmental exposures are below any measured lethal or subl ethal effect threshold

for any biological entity at the whole organism, organ, tissue, and cellular level of organization.

In situations where it is not possible to determin e the threshold for an observed effect, the action

area is assumed to encompass the entire United States.

2.5.6 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Dr ug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA reviews

numerous studies to assess pot ential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals.

Collectively, these studies include acute, subchr onic and chronic toxicity , including assessments

of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity.

These studies include endpoints which may be su sceptible to endocrine influence, including

effects on endocrine target or gan histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual

maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductiv e loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For

ecological hazard assessments, EP A evaluates acute tests and chr onic studies that assess growth,

developmental and reproductive effects in differe nt taxonomic groups and reviews these data and

selects the most sensitive endpoi nts for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing

hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA s ection 408(p), cyflumetofen is subject to the

endocrine screening part of the Endocri ne Disruptor Screen ing Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whet her certain substances (including pesticide

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or ot her such endocrine effect s as the Administrator

# 20 may designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making th e statutorily required

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 scr eening assays to identify the potential of a

chemical substance to interact with the estrog en, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal

systems. Chemicals that go th rough Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stag e of the EDSP where EPA

will determine which, if any, of th e Tier 2 tests are necessary base d on the available data. Tier 2

testing is designed to identify a ny adverse endocrine-related eff ects caused by the substance, and

establish a dose-response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must sc reen all pesticide chemicals for endocrine

effects. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the

first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert

ingredients. For additional in formation on the EDSP program, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

2.6 Data Gaps

Submission of data to eliminate data gaps w ould reduce uncertainties in the ecological risk

assessment. Data gaps have been assigned either a low or high potential to add value to the

ecological risk assessment. While still consider ed data gaps according to 40 CFR Part 158, data

from low potential studies are unlikely to cha nge risk conclusions, and alternate methods and

weight of evidence can be used in the absence of data. In contrast, data from high potential

studies are likely to impact risk conclusions and allow the Agency to be better able to

characterize potential risks by eliminating uncertain ties for both non-listed and listed species that

cannot be accounted for using alternate methods or weight of evidence.

2.6.1 Environmental fate

Table 2-8 provides environmental fate studies by MR ID that offer data for each guideline

requirement as well as study classi fications and whether or not furt her data are needed to support

the ecological risk assessment ( i.e. , whether there is a data gap).

Table 2-8. Environmental Fate Data for Cyflumetofen and Remaining Data Gaps

Guideline Description MRID (parent unless

otherwise specified) Classification Data

Gap? Comments

835.2120

161-1 Hydrolysis 48542624

48542625 Supplemental

Acceptable No MRID 48542624 did

not identify/quantify

degradates.

835.2240

161-2 Photodegradation in Water 48542627 Acceptable No

835.2410

161-3 Photodegradation in Soil 48542750 (A-label)

48542751 (B-label) Acceptable

Acceptable No

835.4100

162-1 Aerobic

Soil Metabolism - parent 48542745

48542748

48542752 Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable No Of the 8 soils

studied, only 2 used

an A-label.

Aerobic

Soil Metabolism -

degradate 48542754 (B-1)

48542755 (AB-1)

48542756 (B-3) Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental No Did not identify/

quantify degradates.

Not radio-labeled.

# 21 Guideline Description MRID (parent unless

otherwise specified) Classification Data

Gap? Comments

835.4200

162-2 Anaerobic

Soil Metabolism 48542749 Acceptable No

835.4300

162-4 Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 48542768

48542770

48542771 Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable No

835.4400

162-3 Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 48542769 Acceptable No

835.1230

163-1 Sediment and soil

Adsorption/ Desorption 48542759 (parent)

48542760 (B-1)

48542761 (AB-1)

48542762 (B-3)

48542763 (B-1, B-3, and A-2)

48542786 (AB-1 dimer) Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental No Did not use Agency

approved methods.

835.1240

163-1 Soil column leaching 48542764 (B-1)

48542765 (B-1) Supplemental

Supplemental No Not required

835.6100

164-1 Terrestrial Field

Dissipation 48542757 Not classified

yet In

review Storage stability

study is not finished.

Preliminary results

show parent not

stable for as long as

samples stored

before analysis.

850.6100 Analytical Method - Soil 48542828 (parent, A-2, B-3,

B-1, and AB-1 dimer)

48542647 (parent, A-2, B-3,

B-1, and AB-1 dimer) Acceptable

Acceptable No

850.6100

Analytical Method - Water 48542650 (parent)

48542651 (B-1)

48542652 (B-3) Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable No

850.6100 Analytical MethodSediment 48542657 (AB-1) Acceptable No

850.1730

165-4 Accumulation in fish 48542785 Acceptable No Did not identify/

quantify degradates.



# Because there were no aquatic risk s identified in this assessment, there are no fate related studies

that would have a high potential to affect the ecological risk assessment for cyflumetofen.

Data from the following fate guideline studies are considered to have low potential to add value

to the ecological risk assessment for cyflumetofen:

Guideline 835.1240 – Soil Column Leaching of Parent: Cyflumetofen has hydrophobic

characteristics and is unlikely to persist long in wet aerobic/anaerobic en vironments. Therefore,

it is unlikely that the parent will leach in substantial quantities.

Guideline 835.6100 – Terrestrial Field Dissipation: The 2-year storage stability is incomplete

but interim reports appear to show that cyflum etofen cannot be stored for long in frozen soil

# 22 samples without degradation. Therefore, it is likel y that the study will need to be repeated, but a

non-radiolabeled field study cannot address the unextracted residue issue using the current

analytical methods. If an analytical method using harsher extraction methods was shown to

greatly reduce unextracted residu es, it would be more useful to repeat the terrestrial field

dissipation study with the harsher extraction methods.

2.6.2 Ecological Effects

Table 2-9 provides ecological effects studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline

requirement as well as study classi fications and whether or not furt her data are needed to support

the ecological risk assessment ( i.e. , whether there is a data gap).

Table 2-9. Ecological Effects Data for Cyflumetofen and Remaining Data Gaps

Guideline Description MRID (parent unless

otherwise specified) Classification Data

Gap? Potential for

Additional Data

to Add Value

850.1010 Acute toxicity

freshwater invertebrates 48542789

48542790 (A-2)

48542787 (B-1)

48542788 (B-2)

48542921 (form.) Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental No NA

850.1025

850.1055 Acute toxicity

estuarine/marine mollusk 48542810 Acceptable No NA

850.1035

850.1045 Acute toxicity

estuarine/marine invertebrate 48542711 Acceptable No NA

850.1075 Acute toxicity freshwater fish

(cold water species) 48542779

48542780 (form.) Acceptable

Supplemental No NA

Acute toxicity freshwater fish

(warm water species) 48542780

48542782 (A-2)

48542781 (B-1) Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable No NA

Acute toxicity

estuarine/marine fish 48542812 Acceptable No NA

850.1300 Aquatic invertebrate life

cycle (freshwater) 48542791 Acceptable No NA

850.1350 Aquatic invertebrate life

cycle (saltwater) -- -- Yes Low

850.1400 Fish early life stage

(freshwater) 48542783 Supplemental Yes Low

Fish early life stage

(saltwater) -- -- Yes Low

850.1740 Whole sediment: acute

marine invertebrates 48542798 Acceptable No NA

Whole sediment: chronic

freshwater invertebrates 48542802

48542801 (AB-1)

48542803 (AB-1 dimer) Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable No NA

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity (upland

game or waterfowl species) 48542772

48542773 Acceptable No NA

# 23 Guideline Description MRID (parent unless

otherwise specified) Classification Data

Gap? Potential for

Additional Data

to Add Value

Avian oral toxicity

(passerine species) 48542774 Acceptable No NA

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity

(upland game species) 48542775 Acceptable No NA

Avian dietary toxicity

(waterfowl species) 48542776 Acceptable No NA

850.2300 Avian reproduction

(upland game species) 48542777 Acceptable No NA

Avian reproduction

(waterfowl species) 48542778 Acceptable No NA

850.3020 Honeybee acute contact

toxicity 48542805 Acceptable No NA

850.4100 Seedling emergence

(terrestrial plants) 48542933 Supplemental Yes High

850.4150 Vegetative vigor

(terrestrial plants) 48542932 Acceptable No NA

850.4400 Aquatic plant growth

(aquatic vascular plant

toxicity) 48542804 Acceptable No NA

850.4500 Aquatic plant growth

(aquatic non-vascular plant:

algal toxicity) 48542792

48542793

48542795

48542796 (AB-11)

48542797 (B-1)

48542922 (form.) Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental No NA

850.4550 Aquatic plant growth

(aquatic non-vascular plant:

cyanobacteria toxicity) 48542794 Acceptable No NA

form. = formulation; NA = not applicable; FW = freshwater; SW = saltwater



# Data from the following guideline st udies are considered to have high potential to add value to

the ecological risk assessment for cyflumetofen:

Guideline 850.4100 – Seedling Em ergence and Seedling Growth: Acceptable seedling

emergence data are not available. The submitted seedling emergence study (MRID 48542933)

was classified as Supplemental because for the most sensitive monocot – oat, dry weight and

shoot length of the lowest treatment group ( i.e. , 0.000706 lb a.i./A) were significantly reduced

( i.e. , 33.2 and 27.3 %, respectively) when compared to the control group resulting in the lack of a

NOAEC for monocots. In addition, an EC 25 

# for monocots could not be determined because the

oat endpoints of dry weight and shoot length di splayed an atypical co ncentration-response

relationship leading to issues with model convergence (see Figure 5-1 ). A continuation, Tier II

test with oat is necessary to reduce uncertainty in characterizing risk to listed and non-listed

monocots and is considered to have a high pot ential to add value to the ecological risk

assessment.

# 24 Data from the following guideline st udies are considered to have low potential to add value to

the ecological risk assessment for cyflumetofen:

Guideline 850.1350 – Mysid Chronic Toxicity Test: Aquatic invertebrate life cycle toxicity

data for an estuarine/marine invertebrate are required under 40 CFR Part 158 if the product is

expected to enter the environment in significant concentrations because of its expected use or

mobility patterns. No studies have been submitted for this data requirement. Given that there is

no evidence to indicate that estuarine/marine animals are substantially more sensitive to

cyflumetofen than freshwater animals, fulfilling this data requirement has a low potential to add

value to the ecological risk assessm ent. In the absence of these data, toxicity to estuarine/marine

invertebrates from chronic exposure to cyflumetofen will be characterized using toxicity data for

freshwater invertebrates ( e.g.

, Daphnia ).

Guideline 850.1400 – Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Test, freshwater: Acceptable early life

stage toxicity data are not available for a freshwater fish. The submitted freshwater fish early

life stage study was classified as supplemental because the high:low ratio and percent coefficient

of variation for measured test concentrations were 2.1 and 27%, respectively, exceeding the 1.5

and 20% maxima for acceptable variability in aquatic studies (MRID 48542783). Since

repeating this study is likely to yi eld the same variability with re spect to exposure concentrations

due to the rapid hydrolysis of cyflumetofen in aqueous environments, fulfilling this data

requirement has a low potential to add value to the ecological risk assessment. In the absence of

these data, toxicity to freshwater fish from chronic exposure to cyflumetofen will be

characterized using the NOAEC (= 31.6 μg/L) from the submitted study (MRID 48542783) and

acknowledging the associated uncertainty.

Guideline 850.1400 – Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Test, estuarine/marine: Early life stage

toxicity data for an estuarine/marine fish ar e required under 40 CFR Part 158 if the product is

expected to enter the environment in significant concentrations because of its expected use or

mobility patterns. No studies have been submitted for this data requirement. Given that there is

no evidence to indicate that estuarine/marine animals are substantially more sensitive to

cyflumetofen than freshwater animals, fulfilling this data requirement has a low potential to add

value to the ecological risk assessm ent. In the absence of these data, toxicity to estuarine/marine

fish from chronic exposure to cyflumetofen will be characte rized using toxicity data for

freshwater fish.



# 3 Fate and Transport Characterization

Cyflumetofen is not persistent in the environment and rapidly c onverts to degradates via abiotic

hydrolysis reactions (DT 50 

# = 9.75 hours at pH 7) and biotic reactions with (DT 50 

# of less than 22

days). Many of the degradates ( e.g. , A-2, A-18, AB-1, and B-1) are much more persistent than

the parent. Maximum formation fractions and li mited chemical property and mobility data for

the degradates identified in cyflum etofen fate studies appear in Appendix Table C-1 , and

transformation pathways are depicted in Appendix Figures C-1 through C-5 for abiotic

hydrolysis, aquatic photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, aerobic aquatic metabolism, and

anaerobic aquatic metabolism, respectively.

# 25 Cyflumetofen has two rings, both of which were ra dio-labeled in fate studies. The phenyl ring

label (see cyflumetofen structure in Figure 3-1 for location) is referred to as the A label, and the

tolyl ring label is referred to as the B label. These label designations were used in naming the

cyflumetofen degradates. Degrad ates that retain only the A la bel (phenyl ring) typically are

named with the prefix “A”, whereas degradates that retain only the B label (tolyl ring) typically

are named with the prefix “B”. Degradates that retain both rings are named with the prefix

“AB”.

Figure 3-1. Cyflumetofen chemical structu re with A and B rings denoted and bonds

identified that are important in the initial de gradation of the molecule through most fate

pathways.

There are two bonds that readily break (denoted in Figure 3-1 ) in all of the fate studies involving

water other than photolysis ( i.e. , hydrolysis, aerobic and anaerobi c soil and aquatic metabolism,

and terrestrial field dissipation studi es). If the bond denoted 1 in Figure 3-1 breaks, the A and B

degradates are formed. If the bond denoted 2 in Figure 3-1 breaks (or less typically, some other

bond on the same unlabeled side chain) , the AB degradates are formed.

“B” degradates ( i.e., tolyl ring degradates; B-1 and B-3) are water soluble (range: 363.3 – 13,000

mg/L), have low estimated Koc’s (range: 79 – 121.5 L/kg-organic carbon) , and lack the cyano

group (C ≡ N) of the parent. “A” degradates ( i.e., phenyl ring degradates ; A-1, A-2, A-12, and A18) are also water soluble (ra nge: 28.94 – 201.8 mg/L) and have low estimated Koc’s (range:

113.7 – 1200 L/kg-organic carbon), but most (A-1, A-2, and A-18) retain the cyano group of the

parent. The “AB” degradates (AB-1, AB- 7, AB-11, AB-15, and AB-12) have low water

solubility (range: 0.01 – 0.142 mg/L), high estimated Koc’s (range: 10,400 – 85,630 L/kgorganic carbon), and retain th e cyano group of the parent.

Some of the degradates that have a cyano gr oup (A-1 and AB-1) formed dimers in the fate

studies (AB-1 Dimer, AU16, and AU17). The dime rs are formed by two molecules with cyano

groups bonding together (2 only) at the carbon to which the cyano group is attached in each

molecule (the carbon atom located between the 1 and 2 bonds in Figure 3-1 ). It is not clear

whether these dimers would actually form in the environment or simply form during the sample

extraction process. These dimers are predicte d (EpiSuite v4.10) to have extremely low water

solubility (range: 4×10 -10 

# – 7×10 -3 

# mg/L) and high Koc’s (range: 50,600 – 1.6×10 8 

# L/kg-organic

carbon). CF 3 O

NC

O O

O 

# A

B

1 2

# 26 For comparison, cyflumetofen has a comparativel y low water solubility of 0.0277 mg/L at 20oC

(MRID 48542621) and Koc of 131,826 L/kg-organic carbon. Only degradates AB-11, AB-12,

AB-1 dimer, AU16 (dimer), and AU17 (dimer) ar e predicted to have lower water solubilities

than the parent. Similarly, only degradates AB -12, AB-1 dimer, and AU17 (dimer) are predicted

to have higher Kocs than the parent. Therefore, the vast majority of the degradates are expected

to be more mobile than the parent. (All degradat e data on solubility and Koc data were estimated

using EpiSuite v4.10 an d are included in Appendix Table C-1 . For purposes of consistency

with the estimated degradate data provided, the wa ter solubility and Koc values reported in this

paragraph and Appendix Table C-1 are also EpiSuite estimates. The text following this point in

the document is based on registrant-submitted cyflumetofen fate studies.)

3.1 Degradation

3.1.1 Hydrolysis

Cyflumetofen’s hydrolytic degradation appears to be pH dependent, with degradation rate

increasing (half-life time [DT 50 

# ] decreasing) and with increasing pH. The DT 50 

# values decrease

from 7.42 days at pH 4, to 6.16 days at pH 5, to 0.406 days (~9.7 hours) at pH 7, to 0.00518 days

(~7.5 minutes) at pH 9 (T = 25oC; average of both labels, MRID 48542625). Hydrolytic

degradation in the A-labeled studies yielded: A-1, A-18, A-2, and AB-1 ( Appendix Figure C-1 ).

All of the A-labeled hydrolysis de gradates retain a cyano-group and therefore, are of concern.

Therefore in terms of TTR half-lif e calculation, cyflumetofen is st able to hydrolysis since it only

produces degradates of concern ( Appendix Table D-1 ). Hydrolytic degrad ation in the B-labeled

studies yielded: AB-1 and B-1. (Notice, the production of B-1 which does not have a cyanogroup in the B-label study does not indicate that the TTR half- life should not be considered

stable since it results in the produc tion of A-1. A-1 just does not show up in the B-label studies.)

A second study (MRID 48542624), measured hydrolysis rates at 3 temperatures (20, 25, and

40oC) and three pHs (4, 7, and 9). (No degradates were identified or quantified in this study.) At

25oC, the results were similar (9.25 days at pH 4, 5 hours at pH 7, and 12 minutes at pH 9).

3.1.2 Aquatic Photolysis

The aqueous photolysis study shows a photo transfor mation half-life in distilled water of about

1.2 hours or 0.0511 days (T = 25oC; average of both labels, MRID 48542627). This same study

provides a similar estimate of 0.04 days natural water at 25oC (avera ge of both labels).

Degradates produced included degradates of concern (A-1, A-18, A-2, AB-1, AB-6, AB-7, and

AB-15) and degradates not of concern (A-14, A-12, and B-1) ( Appendix Figure C-2 ). The TTR

half-life in distilled water is 17.6 days ( Appendix Table D-1 ).

3.1.3 Soil photolysis

Soil photolysis studies were conducted for the parent, cyflumetofen, with a DT 50 

# value of 4.9

days (A-label, MRID 48542750) and 5.9 days (B -label, MRID 48542751). Degradates produced

included degradates of concern (AB-8, AB-11, a nd AB-12) and degradates not of concern (AB13 and B-1). Maximum occurrence of unextr acted residues ranged from 25.5 to 47.7% of

applied radioactivity. The highest unextracte d residue value came from the A-labeled soil,

# 27 possibly indicating some contribution from an A-la beled chemical that would not show up in the

B-labeled studies (~22% more in A- than B-labels from the same soil). The TTR half-life from

the A-label study is 68.5 days ( Appendix Table D-1 ).

3.1.4 Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Aerobic soil metabolism DT 50 

# values from eight soils were available from registrant-submitted

studies for the parent, cyflumetofen, with ha lf-lives ranging from 2.24 to 13.3 days (MRIDs

48542745, 48542748, and 48542752). However, only two of th ese soils were studied with an Alabel radio-tracer. Degradates produced included degradates of concern (A-1, A-2, AB-1, AU17,

and AB-1 dimer) and degradates not of concern (B-1, B-3, and A-12) ( Appendix Figure C-3 ).

Maximum occurrence of unextracted residue s ranged from 21.6 to 43.4% of applied

radioactivity. The highest unext racted residue value came from the A-labeled soil, possibly

indicating some contribution from an A-labeled chemical that would not show up in the Blabeled studies (~8-10% more in A- than B-labels from the same soil). The TTR half-lives from

the A-label studies are 64.1 and 846 days ( Appendix Table D-1 ).

Aerobic soil metabolism studies using non-radiolabel ed material were conducted for three of the

degradates of cyflumetofen. Because non-radi olabeled material was used, no estimate of

unextractable residues can be ma de. Additionally, no degradates we re identified in these studies.

The degradate B-1 was studied in three European soils yielding degradation curves that roughly

approximated first-order degrad ation kinetics with half- lives of 4.98, 16.8, and 36.3 days

( Appendix Table D-2 – separate from the parent degradation graphs in Appendix Table D-1 ).

Similarly, B-3 yielded degradation curves that roughly approximated first-order degradation

kinetics with half-lives of 6.32, 9.56, and 8.46 days. Both of these chemicals (B-1 and B-3) have

relatively similar structures, are expected to be hydrophilic (see EpiSuite estimated water

solubilities and Kocs in Appendix Table C-1 ), and seem to behave very similarly in terms of

aerobic soil degradation (sim ilar half-lives and shape of the degradation curve).

Degradate AB-1 (non-radiolabeled) was also stud ied in three European soils, yielded radically

different degradation curves from those of B-1 and B-3. The AB-1 degradation curves initially

dropped steeply to 14%, 13%, and 11% of applied radioactivity at their 24 hour sampling. These

degradation curves then flattene d-out to yield an almost linear decline for the remaining 119 days

of the studies for final measurements at 120 days of 8%, 6%, and 3% of applied radioactivity.

AB-1 is expected to be hydrophobic.

The Agency’s interpretation of these AB-1 studies is the initial decline is likely due to the

formation of unextractable resi dues and potentially, formation of dimers, rather than rapid

degradation to simpler molecules. In the radio- labeled aerobic soil metabolism studies, AB-1 was

a major degradate that persisted to the end of the studies. Poten tially, AB-1 may persist in soil

and sediment in some form of equilibrium with soil water or overlying and pore water in aquatic

systems. Additional data from longer-term (at le ast 1 year duration) radio-labeled studies using

more rigorous extraction methods (optimized to extract AB-1 and its degradates) would be

beneficial in understanding th e fate of this degradate.

3.1.5 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism

# 28 Anaerobic soil metabolism DT 50 

# values from four soils were available from registrant-submitted

studies for the parent, cyflumetofen, with half-lives ranging from 1.78 to 10.4 days (MRID

48542749). However, only one of these soils wa s studied with an A-label radio-tracer.

Degradates produced included degradates of concern (A-1, A-2, AB-1, and AB-1 dimer) and

degradates not of concern (B-1, B-3, and A-12) . Maximum occurrence of unextracted residues

ranged from 16.3 to 32.4% of applied radioactivit y. The highest unextracted residue value came

from the A-labeled soil, possibly indicating some contribution from an A-labeled chemical that

would not show up in the B-labele d studies (~10% more in A- than B-labels from the same soil).

The TTR half-life from the A-label study is 264 days ( Appendix Table D-1 ).

3.1.6 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

Aerobic aquatic metabolism DT 50 

# values from four systems we re available from registrantsubmitted studies for the parent, cyflumetofen, with half-lives ranging from 0.3 to 21.4 days

(MRIDs 48542768, 48542770, and 48542771). All of these systems were studied with both Aand B-label radio-tracers. Degradates produced included degradates of concern (A-1, A-2, AB1, and AB-1 dimer) and degradates not of concern (B-1, B-3, and A-12) ( Appendix Figure C-4 ).

Maximum occurrence of unextracted residues ranged from 14 to 44.2% of applied radioactivity.

The highest unextracted residue values came from A-labeled soils, probably indicating some

contribution from an A-labeled ch emical that would not show up in the B-labeled studies (~2.7 -

20% more in A- than B-labels from the same so il). The TTR half-lives from the A-label studies

range from 16.4 to 149 days ( Appendix Table D-1 ).

3.1.7 Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism DT 50 

# values from two systems were available from registrantsubmitted studies for the parent, cyflumetofen, with half-lives ranging from 4.76 to 21.5 days

(MRID 48542769). All of these systems were studied with both A- and B-label radio-tracers.

Degradates produced included degradates of co ncern (A-2 and AB-1) and degradates not of

concern (B-1 and A-12) ( Appendix Figure C-5 ). Maximum occurrence in each system of

unextracted residues ranged from 4.1 to 12.1% of applied radio activity. However, unlike the

other metabolism studies, there was no difference in unextracted residues in terms of percent

applied radioactivity in one system (Pennsylvani a), whereas the other system (Florida) had the

highest unextracted residue values in the B-labeled samples (~8% more in B- than A-labeled

samples from the Florida soil). The TTR half-lives from the A-label studies range from 3780

(Pennsylvania) to 31,300 (Florida) days ( Appendix Table D-1 ).

3.2 Mobility

3.2.1 Volatility

Cyflumetofen appears to be non-volatile. This is supported by its water solubility (0.0277 mg/L

at 20oC; MRID 48542621) and low vapor pressure (< 4.43 × 10 -8 

# torr at 25oC; MRID 48542611)

and Henry’s Law constant (< 9.3 × 10 -7 

# Pa*m 3 

# /mol at 20oC; MRID 48542612).

3.2.2 Adsorption/desorption – Parent

# 29 The organic carbon normalized soil adsorp tion coefficient (Koc) of OK-5101 pure was

determined by an HPLC method. Phenol, 4-met hylbenzamide, methylbenzoate, naphthalene,

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene, fenthion, phenanthrene and p,p-DDT were used for the calibration

standards. The organic carbon normalized soil adsorption coefficient (Koc) of OK-5101 pure

was calculated to be 131,826 L/kg

oc 

# (MRID 48542759).

3.2.3 Adsorption/desorption – Degradates

The adsorption behavior of B-1 to soil was studi ed in three soils using the batch equilibrium

method: Speyer 2.2 soil (2.29% organic carbon (OC), loamy sand), Speyer 2.3 soil (1.02% OC,

sandy loam) and Speyer 6S soil (1.9% OC, sandy cl ay). Adsorption isotherms were determined

over a concentration range of 0.1-5 mg/L. Based on the kinetics experiment, B-1 hardly adsorbs

to the soil. Therefore, the equilibrium time could not be determined accurately. B-1 adsorbs

only very weakly to soil and can be considered highly mobile (MRID 48542760).

AB-1 in soils was studied in the same three so ils. At a soil:soluti on ratio of only 1:200 the

percentage adsorption was ≥ 87% in Speyer 2.2 and Speyer 2 3 soils and ≥ 30% in Speyer 6S soil.

Given the strong adsorption of AB-1 to soil even at a very low soil:solution ratio and the low

water solubility (0.0277 mg/L) in combination w ith the limit of quantif ication of 0.005 mg/L,

isotherms could not be determined. Instead, the adsorption coefficient was determined in

duplicate for each soil at soil solution ratios of 1:100 and 1:200. Based on the resulting Kom

values ( ≥ 2.6 x 10 3 

# ml/g) AB-1 should be considered immobile (MRID 48542761).

B-3 in soils was studied in the same three soils. Adsorption of B-3 on so il could be described by

Freundlich adsorption isotherms. K foc 

# values were 11.726 (Speyer 2.2), 12.202 (Speyer 6S), and

16.863 L/kg (Speyer 2.3) for a mean of 13.597 and 1/n values were 0.874, 0.959 and 1.039,

respectively (mean 0.957) (MRID 48542762).

The adsorption/desorption behavior of the radiolab eled metabolites of cyflumetofen B-1, B-3 and

A-2 was investigated on different US and European soils. The si x soils covered a range of pH

from 5.8 to 8.1, a range of organic carbon cont ent from 0.28% to 3.84% and four different

USDA textural classes: Silty Clay Loam, Loam, Loamy sand and Sandy Loam. The average

adsorption Koc was 4.4, 22.8, and 865 for B-1, B-3 and A-2, respectively (MRID 48542763).

The adsorption/desorption potential of the AB-1 di mer was investigated in four US soils, which

included sandy loam, clay loam, sand, and loam and one German sandy loam soil. The soils

covered a range of pH from 6.1 to 8.1 and a ra nge of organic carbon content from 0.08 to 2.26.

The adsorption coefficients Kd and Koc were estimated using 1 c oncentration level (0.28

ng/mL). The estimated Kd values for all th e test soils ranged from 237.47 to 4341.91 L/kg. The

adsorption coefficient, Koc, derived from th e Kd values for the test soils was > 103,000 L/kg,

indicating that the test substan ce AB-1 dimer is immobile in the test soils. The Koc value was

also estimated by the HPLC method to be 8,315,788 L/kg.

3.3 Field Studies

The interpretation of the terr estrial field dissipation st udies (MRID 48542757) awaits the

completion of the storage stab ility study (interim report is MRID 48542829). Some of the

# 30 terrestrial field dissipation samples were held u nder frozen conditions for 2 years. The interim

report indicates that the parent cyflumetofen does not appear to be stable under the frozen

storage conditions used in the study. This lack of stability of the parent would likely reduce the

concentrations of the parent chemical measured at each time point and potentially enhance the

concentration of degradates at each time point. It appears likely that the terrestrial field

dissipation study may need to be repeated.

3.4 Bioconcentration

The measured BCF is approximately 200× in w hole fish (other tissues were not measured

separately) based on TRR (total radioactive residues). The BCF study is somewhat problematic

in that the TRR was still increasing at the e nd of the accumulation phase. The identity of

radioactivity measured in the BCF study was not determined in the fish BCF study. Therefore, it

is unknown whether it is parent, de gradate(s), or some combinati on of parent and degradate(s)

that is accumulating in the fish. However, the rate of accumulation appears to slow over the 21

day accumulation phase with concentrations on ly doubling from day 1 (approximately 100×) to

day 21 (approximately 200×) (MRID 48542785).



# 4 Exposure Assessment

4.1 Terrestrial Exposure

4.1.1 Birds, Mammals, and Terrestrial Invertebrates

Input parameters for T-REX 9 

# ( Table 4-1 ) include a maximum application rate, number of

applications, application interval, a default EF ED foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days, and

definitive toxicity endpoints for birds and mammals.

Table 4-1. Input Parameters for T-REX Modeling Scenarios

Use Maximum

Single

Application

Rate

(lb a.i./A) Maximum

Number of

Applications

(Minimum

Application

Interval, Days) Other Parameters 1



## Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals 0.2 2 (14) Foliar dissipation half-life = 35 days (default)

Avian NOAEC = 154 mg a.i./kg-diet

(bobwhite quail; MRID 48542777)

Mammalian NOAEC = 150 mg/kg-diet (9.21 mg/kg-bw)

(rat; MRID 48542702)

1 

## Avian acute oral, avian sub-acute dietary, and mammalian acute oral endpoints are non-definitive ( i.e. , >) and are

thus not included in this table because they cannot be used to calculate RQs.

9 

## http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm#trex

# 31 Results of T-REX modeling of cyflumetofen resi due levels on dietary food items of mammals

and birds are provided in Tables 4-2

, 4-3 , and 4-4 . Results include dietary-based values ( i.e

., mg/kg-food item) and dose-based values ( i.e. , mg/kg-bw).

Table 4-2. Avian Dose-Based (mg/kg-bw) Es timated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) a



## Use Feeding Category Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) b



## Small

(20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals Short grass 96.10 54.80 24.53

Tall grass 44.04 25.12 11.24

Broadleaf plants 54.05 30.82 13.80

Fruits/pods 6.01 3.42 1.53

Arthropods 37.64 21.46 9.61

Seeds 1.33 0.76 0.34

a 

## upper bound Kenaga values

b 

## Minimum and maximum EECs are in BOLD

.



# Table 4-3. Mammalian Dose-Based (mg/kg-bw) Estimated Exposure Concentrations

(EECs) a



## Use Feeding Category Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw) b



## Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g)

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals Short grass 80.45 55.60 12.89

Tall grass 36.87 25.48 5.91

Broadleaf plants 45.25 31.27 7.25

Fruits/pods 5.03 3.47 0.81

Arthropods 31.51 21.78 5.05

Seeds 1.12 0.77 0.18

a 

## upper bound Kenaga values

b 

## Minimum and maximum EECs are in BOLD

.



# Table 4-4. Avian and Mammalian Dietary- Based (mg/kg-diet) Estimated Exposure

Concentrations (EECs) a



## Use Feeding Category Dietary-Based EECs b



## (mg/kg-diet)

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals Short grass 84.38

Tall grass 38.67

Broadleaf plants 47.46

Fruits/pods/seeds 5.27

Arthropods 33.05

a 

## upper bound Kenaga values

b 

## Minimum and maximum EECs are in BOLD

.



# 4.1.2 Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants

# 32 Input parameters for TerrPlant 10 

# ( Table 4-5 ) include a maximum appli cation rate, incorporation

depth (1 inch; default), water solubility (0.0281 mg /L) to inform the run-off fraction (1%), spray

drift fraction (1% for ground application; 5% fo r aerial application), and definitive toxicity

endpoints from seedling emergence (SE) a nd vegetative vigor (VV) studies.

EECs used to evaluate potential risk to terrestrial plan ts are provided in Table 4-6.

Table 4-5. Input Parameters fo r TerrPlant Modeling Scenarios

Use

(Application Method) Maximum Single

Application Rate

(lb a.i./A) Spray Drift

Fraction a



## (%) Other Parameters

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals

(Ground) 0.2 1 Incorporation depth = ≤ 1 inch

Runoff fraction = 1%

SE endpoints (MRID 48542933 )b



## Dicot (Tomato)

EC 25 

## = 0.0393 lb a.i./A

NOAEC = 0.000706 lb a.i./A

VV endpoints (MRID 48542932) c



## Monocot & Dicot

NOAEC = 0.273 lb a.i./A Tomatoes

(aerial) 0.2 5

SE = seedling emergence; VV = vegetative vigor

a 

## 1% for ground application; 5% for aerial application

b 

## monocot SE endpoints are not available ( i.e. , definitive) or could not be determined

c 

## monocot and dicot VV EC 25 

## endpoints are non-definitive ( i.e. , >)



# Table 4-6. Terrestrial (Upland and Semi -aquatic) Plant Estimated Exposure

Concentrations (EECs)

Use

(Application

Method) Runoff EEC

(lb a.i./A) Spray Drift EEC

(lb a.i./A) Total Loading EEC

(Runoff + Spray Drift)

(lb a.i./A)

Dry (Upland)

Areas Semi-Aquatic

Areas All Areas Dry (Upland)

Areas Semi-Aquatic

Areas

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals

(ground) 0.002 0.02 0.002 0.004 0.022

Tomatoes

(aerial) 0.002 0.02 0.01 0.012 0.03



# 4.2 Aquatic Exposure

10 

## http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm#terrplant

# 33 The environmental fate properties used for mo deling parent only and th e total toxic residues

(TTR) for cyflumetofen are summarized in Table 4-7 and Table 4-8

.

Table 4-7. PRZM/EXAMS Input Paramete r Values for Parent Only Modeling

Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments

Maximum Application Rate See Table 4-10 Labels

Minimum Reapplication Interval See Table 4-10 Labels

Modeling Scenarios See Table 4-10 Professional Judgment

Initial Application Dates (dd-mm) S ee Table 4-10 Professional Judgment

Application Method Cam = 2 Foliar spray

Application Efficiency Fraction Aerial – 0.95 or ground – 0.99 Default

Spray Drift Loading Fraction Aerial – 0.305

Ground – 0.027 AgDRIFT – 15mph, boom height = 15ft

(aerial) / 2 ft (ground), droplet size = fine

Incorporation depth (cm) 0 Default

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 447.45 MRID 48542621

Water Solubility (mg/L) 0.028 MRID 48542621

Vapor Pressure (torr) 4.43 × 10 -8 

## MRID 48542611

K OC 

## (L/kg

oc 

## ) 72,000 Professional Judgment – a Koc value was

chosen to represent a low-end value for

the parent and be consistent with the

degradates of concern that are considered

likely to be more persistent.

Hydrolysis t 1⁄2 

## (days) 0.406 TTR – MRID 48542625

Aqueous Photolysis t 1⁄2 

## (days) 0.0511 TTR – MRID 48542627

Aerobic Soil Metabolism t 1⁄2 

## (days) 27.51 2 

## TTR – MRIDs 48542745, 48542748, and

48542752

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism t 1⁄2 

## (days) 38.89 3 

## TTR – MRIDs 48542769, 48542770, and

48542771

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism t 1⁄2



## (days) 6.59 4 

## TTR – MRID 48542769

1 

## Input Parameter Guidance Manual, Pestic ides (Version 2.1; Oct. 22, 2009)

2 

## Aerobic soil metabolism TTR half-lives of 2.24, 4.98, 2.27, 2.36, 3.4, 4.37, 13.3, and 2.53 days.

3 

## Aerobic aquatic metabolism TTR half-lives of 21.4, 18.3, 11.3, and 0.297 days.

4 

## Anaerobic aquatic metabolism TTR half-lives of 21.5 and 4.76 days.



# Table 4-8. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameter Va lues for Total Toxic Residues Modeling

Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments

Maximum Application Rate See Table 4-10 Labels

Minimum Reapplication Interval See Table 4-10 Labels

Modeling Scenarios See Table 4-10 Professional Judgment

Initial Application Dates (dd-mm) S ee Table 4-10 Professional Judgment

Application Method Cam = 2 Foliar spray

Application Efficiency Fraction Aerial – 0.95 or ground – 0.99 Default

Spray Drift Loading Fraction Aerial – 0.305

Ground – 0.027 AgDRIFT – 15mph, boom height = 15ft

(aerial) / 2 ft (ground), droplet size = fine

Incorporation depth (cm) 0 Default

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 447.45 MRID 48542621

Water Solubility (mg/L) 0.028 MRID 48542621

Vapor Pressure (torr) 4.43 × 10 -8 

## MRID 48542611

K OC 

## (L/kg

oc 

## ) 72,000 Professional Judgment – a Koc value was

chosen to represent a low-end value for

# 34 Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments

the degradates of concern that are

considered likely to be more persistent.

Hydrolysis t 1⁄2 

## (days) Stable TTR – MRID 48542625

Aqueous Photolysis t 1⁄2 

## (days) 17.6 TTR – MRID 48542627

Aerobic Soil Metabolism t 1⁄2 

## (days) 1096 2 

## TTR – MRIDs 48542745 and 48542748

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism t 1⁄2 

## (days) 173 3 

## TTR – MRIDs 48542769, 48542770, and

48542771

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism t 1⁄2



## (days) 60,000 4 

## TTR – MRID 48542769

1 

## Input Parameter Guidance Manual, Pestic ides (Version 2.1; Oct. 22, 2009)

2 

## Aerobic soil metabolism TTR half-lives of 61.4 and 846 days.

3 

## Aerobic aquatic metabolism TTR half-lives of 149, 99.2, 16.4, and 40.3 days.

4 

## Anaerobic aquatic metabolism TTR half-lives of 31,300 and 3780 days.



# The label-required spray applica tion conditions (release height gr eater than 15 feet above crop

canopy and droplet size categ ory of fine) are likely to transport cyflumetofen through spray drift

in excess of EFED’s default spra y drift assumptions. Additionall y, the label specifies 15 mph as

the maximum wind speed during application. Non-default AgDRIFT modeling inputs are

summarized in Table 4-9 . AgDRIFT output is provided in Appendix E

.

Table 4-9. Summary of Non-Default AgDRIFT Modeling Inputs

Parameter Aerial Application Ground Application

Droplet Size Fine (DV 05 

## = 179.6 μm) ASAE Very fine to fine (DV 05 

## = 175 μm)

Boom Height 15 ft. above ground 24” on label (20” modeled)

Data Percentile NA 90 th 

## percentile

Wind Speed 15 mph NA

Spray Volume NA

NA = Not Applicable



# The aquatic parent only and TTR EECs for the various scenarios and application practices are

listed in Table 4-10 . (See Appendix E for representative output from PRZM/EXAMS.) Surface

water Parent only EECs for the proposed uses of cyflumetofen ranged from 0.26 to 3.2 μg/L for

peak EECs, 0.016 to 0.20 μg/L for 1-in-10 year 21-day average EECs, and 0.006 to 0.078 μg/L

for 1-in-10 year 60-day average EECs. Surface water TTR EECs for the proposed uses of

cyflumetofen ranged from 0.48 to 7.8 μg/L for peak EECs, 0.25 to 5.1 μg/L for 1-in-10 year 21-

day average EECs, and 0.23 to 4.9 μg/L fo r 1-in-10 year 60-day average EECs.

Pore water TTR EECs change slowly over time, displaying little inter-annual variation and

ranging from 0.14 to 3.0 μg/L for peak EECs, 1- in-10 year 21-day average EECs, and 1-in-10

year 60-day average EECs across all scenarios ( Table 4-10 ). Over multi-year time scales

though, both surface water ( Figure 4-1c ) and pore water ( Figure 4-1d ) TTR EECs increase with

time. (Notice that because inter-annual variation is small for pore water TTR EECs in Figure 4-

1d , the peak, 21-day, and 60-day plot on top of each other for the same year.)

# 35 Figure 4-1. Temporal variation in cyflumetofen parent only surface (a) and benthic pore

(b) water and total toxic residue (TTR) surf ace (c) and benthic pore (d) water estimated

environmental concentrations (EECs). 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Parent Concentration (μg/L)

Time Peak

21 Day

60 Day



### a 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Parent Concentration (μg/L)

Time Peak

21 Day

60 Day



### b

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000TTR Concentration (μg/L)

Time Peak

21 Day

60 Day



### c 0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000TTR Concentration (μg/L)

Time Peak

21 Day

60 Day



### d36Table 4-9. Parent Only and Total Toxic Residue (TTR) EstimatedEnvironmental Concentrations (EECs) in Surface and Benthic PoreWater1Cyflumetofen2Use/ScenarioAerial (A) orGround (G) /Initial App.Dates (d-m)Max.SingleApp. Rate(lb a.i./A)Max.Numberof App.Max. App.Rate Per CropCycle/Season(lb a.i./A)Min.App.Interval(Days)Parent Only EECs (μg/L)Total Toxic Residue EECs (μg/L)Surface WaterBenthicPore WaterSurface WaterBenthicPore WaterPeak21-day60-day21-dayPeak21-day60-day21-dayCitrusCA G / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.258 0.016 0.006 0.002 0.478 0.253 0.233 0.140FL G / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.272 0.019 0.007 0.003 2.583 1.859 1.836 1.150GrapesCA Grapes G / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.258 0.017 0.007 0.002 0.553 0.328 0.308 0.186CA WineGrapesG / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.445 0.037 0.016 0.010 2.458 1.503 1.470 0.914NY GrapesG / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 140.869 0.053 0.023 0.015 5.271 3.404 3.358 2.093Pome FruitNCG / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 140.447 0.035 0.015 0.008 2.801 1.595 1.513 0.933ORG / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 140.258 0.016 0.006 0.002 1.322 1.064 1.036 0.645PA G / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.508 0.025 0.011 0.006 2.920 1.927 1.869 1.163StrawberryCA G / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.262 0.018 0.007 0.002 0.897 0.629 0.609 0.373FL G / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.259 0.016 0.006 0.002 2.495 1.897 1.859 1.142Tree NutsCA Almond G / 1-1 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.260 0.018 0.007 0.002 0.772 0.523 0.501 0.308OR Filberts G / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.258 0.016 0.006 0.002 1.289 1.035 1.006 0.626GA Pecans G / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.886 0.041 0.017 0.011 3.488 2.126 2.065 1.286TomatoesCAA / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 2.914 0.176 0.065 0.015 5.012 2.501 2.271 1.357G / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.258 0.016 0.006 0.001 0.575 0.352 0.331 0.202FLA / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 2.980 0.185 0.069 0.016 6.058 3.566 3.349 2.029G / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.329 0.025 0.010 0.004 2.439 1.699 1.680 1.056PAA / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 143.216 0.202 0.078 0.025 7.833 5.108 4.891 3.000G / 1-6 0.2 2/CC 0.4 14 0.961 0.042 0.019 0.012 3.947 2.974 2.914 1.822Nursery/OrnamentalCA G / 1-1 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 0.413 0.032 0.014 0.008 3.115 1.510 1.481 0.913FL G / 1-1 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 0.259 0.016 0.006 0.002 2.262 1.594 1.575 0.985MI G / 1-4 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 0.264 0.018 0.007 0.002 2.572 1.903 1.858 1.160NJ G / 1-4 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 0.279 0.022 0.009 0.004 2.624 1.732 1.704 1.062OR G / 1-4 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 0.258 0.016 0.006 0.002 0.807 0.589 0.568 0.350TN G / 1-4 0.2 2/yr 0.4 14 0.259 0.019 0.008 0.003 2.311 1.739 1.726 1.076

# 37 Although the TTR EECs are increasi ng over time, it is important to note that in reality the 1

accumulating mass of TTRs is changing in chemical composition over time (see the complex 2

degradation pathways in Appendix Figures C-1 to C-5 ). The TTR EECs include all of the 3

degradates that retain the cyano group expressed as the equivalent concentration of parent if all 4

of those degradates were tran sformed back into the parent. 5

6

Typically, the degradation process proceeds from more complex (higher molecular weight) and 7

less water soluble chemicals to simpler and more water soluble chemicals. 14 

# Carbon dioxide was 8

produced in quantities greater than 5% of applie d radioactivity in the A- labeled studies of the 9

aerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism studies ( Appendix Table C-1 ). (The simpler 10

chemicals that retain the cyano-group occur in the A-label studies.) Additionally, A-12 (which 11

does not have a cyano-group but degrades from in termediate degradates that do possess a cyano12

group) was detected in anaerobic soil and anaero bic aquatic metabolism studies. Therefore over 13

time, it might be expected that the accumulated TTR mass represents mostly degradates slowly 14

undergoing complete mineralization in aerobic envir onments or converting to degradates that are 15

not of concern ( e.g. , A-12) in anaerobic environments. This is probably a good assumption for 16

the fraction of cyflumetofen that degrades through the pathway i nvolving an initial break of the 17

bond denoted #1 in Figure 3-1 , since this break results in the production of mostly simple 18

molecules. However, the pathway in volving an initial break of the bond #2 in Figure 3-1 results 19

in the “AB” chemicals, which appear to be much more persistent. 20

21

Finally, the fate data also show the formation of dimers, which are complex (higher molecular 22

weight) chemicals with very low water solubilitie s in the hydrolysis, aer obic and anaerobic soil 23

metabolism, aerobic aquatic metabolism, a nd terrestrial field dissipation studies ( Appendix 24

Table C-1 ). If these dimers are actually forming in the environment (not a laboratory artifact), it 25

is difficult to predict their environmental fate from the registrant-submitted fate data. Often 26

these dimers were at their highest concentrati ons at, or near, the end of the fate studies 27

( Appendix Table C-1 ). Additionally, the aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism and aerobic 28

and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies had high proportions of the total applied radioactivity 29

as unextractable, and theref ore unidentified, residues. 30

4.2.1 Aquatic Bioaccumulation 31

32

The KABAM model (v. 1.0) was used to model a single high-end scenario based on the highest 33

TTR EECs that result from any of the assessed uses of cyflumetofen (aerial application to 34

Pennsylvania tomatoes). This scenario was c hosen to represent the highest potential for 35

bioaccumulation from the currently proposed cyflumetofen uses ( Table 4-11 ). 36

37

Table 4-11. Bioaccumulation Model Input Values for Cyflumetofen 38

Parameter Input Value Source

Pesticide Name Cyflumetofen

Log K OW 

## 4.3 MRID 48542623

K OC 

## 72,000 Professional Judgment – a Koc value was chosen to

represent a low-end value for the degradates of concern

that are considered likely to be more persistent.

Concentration in sediment pore water (ppb) 2.9998 highest TTR EECs: aerial application to Pennsylvania

tomatoes Concentration in water column(ppb) 5.1084



# 39

# 38 

# 5 Effects Characterization

Data from registrant-submitted studies used to characterize the effects of parent cyflumetofen

and degradates to non-target organism s are described in this section.

No cyflumetofen studies from the open literature were identified usi ng the public version of

ECOTOX 11



# .

5.1 Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

Summaries of data used to characterize the eff ects of parent cyflumetofen and degradates to

terrestrial organisms are provided in Tables 5-1 (parent) and 5-2 (degradates). The most

sensitive definitive toxicity endpoints used in RQ calculations are bolded.

5.1.1 Birds

Based on studies with mallard duck, bobwhite quail, and zebra finch, cyflumetofen is practically

non-toxic to birds on an acute oral basis. No mortality or subl ethal effects were noted in the

acute oral studies with zebra finc h and mallard duck (MRIDs 48542774 and 48542773,

respectively). There was no mortality in the study with bobwhite quail (MRID 48542772).

However, hunched posture was observed in male s from the 222 mg a.i./kg-bw treatment group

and in males and females from the 667 and 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw treatment groups resulting in a

NOAEL of 74 mg a.i./kg-bw based on clinical si gns of toxicity. With the exception of one

female from the 2000 mg/kg-bw treatment group showing abnormal posture of the head from

Day 4 onwards, all animals recove red between days 1 and 3.

Based on studies with mallard duck and bobwhite qua il, cyflumetofen is pr actically non-toxic to

birds on a sub-acute dietary basis. No mortality or sublethal effects were noted in the acute oral

study with mallard duck (MRIDs 48542776). In the study with bobwhite quail (MRID

485427775), there was 10% mortality (1 out of 10) in the second highest treatment group ( i.e.

, 2333 mg a.i./kg-diet). This death was considered incidental since no mortality occurred in the

highest treatment group ( i.e. , 5033 mg a.i./kg-diet). In a ddition, reduced weight gain was

observed in the 2333 and 5033 mg a.i./kg-diet tr eatment groups resulting in a NOAEC of 1133

mg a.i./kg-diet based on subl ethal effects.

In the reproduction study with mallard duck (MRID 48542778), one mortality was reported with

the cause of death unknown. A statistically-significant decreas e in eggshell thickness was

detected in the lowest treatment group ( i.e. , 160 mg a.i./kg-diet) but not the intermediate and

highest treatment groups. Sin ce the reduction in eggshell th ickness was not concentrationdependent, and there were no treatment-related eff ects detected for any adult, offspring, or other

reproductive parameter at any treatment level, th e NOAEC for this study was set at the highest

treatment level ( i.e. , 930 mg a.i./kg-diet).

11 

## Quick Database Query conducted on CAS number 400882-07-7 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/39Table 5-1. Endpoints Used to Characterize the Effects of Cyflumetofen toTerrestrial OrganismsAssessmentEndpointMeasurementEndpointTGAI /Form. (%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & Acute Toxicity Classification(if applicable)Source &ClassificationSurvival, growth,and reproductionof birds(surrogate forreptiles andterrestrial-phaseamphibians)Most sensitive avianacute oral LD50TGAI(98.4)Bobwhite quail(Colinusvirginianus)14-day LD50> 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom)14-day NOAEL = 74 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom)(no mortality; NOAEL based on clinical signs of toxicityincluding hunched posture)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542772AcceptableTGAI(98.4)Zebra finch(Taeniopygiaguttata)14-day LD50> 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom)14-day NOAEL = 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542774AcceptableTGAI(98.0)Mallard duck(Anasplatyrhynchos)14-day LD50> 2250 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom)14-day NOAEL = 2250 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542773AcceptableMost sensitive aviansub-acute dietaryLC50TGAI(98.0)Bobwhite quail(Colinusvirginianus)8-day LC50> 5033 mg a.i./kg-bw (m)8-day NOAEC = 1133 mg a.i./kg-bw (m)(10% [1 out of 10] mortality at 2333 mg a.i./kg-diet; NOAECbased on reduced body weight gain)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542775AcceptableTGAI(98.4)Mallard duck(Anasplatyrhynchos)8-day LC50> 5760 mg a.i./kg-bw (m)8-day NOAEC = 5760 mg a.i./kg-bw (m)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542776AcceptableMost sensitive avianchronic NOAECTGAI(98.4)Bobwhite quail(Colinusvirginianus)22-week NOAEC =154mg a.i./kg-diet (m)22-week LOAEC = 389 mg a.i./kg-diet (m)(NOAEC based on eggs cracked per pen and eggs notcracked/eggs laid)MRID 48542777AcceptableTGAI(98.4)Mallard duck(Anasplatyrhynchos)22-week NOAEC = 930 mg a.i./kg-diet (m)22-week LOAEC > 930 mg a.i./kg-diet (m)(no effects)MRID 48542778AcceptableSurvival, growth,and reproductionof mammalsMost sensitivemammalian acuteLD50TGAI(98.0)Han Wistar rat(Rattusnorvegicus)14-day (females) LD50≥2000 mg/kg-bw(no mortality; 1 out of 5 females with loose feces on studyday 1 only)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542669AcceptableMost sensitivemammalian chronicNOAECTGAI(97.67)WistarHannover(Rattusnorvegicus)Two-generation reproductionParentalNOAEL =150mg/kg-diet (9.21/13.8 mg/kg-bw/day inmales/females)MRID 48542702Acceptable40AssessmentEndpointMeasurementEndpointTGAI /Form. (%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & Acute Toxicity Classification(if applicable)Source &ClassificationLOAEL = 500 mg/kg-diet (30.6/46.6 mg/kg-bw/day inmales/females)(based on effects to adrenals: increased organ weights andhistopathology)ReproductiveMale NOAEL≥1500 mg/kg-diet (89.4 mg/kg-bw/day)Female NOAEL = 500 mg/kg-diet (46.6 mg/kg-bw/day)Female LOAEL = 1500 mg/kg-diet (141.1 mg/kg-bw-day)(based on hormone changesand increased estrous cyclelength)OffspringNOAEL =150mg/kg-diet (9.21/13.8 mg/kg-bw/day inmales/females)LOAEL = 500 mg/kg-diet (30.6/46.6 mg/kg-bw/day inmales/females)(based on effects to adrenals: increased organ weights andhistopathology)Survival, growth,and reproductionof terrestrialinvertebratesMost sensitiveterrestrialinvertebrate(honeybee) acuteLD50TGAI(98.0)Honey bee(Apis mellifera)Acute contact96-hr LD50> 100 μg a.i./bee (nom)96-hr NOAEL = 20.7 μg a.i./bee (nom)(NOAEL based on statistically-significant mortality; 10, 0, 7,20, and 13% in the 4.3, 9.4, 20.7, 45.5, and 100 μg a.i./beetreatment groups)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542805AcceptableForm.(20.4)Honey bee(Apis mellifera)Acute contact48-hr LD50> 100 μg a.i./bee (nom)48-hr NOAEL = 4.6 μg a.i./bee (nom)(no statistically-significant mortality; NOAEL based onlethargy)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542914AcceptableForm.(20.3)Honey bee(Apis mellifera)Acute oral96-hr LD50> 116 μg a.i./bee (nom)96-hr NOAEL = 116 μg a.i./bee (nom)(no statistically-significant mortality)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542923AcceptableForm.(20.3)Parasitic wasp(Aphidiusrhopalosiphi)Limit test48-hr LR50> 1.2 lb a.i./A (nom)48-hr NOAEC = 1.2 lb a.i./A (nom)MRID 48542924Acceptable(non-guideline)41AssessmentEndpointMeasurementEndpointTGAI /Form. (%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & Acute Toxicity Classification(if applicable)Source &Classification(no mortality or sublethal effects)Form.(20.3)Predatory mite(Typhlodromuspyri)Limit test7-day LR50> 1.2 lb a.i./A (nom)7-day NOAEC = 1.2 lb a.i./A (nom)(5 and 11% mortality in the control and 1.2 lb a.i./A treatmentgroup, respectively; nosublethal effects)MRID 48542925Acceptable(non-guideline)TGAI(98.0)Earthworm(Eisenia fetidafetida)14-day LC50> 1000 mg a.i./kg-dw (soil; nom)14-day NOAEC = 100 mg a.i./kg-dw (soil; nom)(no mortality; NOAEC based on reduced weight gain)MRID 48542824Acceptable(non-guideline)Form.(20.4)Earthworm(Eisenia fetidafetida)14-day LC50> 1050 mg a.i./kg-dw (soil; nom)14-day NOAEC = 106 mg a.i./kg-dw (soil; nom)(10% mortality at 1.1 mg a.i./kg-dw; NOAEC based onreduced weight gain)MRID 48542916Acceptable(non-guideline)TGAI(98.4)Earthworm(Eisenia fetidafetida)28- & 56-day NOAEC = 1000 mg a.i./kg-dw (soil; nom)28- & 56-day LOAEC > 1000 mg a.i./kg-dw (soil; nom)(based on mortality, growth, and reproduction)MRID 48542808Acceptable(non-guideline)Survival, growthand reproductionof terrestrial plantsSeedling emergence:Most sensitivemonocot EC25andNOAECForm.(19.64)Oat(Avena sativa)21/22-day EC25: Could not be determined21/22-day EC05: Could not be determined21/22-day NOAEC < 0.000706 lb a.i./A (m)(based on dry weight & shoot length)MRID 48542933Supplemental(due to lack of adefinitiveNOAEC formonocots)Seedling emergence:Most sensitive dicotEC25and NOAECTomato(Lycopersiconesculentum)21-day EC25(95% C.I.) =0.0393(0.0174-0.0889) lb a.i./A(m)21-day NOAEC =0.000706lb a.i./A (m)(based on dry weight)Vegetative vigor:Most sensitivemonocot EC25andNOAECForm.(19.64)Could not bedetermined21-day EC25> 0.250/0.268/0.273 lb a.i./A (m)21-day NOAEC =0.250/0.268/0.273lb a.i./A (m)(endpoint depends on species tested)MRID 48542932AcceptableVegetative vigor:Most sensitive dicotEC25and NOAECCould not bedetermined21-day EC25> 0.250/0.268/0.273 lb a.i./A (m)21-day NOAEC =0.250/0.268/0.273lb a.i./A (m)(endpoint depends on species tested)Form = formulation; NS = not specified;TGAI = technical grade active ingredient1BOLDvalues used in RQ calculations2m = measured; mm = mean-measured; nom = nominal42Table 5-2. Endpoints Used to Characterize the Effectsof Degradates of Cyflumetofen to Terrestrial OrganismsAssessmentEndpointDegradate(%)SpeciesToxicity Values1(Effects)Source &ClassificationSurvival, growth,and reproductionof terrestrialinvertebrates(earthworms)AB-1(99.8)Earthworm(Eisenia fetidafetida)14-day LC50> 1000 mg/kg-dw (soil; nom)14-day NOAEC = 100 mg/kg-dw (soil; nom)(2.5, 0, 0, 2.5, 12.5, and 20% mortality in the control, 100,180, 320, 560, and 1000 mg a.i./kg-dw treatment groups;NOAEC based on reduced weight gain)MRID 48542806Acceptable(non-guideline)B-1(99.1)Earthworm(Eisenia fetidafetida)14-day LC50> 1000 mg/kg-dw (soil; nom)14-day NOAEC = 1000 mg/kg-dw (soil; nom)(no mortality; NOAEC based on mortality and weight gain)MRID 48542807Acceptable(non-guideline)1nom = nominal

# 43 In the reproduction study with bobwhite qua il (MRID 48542777), eight inci dental mortalities

were reported; the mortalities were mostly attri buted to head and/or neck lesions. In addition,

there was a statistically-significant increase in e ggs cracked per pen and a statistically-significant

decrease in eggs not cracked per eggs laid resulting in a NOAEC of 154 mg a.i./kg-diet.

5.1.2 Mammals

Based on a study with female rats, cyflumetofen is practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute

oral basis. In this limit study (MRID 48542669) , no mortality, treatment-related necropsy

findings, or changes in we ight were reported; however, one out of the 5 tested females exhibited

loose feces on study day 1 only.

In the 2-generation study with rats (MRID 48542702) , adrenal weights were increased in P and

F 1 

# parental females at ≥ 500 mg/kg-diet. In parental male s at 1500 mg/kg-diet, adrenal weights

were increased in the P and F 1 

# generations. In addition, ovary weights were increased in P

generation females at 1500 mg/kg- diet only. Histopathological examination of the adrenals

revealed an increased incidence of hypertrophy of the zona glomerulosa at ≥ 500 mg/kg-diet in P

generation females and F 1 

# generation males and females and in P males at 1500 mg/kg-diet.

Additionally in the adrenals, an increased inciden ce of vacuolation of the zona fasciculata cells

was observed at 1500 mg/kg-diet in P genera tion females and in both sexes of the F 1 

# generation.

An increased incidence of vacuolation of the inte rstitial cells of the ova ry was also noted at 1500

mg/kg-diet in F 1 

# females. These findings resulted in a parental NOAEL of 150 mg/kg-diet

(9.21/13.8 mg/kg-bw/day in males/females) based on effects on the adrenals (increased organ

weights and histopathology).

An increase in estrous cycle length was noted at 1500 mg/kg-diet. In addition, decreased FSH

levels were noted at 500 mg/ kg-diet and above and decreased progesterone was noted at 150

mg/kg-diet and above in F 1 

# females. As for the decreases in progesterone at 150 and 500 ppm,

and in FSH at 500 mg/kg-diet in females, ther e were no corresponding changes in estrous cycle

length or reproductive performance after sexual maturation at these dose levels. In females at

1500 mg/kg-diet, increased estrous cycle le ngth was accompanied by decreases in FSH,

progesterone and 17 β -estradiol. These findings resulted in a reproductive NOAEL in females of

500 mg/kg-diet (46.6 mg/kg-bw/day) based on ho rmone changes and increased estrous cycle

length; the reproductive NOAEL in males is ≥ 1500 mg/kg-diet (89.4 mg/kg-bw/day).

Adrenal weights were increased at 500 mg/kg-di et and above in both sexes of both generations

of offspring. Microscopic examination of the adrenals revealed an increased incidence of

hypertrophy of the zona glomerulosa ce lls in both generations of males at ≥ 500 mg/kg-diet and

in both generations of females at 1500 mg/kg-diet . Additionally in the adrenals, an increased

incidence of hypertrophy of the zona fasciculata cells was noted at ≥ 500 mg/kg-diet in F 1 

# males

and females and F 2 

# males and at 1500 mg/kg-diet in F 2 

# females. Delayed sexual maturation was

observed in females (increased time to vaginal opening) at ≥ 500 mg/kg-diet, and in males

(increased time to preputial separation) at 1500 mg/kg-diet. These findings resulted in an

offspring NOAEL is 150 mg/ kg-diet (9.21/13.8 mg/kg-bw/day in males/females) based on

effects on the adrenals (increased organ weights and histopathology) in both sexes and a delay in

sexual maturation of females.

# 44 5.1.3 Terrestrial Invertebrates

Based on two honey bee contact toxicity studies, one with technical grade active ingredient

(TGAI; MRID 48542805) and one with a 20.4 % formulation (MRID 48542914), and a honey

bee acute oral toxicity study with a 20.4% formul ation, cyflumetofen is pr actically non-toxic to

terrestrial invertebrates. In the acute contact toxicity st udy with technical grade cyflumetofen,

mortality after 96 hours in the 4.3, 9.4, 20.7, 45.5, a nd 100 μg a.i./bee treatment groups was 10,

0, 7, 20, and 13%, respectively, resulting in a NOAEC of 20.7 μg a.i./bee based on statisticallysignificant mortality in the 45.5 μg a.i./bee tr eatment group. In the acute contact and oral

toxicity studies with a 20.4% fo rmulation of cyflumetofen, there was no statistically-significant

mortality after 48 and 96 hours, respectively. Ho wever, observed lethargy in the acute contact

study with a formulation resulted in a NOAEL of 4.6 μg a.i./bee based on sublethal effects.

Toxicity data from non-guideline studies are also available for arthropods and earthworms

( Tables 5-1 and 5-2 ). Acute limit tests with two benefici al terrestrial arthropods – the parasitic

wasp ( Aphidius rhopalosiphi ) and the predatory mite ( Typhlodromus pyri ) – using a 20.3%

formulation of cyflumetofen both yielded a LR 50 

# of >1.2 lb a.i./A and a NOAEC and 1.2 lb

a.i./A. No mortality or sublethal e ffects were noted in the test with A. rhopalosiphi , and no

sublethal effects or statistically-significan t mortality were noted in the test with T. pyri (MRIDs

48542924 and 48542725, respectively).

A series of sub-chronic and/or chronic toxic ity tests were conducte d with earthworms ( Eisenia

fetida fetida ) using technical grade cyflumetofen, a 20.4% formulation of cyflumetofen, and

degradates AB-1 and B-1 at co ncentrations up to 1000 mg/kg-dw soil. For the sub-chronic, 14-

day toxicity studies, NOAECs of 100-106 mg/kg-dw soil for t echnical grade and formulated

cyflumetofen and degradate AB-1 were ba sed on reduced weight gain (MRIDs 48542824,

48542916, 48542806) whereas the NOAEC for degradate B-1 was set at the highest treatment

level (1000 mg/kg-dw soil; MRID 48542807). For the chronic, 56-day toxicity study, the

NOAEC was set at the highe st treatment level (1000 mg/kg-dw soil; MRID 48542808).

5.1.4 Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants

In the vegetative vigor study (MRID 48542932), the most sensitive monocot and dicot species

could not be determined because the NOAEC was the highest treatment level ( i.e.

, 0.250/0.268/0.273 lb a.i./A) for all tested species.

Species-specific endpoints for the seedling em ergence study (MRID 48542933) are provided in

Table 5-3 . The most sensitive dicot was tomato, and the most sensitive monocot was oat. For

oat, an EC 25 

# could not be determined because the c oncentration-response relationship for dry

wieght and shoot length was atypical leading to issues with model convergence (See Figure 5-

1 ). In addition, oat dry weight and shoot length of the lowest treatment group ( i.e. , 0.000706 lb

a.i./A) were significantly reduced ( i.e. , 33.2 and 27.3%, respectively) when compared to the

control group resulting in the lack of a NOAE C for monocots and a Supplemental classification

for the study.

# 45 Table 5-3. Species-Specific E ndpoints for Seedling Emergence

Species Most Sensitive

Endpoint NOAEC/LOAEC

(lb a.i./A) % reduction a 

## at

NOAEC/LOAEC EC 25 

## (lb a.i./A)

Monocots

Oat ( Avena sativa ) Dry weight

Shoot length <0.000706/0.000706

<0.000706/0.000706 --/33.2

--/27.3 CBD a



## Onion ( Allium sepa ) Survival 0.0235/0.045 13.9/15.6 >0.267

Corn ( Zea mays ) None 0.260/>0.260 NA >0.260

Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ) None 0.260/>0.260 NA >0.260

Dicots

Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) Dry weight 0.000706/0.00145 2.1/29.3 0.0393

Cucumber ( Cucumis sativa ) Dry weight 0.0222/0.0413 14.3/15.5 >0.260

Sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris ) Emergence 0.139/0.260 7.7/10.3 >0.260

Radish ( Raphanus sativus ) None 0.260/>0.260 NA >0.260

Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) None 0.260/>0.260 NA >0.260

Soybean ( Glycine max ) None 0.260/>0.260 NA >0.260

CBD = could not be determined; NA = not applicable

a 

## if NOAEC < highest treatment concentration

b 

## While statistically-significant reductions were detected, th ere were issues with model co nvergence. Therefore, an

EC 25 

## could not be determined.



# Figure 5-1. Seedling emergence le ngth and weight data for oat graphed in terms of

exposure concentration (lb a.i./A) using SAS (v. 8.2), Sprouts (v. 1.0)

# 46 5.2 Effects to Aquatic Organisms

Summaries of data used to characterize the eff ects of cyflumetofen and degradates to aquatic

organisms are provided in Tables 5-3 (parent) and 5-4 (degradates). The most sensitive

definitive toxicity endpoints used in RQ calculations are bolded.

5.2.1 Parent Cyflumetofen

5.2.1.1 Fish

Fish acute and early life stage t oxicity studies with technical gr ade cyflumetofen were conducted

as limit tests because of the low solubility of cyflumetofen ( i.e. , 28.1 μg/L at 20°C). Meanmeasured concentrations of 17.5 μg a.i./L for rainbow trout (MRID 48542779), 29.2 and 31.6

μg a.i./L for fathead minnow (MRIDs 48542780 and 48542783; acute and early life stage tests,

respectively), and 7.59 μg a.i./L for sheepsh ead minnow (MRID 48542783) we re achieved using

a saturator column and flow-through exposure. An acute toxicity study with rainbow trout was

also conducted with a 20.4% formulation of cyfl umetofen which resulted in a mean-measured

concentration of 837 μg a.i./L (MRID 48542920). A non-guideline juvenile growth study with

carp that achieved mean-measured concentra tions of 7.2, 16, 34, 72 and 179 μg a.i./L was

conducted using a flow through exposure and a solvent consisting of 1:1 mixture of

dimethylformamide (DMF) and cremophor.

Based on studies with rainbow trout, fathead minnow, and sheepshead minnow, technical grade

cyflumetofen is practically non-toxic to fish up to the tested solubility limit on an acute basis.

No mortality or sublethal effects were not ed in any of the ac ute studies (MRIDs 48542779,

48542780, and 48542783), including the study with a 20.4% formulation of cyflumetofen

(MRID 48542920).

In the early life stage study with fathead minnow (MRID 48542783), there were no effects on

hatching success, survival, or growth (length and dry weight). The study was classified as

Supplemental because the high:low ratio and percen t coefficient of variation for measured test

concentrations were 2.1 and 27%, respectively, exceeding the 1.5 and 20% maxima for

acceptable variability in aquatic studies.

5.2.1.1 Aquatic Invertebrates

Similar to fish, aquatic invertebrate acute and chronic toxicity studies with technical grade

cyflumetofen were conducted as limit tests beca use of the low solubili ty of cyflumetofen ( i.e.

, 28.1 μg/L at 20°C). Mean-measured concentrations of 17.2 and 16.2 μg a.i./L for Daphnia

magna (MRIDs 48542789 and 48542791; acute and chronic te sts, respectively), 6.30 μg a.i./L

for Eastern oyster (MRID 48542810) and 22.7 μg a.i./L for mysid shrimp (MRID 48542811)

were achieved using a saturator column and fl ow-through exposure. An acute toxicity study

with Daphnia magna was also conducted with a 20.4% fo rmulation of cyflumetofen which

resulted a mean-measured concentration of 744 μg a.i./L (MRID 48542921).

Based on studies with daphnids, Eastern oyster, a nd mysid shrimp, technical grade cyflumetofen

is practically non-toxic to aquatic invertebrates up to the tested solu bility limit on an acute basis.47Table 5-3. Endpoints Used to Characterize theEffects of Cyflumetofen to Aquatic OrganismsAssessment EndpointMeasurementEndpointTGAI (%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & AcuteToxicity Classification (if applicable)Source &ClassificationSurvival, growth, andreproduction offreshwater fish(surrogate for aquaticphase amphibians)Most sensitivefreshwater fish acuteLC50TGAI(97.08)Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)Limit test96-hr LC50> 17.5 μg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC = 17.5 μg a.i./L (mm)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxic up to solubility limitMRID 48542779AcceptableTGAI(97.08)Fathead minnow(Pimephales promelas)Limit test96-hr LC50> 29.2 μg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC = 29.2 μg a.i./L (mm)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxic up to solubility limitMRID 48542780AcceptableForm.(20.4)Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchus mykiss)Limit test96-hr LC50> 837 μg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC = 837 μg a.i./L (mm)(no mortality or sublethal effects)MRID 48542920Supplemental(due to use of aform.)Most sensitivefreshwater fish chronicNOAECTGAI(97.08)Fathead minnow(Pimephales promelas)Limit testEarly life-stage34-day NOAEC =31.6μg a.i./L (TWA)34-day LOAEC > 31.6 μg a.i./L (TWA)(no effects)MRID 48542783Supplemental(due to variableexposureconcentrations)TGAI(98.4)Carp(Cyprinus carpio)Juvenile growth28-day EC50= 180.65 μg a.i./L (mm)28-day NOAEC = 72 μg a.i./L (mm)(based on growth rate)MRID 48542784Supplemental(due to use of a nonstandard species)Survival, growth, andreproduction ofestuarine/marine fishMost sensitiveestuarine/marine fishacute LC50TGAI(97.08)Sheepshead minnow(Cyprinodonvariegatus)Limit test96-hr LC50> 7.59 μg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC = 7.59 μg a.i./L (mm)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxic up to solubility limitMRID 48542812AcceptableSurvival, growth, andreproduction offreshwaterinvertebratesMost sensitivefreshwater invertebrateacute EC50TGAI(97.08)Water flea(Daphnia magna)Limit test48-hr EC50> 17.2 μg a.i./L (mm)48-hr NOAEC = 17.2 μg a.i./L (mm)(no effects)Practically non-toxic up to solubility limitMRID 48542789AcceptableForm.(20.4)Water flea(Daphnia magna)Limit test48-hr EC50> 744 μg a.i./L (mm)48-hr NOAEC = 744 μg a.i./L (mm)(no effects)MRID 48542921Supplemental(due to use of aform.)48Assessment EndpointMeasurementEndpointTGAI (%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & AcuteToxicity Classification (if applicable)Source &ClassificationMost sensitivefreshwater invertebratechronic NOAECTGAI(97.08)Water flea(Daphnia magna)Limit test21-day NOAEC =16.2μg a.i./L (mm)21-day LOAEC > 16.2 μg a.i./L (mm)(no effects)MRID 48542791AcceptableSurvival, growth, andreproduction ofestuarine/marineinvertebratesMost sensitiveestuarine/marineinvertebrate acute EC50or LC50TGAI(97.08)Eastern oyster(Crassostrea virginica)Limit test96-hr EC50> 6.30 μg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC = 6.30 μg a.i./L (mm)(no effects)Practically non-toxic up to solubility limitMRID 48542810AcceptableTGAI(97.08)Mysid shrimp(Mysidopsis bahia)Limit test96-hr LC50>22.7μg a.i./L (TWA)96-hr NOAEC = 22.7 μg a.i./L (TWA)(no mortality or sublethal effects)Practically non-toxic up to solubility limitMRID 48542811AcceptableSurvival, growth, andreproduction ofsediment-dwellinginvertebratesMost sensitivesediment invertebrateacute LC50TGAI(97.08 nonradio;96.0 radio)Amphipod(Leptocheirusplumulosus)Spiked sediment exposureSediment concentrations10-day LC50>787 mg TRR/kg-dw (mm)10-day NOAEC = 787 mg TRR/kg-dw(mm)Pore water concentrations10-day LC50> 19.7 mg TRR/L10-day NOAEC =19.7mg TRR/LOverlying water concentrations10-day LC50> 5.2 mg TRR/L10-day NOAEC = 5.2 mg TRR/L(no statistically-significant mortality)MRID 48542798AcceptableMost sensitivesediment invertebratechronic NOAECTGAI(98.4 nonradio;≥96.4radio)Non-biting midge(Chironomus riparius)Spiked water exposureOverlying water concentrations28-day EC50> 65.9 μg a.i./L (TWA)28-day NOAEC =65.9g a.i./L (TWA)(no statistically-significant effects on ratesof emergence and development)MRID 48542799AcceptableTGAI(97.08)Non-biting midge(Chironomus riparius)Spiked sediment exposureSediment concentrations28-day EC50> 419 mg a.i./kg-dw (mm)28-day NOAEC = 26.5 mg a.i./kg-dw(mm)Pore water concentrations28-day EC50> 10.4 μg a.i./L (mm)MRID 48542802Acceptable49Assessment EndpointMeasurementEndpointTGAI (%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & AcuteToxicity Classification (if applicable)Source &Classification28-day NOAEC =0.12μg a.i./L (mm)Overlying water concentrations28-day EC50> 0.11 μg a.i./L (mm)28-day NOAEC = 0.03 μg a.i./L (mm)(based on emergence rate)Survival, growth andreproduction ofaquatic plantsAquatic non-vascularspecies: Most sensitiveEC50TGAI(97.08)Green alga(Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata)Tier II96-hr EC50> 23.8 μg a.i./L (im)96-hr NOAEC =23.8μg a.i./L (im)(no effects)MRID 48542792AcceptableTGAI(97.08)Cyanobacterium(Anabaena flos-aqua)Tier II96-hr EC50> 31.5 μg a.i./L (im)96-hr NOAEC = 31.5 μg a.i./L (im)(no effects)MRID 48542793AcceptableTGAI(97.08)Marine diatom(Skeletonema costatum)Tier II96-hr EC50> 33.6 μg a.i./L (im)96-hr NOAEC = 33.6 μg a.i./L (im)(no effects)MRID 48542794AcceptableTGAI(97.08)Freshwater diatom(Navicula pelliculosa)Tier II96-hr EC50> 34.3 μg a.i./L (im)96-hr NOAEC = 34.3 μg a.i./L (im)(no effects)MRID 48542795AcceptableForm.(20.4)Green alga(Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata)Tier I72-hr EC50> 340 μg a.i./L (TWA)72-hr NOAEC = 340 μg a.i./L (TWA)(no effects)MRID 48542922Supplemental(due to guidelinedeviations & use of aform.)Aquatic vascularspecies: Most sensitiveEC50TGAI(97.08)Duckweed(Lemna gibba)Tier II7-dayEC50> 38.3 μg a.i./L (im)7-day NOAEC =38.3μg a.i./L (im)(no effects)MRID 48542804AcceptableForm = formulation; C.I. = confidence interval; TGAI = technical grade active ingredient; TRR = total radioactive residues1BOLDvalues used in RQ calculations2im = initial-measured; mm = mean-measured; nom =nominal; TWA = time-weighted average, measured50Table 5-4. Endpoints Used to Characterize the Effectsof Degradates of Cyflumetofen to Aquatic OrganismsAssessmentEndpointMeasurementEndpointDegradate(%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & Acute ToxicityClassification (if applicable)Source &ClassificationSurvival, growth,and reproductionof freshwater fish(surrogate foraquatic-phaseamphibians)Most sensitivefreshwater fishacute LC50A-2(98.3)Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)96-hr LC50(95% C.I.) =7.09(5.04-9.96) mg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC < 5.04 mg a.i./L (mm)(NOAEC based on sublethal effects including loss ofequilibrium, unbalanced swimming, faulty respiratoryfunction, and non-typical pigmentation)Moderately toxicMRID 48542782AcceptableB-1(99.9)Rainbow trout(Oncorhynchusmykiss)96-hr LC50> 97.9 mg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC = 97.9 mg a.i./L (mm)(no mortality or sublethal effects)At most slightly toxicMRID 48542781AcceptableSurvival, growth,and reproductionof freshwaterinvertebratesMost sensitivefreshwaterinvertebrate acuteEC50A-2(98.3)Water flea(Daphniamagna)48-hr EC50(95% C.I.) =10.52(8.50-13.10) mg a.i./L (mm)Probit Slope (95% C.I.) = 4.20 (2.77-5.62)48-hr NOAEC = 3.83 mg a.i./L (mm)(NOAEC based on immobility)Slightly toxicMRID 48542790AcceptableB-1(99.99)Water flea(Daphniamagna)Limit test48-hr EC50> 177.5 mg a.i./L (mm)48-hr NOAEC = 177.5 mg a.i./L (mm)(no statistically-significant effects; 5% [1 out of 20]immobility at 177.5 mg a.i./L)Practically non-toxicMRID 48542787AcceptableB-2(99.9)Water flea(Daphniamagna)Limit test48-hr EC50> 0.020 mg a.i./L (mm)48-hr NOAEC = 0.020 mg a.i./L (mm)(no statistically-significant effects; 5% [1 out of 20]immobility at 0.020 mg a.i./L)Practically non-toxic up to the limit concentrationMRID 48542788Supplemental(due to lack of anegative control)Survival, growth,and reproductionof sedimentdwellinginvertebratesMost sensitivesedimentinvertebratechronic NOAECAB-1(99.8)Non-bitingmidge(Chironomusriparius)Spiked sediment exposureSediment concentrations28-day EC50(95% C.I.) = 120 (100-130) mg a.i./kg-dw (mm)28-day NOAEC = 36.1 mg a.i./kg-dw (mm)Probit Slope = 16.8 ± 4.14Pore water concentrations28-day EC50(95% C.I.) = 68 (48-95) mg a.i./L (mm)28-day NOAEC =34.2mg a.i./L (mm)Probit Slope = 4.53 ± 2.88Overlying water concentrations28-day EC50(95% C.I.) = 23 (21-25) mg a.i./L (mm)MRID 48542801Acceptable51AssessmentEndpointMeasurementEndpointDegradate(%)SpeciesToxicity Values1,2(Effects) & Acute ToxicityClassification (if applicable)Source &Classification28-day NOAEC = 9.06 mg a.i./L (mm)Probit Slope = 11.3 ± 1.96(based on emergence rate)AB-1dimer(92.9)Non-bitingmidge(Chironomusriparius)Spiked sediment exposureSediment concentrations28-day EC50> 75.3 mg a.i./kg-dw (mm)28-day NOAEC = 75.3 mg a.i./kg-dw (mm)Pore water concentrations28-day EC50> 5.61 μg a.i./L (mm)28-day NOAEC =5.61μg a.i./L (mm)Overlying water concentrations28-day EC50> 27.4 μg a.i./L (mm)28-day NOAEC = 27.4 μg a.i./L (mm)(no statistically-significant effects on rates of emergence anddevelopment)MRID 48542803AcceptableSurvival, growthand reproductionof aquatic plantsAquatic nonvascular species:Most sensitiveEC50AB-11(99.6)Green alga(Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata)Tier I96-hr EC50> 0.483 mg a.i./L (im)96-hr NOAEC =0.483mg a.i./L (im)(no effects)MRID 48542796AcceptableB-1(99.99)Green alga(Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata)Tier II96-hr EC50> 102.7 mg a.i./L (mm)96-hr NOAEC < 0.10 mg a.i./L (nom)(NOAEC based on cell density, growth rate, and yield)MRID 48542797Supplemental(due to lack of adefinitiveNOAEC)Form = formulation; C.I. = confidence interval1BOLDvalues used in RQ calculations2im = initial-measured; mm = mean-measured; nom =nominal; TWA = time-weighted average, measured

# 52 No mortality or sublethal effects were not ed in any of the ac ute studies (MRIDs 48542789,

48542810, and 48542811), including the study with a 20.4% formulation of cyflumetofen

(MRID 48542921).

In the chronic study with daphnids (MRID 48542791), there were no effects on parental survival,

number of offspring per surviv ing parent, or growth (length and dry weight) (MRID 48542791).

5.2.1.2 Sediment-Dwelling (Benthic) Invertebrates

In an acute spiked sediment test conducted with the marine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus

(MRID 48542798) and cyflumetofen, th ere was no statistically-signif icant mortality resulting in

a non-definitive LC 50 

# endpoint ( i.e. , >) and the NOAEC being set at the highest treatment

concentration: 787 mg TRR/kg-dw, 19.7 mg TR R/L, and 5.2 mg TRR/L for sediment, pore

water, and overlying water. It should be noted that these end points are expressed in terms of

total radioactive residue and t hus may represent parent cyflum etofen as well as degradates.

Chronic spiked water and spiked sedime nt tests with the freshwater midge Chironomus riparius

were conducted with cyflumetofen. In the test with spiked water, ther e were no statisticallysignificant effects on rates of emergence or de velopment with the NOAEC being 65.9 μg a.i./L

for overlying water (MRID 48542799). In the test with spiked sediment, the NOAECs of 26.5

mg a.i./kg-dw, 0.12 μg a.i./L, and 0.03 μg a.i./L for sediment, pore water, and overlying water

were based on reduced rates of emergence (MRID 48542802).

5.2.1.3 Aquatic Plants

Aquatic plant Tier II studies were conducted with technical grade cyflumetofen (MRIDs

48542792-5, 48542804). In addition, a Tier I green algal study was conducted with a 20.4%

formulation of cyflumetofen (MRID 48542922). Toxi city endpoints for studi es testing technical

grade cyflumetofen are based on initial-measured concentrations because the rapid hydrolysis of

cyflumetofen typically resulted in concentrations that were below the level of detection or

quantification at st udy termination. No effects were noted in any of the aquatic plant studies.

5.2.2 Degradates of Cyflumetofen

5.2.2.1 Freshwater Fish

Rainbow trout toxicity tests were conducted with cyflumetofen de gradates A-2 and B-1. A-2 is

moderately toxic to freshw ater fish with a 96-hour LC 50 

# of 7.09 mg a.i./L (MRID 48542782)

whereas B-1 is at most slightly toxi c to freshwater fish with a 96-hour LC 50 

# of >97.9 mg a.i./L

(MRID 48542781). No mortality or sublethal effects were re ported in the study with B-1.

In the study with A-1, 100% mortality was obser ved in the four highest treatment groups ( i.e.

, 9.96, 19.24, 38.91, and 81.37 mg a.i./L). In the lowest treatment group of 5.04 mg a.i./L which

had 0% mortality, reported sublethal effects in cluded unbalanced swimming, faulty respiratory

function, loss of equilibrium, and non-typical pi gmentation. The former two sublethal effects

were observed at 3-6 hours post-exposure, and lo ss of equilibrium was observed at 3-6 and 24

hours post-exposure; only non-typical pigmentation persisted until study termination at 96 hours.

Therefore, a non-definitive NOAE C of <5.04 mg a.i./L was set for A-2 based on sublethal

effects.

# 53 5.2.2.2 Freshwater Invertebrates

Daphnia toxicity tests were conducted with cyflumet ofen degradates A-2, B-1, and B-2; tests

with the latter two degradates were limit tests. A-2 is slightly toxic to freshwater invertebrates

with an EC 50 

# of 10.52 mg a.i./L (MRID 48542790); B-1 is practically non-toxic to freshwater

invertebrates with an EC 50 

# of >177 mg a.i./L (MRID 48542787); and B-2 is practically non-toxic

up to the limit concentration ( i.e. , 0.020 mg a.i./L; MRID 48542788). The NOAEC for the study

with A-2 was set at 3.83 mg a.i./L based on immob ility observed at higher concentrations. In the

studies with B-1 and B-2, sin ce there was no statis tically-significant immobility, the NOAEC

was set at the highest treatment concentration ( i.e. , 177.5 mg a.i./L and 0.020 mg a.i./L,

respectively).

5.2.2.3 Sediment-Dwelling (Benthic) Invertebrates

Chronic spiked sediment tests with Chironomus riparius were conducted with degradates AB-1

and AB-1 dimer. Endpoints in the test with AB-1 were based on reduced emergence rates with

NOAECs of 36.1 mg a.i./kg-dw, 34.2 mg a.i./L, and 9.06 mg a.i./L for sediment, pore water, and

overlying water (MRID 48542801). Ther e were no statistically-sign ificant effects on rates of

emergence or development in the test with AB-1 resulting in the NOAEC be ing set at the highest

treatment concentration: 75.3 mg a.i./kg-dw, 5.61 μg a.i./L, and 27.4 μg a.i./L for sediment, pore

water, and overlying water (MRID 48542803).

5.2.2.4 Aquatic Plants

Toxicity tests with the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata were conducted with the

cyflumetofen degradates AB-11 and B-1. There were no effects in the limit test with AB-11

(MRID 48542796). In the test with B-1, the EC 50 

# was non-definitive ( i.e. , >102.7 mg a.i./L), and

there was no NOAEC ( i.e., <0.10 mg a.i./L) due to statistically-s ignificant effects at the lowest

treatment concentration (MRID 48542797). However, there is uncertainty associated with the

latter study because of the lack of a cl ear concentration-response relationship.

5.3 Review of Incident Data

Reviews of the Ecological Incident Informati on System (EIIS, version 2.1) and the Avian

Incident Monitoring System (AIMS) were c onducted on March 21, 2013. There are no reported

incidents for cyflumetofen in the EIIS or AIMS da tabases. In addition to the incidents recorded

in EIIS and AIMS, additional pesticide incident s are reported to the Agency in aggregated

incident reports. Ecological in cidents reported in aggregate repor ts include those categorized as

‘minor fish and wildlife’ (W-B), ‘minor plant’ (P-B), and ‘other non-target’ (ONT) incidents.

‘Other non-target’ incidents include reports of ad verse effects to insects and other terrestrial

invertebrates. As of April 3, 2013, there have been no aggregate cyflumetofen ecological

incidents reported to the Agency. Given that this is a new chemical that has not been registered

for use in the United States, the existence of ecological incident repo rts would be unlikely.

# 54 

# 6 Risk Characterization

6.1 Risk Estimation

Estimates of exposure to and toxic ity of cyflumetofen are integrat ed using standard risk quotient

(RQ) methods to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects to mammalian, avian,

aquatic, and other non-target spec ies. RQ results for non-target terrestrial and aquatic animals

and plants are described in this section and re present expected direct effects to organisms ( i.e

. effects from direct toxicity to cyflumetofen exposur e) in contrast to indire ct effects to organisms

resulting from a modification of a resource such as loss of thei r prey or habitat.

6.1.1 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

6.1.1.1 Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians

Avian chronic, dietary-based RQs were calculat ed for the maximum application rate for each

proposed use of cyflumetofen using the NOAEC from the bobwhite quail reproduction study

(154 mg a.i./kg-diet; MRID 48542777). Avian chr onic, dietary-based RQs range from 0.03 to

0.55 across all uses and feeding categories ( Table 6-1 ). Therefore, the avian chronic LOC of 1 is

not exceeded for birds of any feeding categ ories regardless of the proposed use.

No avian acute RQs were calculated because avia n acute oral and sub-acute dietary toxicity

studies for cyflumetofen have non-definitive endpoints ( i.e. , >). Risk to birds from acute

exposure to cyflumetofen as a re sult of the proposed uses is disc ussed in the Risk Description

section of this document.

Table 6-1. Avian Chronic Dietary- Based Risk Quotients (RQs)

Use Feeding Category Dietary-Based RQs

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals Short grass 0.55

Tall grass 0.25

Broadleaf plants 0.31

Fruits/pods 0.03

Arthropods 0.21



# 6.1.1.2 Mammals

Mammalian chronic dose- and dietary-based RQs were calculated for the maximum application

rate for each proposed use of cyflumetof en using the NOAEC from a rat 2-generation

reproduction study (150 mg/kg- diet, 9.21 mg/kg-bw/day; MRID 48542702). Mammalian

chronic dose- and dietary-based RQs range from 0.03 to 3.97 and 0.22 to 0.56, respectively,

across all uses and feeding categories ( Tables 6-2 and 6-3 ). The mammalian chronic LOC of 1

is exceeded small and medium mammals consuming short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, or

arthropods and large mammals consumi ng short grass or tall grass.

No mammalian acute dose-based RQs were calculated because the mammalian acute oral

toxicity study for cyflumetofen has a non-definitive endpoint ( i.e. , >). No mammalian acute

# 55 dietary-based RQs were calculated because a mammalian acute dietary-based endpoint ( i.e.

, LC 50

, 

# mg/kg-diet) is not available. Risk to mamm als from acute exposure to cyflumetofen as a

result of the proposed uses is discussed in the Ri sk Description section of this document.

Table 6-2. Mammalian Chronic Dose-Based Risk Quotients (RQs)

Use Feeding Category Chronic Dose-Based RQs

Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g)

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals Short grass 3.97* 3.39* 1.82*

Tall grass 1.82* 1.56* 0.83

Broadleaf plants 2.24* 1.91* 1.02*

Fruits/pods 0.25 0.21 0.11

Arthropods 1.56* 1.33* 0.71

Seeds 0.06 0.05 0.03

* exceeds mammalian chronic LOC (=1)



# Table 6-3. Mammalian Chronic Diet ary-Based Risk Quotients (RQs)

Use Feeding Category Chronic Dietary-Based RQs

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals Short grass 0.56

Tall grass 0.26

Broadleaf plants 0.32

Fruits/pods/seeds 0.04

Arthropods 0.22



# 6.1.1.3 Terrestrial Invertebrates

RQs for terrestrial invertebra tes were not calculated because only non-definitive toxicity

endpoints ( i.e. , >) are available for honeybees. Risk to terrestrial invertebrates from exposure to

cyflumetofen as a result of the proposed uses is di scussed in the Risk Desc ription section of this

document.

6.1.1.4 Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants

RQs for dicots were calculated for the maxi mum application rate and application method

(ground, aerial) for each pr oposed use using the EC 25 

# and NOAEC for the most sensitive dicot

from the seedling emergence study (tomato, EC 25 

# /NOAEC = 0.0393/0.000706 lb a.i./A, MRID

48542933) and dicot NOAEC from the vegetative vi gor study (NOAEC = 0.273 lb a.i./A, MRID

48542932). RQs for monocots were not calculated due to the lack of definitive endpoints for

monocots ( i.e. , seedling emergence EC 25 

# : could not be determined because the concentrationresponse relationship for dry weight and shoot length was atypical leading to issues with model

convergence; seedling emergence NOAEC < 0.000706 lb a.i./A; vegetative vigor EC 25 

# > 0.250

lb a.i./A). Risk to listed monocots from expos ure to cyflumetofen as a result of the proposed

uses will be discussed in the Risk De scription section of this document.

# 56 RQs for terrestrial (upland and semi -aquatic) plants are provided in Table 6-4 . For dicots

inhabiting dry (upland) areas, RQ s from exposure via total load ing range from 0.10 to 17. For

dicots inhabiting semi-aquatic ar eas, RQs from exposure via tota l loading range from 0.56 to 42.

RQs from exposure via spray drift alone range fro m <0.1 to 14 for dicots. The terrestrial plant

LOC of 1 is exceeded for listed dicots from e xposure via total loading (runoff and spray drift)

and spray drift alone for all proposed uses.

Table 6-4. Terrestrial (Upland and Semi-A quatic) Plant Risk Quotients (RQs)

Use

(Application Method) Plant Type RQs for Exposure via

Total Loading (Runoff + Spray Drift) RQs for Exposure via

Spray Drift Alone

Dry (Upland)

Areas Semi-Aquatic

Areas All Areas

Citrus

Grapes

Pome fruits

Strawberries

Tree nuts

Tomatoes

Ornamentals

(ground) Non-listed monocot Not calculated a 

## Not calculated b



## Listed monocot Not calculated c 

## Not calculated c



## Non-listed dicot 0.10 0.56 <0.1

Listed dicot 5.67* 31.16* 2.83*

Tomatoes

(aerial) Non-listed monocot Not calculated a 

## Not calculated b



## Listed monocot Not calculated c 

## Not calculated c



## Non-listed dicot 0.31 0.76 0.25

Listed dicot 17.00* 42.49* 14.16*

App. = application; SE = seedling emergence; VV = vegetative vigor

*exceeds terrestrial plant LOC (=1)

a 

## due to lack of a SE EC 25 

## for monocots

b 

## due to due to the non-definitive VV EC 25 

## for monocots and lack of a SE EC 25 

## for monocots

c 

## due to the lack of a SE NOAEC for monocots



# 6.1.2 Direct Effects to Aquatic Organisms

6.1.2.1 Fish, Aquatic-Phase Amphibians, and Aquatic

Invertebrates

Fish acute toxicity endpoints are available for pa rent cyflumetofen (fresh water, estuarine/marine)

and degradates A-2 (freshwater) and B-1 (freshwater). Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity

endpoints are available for pare nt cyflumetofen (freshwater, Daphnia ; estuarine/marine, oyster

and mysid shrimp) and degradates A-2 (freshwater, Daphnia ), B-1 (freshwater, Daphnia ), and B2 (freshwater, Daphnia ). All of the acute toxicity studi es with parent cyflumetofen were

conducted as limit tests due to its low solub ility and have non-de finitive endpoints ( i.e. , >). Of

the acute studies with degradates, only those with A-2 have definitive endpoints. Collectively,

the data from these acute studies indicate that degradate A-2 is more toxic than parent

cyflumetofen, B-1, and B-2.

Freshwater fish and invertebrate acute RQs were calculated for the maximum application rate for

each proposed use using definitive toxicity e ndpoints for degradate A-2 (rainbow trout LC 50 

# = 7.09 mg/L, MRID 48542782; daphnid EC 50 

# = 10.52 mg/L, MRID 48542790) and surface water

TTR residue EECs. These RQs represent risk based on the conservative assumption that the

# 57 collective toxicity of the parent a nd all of its degradates is equivalent to the toxicity of the most

toxic chemical among the parent and degrad ates for which data is available.

Freshwater fish and invertebrate chronic RQs we re calculated for the maximum application rate

for each proposed use using NOAECs from the ear ly life-stage study with fathead minnow (31.6

μg a.i./L; MRID 48542783) and the life cycle study with Daphnia (16.2 μg a.i./L; MRID

48542791), respectively, and surface water parent onl y EECs because the chronic toxicity studies

were conducted with technical gr ade cyflumetofen, and the level of exposure to degradates in

these studies is unknown.

Freshwater fish and invertebrate acute RQs ar e all <0.01; freshwater fish and invertebrate

chronic RQs for parent cyflumetofen are all < 0.01. Therefore the aqua tic animal acute and

chronic LOCs of >0.05 and 1, respectively, ar e not exceeded for freshwater fish and

invertebrates regardless of the proposed use.

No acute RQs were calculated for estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate s due to the lack of

definitive acute toxicity endpoints. No chronic RQs were calculated for estuarine/marine fish

and invertebrates because there are no chronic toxi city endpoints, and applic ation of an acute to

chronic ratio (ACR) from data fo r the freshwater counterparts to existing acute t oxicity endpoints

for estuarine/marine taxa is not possible ( i.e. , the freshwater fish and invertebrate and

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate acute toxicity endpoints are non-definitive). Risk to

estuarine/marine fish as a result of the proposed uses of cyflumet ofen is discussed in the Risk

Description section of this document.

6.1.2.2 Sediment-Dwelling (Benthic) Invertebrates

Sub-chronic RQs for estuarine/marine sediment-d welling invertebrates were calculated for the

maximum application rate for each proposed us e using the NOAEC of 19.7 mg TRR/L from a

spiked sediment toxicity study with L. plumulosus (MRID 48542798) and both 21-day parent

only benthic pore water EECs and 21-day TTR benthic pore water EECs. RQs were calculated

for both types of EECs ( i.e. , parent only, and TTR) because the degree to which “Total

Radioactive Residue” represents parent only versus total toxic residues ( i.e. , parent and

degradates) is unknown.

For parent cyflumetofen, chronic RQs for fres hwater sediment-dwellin g invertebrates were

calculated for the maximum application rate fo r each proposed use using NOAECs from spiked

water and sediment toxicity studies with C. riparius (spiked water NOAEC = 65.9 μg a.i./L,

MRID 48542799; spiked sediment NOAEC = 0.12 μg a.i./L, MRID 48542802) and 21-day

parent only surface water EECs and 21-day parent only benthic pore water EECs, respectively.

For degradates AB-1 and AB-1 dimer, chr onic RQs for freshwater sediment-dwelling

invertebrates were calculated for the maximum application ra te for each proposed use using

NOAECs from spiked sediment toxicity studies with C. riparius (AB-1 NOAEC = 34.2 mg

a.i./L, MRID 48542801; AB-1 dimer NOAEC = 5.61 μg a.i./L, MRID 48542803) and 21-day

TTR benthic pore water EECs. The RQs calculate d with degradate toxicity endpoints represent

risk based on the conservative, underlying assump tion that the collective toxicity of the parent

and all of its degradates is equivalent to the toxicity of the tested degradate.

# 58 Sub-chronic RQs for L. plumulosus exposed to sediment spiked with parent cyflumetofen are all

<0.01; chronic RQs for C. riparius exposed to sediment spiked with parent cyflumetofen range

from 0.02 to 0.21; chronic RQs for C. riparius exposed to sediment spiked with degradate AB-1

are all <0.01; RQs for C. riparius exposed to sediment spiked with degradate AB-1 dimer range

from 0.02 to 0.53; and RQs for C. riparius exposed to water spiked with parent cyflumetofen

range are all <0.01 ( Table 6-5 ). Therefore, the a quatic animal acute and chronic LOCs of >0.05

and 1 are not exceeded for sediment-dwelling inve rtebrates regardless of the proposed use.

Table 6-5. Sediment-Dwelling (Benthic) Invertebrates Risk Quotients (RQs)

PRZM/EXAMS

Use/Scenario Method of

App. Spiked Sediment Spiked Water

Estuarine/marine Freshwater Freshwater

L. plumulosus

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint C. riparius

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint C. riparius

Degradate

AB-1

Endpoint C. riparius

Degradate

AB-1 Dimer

Endpoint C. riparius

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint

21-Day

Parent

Only

Benthic

Pore Water

EEC 21-Day

TTR

Benthic

Pore Water

EEC 21-Day

Parent Only

Benthic Pore

Water EEC 21-Day

TTR

Benthic

Pore Water

EEC 21-Day

TTR

Benthic

Pore Water

EEC 21-Day

Parent Only

Surface Water

EEC



## Citrus

CA Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01

FL Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.20 <0.01

Grapes

CA Grapes Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.03 <0.01

CA Wine Grapes Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 0.16 <0.01

NY Grapes Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.37 <0.01

Pome fruits

NC Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.17 <0.01

OR Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.11 <0.01

PA Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.21 <0.01

Strawberries

CA Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.07 <0.01

FL Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.20 <0.01

Tree nuts

CA Almond Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.05 <0.01

OR Filberts Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.11 <0.01

GA Pecans Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.09 <0.01 0.23 <0.01

Tomatoes

CA Aerial <0.01 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.24 <0.01

Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01

FL Aerial <0.01 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.36 <0.01

Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.19 <0.01

PA Aerial <0.01 <0.01 0.21 <0.01 0.53 <0.01

Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.10 <0.01 0.32 <0.01

Ornamentals

CA Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.16 <0.01

FL Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.18 <0.01

MI Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.21 <0.01

NJ Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.19 <0.01

OR Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.06 <0.01

TN Ground <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.19 <0.01

# 59 6.1.2.3 Aquatic Plants

RQs for listed aquatic plants were calculated fo r the maximum application rate for each proposed

use using the NOAECs from toxicity studies wi th parent cyflumetofen (duckweed NOAEC =

38.3 μg a.i./L, MRID 48542804; most sensitive algal NOAEC = 23.8 μg a.i./L, MRID

48542792) and degradate AB-11 (green algal NOAEC = 0.483 mg a.i./L, MRID 48542797) and

parent only surface water EECs and TTR surface wa ter EECs, respectively. RQs calculated with

the degradate toxicity endpoint for AB-11 represent risk based on the conservative, underlying

assumption that the collective toxici ty of the parent and all of its degradates is equivalent to the

toxicity of AB-11.

For parent cyflumetofen, RQs for listed non-vascul ar and vascular aquatic plants range from 0.01

to 0.08 and 0.01 to 0.14, respectively; for degradat e AB-11, RQs for listed non-vascular plants

range from <0.01 to 0.01 ( Table 6-6 ). Therefore, the aquatic plan t LOC of 1 is not exceeded for

listed aquatic vascular and non-vascular pl ants regardless of the proposed use.

For degradate B-1, RQs for listed aq uatic non-vascular plants were not calculated because of the

lack of a NOAEC ( i.e. , <). RQs for non-listed aquatic plan ts were not calculated because EC 50 

# endpoints for parent cyflumetofen and degradates AB-11 and B-1 are non-definitive ( i.e. , >).

Risk to listed aquatic plants from exposure to B-1 and risk to non-liste d aquatic plants from

exposure to cyflumetofen and degradates AB-11 a nd B-1 as a result of the proposed uses will be

discussed in the Risk Descrip tion section of this document.

Table 6-6. Listed Aquatic Pl ant Risk Quotients (RQs)

PRZM/EXAMS

Use/Scenario Method of

App. Aquatic Vascular

Plant

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint Aquatic Non-Vascular

Plant

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint Aquatic Non-Vascular

Plant

DegradateAB-11

Endpoint

Peak Parent Only

Surface Water EEC Peak TTR

Surface Water EEC Peak TTR

Surface Water EEC

Citrus

CA Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

FL Ground 0.01 0.01 0.01

Grapes

CA Grapes Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

CA Wine Grapes Ground 0.01 0.02 0.01

NY Grapes Ground 0.02 0.04 0.01

Pome fruits

NC Ground 0.01 0.02 0.01

OR Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

PA Ground 0.01 0.02 0.01

Strawberries

CA Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

FL Ground 0.01 0.01 0.01

Tree nuts

CA Almond Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

OR Filberts Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

GA Pecans Ground 0.02 0.04 0.01

Tomatoes

CA Aerial 0.08 0.12 0.01

# 60 PRZM/EXAMS

Use/Scenario Method of

App. Aquatic Vascular

Plant

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint Aquatic Non-Vascular

Plant

Cyflumetofen

Endpoint Aquatic Non-Vascular

Plant

DegradateAB-11

Endpoint

Peak Parent Only

Surface Water EEC Peak TTR

Surface Water EEC Peak TTR

Surface Water EEC

Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

FL Aerial 0.08 0.13 0.01

Ground 0.01 0.01 0.01

PA Aerial 0.08 0.14 0.02

Ground 0.03 0.04 0.01

Ornamentals

CA Ground 0.01 0.02 0.01

FL Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

MI Ground 0.01 0.01 0.01

NJ Ground 0.01 0.01 0.01

OR Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01

TN Ground 0.01 0.01 <0.01



# 6.1.2.4 Aquatic Bioaccumulation

KABAM was used to calculate risk quotients from a bioaccumulation pathway for food items

that may be consumed by listed and non-listed species. The RQs for bioaccumulation risk did

not exceed levels of concern for mammals or birds ( Table 6-7 ).

Table 6-7. Bioaccumulation Risk Quot ients (RQs) for Mammals and Birds

Wildlife Species Acute Chronic

Dose Based Dietary Based Dose Based Dietary Based

Mammals

Fog/water shrew 0.001 N/A 0.116 0.021

Rice rat/star-nosed mole 0.001 N/A 0.140 0.021

Small mink 0.001 N/A 0.176 0.028

Large mink 0.001 N/A 0.195 0.028

Small river otter 0.001 N/A 0.210 0.028

Large river otter 0.001 N/A 0.247 0.031

Birds

Sandpipers 0.003 0.001 N/A 0.025

Cranes 0.000 0.001 N/A 0.025

Rails 0.001 0.001 N/A 0.029

Herons 0.000 0.001 N/A 0.029

Small osprey 0.000 0.001 N/A 0.034

White pelican 0.000 0.001 N/A 0.037



# 6.2 Risk Description

The following risk description expl ains the overall direct effect conclusions regarding potential

ecological risk from the proposed uses of cyfl umetofen. The risk description takes into

consideration all lines of evid ence including: risk estimates ( i.e. , RQ results); information on the

chance of individual effect ( i.e. , mortality or immobilization) for the acute RQ values;

comparisons of non-definitive toxicity endpoints ( i.e ., >) to EECs; data from monitoring, field

studies, and reported incidents that may provi de additional insights into the likelihood of

exposure; and other factors that modify the likelihood of exposure such as timing of application,

# 61 overlap of area affected and the degree of eff ect with the presence/absence of taxa, species

sensitivity distribution, and pres ence/absence of dietary items.

6.2.1 Direct Effects to Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase

Amphibians

Avian acute RQs were not calculated because avia n acute oral and subacute-dietary toxicity

studies for cyflumetofen have non-definitive endpoints ( i.e. , >). Instead, the most sensitive, nondefinitive acute dose- and dietary-based toxicity va lues for birds were compared directly to the

highest avian acute dose- and di etary-based EECs for the proposed uses of cyflumetofen.

An acute oral study with bobwhite quail yielde d the most sensitive, non-definitive avian dosebased toxicity endpoints, LD 50 

# > 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw and NOAEL = 74 mg a.i./kg-bw based on

the sublethal effect of hunched posture (M RID 48542772). A sub-acute dietary study with

bobwhite quail yielded the most sensitive, non- definitive avian dietary-based endpoints, LC 50 

# >

5033 mg a.i./kg-diet and NOAEC = 1133 mg a.i./kg-di et based on the sublethal effect of reduced

weight gain (MRID 48542775).

The highest avian dose-based EECs correspond to t hose for small birds (20 g) and range from

1.33 (seeds) to 96.10 (short grass) mg/kg- bw. Dietary-based EECs range from 5.27

(fruits/pods/seeds) to 84.38 (short grass) mg/kg-diet. These EECs are unlikely to cause avian

mortality since they are roughly 2-3 orders of magn itude less than test concentrations that caused

no mortality in toxicity study. Si milarly, these EECs are unlikely to cause reduced weight gain

since they are at least an orde r of magnitude less than test concentrations that caused this

sublethal effect in the bobwhite quail sub-acute dietary study. However, the range of dose-based

EECs does include test concentrations that were associated with sublethal effects ( i.e. , hunched

posture) in the acute oral study with bobwhite quail. Given that hunched posture was not

observed in the sub-acute dietar y or chronic, reproductive stud ies with bobwhite quail, the

potential for cyflumetofen to cause this effect as a result of the proposed uses is low. Therefore,

this comparative analysis suggest s that the likelih ood of adverse effects to birds, reptiles, and

terrestrial-phase amphibians from acute exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed uses is low.

The avian chronic LOC (=1) is not exceeded for bird s of any feeding category regardless of use.

suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effect s to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial-phase

amphibians from chronic exposure to cyflumet ofen for all proposed uses is low.

6.2.2 Direct Effects to Mammals

Mammalian acute RQs were not calculated because the mammalian acute oral toxicity study has

a non-definitive endpoint ( i.e. , >), and a mammalian acute dietary-based endpoint ( i.e. , LC 50 

# , mg/kg-diet) is not available. Instead, the non-de finitive acute dose-based toxicity endpoint for

mammals was compared directly to the hi ghest mammalian acute dose-based EECs for the

proposed uses of cyflumetofen.

An acute oral study with female Wistar rats yielded the non-definitive dose-based toxicity

endpoint of LD 50 

# > 2000 mg a.i./kg-bw (MRID 48542669). The highest mammalian dose-based

EECs correspond to those for small mammals (15 g) and range from 1.12 (seeds) to 80.45 (short

# 62 grass) mg/kg-bw. These EECs are unlikely to re sult in mammalian mortality or sublethal effects

since they are roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude less than test concentr ations that caused no

mortality or transitory subletha l effects in the acute oral t oxicity study. Therefore, this

comparative analysis suggests that the likelihood of adverse effects to mammals from acute

exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed uses is low.

The mammalian chronic LOC of 1 is exceeded fo r small and medium mammals consuming short

grass, tall grass, broadleaf plan ts, or arthropods and large mammals consuming short grass or tall

grass for all of the proposed uses of cyflumetof en. The exceedances across multiple sizes and

feeding categories of mammals sugge st that they may be at risk from chronic exposure as a result

of the proposed uses of cyflumetofen. Reducing the foliar dissipation half-life in T-REX from

the default of 35 days to 1 day and number of a pplications from 2 to 1 still results in chronic

LOC exceedances for small and medium consuming short grass or broadleaf plants, small

mammals consuming tall grass, and large mamm als consuming short grass.

6.2.3 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Invertebrates

Presently, the Agency does not have a formal methodology for evaluati ng risk to non-target

terrestrial invertebrates. Inst ead, acute contact- and dietary-base d EECs for the proposed uses of

cyflumetofen were calculated ( Table 6-7 ) and directly compared to ac ute contact- and oral-based

toxicity values for hone y bees, respectively.

Table 6-7. Calculation of Contact and Dietary EECs for Honey Bees

Contact EEC for forager bees receivi ng direct spray (μg a.i./bee) =

maximum single application rate (lb a.i./A) x 2.7 (μg a.i./bee per 1 lb a.i./A) =

0.2 lb a.i./A x 2.7 μg a. i./bee per 1 lb a.i./A =

0.54 μg a.i./bee

Dietary (oral) EEC for a dult bees (μg a.i./bee) =

T-REX-generated upper-bound EECs for tall grass (mg a.i./kg-diet = μg a.i./g-diet) x 0.292 (g/day) b



## = 38.67 μg a.i./g-diet a 

## x 0.292 (g/day) =

11.29 μg a.i./bee

a 

## from Table 4-4

b 

## most conservative food consumption rate for worker bees



# For both technical grade cyflumetofen and a 20.4% formulation of cyflumetofen, the honey bee

acute contact LD 50 

# is >100 μg a.i./bee (MRIDs 48542805 and 48542914). This non-definitive

contact toxicity endpoint is almost 3 orders of magnitude greater than the honey bee contact EEC

of 0.54 μg a.i./bee. The NOAEL of 20.7 μg a.i./b ee for the acute contact study with technical

grade cyflumetofen, which is based on statistical ly-significant mortality at 45.5 lb a.i./bee, is

almost 2 orders of magnitude greater than the honey bee contact EEC. The NOAEL of 4.6 μg

a.i./bee for the acute contact study with a 20.4% fo rmulation of cyflumetofen, which is based on

the sublethal effect of lethargy, is almost an order of magnitude greater that the honey bee

contact EEC. For a 20.3% formulation of cyflumetofen, the acute oral LD 50 

# is >116 μg a.i./bee,

and the NOAEL is 116 μg a.i./bee (MRID 48542923). Th ese oral toxicity e ndpoints are an order

of magnitude greater than the honey bee di etary (oral) EEC of 11.29 μg a.i./bee.

Additional toxicity data from studi es with beneficial terrestrial arthropods bolsters the conclusion

of the low likelihood of adverse e ffects to non-target terrestrial invertebrates from the proposed

# 63 uses of cyflumetofen. Acute lim it tests with two beneficial terre strial arthropods – the parasitic

wasp ( A. rhopalosiphi ) and the predatory mite ( T. pyri ) – using a 20.3% formulation of

cyflumetofen both yielded a LR 50 

# of >1.2 lb a.i./A and a NOAEC of 1.2 lb a.i./A which are

greater than the single maximu m application rate of 0.2 lb a. i./A for cyflumetofen (MRIDs

48542924 and 48542725).

Collectively, this comparative analysis suggest s that the likelihood of adverse effects to honey

bees and some beneficial terrestri al arthropods from acute contact and/or dietary/or al exposure to

cyflumetofen for all proposed uses appears to be low. However, given th e insecticidal mode of

action of cyflumetofen, the potential for risk to sensitive, non-target terrestrial invertebrates

exists.

6.2.4 Direct Effects to Terrestrial (U pland and Semi-Aquatic) Plants

The terrestrial plant LOC of 1 is not exceeded for non-listed dicots from exposure via total

loading (runoff and spray drift) or spray drif t only regardless of us e suggesting that the

likelihood of adverse effects to non-listed dicots from exposure to cyflumetofen for all proposed

uses is low. In contrast, the terrestrial plant LOC of 1 is excee ded for listed dicots from exposure

via total loading and spray drift only for all propos ed uses suggesting that listed dicots may be at

risk from exposure as a result of th e proposed uses of cyflumetofen.

It should be noted that the most sensitive dicot in the seedling emergence study – tomato – is one

of the proposed uses for cyflum etofen; the seedling emergence EC 25 

# and NOAEC for tomato are

0.0393 lb a.i./A and 0.000706 lb a.i./A, respectively. However, effects noted in the seedling

emergence study should not be applicable to the pr oposed uses of cyflumet ofen since application

presumably will not occur until plants reach th e vegetative growth stage when no effects are

expected based on results of the vegetative vigor study ( i.e. , in the vegetative vigor study, there

were no statistically-significant effects on tomato up to the highest concentration tested – 0.273

lb a.i./A – which is greater than the proposed maximu m single application rate of 0.2 lb a.i./A).

RQs were not calculated for monocots due to the lack of appropriate endpoints for monocots.

Specifically, for the most sensitive m onocot of oat, a seedling emergence EC 25 

# could not be

determined because the endpoints of dry we ight and shoot length displayed atypical

concentration-responses leading to issues with model convergence. In addition, dry weight and

shoot length of the lowest treatment group ( i.e. , 0.000706 lb a.i./A) were significantly reduced

when compared to the control group resulting in the lack of a NOAEC for monocots. In the

absence of RQs for monocots, the lowest seed ling emergence treatment concentration that

yielded significant effects – 0.000706 lb a.i./A – was compared to the range of terrestrial plant

EECs as presented in Table 4-6 ( i.e. , 0.002-0.02 lb a.i./A). The comparison indicates that

terrestrial plant EECs are greater than an exposure concentrati on that caused a significant a

decrease in oat dry weight and shoot length impl ying that listed monocots may be at risk from

exposure via total loading (runoff and spray drift) and spray drift only for all proposed uses.

Furthermore, given the inability to determine a seedling emergence EC 25 

# for monocots, risk to

non-listed monocots cannot be precluded.

Overall, adverse effects to terrestrial plants (l isted dicots and all monocots) from exposure to

cyflumetofen as a result of th e proposed uses are possible. A Tier II seedling emergence

# 64 continuation study with oat is necessary to reduce uncertainty associated with the risk conclusion

for non-listed monocots as well as buffe r distances for listed monocots.

6.2.4.1 Buffer Distances for Reducing Risk to Non-Target

Terrestrial Plants from Spray Drift

Buffer distances for listed dicots and listed and non-listed monocots were determined via

AgDRIFT using the NOAEC and EC 25 

# endpoints for seedling emergence in Table 5-3 . These

buffer distances are provided in Table 6-8 . In the absence of a NOAEC for oat, buffer distances

for oat were calculated using the LOAEC. Therefor e, the distance offsite where effects to oat are

no longer expected are actually greater than those pr esented in the table. It should be noted that

buffer distances for the aerial application scen arios exceed the AgDRIFT Tier 1 aerial modeling

limit of ~1000 feet for oat and tomato.

Table 6-8. Buffer Distances for Listed Dico ts and Listed and Non-Listed Monocots

Species Distance (feet) From the Edge of Field Where the RQ Falls Below the

Terrestrial Plant LOC for S eedling Emergence Endpoints

Ground Application a 

## Aerial Application

VF-F Drop Size F-M/C Drop Size VF-F 

## Drop Size F-M 

## Drop Size

Listed Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted

Monocots

Oat ( Avena sativa ) b 

## 299 CBD c 

## 138 CBD c 

## >1000 CBD c 

## >1000 CBD c



## Onion ( Allium sepa ) 10 CBD d 

## 3 CBD d 

## 256 CBD d 

## 82 CBD d



## Corn ( Zea mays ) 0 CBD d 

## 0 CBD d 

## 0 CBD d 

## 0 CBD d



## Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ) 0 CBD d 

## 0 CBD d 

## 0 CBD d 

## 0 CBD d



## Dicots

Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) 

## 299

NA 138

NA >1000

NA >1000

NA Cucumber ( Cucumis sativa ) 10 3 269 89

Sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris ) 3 3 0 0

Radish ( Raphanus sativus ) 0 0 0 0

Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) 0 0 0 0

Soybean ( Glycine max ) 0 0 0 0

CBD = could not be determined; NA = not applicable

VF-F = ASAE Very Fine to Fine; F-M/C = ASAE Fine to Medium/Course; F-M = ASAE Fine to Medium

a 

## Low boom (20 inches)

b 

## buffer distances calcula ted using the LOAEC due to the lack of a NOAEC

c 

## While statistically-significant reductions were detected, th ere were issues with model co nvergence. Therefore, an

EC 25 

## could not be determined.

d 

## The EC 25 

## is greater than the highest tested concentration.



# 6.2.5 Direct Effects to Fish, Aquatic-Phase Amphibians, and Aquatic

Invertebrates

The acute RQs calculated for freshwater fish and invertebrate repres ent risk based on the

conservative assumption that the collective toxici ty of parent cyflumetofen and all of its

degradates is equivalent to the toxicity of the most toxi c chemical among the parent and

degradates for which data is available ( i.e. , degradate A-2). Even under this conservative

assumption, acute aquatic animal LOCs (>0.05) we re not exceeded for freshwater fish or

invertebrates regardless of use suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effect s to freshwater fish

# 65 and invertebrates and aquatic-pha se amphibians from acute exposure as a result of the proposed

uses of cyflumetofen is low.

It should be noted that the fres hwater fish acute toxicity st udy with A-2 yielded a NOAEC of

<5.04 mg a.i./L (MRID 48542782). This NOAEC is based on sublethal effects including

unbalanced swimming, faulty respiratory f unction, loss of equilibrium, and non-typical

pigmentation observed at the lowest concentratio n tested. Overall, th e likelihood of adverse

effects to freshwater fish and aquatic-phase amphibians from acute exposure to A-2 is considered

low because: 1) acute RQs calculated using the LC 50 

# endpoint did not exceed LOCs; 2) no

sublethal effects were observed in fish acute toxicity studies with parent cyflumetofen where the

organisms were presumably exposed to A-2 as a result of rapid hydrolysis, and 3) TTR surface

water EECs, which represent parent cyflumetofen and multiple degradates including A-2, are at

least 3 orders of magnitude less than the observed NOAEC for A-2.

The aquatic animal chronic LOC (=1) is not ex ceeded for freshwater fish or invertebrates

regardless of use suggesting that the likelihood of adverse eff ects to freshwater fish and

invertebrates and aquatic-phase amphibians from chronic exposure as a re sult the proposed uses

of cyflumetofen is low.

Estuarine/marine fish and invertebrate RQs were not calculated because of the lack of

appropriate toxicity endpoints. Based on a comparison of ac ute toxicity endpoints between

freshwater and estuarine/marine organisms, there is no indication that estuarine/marine

fish/invertebrates are more sensitiv e to parent cyflumetofen than freshwater fish/invertebrates.

In addition, estuarine/marine fish /invertebrates would have to be several orders of magnitude

more sensitive than freshwater fish/invertebrate s to the most toxic degradate tested, A-2, to

exceed Agency LOCs suggesting that the likelihood of adverse effects to estuarine/marine fish

and invertebrates as a result of the pr oposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.

6.2.6 Direct Effects to Sediment-Dwe lling (Benthic) Invertebrates

The aquatic animal acute and chronic LOCs (>0.05 and 1, respectively) are not exceeded for

sediment-dwelling (benthic) inve rtebrates regardless of use s uggesting that the likelihood of

adverse effects to benthic invert ebrates from acute or chronic e xposure to cyflumetofen for all

proposed uses is low.

6.2.7 Direct Effects to Aquatic Plants

The aquatic plant LOC (=1) is not exceeded fo r listed aquatic plants exposed to parent

cyflumetofen or degradate AB-11 regardless of use suggesting that the likelihood of adverse

effects to listed aquatic plants as a result of the proposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.

It should be noted that a P. subcapitata toxicity study with B-1 yielded a NOAEC of <0.10 mg

a.i./L based on cell density, growth rate, and yield (MRID 48542797). However, there is

uncertainty associated with this NOAEC due to the lack of a clear concentration-response

relationship. Given that B-1 wa s not considered in the TTR appr oach for modeling surface water

EECs because of its low expected toxicity ( i.e. , due to lack of a cya no group) and the actual

NOAEC for B-1would have to be 2 orders of ma gnitude lower than the lowest concentration

# 66 tested to exceed the Agency LOC for listed aqua tic plants, the likelihood of adverse effects to

aquatic non-vascular plants from exposure to B- 1 for all proposed uses is considered low.

RQs for non-listed aquatic plants were not calculated for parent cyflumetofen or degradates AB11 and B-1 because of the lack of definitive EC 50 

# endpoints (i.e., >). Give n that risk to listed

aquatic plants is based on the NOAEC, whic h is a more sensitive endpoint than the EC 50 

# , and

there were no exceedances for listed aquatic plan ts, the likelihood of adve rse effects to non-listed

aquatic non-vascular and vascular pl ants as a result of the proposed uses of cyflumetofen is low.

6.3 Summary of Direct Effects

A summary of the direct effects of cyflumetofen to terrestria l and aquatic taxa is provided in

Table 6-9

.

Table 6-9. Summary of Direct Effects

Taxon Risk Concern for Direct Effects?

Non-Listed Listed*

Birds (surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and

reptiles) No No

Mammals Yes (chronic exposure a 

## ) Yes (chronic exposure a 

## )

Terrestrial invertebrates No No

Terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) plants : monocots Yes b 

## Yes

Terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) plants: dicots No Yes

Freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians) No No

Freshwater invertebrates No No

Estuarine/marine fish No No

Estuarine/marine invertebrates No No

Sediment-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates No No

Aquatic vascular plants (vascular and non-vascular) No No

Aquatic non-vascular plants No NA

NA = not applicable because there are no listed aquatic non-vascular plants

* Direct or indirect effects to specific listed species have not been definitively determined; further investigation into

temporal, geographical, and biological associations between the proposed uses and affected taxa is needed before

definitive effects determinations can be made.

a 

## small and medium mammals consuming short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, or arthropods and large mammals

consuming short grass or tall grass

b 

## Given the inability to determine a seedling emergence EC 25 

## for monocots, risk to non-listed monocots cannot be

precluded.



# 6.4 Indirect Effects

Direct effects to mammals (non-lis ted and listed) from chronic e xposure could result in indirect

effects to terrestrial organisms including birds, terrestrial invertebrates, and terrestrial plants due

to general habitat modification and/ or food/prey supply disruption.

Direct effects to monocots (liste d and non-listed) and listed dicots could result in indirect effects

to terrestrial organisms includi ng birds, mammals, and terrestria l invertebrates due to general

habitat modification (most likely due to effects on non-listed plants ), host plant loss, and/or food

supply disruption as well as indirect effects to aquatic organisms due to changes in water quality

and/or habitat.

# 67 6.5 Federally Threatened and Endang ered (Listed) Species Concerns

6.5.1 Action Area

For listed species assessment pur poses, the action area is consider ed to be the area affected

directly or indirectly by the fe deral action and not merely the i mmediate area involved in the

action. At the initial screening- level, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomic

groups and conservatively assumes that listed sp ecies within those broad groups are located on or

adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organism s are assumed to be located in a surface water

body adjacent to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that the listed species are located

within an assumed area that has the relatively hi ghest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that

exposures are likely to d ecrease with distance from the treatment area.

If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area re sult in risk quotients that are

below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" dete rmination conclusion is made with respect to

listed species in that taxa, and no further refineme nt of the action area is necessary. Furthermore,

risk quotients below the listed species LOCs fo r a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for

indirect effects upon listed species that depe nd upon the taxonomic group covered by the risk

quotient as a resource. However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to risk

quotients in excess of th e listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a

"may affect" conclusion exists and may be asso ciated with direct effects on listed species

belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that

depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the

biology of listed species, the lo cations of these species , and the locations of use sites could be

considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area

apply to a particular listed organism. These subs equent refinement steps could consider how this

information would affect the action area for a pa rticular listed organism and may potentially

include areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

6.5.2 Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

The Level I screening assessment process for li sted species uses the generic taxonomic groupbased process to make inferences on direct effect concerns for listed species. The first iteration

of reporting the results of the Le vel I screening is a listing of pesticide use sites and taxonomic

groups for which RQ calculations reveal values th at meet or exceed the li sted species LOCs or

other evidence suggests that a dverse effects are likely or can not be precluded (for more

information see, USEPA, 2004).

Results of this screening-level ecological risk assessment indi cate that the proposed uses of

cyflumetofen have the potential for direct a dverse effects to listed mammals, dicots, and

monocots ( Table 6-10 ).

The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have th e potential to exert i ndirect effects upon listed

organisms by, for example, perturbing forage or pr ey availability, altering the extent of nesting

habitat, and creating gaps in the food chain. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct

effect LOCs for each taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the potential for

# 68 indirect effects upon listed speci es that rely upon non-listed orga nisms in these taxonomic groups

as resources critical to their life cycle.

Results of this screening-level ecological risk assessment indi cate that the proposed uses of

cyflumetofen have the potential for direct adve rse effects to non-listed mammals and monocots.

Therefore, there is potential fo r indirect effects to all listed species that depend on non-listed

mammals and monocots for food, habitat, or other environmental resources ( Table 6-10 ).

Species-specific concerns for indirect effects to listed organisms will require a determination of

the coincidence of cyflumetofen use with locations of listed sp ecies and the biologically-based

resources upon which they depend.

Table 6-10. Risk to Listed Taxa Associated wi th Potential Direct or Indirect Effects from

the Proposed Uses of Cyflumetofen*

Listed Taxon Direct Effects Indirect Effects

Birds No Yes a,b



## Reptiles No Yes a,b



## Terrestrial-phase amphibians No Yes a,b



## Mammals Yes (chronic exposure) Yes b



## Terrestrial invertebrates No Yes a,b



## Terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) plants : monocots Yes Yes a



## Terrestrial (upland and semi-aquatic) plants: dicots Yes Yes a



## Freshwater fish No Yes b



## Aquatic-phase amphibians No Yes b



## Freshwater invertebrates No Yes b



## Estuarine/marine fish No Yes b



## Estuarine/marine invertebrates No Yes b



## Sediment-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates No Yes b



## Aquatic vascular plants No Yes b



## Aquatic non-vascular plants NA Yes b



## NA = not applicable because there are no listed aquatic non-vascular plants

* Direct or indirect effects to specific listed species have not been definitively determined; further investigation into

temporal, geographical, and biological associations between the proposed uses and affected taxa is needed before

definitive effects determinations can be made.

a 

## due to direct effects to non-listed mammals

b 

## due to direct effects to non-listed monocots which cannot be precluded given the inability to determine a seedling

emergence EC 25 

## for monocots



# 6.5.2.1 Probit Slope Dose-Response Analysis of LOC and Acute

RQ Values

As part of risk estimation, the Agency provides additional information on the potential for acute

direct effects to exposed indi viduals in terms of the chan ce of an individual event ( i.e. , mortality

or immobilization) should exposure at the EEC ac tually occur for a specie s with sensitivity to

cyflumetofen on par with the acute toxicity e ndpoint selected for RQ calculation. This is

accomplished using the slope of the dose-response relationship available from the toxicity study

used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each taxonomic group. The individual

effects probability associated with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and

an assumption of a probit dose-response relationsh ip. In addition to a single effects probability

estimate based on the mean, upper and lower esti mates of the effects probability are also

provided to account for variance in the slope, if available. Indi vidual effect probabilities are

# 69 calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECv1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version

1.1) developed by U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmenta l Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004).

The model provides the option of in serting taxa-specific probit sl opes and confidence intervals.

If specific information is not av ailable, the model uses a defau lt value of 4.5 for the probit slope

and 2 and 9 for the upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds.

For cyflumetofen, avian, mammalian, fish, and aqua tic invertebrate acute toxicity studies with

parent cyflumetofen yielded non-definitive endpoint values ( i.e. , >), so this prob it slope analysis

is not applicable.

6.5.2.2 Critical Habitat

In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the

physical and biological features (constituent elemen ts) of a critical habitat identified by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Services (the Services) as essential to the

conservation of a listed species and which may re quire special management considerations or

protection. The evaluation of effects for a scr eening-level pesticide risk assessment focuses on

the biological features that ar e constituent elements and is accomplished using the screeninglevel taxonomic analysis (RQs) and le vels of concern (LOCs) that ar e used to evaluate direct and

indirect effects to listed organisms.

The screening-level risk assessment has identified pot ential concerns for indirect effects to listed

species dependent upon some non-listed species (mammals an d monocots). In light of the

potential for indirect effects, th e next step for EPA and the Services is to identify which listed

species and their designated criti cal habitat(s), if applicable, are potentially implicated.

Analytically, the identification of such species an d their critical habitat can occur by determining

whether the action area overlaps de signated critical habitat or th e occupied range of any listed

species. If so, EPA would examine whether the pe sticide's potential effects to non-listed species

would affect the listed species indirectly, or dire ctly affect a constituent element of the critical

habitats. At present, the information reviewed by EPA does not permit use of this analytical

approach to make a definitive identification of sp ecies that are potentially affected indirectly or

designated critical habitats that are potentially affected dire ctly by the proposed uses of

cyflumetofen.

This screening-level risk assessment for critical habitats provides a lis ting of potential biological

features that, if they are consti tuent elements of one or more critical habitats, would be of

potential concern. These corres pond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern

for adverse effects. This should serve as an initial step in problem formulation for further

assessment of designated critic al habitat impacts outlined above, should additional work be

necessary.

6.5.2.3 Co-occurrence Analysis

The goal of the analysis for co-location is to determine whether sites of cyflumetofen proposed

use are geographically associated with known locations of listed species. At the screening level,

this analysis is accomplished using the LOCATE S (version 2.2.5) database. The database uses

location information for listed species at the coun ty level and compares it to agricultural census

# 70 data (from 2007) for crop production at the same county level of resolution. The product is a

listing of federally-listed speci es that are located within c ounties known to produce the crops

upon which cyflumetofen is proposed to be used. The current analysis is based on the following

proposed uses of cyflumetofen: almonds, apples, chestnut, cironjas, citron, citrus fruit-all,

grapefruit, grapes, hazel nuts (filberts), kumquats , lemons, lemons and limes, limes, macadamia

nuts, pears-all, pears-Bartlett, pears-other, pecans-all, pecans-impr oved, pecans-native and

seedling, tangelo, tangerine, walnuts-English. For potential direct effect s, only listed mammals,

monocots, and dicots will be considered, since th ey were the only taxa for which direct risks

were identified. For indirect effects, all other taxa will be considered since there is a potential

for indirect effects to taxa that might rely on non-listed mammals and monocots for some stage

of their life-cycle.

LOCATES identified a total of 1368 listed species that overlap at the county level with areas

where cyflumetofen is proposed to be used (see Appendix F for a complete species list). This

preliminary analysis indicates that there is a pot ential for cyflumetofen use to overlap with listed

species and that a more refined assessment is warranted. The more refined assessment should

involve clear delineation of the action area associated with propos ed uses of cyflumetofen and

best available information on the temporal and sp atial co-location of listed species with respect

to the action area. This analysis has not been conducted for this assessment.



# 7 Uncertainties

A description of basic assumptions, uncertainties , strengths, and limitati ons of a typical risk

assessment is described in Chapter 6 of the Agency’s Overview Document (USEPA, 2004) and

includes those related to exposure for all taxa, those related to e xposure for aquatic species, those

related to exposure for terrestrial animals, those related to the effects assessment, and those

associated with the acute LOC values. Additiona l uncertainties for this assessment are discussed

below.

7.1 Data Gaps

7.1.1 Environmental Fate

Uncertainties in the fate data with the dimers a nd unextracted residues were described in detail in

Sections 2.6 and 4.2. Dimers that formed in the hydrolysis, aerobic and anaerobic soil

metabolism, aerobic aquatic metabolism, and terr estrial field dissipation studies. Unextracted

residues formed in the aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism and aerobic and anaerobic aquatic

metabolism studies. The issues of dimers and un extracted residues are somewhat intertwined in

that: the dimers are expected to be hydrophobi c and would likely accumulate in soil and

sediment; the dimers and unextracted residues tend to occur at their highest quantities at the end

of the fate studies; and high quantities of dimers and unextracted residues tend to occur in the

same studies (aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism and aerobic aquatic metabolism).

The concern would be that dimers will form, persist and accumulate in the environment.

However, this risk assessment did not identify ri sks to aquatic organisms. Therefore, it seems

further clarification on these issu es would be unlikely to change this aquatic risk finding. If

# 71 future risk assessments were to identify aquati c risks, more information of the formation of

dimers and composition of the unextr acted residues might be useful.

7.1.2 Ecological Effects

Oat data from a Tier II seedling emergence continuation study ( Guideline 850.4100 – Seedling

Emergence and Seedling Growth) would allow the Agency to be tter characterize potential risks

by eliminating uncertainties for both non-listed and listed monocots that cannot be accounted for

using alternate methods or weight of eviden ce. The submitted seedling emergence study (MRID

48542933) was classified as Supplemental because for the most sensitive monocot – oat, dry

weight and shoot length of the lowest treatment group ( i.e. , 0.000706 lb a.i./A) were significantly

reduced ( i.e. , 33.2 and 27.3 %, respectively) when compared to the control group resulting in a

non-definitive NOAEC for monocot s. In addition, an EC 25 

# for monocots could not be

determined because the oat endpoints of dry we ight and shoot length an displayed atypical

concentration-response relationship leadi ng to issues with model convergence



# 8 References

Arnot, J.A. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2004. A food web bioaccumulation model for organic chemicals

in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 23 (10): 2343-2355.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instru ment for estimating pesticide residues on

plants. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 13:1383-1391.

Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga. 1972. Pe sticide Residues on Plants: Correlation of

Representative Data as a Basis for Estimation of their Magnitude in the Environment. In F.

Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and

Technology, Georg Thieme Publ., Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

USEPA. 1999. Downwind Deposition Tolerance Bounds for Orchards. Scientific Advisory Panel

background document. Office of Pesticide Pr ograms. Washington, D.C. July 23, 1999.

http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/ sap/1999/july/airblast.pdf

USEPA. 1997. Estimating Drinking Water Exposur e as a Component of the Dietary Risk

Assessment; Spray Drift Program, Washington, D.C.

http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/1997/121097

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk A ssessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of

Research and Development, Washingt on, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=30759

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide

Programs. United States Envir onmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Fate

and Effects Division. Office of Pe sticide Programs. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

# 72 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Na tional Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998.

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Pr ocedures for Conducting Consultation and

Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the E ndangered Species Act. Final Draft. March

1998.



# 9 Bibliography of Cited MRIDs

Fate studies

48542624 Knight, L. (2004) OK-5101 - Hydrolysis Under Laboratory Conditions. Project

Number: OTSA/0076/US/OCR, OSK/035/ 032048, EU/OSK/035. Unpublished study

prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 75p.

48542625 Nakamura, H. (2004) (Carbon 14)OK-5101 (P henyl-ring-U-and to lyl-ring-U-label):

A Hydrolysis Study. Project Nu mber: OTSA/0156/EN//FR/US/OCR,

EU/IET/02/8006. Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Environmental

Toxicology. 167p.

48542626 Knight, L. (2004) OK-5101 - Photodegrada tion in Water and Quantum Yield of

Direct Photodegradation in Water. Project Number: OTSA/0078/US/OCR,

OSK/036/032551, EU/OSK/036. Unpublished st udy prepared by Huntingdon Life

Sciences, Ltd. 104p.

48542627 Ohyama, K. (2004) (Carbon 14)OK-5101 (Phe nyl-ring-U-and Tolyl-ring-U-label): A

Photolysis Study in Water. Proj ect Number: OTSA/0157/EN//FR/US/OCR,

EU/IET/02/8007. Unpublished study prepared by Institute of Environmental

Toxicology. 193p.

48542750 Noorloos, B.; Brands, C.; Stienstra, N. (2007) Photodegradation of A-(Ring-U-

(Carbon 14)) OK-5101 on Soil Surfaces. Project Number: 2007/1067406/US/OCR

EU/477282. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 54p.

48542751 Noorloos, B.; Brands, C.; Stienstra, N. (2007) Photodegradation of B-(Ring-U-

(Carbon 14)) OK-5101 on Soil Surfaces. Project Number: 2007/1067407/US/OCR

EU/475932. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 56p.

48542759 Iijima, K. (2004) OK-5101 Pure: Adsorpti on Study in Soil. Project Number:

A/0044/EN//FR/US/OCR EU/IET/01/6018/11. Unpublished study prepared by

Institute of Environmental Toxicology. 30p.

48542760 Noorloos, B.; Stienstra, N. (2011) Ad sorption of B-1 on Three Soils (Including

Amendment No. 1). Project Number: 2011/7005177/OCR EU/475897. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 47p.

48542761 Noorloos, B.; Stienstra, N. (2011) Ad sorption of AB-1 on Three Soils (Including

Amendment No. 1). Project Number: 2011/7005180/OCR EU/475919. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 50p.

# 73 48542762 Brands, C.; Willems, H. (2008) Adsorption of B-3 on Three Soils. Project Number:

2008/1098894/US/OCR EU/487923. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V.

47p.

48542763 Vasques, A. (2011) Adsorption/Desorpti on Behavior of Cyflumetofen Metabolites

(Carbon 14)-B1, (Carbon 14)-B 3 and (Carbon 14)-A2 on Different US and European

Soils. Project Number: 2011/1257446/US/OCR U/2119/11 EU/379627.

Unpublished study prepared by BASF S.A.: Global Environmental and Consumer

Safety Laboratory - GENCS. 198p.

48542786 Singh, M.; Traversa, E. (2011) Adsorption/Desorption of AB-1 Dimer Metabolite

(Reg. No. 5756389) of BAS 9210 I: Final Report. Project Number:

2011/7005168/OCR 111/06/01 415935. Unpublis hed study prepared by BASF Crop

Protection. 62p.

48542764 Tan, N. (2009) Leaching of B-1 in Three Soils. Project Number:

2009/1126720/US/OCR EU/488795. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V.

36p.

48542765 Tan, N. (2009) Leaching of B-1 in One Soil. Project Number:

2009/1126721/US/OCR EU/490991. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V.

29p.

48542766 Brands, C. (2008) Photochemical Degr adation of A-(Ring-U-(Carbon 14))OK-5101

in Water. Project Number: OTSA/0341/FR/US/OCR EU/477293. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 43p.

48542767 Brands, C. (2008) Photochemical Degr adation of B-(Ring-U-(Carbon 14))OK-5101

in Water. Project Number: OTSA/ 0342/FR/US/OCR EU/475943. Unpublished study

prepared by Notox B.V. 56p.

48542629 Willems, H. (2008) OK-5101 - Atkins on Calculation. Project Number:

OTSA/0330/FR/US/OCR, EU/480228. Unpublis hed study prepared by Notox B.V.

7p.

48542746 Knight, L. (2007) OK-5101 - Investigations into the Identity of Aerobic Soil

Metabolites of OK-5101. Pr oject Number: 2007/1067405/US/OCR

NOT0003/072339 EU/NOT0003. Unpublished st udy prepared by Huntingdon Life

Sciences, Ltd. 37p.

48542747 Willems, H. (2008) OK-5101 - Estimation of Soil DT50 and DT90 Values Using

Degradation Data Taken from a Soil Degrad ation Study by Knight L. (2004) - Annex

IIA 7.1.1. Project Number: OTSA/ 0431/FR/US/OCR US/488454. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 19p.

48542748 Ta, C.; Strobush, A. (2011) Aerobic So il Metabolism of (Carbon 14)-BAS 9210 I:

Final Report. Project Number: 2011/7000200/OCR 111/13/01 US/350780.

Unpublished study prepared by Agvise Inc., BASF Corporation and BASF SE. 318p.

48542752 Brands, C. (2011) Determination of the Aerobic Degradation Rate of B-(Ring-U-

(Carbon 14))OK-5101 in Three Soils (Incl uding Amendment No. 1). Project

# 74 Number: 2011/7005186/OCR EU/478338. Unpublished study prepared by Notox

B.V. 80p.

48542753 Willems, H. (2008) OK-5101 - Estimation of Soil DT50 and DT90 Values Using

Degradation Data Taken from a Soil De gradation Study by Brands (2008)- Annex

llA 7.2.1. Project Number: 2008/1098893/ US/OCR EU/488456. Unpublished study

prepared by Notox B.V. 23p.

48542754 Brands, C.; Corral, E. (2011) Determinati on of the Aerobic Degradation Rate of B-1

in Three Soils (Including Amendment 1 and Amendment 2). Project Number:

2011/7005183/OCR EU/485925. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 44p.

48542755 Brands, C.; Corral, E. (2010) Determinati on of the Aerobic Degradation Rate of AB1 in Three Soils (Including Amen dment No. 1). Project Number:

2010/1224815/US/OCR EU/485926. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V.

50p.

48542756 Brands, C.; Corral, E. (2010) Determinati on of the Aerobic Degradation Rate of B-3

in Three Soils (Including Amendm ent No. 1). Project Number:

2010/1224816/US/OCR EU/487925. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V.

46p.

48542749 Ta, C.; Traversa, E. (2011) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)-BAS 9210 I:

Final Report. Project Number: 2011/7005339/OCR US/350781. Unpublished study

prepared by BASF Corporation and Agvise Laboratories, Inc. 203p.

48542768 Ta, C.; Traversa, E. (2011) Aerobic A quatic Metabolism of (Carbon 14)-BAS 9210 I:

Final Report. Project Number: 2011/7000768/OCR 111/14/01 US/395301.

Unpublished study prepared by BASF Cor poration and Agvise, Inc. 203p.

48542769 Singh, M. (2011) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumetofen) : Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism: Final

Report. Project Number: 2011/7001 153/OCR 111/07/01 US/350777. Unpublished

study prepared by Agvise Laboratories, Inc., and BASF Agro Research. 196p.

48542647 Perez, S.; Miska, J.; Saha, M. (2011) Independent Laborator y Validation of BASF

Analytical Method D1002: Determination of Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and its

Metabolites in Soil Using LC-MS/MS : Final Report. Project Number:

2011/7005075/OCR, 379626, ADPEN/2K11/903/379626. Unpublished study

prepared by ADPEN Laboratories, Inc. 156p.

48542757 Jordon, J.; Warren, R. (2011) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Cyflumetofen (BAS

9210 I) following Applications of BAS 9210 0I in Orchard/Vineyard and Row Crop

Use Patterns. Project Number: 2011/7004042/OCR 111/27/02 US/350785.

Unpublished study prepared by BASF Agri cultural Research Center. 926p.

48542828 Carter, M. (2011) Validation of BASF An alytical Method D1002: Determination of

Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and Its Metabo lites in Soil using LC-MS/MS. Project

Number: 2011/7005073/OCR, US/ADPEN/2K11/416947. Unpublished study

prepared by ADPEN Laboratories, Inc. 209p.

48542829 Gordon, B. (2011) Freezer Storage Stabi lity of Cyflumetofen (BAS 9210 I) and Its

# 75 Relevant Metabolites in Soil Sample s. Project Number: 2011/7002604/OCR,

350786. Unpublished study prepared by BASF Crop Protection. 135p.

48542785 Bouwman, L. (2007) Bioconcentration Test in Carp with OK-5101 (Flow-through).

Project Number: 2007/1067412/US/OCR EU /472872. Unpublished study prepared

by Notox B.V. 61p.

Ecological effects studies

48542772 Teunissen, M. (2011) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Northern Bobwhite with OK5101 (Including Amendment No. 1). Project Number: 2011/7005171/OCR

EU/381926. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 74p.

48542773 Gallagher, S.; Beavers, J. (2006) OK-5101: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the

Mallard. Project Number: 2006/1048773/ US/OCR EU/181/116. Unpublished study

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 58p.

48542774 Zok, S. (2010) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumetofen) - Acute Toxicity in the Zebra Finch

( Taeniopygia guttata ) after Single Oral Administ ration (LD50). Project Number:

2010/1009633/US/OCR 15W0510/095034 375046. Unpublished study prepared by

BASF SE. 69p.

48542775 Teunissen, M. (2011) 5-Day Di etary Toxicity Study in Northern Bobwhite with OK5101 (Including Amendment No. 1). Project Number: 2011/7005174/OCR

EU/381937. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 107p.

48542776 Gallagher, S.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J. (2006) OK-5101: A Dietary LC50 Study with

the Mallard. Project Number: 2011/ 7005174/OCR EU/381937. Unpublished study

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 65p.

48542777 Temple, D.; Beavers, J.; Martin, K. et al. (2008) OK-5101: A Reproduction Study

with the Northern Bobwhite Quai l. Project Number: 2008/1098900/US/OCR

EU/181/118. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 161p.

48542778 Zok, S. (2010) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumeto fen) - 1-Generation Reproduction Study on

the Mallard Duck ( Anas platyrhynchus ) by Administration in the Diet. Project

Number: 2010/1065743/US/OCR 72W0510/095026 350826. Unpublished study

prepared by BASF SE. 351p.

48542779 Salinas, E. (2011) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumeto fen) - Acute Toxicity Study with the

Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Project Number: 2011/1109258/US/OCR

12F0510/09E023 365853. Unpublished study prepared by BASF SE. 45p.

48542780 Salinas, E. (2011) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumeto fen) - Acute Toxicity Study with the

Fathead Minnow ( Pimephales promelas ). Project Number: 2011/1102368/US/OCR

19F0510/09E024 375047. Unpublished study prepared by BASF SE. 47p.

48542781 Nierzedska, E. (2011) Reg.No. 104415 (Metabolite B-1 of BAS 9210 I,

Cyflumetofen) - Acute Toxicity for Rainbow Trout. Project Number:

# 76 2011/1123577/US/OCR 1869190 W/31/11. Unpublished study prepared by Institute

of Industrial Organic Chemistry. 37p.

48542782 Nierzedska, E. (2011) Reg.No. 133276 - (Metabolite A-2 of BAS 9210 I,

Cyflumetofen) - Acute Toxicity for Rainbow Trout. Project Number:

2011/1123576/US/OCR 382915 1/86/91/99. Unpublishe d study prepared by Institute

of Industrial Organic Chemistry. 39p.

48542783 Salinas, E. (2011) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumetofen) - Early Life-stage Toxicity Test on the

Fathead Minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) in a Flow-through System. Project Number:

2011/1109259/US/OCR 375050 50F0510/09E021. Unpublished study prepared by

BASF SE. 84p.

48542784 Migchielsen, M. (2011) Carp, Juvenile Growth test - 28 Days with OK-5101 (Flowthrough) (Including Amendment No. 1). Project Number: 2011/7005297/OCR

EU/475763. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 46p.

48542787 Migchielsen, M. (2008) Acute Toxicity Study in Daphnia magna with B-1 (Static).

Project Number: 2008/1098912/US/OCR EU /488671. Unpublished study prepared

by Notox B.V. 27p.

48542788 Bouwman, L. (2009) Acute Toxicity Study in Daphnia magna with B-2 (Static).

Project Number: 2009/1126740/US/OCR EU /488674. Unpublished study prepared

by Notox B.V. 26p.

48542789 Salinas, E. (2011) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumetofe n) - Acute Toxicity (Immobilisation)

Study in the Water Flea Daphnia magna STRAUS (Including Amendment No. 1).

Project Number: 2011/7006303/O CR 50E0510/09E025 375048. Unpublished study

prepared by BASF SE. 54p.

48542790 Swierkot, A. (2011) Reg.No. 133276 (Metab olite A-2 of BAS 9210 I, Cyflumetofen)

- Daphnia magna Acute Immobilization Test. Project Number:

2011/1124105/US/OCR W/33/11 1/86/91/87. Unpublished study prepared by

Institute of Industrial Organic Chemistry. 36 p.

48542791 Salinas, E. (2011) BAS 9210 I (Cyflumetofen) - Daphnia magna Reproduction Test.

Project Number: 2011/1109261/US /OCR 51E0510/09E022 375049. Unpublished

study prepared by BASF SE. 58p.

48542792 Bergfield, A. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Static Toxicity Test with the Green Alga,

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . Project Number: 2011/7001354/OCR US/65258

350816. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 65p.

48542793 Rebstock, M. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Static To xicity Test with the Blue-green Alga,

Anabaena flos-aquae . Project Number: 2011/7001234/OCR 350817 65259.

Unpublished study prepared by A BC Laboratories, Inc. 60p.

48542794 Rebstock, M. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Static Gr owth Inhibition Test with the Marine

Diatom, Skeletonema costatum . Project Number: 2011/7000375/OCR

SUBNO/201104/05/01 65261. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories,

Inc. 62p.

# 77 48542795 Rebstock, M. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Growth Inhibition Test with the Freshwater

Diatom, Navicula pelliculosa . Project Number: 2011/7000374/OCR

SUBNO/201104/03/01 65260. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories,

Inc. 62p.

48542796 Migchielsen, M. (2011) Fresh Water Alga l Growth Inhibition Test with AB-11

(Including Amendment No. 1). Pr oject Number: 2011/7005237/OCR EU/488678.

Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 36p.

48542797 Migchielsen, M. (2008) Fresh Water Algal Growth Inhibition Test with B-1. Project

Number: 2008/1098913/US/OCR EU/488672. Unpub lished study prepared by Notox

B.V. 34p.

48542798 Gerke, A. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Whole Se diment Acute Toxicity to the Marine

Amphipod, Leptocheirus plumulosus . Project Number: 2011/7000699/OCR

105/02/01 375053. Unpublished study prepar ed by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 68p.

48542799 Koopmans, D. (2009) Sediment-water Chir onomid Toxicity Test Using Water Spiked

with OK-5101. Project Number: 2009/1126743/US/OCR EU/487988. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 59p.

48542801 Desmares-Koopmans, M. (2009) Sediment-W ater Chironomid Toxicity Test Using

Sediment Spiked with AB-1. Project Number: 2009/1126744/OCR, 489663.

Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 52p.

48542802 Backfisch, K.; Weltje, L. (2011) Chronic Toxicity of Reg. No. 5465430 (BAS 9210 I;

Cyflumetofen) to th e Non-Biting Midge Chironomus riparius - A Spiked Sediment

Study. Project Number: 2010/1145507/OCR, 37 5052. Unpublished study prepared by

BASF Aktiengesellschaft. 39p.

48542803 Weltje, L.; Backfisch, K. (2011) Chr onic Toxicity of Reg. No. 5756389 (AB-1

Dimer; Metabolite of Cyflumetofen) to the Non-Biting Midge Chironomus riparius

- A Spiked Sediment Study. Proj ect Number: 2011/1266754/OCR, 382909.

Unpublished study prepared by BASF SE. 44p.

48542804 Bergfield, A. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Growth Inhibition Test with the Freshwater

Aquatic Plant, Duckweed, Lemna gibba . Project Number: 2011/7005069/OCR,

375041, 65262. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 71p.

48542805 Geuijen, W. (2002) Acute Contact Toxi city Study in the Honeybee with OK-5101

(Laboratory Test). Project Number : OTSA/0080/FR/OCR, 358594. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 23p.

48542806 Migchielsen, M. (2008) Ac ute Toxicity Study in the Earthworm Eisenia fetida with

AB-1. Project Number: 2008/1098914/OCR, 48 8673. Unpublished study prepared by

Notox B.V. 25p.

48542807 Migchielsen, M. (2008) Ac ute Toxicity Study in the Earthworm Eisenia fetida with

B-1 (Combined Limit/Range-Finding Test). Project Number: 2008/1098915/OCR,

488670. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 19p.

# 78 48542808 McCormac, A. (2009) Determination of Ch ronic (Sub-Lethal) Toxicity of TechnicalGrade OK-5101 to the Earthworm Eisenia fetida in an Artificial Soil Substrate.

Project Number: 2009/1126745/OCR, NOT /09/1. Unpublished study prepared by

Mambo-Tox, Ltd. 40p.

48542810 Gerke, A. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Effect on New Shell Growth of the Eastern Oyster

( Crassostrea virginica ). Project Number: 2011/7005234/OCR, 350824, 65256.

Unpublished study prepared by A BC Laboratories, Inc. 61p.

48542811 Bergfield, A. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Acut e Toxicity to the Mysid Shrimp, Americamysis

bahia , Determined under Flow-Through Conditions. Project Number:

2011/7005280/OCR, 65255, 350823. Unpublished study prepared by ABC

Laboratories, Inc. 55p.

48542812 Gerke, A. (2011) BAS 9210 I: Acut e Toxicity to the Sheepshead Minnow,

Cyprinodon variegatus , Determined under Flow-Through Conditions. Project

Number: 2011/7005233/OCR, 65254, 350822. Unpub lished study prepared by ABC

Laboratories, Inc. 56p.

48542824 Van-Sikkelerus, B. (2003) Acut e Toxicity Study in the Earthworm Eisenia fetida

with OK-5101 (Combined Range-Finding and Limit Test). Project Number:

OTSA/0108/OCR, 358605. Unpublished st udy prepared by Notox B.V. 16p.

48542914 Geuijen, W. (2006) Acute Contact Toxi city Study in the Honeybee with OK-5101

20% SC (Laboratory Test). Project Number: EU/472927 OTSA/0309/FR/US/OCR.

Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 21p.

48542916 Geuijen, W. (2006) Acute Toxi city Study in the Earthworm Eisenia fetida fetida

(Sic) with OK-5101 20% SC. Project Nu mber: OTSA/0323/FR/US/OCR EU/472938.

Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 21p.

48542920 Migchielsen, M. (2006) 96-Hour Acute Toxicity Study in Rainbow Trout with OK5101 20% SC (Static). Project Nu mber: OTSA/0304/FR/US/OCR EU/472894.

Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 27p.

48542921 Migchielsen, M. (2006) Acute Toxicity Study in Daphnia magna with OK-5101 20%

SC (Static). Project Number: OT SA/0303/FR/US/OCR EU/472905. Unpublished

study prepared by Notox B.V. 28p.

48542922 Migchielsen, M. (2006) Fresh Water Alga l Growth Inhibition Test with OK-5101

20% SC. Project Number: OTSA/0302/ FR/US/OCR EU/472916. Unpublished study

prepared by Notox B.V. 32p.

48542923 Geuijen, W. (2003) Acute Oral Toxicity Study in the Honeybee with OK-5101 20 SC

(Laboratory Test). Project Nu mber: OTSA/0137/FR/US/OCR EU/366751.

Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 22p.

48542924 Geuijen, W. (2004) Toxicity Study in the Parasitic Wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi with

OK-5101 20 SC (Laboratory Test). Project Number: OTSA/0142/US/OCR

EU/386156. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 18p.

# 79 48542925 Geuijen, W. (2004) Dose Response Toxi city Study in th e Predatory Mite

Typhlodromus pyri with OK-5101 20 SC (Laboratory Test). Project Number:

OTSA/0143/US/OCR EU/386167. Unpublished study prepared by Notox B.V. 20p.

48542932 Lee, B. (2011) Cyflumetofen 20SC: Effect s on the Vegetative Vigor of Non-target

Terrestrial Plants (Tier II). Project Number: 2011/7000530/OCR 350814 65248.

Unpublished study prepared by A BC Laboratories, Inc. 114p.

48542933 Lee, B. (2011) Cyflumetofen 20SC: Eff ects on the Seedling Emergence and Growth

of Non-target Terrestrial Plants (T ier II). Project Number: 2011/7000529/OCR 65247

350813. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 125p.

# 80 

# Appendix A: Input and Results of Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v. 1.0)

Assumptions:

SIP employs the following conservative assumpti ons to derive upper bound exposure estimates:

1) The chemical concentration in drinking wate r is at the solubility limit in water (at 25 o 

## C).

2) The assessed animals obtain 100% of thei r daily water needs through drinking water.

3) The daily water need is equivalent to the daily wa ter flux rate as calculated by Nagy and Peterson

(1988).

4) The body weight of the assessed bird is equivale nt to the smallest generic bird modeled in T-REX

(i.e., 20 g). This assumption results in the highest ra tio of exposure to toxicity for the 3 assessed avian

body weights of T-REX (i.e., 20, 100, 1000 g).

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name cyflumetofen

Solubility (in water at 25 o 

## C; mg/L) 0.0281

Mammalian LD 50 

## (mg/kg-bw) 2000 Non-definitive endpoint

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian

species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 9.21

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian

species

Avian LD 50 

## (mg/kg-bw) 2000 NOTE: Non-definitive

Avian test species northern bobwhite quail

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 930

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 154

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species

Body weight (g) of other avian species

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird

species

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

# 81 Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.0048 0.0048

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1538.3211 7.0840

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0000 0.0007

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure

alone is NOT a potential

concern for mammals Drinking water exposure

alone is NOT a potential

concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.0228 0.0228

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1440.8590 16.3699

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0000 0.0014

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure

alone is NOT a potential

concern for birds Drinking water exposure

alone is NOT a potential

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure.

Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure

through drinking water may contribute to a total expos ure that has potential for effects to non-target

animals.

# 82 

# Appendix B: Input and Output of Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v.

1.0)

A. Ground application



# Welcome to the EFED

Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

This tool is designed to provide the risk assessor with a rapid method for determining

the potential

significance of the inhalation exposure route to birds and mammals in a risk

assessment.



# Input

Application and Chem ical Information

Enter Chemical Name cyflumetofen

Enter Chemical Use all proposed uses



## Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground

Enter Chemical Molecu lar Weight (g/mole) 447.45

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 4.40E-08

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.2

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 

## (mg/kg bw) 2000 Non-definitive endpoint

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 

## (mg/kg bw) 2000 Non-definitive endpoint

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 

## (mg/L) 2.65 Non-definitive endpoint

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35



# Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation

(mg/m 3 

## ) 1.06E-03

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.33E-04

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 1.48E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 9.01E-06 Exposure not Likely

Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.11E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation

LD 50 

## 1.43E-03 Exposure not Likely

Significant

# 83 Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation

(mg/m 3 

## ) 1.06E-03

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.67E-04

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 1.58E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 1.06E-06 Exposure not Likely

Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.66E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation

LD 50 

## 1.68E-04 Exposure not Likely

Significant



# B. Aerial application



# Welcome to the EFED

Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

This tool is designed to provide the ri sk assessor with a rapid method for determining

the potential

significance of the inhalation exposure route to birds and mammals in a risk

assessment.



# Input

Application and Chem ical Information

Enter Chemical Name cyflumetofen

Enter Chemical Use tomato

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) air

Enter Chemical Molecu lar Weight (g/mole) 447.45

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 4.40E-08

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.2

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 

## (mg/kg bw) 2000 Non-definitive endpoint

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 

## (mg/kg bw) 2000 Non-definitive endpoint

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 

## (mg/L) 2.65 Non-definitive endpoint

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35



# Output

# 84 Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation

(mg/m 3 

## ) 1.06E-03

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.33E-04

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 1.48E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 9.01E-06 Exposure not Likely

Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.92E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation

LD 50 

## 1.30E-03 Exposure not Likely

Significant



# Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation

(mg/m 3 

## ) 1.06E-03

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.67E-04

Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 1.58E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 

## 1.06E-06 Exposure not Likely

Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.42E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation

LD 50 

## 1.53E-04 Exposure not Likely

Significant85Appendix C: Cyflumetofen and Its Environmental Transformation Products and Degradation PathwaysTable 2. Cyflumetofen and Its Environmental Transformation Products.ACode Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)PARENTCyflumetofenBAS 92102IOK-5101IUPAC:2-methoxyethyl (RS)-2-(4-tert-butylphenyl)-2-cyano-3-oxo-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-o-tolyl)propionateCAS:2-methoxyethylα-cyano-α-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-βoxo-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoateCAS No.:400882-07-7Formula:C24H24F3NO4MW:447.45g/molSMILES:FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O)C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)C(=O)OCCOCMobilityWater solubility:0.0281 mg/LKoc:173,900 L/kgHydrolysis pH4485426256.38 (30)Hydrolysis pH54.00 (30)Hydrolysis pH7<LOQ (30)Hydrolysis pH9<LOQ (1)Aqueous photolysis48542627<LOQ (2)Aerobic soil NJ485427482.75 (120)Aerobic soil CA5.04 (120)Aerobic soil IN1.93 (120)Aerobic soil WI3.19 (120)Aerobic soil 14854275210.2 (120)Aerobic soil 210.6 (120)Aerobic soil 35.4 (120)Aerobic soil485427451.8 (181)Anaerobic soil NJ48542748A <LOQ (120)B 0.7 (120)Anaerobic soil CAB 2.1 (120)Anaerobic soil INB 0.5 (120)Anaerobic soil WIB 1.2 (120)Aerobic aquatic FL48542768A19.0(133)B 1.7 (133)Aerobic aquatic PAA12.7(133)B 2.5 (133)Aerobic aquatic 14854277048542771A 2.4 (98)B 1.5 (103)Aerobic aquatic 2A 3.2 (57)B <LOQ (103)Anaerobic aquatic FL48542769A 3.84 (120)B 0.54 (120)86Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)Anaerobic aquatic PAA <LOQ (120)B <LOQ (120)TFD WA48542757<LOQ (195)TFD NY<LOQ (372)TFD FL<LOQ (134)TFD CA<LOQ (104)MAJOR (>10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTSA-1(A labelonly)Formula:C16H21NO3MW:275.35 g/molSMILES:C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)C(=O)OCCOCMobilityWater solubility:38 mg/LKoc:459.1 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Hydrolysis pH44854262526.94(21)21.03(30)Hydrolysis pH510.02(7) 0.51 (30)Hydrolysis pH714.44%(8 hours)<0.22 (30)Hydrolysis pH928.27%(15 min)<LOQ (1)Anaerobic soil NJ48542748A20.8(120)20.8(120)Anaerobic soil CAB label measured only,Metabolism studies did not followthis degradateAnaerobic soil INAnaerobic soil WIA-2(A labelonly)Formula:C12H15NMW:173.26 g/molSMILES:C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)MobilityWater solubility:34.95mg/LKoc:1200 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Hydrolysis pH44854262514.55(30)14.55(30)Hydrolysis pH514.12(21)12.41(30)Hydrolysis pH744.12(30)44.12(30)Hydrolysis pH915.05(1.5 h) 6.17 (1)Aerobic soil NJ485427482.58 (7) 0.44 (120)Aerobic soil CAB label measured only, Study didnot follow this degradateAerobic soil INAerobic soil WIAnaerobic aquatic FL4854276946.15(90)25.79(120)Anaerobic aquatic PA26.02(62)13.65(120)TFD WA48542757<LOQ<LOQ (195)TFD NY <LOQ<LOQ (372)TFD FL <LOQ<LOQ (134)TFD CA <LOQ<LOQ (104)A-12(A labelonly)Formula:C11H14O2MW:178.23 g/molSMILES:Anaerobic soil NJ485427499.9 (120) 9.9 (120)Anaerobic soil CAB label measured only, Study didnot follow this degradateAnaerobic soil INNCOOONCOHO87Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)C(=O)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)OMobilityWater solubility:28.94 mg/LKoc:113.7 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Anaerobic soil WIAerobic aquatic FL4854276817.6(15) 0.8 (133)Aerobic aquatic PA 4.5 (8) <LOQ (133)Anaerobic aquatic FL48542769Not detectedAnaerobic aquatic PA30.53(15)20.28(120)A-18(A labelonly)Formula:C13H15NO2MW:217.27 g/molSMILES:C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)C(=O)OMobilityWater solubility:201.8 mg/LKoc:139 L/kg (EpiSuite estimates)Hydrolysis pH44854262512.63(30)12.63(30)Hydrolysis pH5 8.63 (21) 7.37 (30)Hydrolysis pH736.22(5)10.85(10)Hydrolysis pH948.8(1)48.8(1)Aerobic aquatic 1485427704.9 (30) 1.9 (98)Aerobic aquatic 222.7(5)11.3(57)AB-1(bothlabels)Formula:C20H18F3NOMW:345.37 g/molSMILES:FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O)C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)MobilityWater solubility:0.142 mg/LKoc:66,920 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Hydrolysis pH44854262534.8(30)34.8(30)Hydrolysis pH523.67(14)23.35(30)Hydrolysis pH744.51(5)36.96(10)Hydrolysis pH945.68(1)45.68(1)Aerobic soil NJ485427489.72 (58) 3.83 (120)Aerobic soil CA 6.8 (29) 2.17 (120)Aerobic soil IN 6.25 (58) 3.29 (120)Aerobic soil WI11.06(16) 6.86 (120)Aerobic soil48542745A8.3 (59)B7.8 (30)3.8 (181)5.1 (181)Anaerobic soil NJ48542749A20.8(120)B23.5(7)20.8(120)19.4(120)Anaerobic soil CA B19.9(7) 9.6 (120)Anaerobic soil IN B19.6(30)17.2(120)Anaerobic soil WI B31.2(30)26.8(120)Aerobic aquatic FL48542768A 8.5 (133)B11.8(8)8.5 (133)10.5(133)Aerobic aquatic PAA 3.8 (30)B 7.2 (100)3.8 (133)5.1 (133)Aerobic aquatic 14854277048542771A 6.6 (15)B <LOQ<LOQ (98)<LOQ (103)Aerobic aquatic 2 A15.1(29) 2.4 (57)NCOOHCF3ONC88Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)B16.2(0.7) 2.4 (103)Anaerobic aquatic FL48542769A34.61(120)B26.11(120)34.61(120)26.11(120)Anaerobic aquatic PAA38.77(15)B38.3(30)22.81(120)22.56(120)Fate Studies Using AB-1 as ParentAerobic soil 14854275595(0) 8 (120)Aerobic soil 288(0) 6 (120)Aerobic soil 390(0) 3 (120)AB-7Formula:C24H24F3NO4MW:447.46SMILES:C(C#N)(c1c(C(=O)c2ccccc2C(F)(F)(F))cc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)C(=O)OCCOCMobilityWater solubility:0.05367 mg/LKoc:25,600 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Aquatic Photolysis 4854262710.82(4 hrs.) 5.73 (2)AB-11CAS No.:400882-00-0Formula:C24H24F3NO3MW:431.5SMILES:FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O)C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)C(=O)OC(C)CMobilityWater solubility:0.0102 mg/LKoc:85,630 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Aerobic aquatic 148542770Not detectedAerobic aquatic 2 A13.7(0.7) 5.9 (57)CF3ONCOOOCF3ONCOO89Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)AB-15Formula:C24H24F3NO4MW:447.46SMILES:FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O)C(C#N)(c1c(C(=O)O)cc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)CCOCMobilityWater solubility:0.04085 mg/LKoc:10,400 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Aquatic Photolysis 4854262754.67(2)54.67(2)AB-1 DimerFormula:C40H36F6N2O2MW:690.73SMILES:C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)(FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O))C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)(FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O))MobilityWater solubility:4.082×10-10mg/LKoc:1.617×108L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Aerobic soil NJ4854274825.37(120)25.37(120)Aerobic soil CA18.7(120)18.7(120)Aerobic soil IN10.7(120)10.7(120)Aerobic soil WI23.0(120)23.0(120)Anaerobic soil NJ48542748A14.1(3)B16.1(3)12.6(120)8.4 (120)Anaerobic soil CA B16.0(3)14.6(120)Anaerobic soil IN B12.8(3) 7.7 (120)Anaerobic soil WI B12.4(3)10.2(120)Aerobic aquatic FL48542768A 5.5 (30)B 3.8 (30)4.9 (133)2.5 (133)Aerobic aquatic PAA 5.0 (133)B 6.8 (133)5.0 (133)6.8 (133)CF3OCNF3CONCCF3ONCOOOHCF3ONCOOOHCF3ONCOOOH90Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)TFD WA485427570.004 ppm (14) <LOQ (195)TFD NY 0.012 ppm (132) <LOQ (372)TFD FL 0.003 ppm (14) <LOQ (134)TFD CA 0.003 ppm (5) <LOQ (104)AU16 (A-1/A-1Dimer)(Alabel only)Formula:C32H40N2O6MW:548.69g/molSMILES:C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)(C(=O)OCCOC)C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)(C(=O)OCCOC)MobilityWater solubility:0.00722 mg/LKoc:50,600 L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Hydrolysis pH4485426256.56 (14) 5.53 (30)Hydrolysis pH515.78(30)15.78(30)Hydrolysis pH7 5.03 (10) 5.03 (10)Hydrolysis pH9 4.16 (1) 4.16 (1)Aerobic soil NJ48542748A 2.33 (59) 0.46 (120)Aerobic soil CAB label measured only, Degradatenot followed in this studyAerobic soil INAerobic soil WIAU17 (A-1/AB1 Dimer)(both labels)Formula:C36H38F3N2O4MW:619.71g/molSMILES:C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)(FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O))C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)(C(=O)OCCOC)MobilityWater solubility:1.728×10-6mg/LKoc:2.86×106L/kg (EpiSuiteestimates)Hydrolysis pH4485426257.76 (21) 6.39 (30)Hydrolysis pH521.09(30)21.09(30)Hydrolysis pH7 Not detectedHydrolysis pH9 Not detectedAerobic soil NJ485427486.93 (29) 5.92 (120)Aerobic soil CA 8.2 (120) 8.2 (120)Aerobic soil IN 4.79 (16) 3.09 (120)Aerobic soil WI 3.88 (120) 3.88 (120)B-12-(trifluoromethyl)benzoic acid2-TFMBA(B label only)IUPAC:o-trifluoromethylbenzoicacidCAS:2-(trifluoromethyl)benzoicacidCAS No.:433-97-6Formula:CF3C6H4COOHMW:190.12 g/molSMILES:OC(=O)c1ccccc1C(F)(F)FHydrolysis pH44854262548.4(30)48.4(30)Hydrolysis pH552.62(30)52.62(30)Hydrolysis pH753.17(2)52.85(10)Hydrolysis pH950.31(1)50.31(1)Aerobic soil NJ4854274830.85(16) <LOQ (120)Aerobic soil CA43.79(58)42.08(120)Aerobic soil IN23.97(7) 0.21 (120)Aerobic soil WI21.0(7) 0.56 (120)Aerobic soil 14854275255.2(21)33.8(120)Aerobic soil 243.2(35) 2.6 (120)Aerobic soil 352.8(58)43.0(120)OOCNNCOOOOCF3OCNNCOOOCF3OOH91Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)MobilityWater solubility:363.3 mg/L(EpiSuite estimate)Koc:79 L/kgAerobic soil 4854274522.9(6) 2.7 (181)Anaerobic soil NJ4854274949(120)49(120)Anaerobic soil CA50.3(120)50.3(120)Anaerobic soil IN50.1(120)50.1(120)Anaerobic soil WI44.2(120)44.2(120)Aerobic aquatic FL4854276858.1(15)26.5(133)Aerobic aquatic PA60.2(59)33.8(133)Aerobic aquatic 14854277156.8(62)52.5(103)Aerobic aquatic 284.4(12)67.6(103)Anaerobic aquatic FL4854276968.78(90)63.38(120)Anaerobic aquatic PA72.39(90)63.88(120)TFD WA485427570.030 ppm (1) <LOQ (195)TFD NY 0.056 ppm (3) <LOQ (372)TFD FL 0.026 ppm (24) <LOQ (134)TFD CA 0.079 ppm (19) <LOQ (104)Fate Studies Using B-1 as ParentAerobic soil 148542754102(0) <LOQ (120)Aerobic soil 2105(0) 1.3 (120)Aerobic soil 3100(0)20(120)B-32-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide(B label only)CAS:2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamideCAS No.:360-64-5Formula:C8H6F3NOMW:189.137 g/molSMILES:C(C1=C(C(=O)N)C=CC=C1)(F)(F)FMobilityWater solubility:13,000 mg/LKoc:121.5 (EpiSuite estimate)Aerobic soil NJ485427484.98 (7) <LOQ (120)Aerobic soil CA17.96(16) <LOQ (120)Aerobic soil IN 4.62 (7) <LOQ (120)Aerobic soil WI 3.21 (16) 0.99 (120)Aerobic soil 14854275223.0(21) 5.2 (120)Aerobic soil 212.7(6) <LOQ (120)Aerobic soil 3 4.8 (21) <LOQ (120)Anaerobic soil NJ48542749AB 0.9 (58)<LOQ (120)Anaerobic soil CA B 2.9 (30) 2.0 (120)Anaerobic soil IN B 3.0 (15) <LOQ (120)Anaerobic soil WI B 1.3 (30) <LOQ (120)TFD WA48542757<LOQ <LOQ (195)TFD NY <LOQ <LOQ (372)TFD FL <LOQ <LOQ (134)CF3ONH292Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)TFD CA 0.005 ppm (14) <LOQ (104)Fate Studies Using B-3 as ParentAerobic soil 14854275686(0) 5.6 (48)Aerobic soil 287(0) 1.5 (48)Aerobic soil 387(0) 0.2 (48)Unextractedresidues(bothlabels)(not applicable)(not applicable)Aerobic soil NJ48542748B35.04(58)A43.07(120)32.59(120)43.07(120)Aerobic soil CA B21.58(120)21.58(120)Aerobic soil IN B38.29(58)37.98(120)Aerobic soil WI B35.66(58)31.59(120)Aerobic soil 148542752B32.1(58)30.1(120)Aerobic soil 2B40.1(120)40.1(120)Aerobic soil 3 B38.4(35)33(120)Aerobic soil48542745A43.4(14)B34.9(59)37.9(181)30.7(181)Anaerobic soil NJ48542749A32.4(120)B22.6(3)32.4(120)14.6(120)Anaerobic soil CA B20(1)18.3(120)Anaerobic soil IN B21.2(3)15.4(120)Anaerobic soil WI B16.3(7)14.6(120)Aerobic aquatic FL48542768A34.3(133)B29.8(100)34.3(133)22.6(133)Aerobic aquatic PAA44.2(59)B23.7(100)21.5(133)14.7(133)Anaerobic aquatic FL48542769A 4.12 (120)B12.07(90)4.12 (120)11.15(120)Anaerobic aquatic PAA 8.73 (90)B 8.39 (30)7.46 (120)8.33 (120)Carbon dioxideCarbon dioxideFormula:CO2MW:44.1 g/molSMILES:O=C=OOOAerobic soil NJ48542748B24.1(120)A17.3(120)24.1(120)17.3(120)Aerobic soil CA B 9.9 (120) 9.9 (120)Aerobic soil IN B17.6(120)17.6(120)Aerobic soil WI B17.3(120)17.3(120)Aerobic soil 148542752B 9.5 (120) 9.5 (120)Aerobic soil 2B20.7(120)20.7(120)93Code Name/SynonymChemical Name,Solubility, and KOCChemical StructureStudy TypeMRIDLabel,Maximum%AR (day)Final %AR(studylength)Aerobic soil 3 B 1.8 (90) 1.7 (120)Aerobic soil48542745A27.9(181)B39.3(181)27.9(181)39.3(181)Anaerobic soil NJ48542749A 2.6 (120)B 1.0 (120)2.6 (120)1.0 (120)Anaerobic soil CA B 0.8 (120) 0.8 (120)Anaerobic soil IN B 1.0 (120) 1.0 (120)Anaerobic soil WI B 1.0 (120) 1.0 (120)Aerobic aquatic FL48542768A 8.3 (133)B 3.0 (133)8.3 (133)3.0 (133)Aerobic aquatic PAA 8.3 (133)B 3.3 (133)8.3 (133)3.3 (133)Aerobic aquatic 14854277048542771A19.9(98)B 2.8 (103)19.9(98)2.8 (103)Aerobic aquatic 2A 1.8 (57)B 3.2 (103)1.8 (57)3.2 (103)Anaerobic aquatic FL48542769A 0.53 (120)B 0.06 (120)0.53 (120)0.06 (120)Anaerobic aquatic PAA 1.53 (120)B 0.16 (120)1.53 (120)0.16 (120)MINOR (<10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTSAB-12Formula:C32H32F3NO3MW:535.6SMILES:FC(F)(F)c2ccccc2C(=O)C(C#N)(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)C(=O)OC(c1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)MobilityWater solubility:1.074×10-5mg/LKoc:7.876×106(EpiSuiteestimates)Aerobic aquatic 148542770Not detectedAerobic aquatic 2 A 7.6 (2) 1.9 (57)And means “not detected”. AR means “applied radioactivity”. MW means “molecular weight”. LOQ means “limit of quantitation”.Bolded values are laboratory study values>10%AR. TFD means Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study.CF3ONCOO

# 94 1. Appendix Figure C-1 Abiotic hydrolysis.

# 95 Appendix Figure C-2. Aquatic photolysis.

# 96 Appendix Figure C-3. Aerobic soil metabolism.

Appendix Figure C-4. Aerobic aquatic metabolism.

# 97 Appendix Figure C-5. Anaero bic aquatic metabolism.98Appendix D: Parent and Total Toxic Residue (TTR) PestDF Degradation Half-life Estimation Output andAvailable Degradate Study Half-life Estimation OutputAppendix Table D-1. Parent and Total Toxic Residue (TTR) PestDF Degradation Half-life Estimation OutputParent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Hydrolysis – pH 4 (MRID 48542625)Hydrolysis – pH 5 (MRID 48542625)Hydrolysis – pH 7 (MRID 48542625)99Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Hydrolysis – pH 9 (MRID 48542625)100Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aquatic Photolysis – Distilled Water (MRID 48542627)Aquatic Photolysis – Natural Water (MRID 48542627)101Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Soil Photolysis – A-label (MRID 48542750)Soil Photolysis – B-label (MRID 48542751)Not Applicable102Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Sandy Loam (MRID 48542745)Aerobic Soil Metabolism – CA Soil B-label Only (MRID 48542748)Not Applicable103Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aerobic Soil Metabolism – IN Soil B-label Only (MRID 48542748)Not ApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism – NJ Soil A- and B-label (MRID 48542748)104Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aerobic Soil Metabolism – WI Soil B-label Only (MRID 48542748)Not ApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.2Soil B-label Only(MRID 48542752)Not Applicable105Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.3Soil B-label Only(MRID 48542752)Not ApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 6SSoil B-label Only(MRID 48542752)Not Applicable106Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Anaerobic Soil Metabolism – CA Soil B-label Only (MRID 48542749)Not ApplicableAnaerobic Soil Metabolism – IN Soil B-label Only (MRID 48542749)Not Applicable107Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Anaerobic Soil Metabolism – NJ Soil A- and B-label (MRID 48542749)Anaerobic Soil Metabolism – WI Soil B-label Only (MRID 48542749)Not Applicable108Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism – FL System A- and B-label (MRID 48542768)Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism – PA System A- and B-label (MRID 48542768)109Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism – Goorven System A- and B-label (MRIDs 48542770/48542771)Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism – Schoonrewoerdsewiel System A- and B-label (MRIDs 48542770/48542771)110Parent OnlyTotal Toxic Residue (TTR)Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism – FL System A- and B-label (MRID 48542769)Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism – PA System A- and B-label (MRID 48542769)111Appendix Table D-2. Available Degradate Study Half-life Estimation OutputB-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.2 (MRID 48542754)B-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.3 (MRID 48542754)B-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 6S (MRID 48542754)AB-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.1 (MRID 48542755)112AB-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.2 (MRID 48542755)AB-1 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 6S (MRID 48542755)B-3 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.2 (MRID 48542755)B-3 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 2.3 (MRID 48542755)113B-3 Aerobic Soil Metabolism – Speyer 6S (MRID 48542755)

# 114 

# Appendix E: Example PRZM/EXA MS Modeling Output and AgDRIFT®

Input Data Summary

Surface Water – Aerial PA Tomatoes

stored as Cyflu.out

Chemical: Cyflumetofen

PRZM environment: PAtomatoSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 14:01:58

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w14751.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:00

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 2.964 1.058 0.454 0.2667 0.2435 0.1253

1962 3.39 1.356 0.7062 0.4681 0.4407 0.3393

1963 3.395 1.488 0.8839 0.6628 0.6261 0.5379

1964 3.619 1.711 1.134 0.9079 0.8638 0.7529

1965 3.806 1.899 1.301 1.074 1.045 0.9381

1966 3.98 2.073 1.468 1.274 1.263 1.141

1967 4.203 2.297 1.692 1.509 1.487 1.37

1968 4.41 2.503 1.9 1.681 1.666 1.562

1969 4.582 2.675 2.072 1.927 1.893 1.764

1970 4.821 3.015 2.347 2.14 2.099 1.97

1971 4.98 3.073 2.471 2.242 2.251 2.145

1972 5.935 4.202 3 2.682 2.617 2.407

1973 5.417 3.512 2.907 2.685 2.657 2.573

1974 5.587 3.682 3.077 2.877 2.847 2.754

1975 5.793 3.872 3.294 3.114 3.062 2.944

1976 6.297 4.128 3.469 3.241 3.197 3.112

1977 6.111 4.204 3.6 3.379 3.333 3.25

1978 6.256 4.349 3.779 3.622 3.571 3.431

1979 6.426 4.519 3.915 3.722 3.675 3.589

1980 6.559 4.652 4.048 3.816 3.769 3.691

1981 6.702 4.783 4.18 3.976 3.938 3.834

1982 8.044 5.335 4.556 4.229 4.167 4.003

1983 6.979 5.075 4.471 4.236 4.191 4.116

1984 7.19 5.538 4.722 4.477 4.422 4.288

1985 7.26 5.354 4.755 4.522 4.475 4.393

1986 7.368 5.461 4.858 4.648 4.628 4.528

1987 7.491 5.584 5.04 4.798 4.749 4.668

1988 7.625 5.718 5.116 4.901 4.855 4.767

1989 9.021 6.288 5.322 5.084 5.04 4.9

1990 7.856 5.949 5.348 5.136 5.109 5.017

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 9.021 6.288 5.348 5.136 5.109 5.017

0.0645161290322581 8.044 5.949 5.322 5.084 5.04 4.9

0.0967741935483871 7.856 5.718 5.116 4.901 4.855 4.767

0.129032258064516 7.625 5.584 5.04 4.798 4.749 4.668

# 115 0.161290322580645 7.491 5.538 4.858 4.648 4.628 4.528

0.193548387096774 7.368 5.461 4.755 4.522 4.475 4.393

0.225806451612903 7.26 5.354 4.722 4.477 4.422 4.288

0.258064516129032 7.19 5.335 4.556 4.236 4.191 4.116

0.290322580645161 6.979 5.075 4.471 4.229 4.167 4.003

0.32258064516129 6.702 4.783 4.18 3.976 3.938 3.834

0.354838709677419 6.559 4.652 4.048 3.816 3.769 3.691

0.387096774193548 6.426 4.519 3.915 3.722 3.675 3.589

0.419354838709677 6.297 4.349 3.779 3.622 3.571 3.431

0.451612903225806 6.256 4.204 3.6 3.379 3.333 3.25

0.483870967741936 6.111 4.202 3.469 3.241 3.197 3.112

0.516129032258065 5.935 4.128 3.294 3.114 3.062 2.944

0.548387096774194 5.793 3.872 3.077 2.877 2.847 2.754

0.580645161290323 5.587 3.682 3 2.685 2.657 2.573

0.612903225806452 5.417 3.512 2.907 2.682 2.617 2.407

0.645161290322581 4.98 3.073 2.471 2.242 2.251 2.145

0.67741935483871 4.821 3.015 2.347 2.14 2.099 1.97

0.709677419354839 4.582 2.675 2.072 1.927 1.893 1.764

0.741935483870968 4.41 2.503 1.9 1.681 1.666 1.562

0.774193548387097 4.203 2.297 1.692 1.509 1.487 1.37

0.806451612903226 3.98 2.073 1.468 1.274 1.263 1.141

0.838709677419355 3.806 1.899 1.301 1.074 1.045 0.9381

0.870967741935484 3.619 1.711 1.134 0.9079 0.8638 0.7529

0.903225806451613 3.395 1.488 0.8839 0.6628 0.6261 0.5379

0.935483870967742 3.39 1.356 0.7062 0.4681 0.4407 0.3393

0.967741935483871 2.964 1.058 0.454 0.2667 0.2435 0.1253

0.1 7.8329 5.7046 5.1084 4.8907 4.8444 4.7571

Average of yearly averages: 2.83035

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: Cyflu

Metfile: w14751.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAtomatoSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Cyflumetofen

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 447.45 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 4.43e-8 torr

Solubility sol 0.028 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 72000 mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 17.6 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 173 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 6e4 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1096 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP .224 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF .95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT .305 fraction of application rate applied to pond

# 116 Application Date Date 1-6 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



# Benthic Pore Water – Aerial PA Tomatoes

stored as Cyfluben.out

Chemical: Cyflumetofen

PRZM environment: PAtomatoSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 14:01:58

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile: w14751.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:00

Benthic segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.1238 0.1238 0.1225 0.1202 0.1187 0.05893

1962 0.2696 0.2696 0.2695 0.2642 0.2583 0.1907

1963 0.3895 0.3895 0.3894 0.3791 0.3688 0.3178

1964 0.5097 0.5095 0.5079 0.5036 0.5015 0.4526

1965 0.614 0.6139 0.6138 0.6132 0.6126 0.5705

1966 0.771 0.771 0.7709 0.767 0.7649 0.6918

1967 0.905 0.905 0.9046 0.9013 0.8974 0.8381

1968 1.027 1.027 1.027 1.025 1.024 0.9593

1969 1.154 1.154 1.153 1.148 1.147 1.086

1970 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.269 1.266 1.216

1971 1.391 1.391 1.391 1.383 1.379 1.325

1972 1.572 1.572 1.571 1.568 1.566 1.483

1973 1.661 1.66 1.654 1.649 1.647 1.595

1974 1.763 1.763 1.761 1.759 1.759 1.709

1975 1.897 1.897 1.896 1.894 1.893 1.824

1976 1.992 1.992 1.992 1.991 1.989 1.933

1977 2.07 2.07 2.066 2.055 2.05 2.022

1978 2.194 2.194 2.192 2.188 2.186 2.133

1979 2.281 2.281 2.28 2.278 2.277 2.232

1980 2.348 2.348 2.347 2.34 2.33 2.299

1981 2.428 2.428 2.427 2.424 2.421 2.389

1982 2.554 2.553 2.552 2.548 2.545 2.49

1983 2.627 2.627 2.623 2.604 2.595 2.563

1984 2.726 2.726 2.725 2.721 2.718 2.672

1985 2.778 2.778 2.778 2.773 2.769 2.739

1986 2.87 2.87 2.865 2.858 2.855 2.821

1987 2.963 2.963 2.962 2.958 2.956 2.91

1988 3.007 3.006 3.004 3 2.999 2.977

1989 3.111 3.111 3.109 3.107 3.104 3.053

1990 3.174 3.174 3.173 3.172 3.168 3.131

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 3.174 3.174 3.173 3.172 3.168 3.131

0.0645161290322581 3.111 3.111 3.109 3.107 3.104 3.053

0.0967741935483871 3.007 3.006 3.004 3 2.999 2.977

# 117 0.129032258064516 2.963 2.963 2.962 2.958 2.956 2.91

0.161290322580645 2.87 2.87 2.865 2.858 2.855 2.821

0.193548387096774 2.778 2.778 2.778 2.773 2.769 2.739

0.225806451612903 2.726 2.726 2.725 2.721 2.718 2.672

0.258064516129032 2.627 2.627 2.623 2.604 2.595 2.563

0.290322580645161 2.554 2.553 2.552 2.548 2.545 2.49

0.32258064516129 2.428 2.428 2.427 2.424 2.421 2.389

0.354838709677419 2.348 2.348 2.347 2.34 2.33 2.299

0.387096774193548 2.281 2.281 2.28 2.278 2.277 2.232

0.419354838709677 2.194 2.194 2.192 2.188 2.186 2.133

0.451612903225806 2.07 2.07 2.066 2.055 2.05 2.022

0.483870967741936 1.992 1.992 1.992 1.991 1.989 1.933

0.516129032258065 1.897 1.897 1.896 1.894 1.893 1.824

0.548387096774194 1.763 1.763 1.761 1.759 1.759 1.709

0.580645161290323 1.661 1.66 1.654 1.649 1.647 1.595

0.612903225806452 1.572 1.572 1.571 1.568 1.566 1.483

0.645161290322581 1.391 1.391 1.391 1.383 1.379 1.325

0.67741935483871 1.27 1.27 1.27 1.269 1.266 1.216

0.709677419354839 1.154 1.154 1.153 1.148 1.147 1.086

0.741935483870968 1.027 1.027 1.027 1.025 1.024 0.9593

0.774193548387097 0.905 0.905 0.9046 0.9013 0.8974 0.8381

0.806451612903226 0.771 0.771 0.7709 0.767 0.7649 0.6918

0.838709677419355 0.614 0.6139 0.6138 0.6132 0.6126 0.5705

0.870967741935484 0.5097 0.5095 0.5079 0.5036 0.5015 0.4526

0.903225806451613 0.3895 0.3895 0.3894 0.3791 0.3688 0.3178

0.935483870967742 0.2696 0.2696 0.2695 0.2642 0.2583 0.1907

0.967741935483871 0.1238 0.1238 0.1225 0.1202 0.1187 0.05893

0.1 3.0026 3.0017 2.9998 2.9958 2.9947 2.9703

Average of yearly averages: 1.75605766666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: Cyflu

Metfile: w14751.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAtomatoSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Cyflumetofen

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 447.45 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 4.43e-8 torr

Solubility sol 0.028 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 72000 mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 17.6 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 173 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 6e4 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 1096 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm

Application Rate: TAPP .224 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF .95 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT .305 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 1-6 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

# 118 PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



# AgDRIFT® Input Data Summary – Aerial

AgDRIFT® Input Data Summary

--General--

Tier: II

Title: Untitled

Notes:

Calculations Done: Yes

Run ID: AgDRIFT® 2.1.1 03-14-2013 11:27:08

Default values appear when they differ from the Current values.

--Aircraft-- ----------Current----------- ----------Default-----------

Name Air Tractor AT-401

Type Slow Fixed-wing

Boom Length (%) 76.3

Boom Height (ft) 15 10

Flight Lines 20

--Drop Size Distribution-- ----------Current----------- ----------Default-----------

Name ASAE Fine to Medium

Type Basic

Drop Categories # Diam (um) Frac Diam (um) Frac

1 10.77 0.0010

2 16.73 0.0003

3 19.39 0.0007

4 22.49 0.0003

5 26.05 0.0007

6 30.21 0.0010

7 35.01 0.0010

8 40.57 0.0020

9 47.03 0.0033

10 54.50 0.0053

11 63.16 0.0067

12 73.23 0.0090

13 84.85 0.0133

14 98.12 0.0223

15 113.71 0.0330

16 131.73 0.0393

17 152.79 0.0480

18 177.84 0.0647

19 205.84 0.0830

20 238.45 0.1147

21 276.48 0.1283

22 320.60 0.1380

23 372.18 0.1127

24 430.74 0.0640

25 498.91 0.0440

26 578.54 0.0317

27 670.72 0.0203

28 777.39 0.0093

29 900.61 0.0010

30 1044.42 0.0007

31 1210.66 0.0003

# 119 --Swath-- ----------Current----------- ----------Default-----------

Swath Width 60 ft

Swath Displacement 0.3722 x Swath Width

--Spray Material-- ----------Current----------- ----------Default-----------

Nonvolatile Rate (lb/ac) 1 0.501

Active Rate (lb/ac) 1 0.2505

Spray Volume

Rate (gal/ac) 10 2

Carrier Type Water

--Meteorology-- ----------Current----------- ----------Default-----------

Wind Speed (mph) 15 10

Temperature (deg F) 86

Relative Humidity (%) 50

--Transport-- ----------Current----------- ----------Default-----------

Flux Plane (ft) 0120Appendix F: Listed Species That Overlap at the County Level with Areas Where Cyflumetofen Is ProposedTo Be Used as Identifiedby LOCATES (v. 2.2.5)Based on the following crops: almonds, apples,chestnut, cironjas, citron, citrus fruit-all, grapefruit, grapes, hazel nuts (filberts),kumquats, lemons, lemons and limes, limes, macadamia nuts, pears-all, pears-Bartlett, pears-other, pecans-all, pecans-improved,pecans-native and seedling, tangelo, tangerine, walnuts-EnglishCommon NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Coqui, GoldenEleutherodactylus jasperiT Amphibian NoFrog, California Red-leggedRana aurora draytoniiT Amphibian NoFrog, Chiricahua LeopardRana chiricahuensisT Amphibian NoFrog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS)Rana capito sevosaE Amphibian NoFrog, Mountain Yellow-leggedRana muscosaE Amphibian NoGuajonEleutherodactylus cookiT Amphibian NoOzark HellbenderCryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopiE Amphibian NoSalamander, Barton SpringsEurycea sosorumE Amphibian NoSalamander, California TigerAmbystoma californienseE Amphibian NoSalamander, Cheat MountainPlethodon nettingiT Amphibian NoSalamander, Desert SlenderBatrachoseps aridusE Amphibian NoSalamander, Frosted FlatwoodsAmbystoma cingulatumT Amphibian NoSalamander, Red HillsPhaeognathus hubrichtiT Amphibian NoSalamander, Reticulated flatwoodsAmbystoma bishopiE Amphibian NoSalamander, San MarcosEurycea nanaT Amphibian NoSalamander, Santa Cruz Long-toedAmbystoma macrodactylum croceumE Amphibian NoSalamander, ShenandoahPlethodon shenandoahE Amphibian NoSalamander, Sonora TigerAmbystoma tigrinum stebbinsiE Amphibian NoSalamander, Texas BlindTyphlomolge rathbuniE Amphibian NoToad, Arroyo SouthwesternBufo californicus (=microscaphus)E Amphibian NoToad, HoustonBufo houstonensisE Amphibian NoToad, Puerto Rican CrestedPeltophryne lemurT Amphibian NoHarvestman, Bee Creek CaveTexella reddelliE Arachnid NoHarvestman, Bone CaveTexella reyesiE Arachnid No121Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Harvestman, Cokendolpher CaveTexella cokendolpheriE Arachnid NoMeshweaver, Braken Bat CaveCicurina veniiE Arachnid NoMeshweaver, Government Canyon Bat CaveCicurina vesperaE Arachnid NoMeshweaver, Madla's CaveCicurina madlaE Arachnid NoMeshweaver, Robber Baron CaveCicurina baroniaE Arachnid NoPseudoscorpion, Tooth CaveTartarocreagris texanaE Arachnid NoSpider, Government Canyon Bat CaveNeoleptoneta micropsE Arachnid NoSpider, Kauai Cave WolfAdelocosa anopsE Arachnid NoSpider, Spruce-fir MossMicrohexura montivagaE Arachnid NoSpider, Tooth CaveLeptoneta myopicaE Arachnid NoAkekeeLoxops caeruleirostrisE Bird No'Akepa, HawaiiLoxops coccineus coccineusE Bird No'Akepa, MauiLoxops coccineus ochraceusE Bird No'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus)Hemignathus procerusE Bird No'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi)Hemignathus munroiE Bird NoAlbatross, Short-tailedPhoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrusE Bird NoBlackbird, Yellow-shoulderedAgelaius xanthomusE Bird NoBobwhite, MaskedColinus virginianus ridgwayiE Bird NoCaracara, Audubon's CrestedPolyborus plancus auduboniiT Bird NoCondor, CaliforniaGymnogyps californianusE Bird NoCoot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo)Fulica americana alaiE Bird NoCrane, Mississippi SandhillGrus canadensis pullaE Bird NoCrane, WhoopingGrus americanaE Bird NoCreeper, HawaiiOreomystis manaE Bird NoCreeper, Oahu (Alauwahio)Paroreomyza maculataE Bird NoCrow, Hawaiian ('Alala)Corvus hawaiiensisE Bird NoCrow, MarianaCorvus kubaryiE Bird NoCurlew, EskimoNumenius borealisE Bird NoDuck, Hawaiian (Koloa)Anas wyvillianaE Bird NoEider, Steller'sPolysticta stelleriT Bird NoElepaio, OahuChasiempis sandwichensis ibidisE Bird NoFalcon, Northern AplomadoFalco femoralis septentrionalisE Bird NoFlycatcher, Southwestern WillowEmpidonax traillii extimusE Bird No122Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Gnatcatcher, Coastal CaliforniaPolioptila californica californicaT Bird NoGoose, Hawaiian (Nene)Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensisE Bird NoHawk, Hawaiian (Io)Buteo solitariusE Bird NoHawk, Puerto Rican Broad-wingedButeo platypterus brunnescensE Bird NoHawk, Puerto Rican Sharp-shinnedAccipiter striatus venatorE Bird NoHoneycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe)Palmeria doleiE Bird NoKauai creeperOreomystis bairdiE Bird NoKingfisher, Guam MicronesianHalcyon cinnamomina cinnamominaE Bird NoKite, Everglades SnailRostrhamus sociabilis plumbeusE Bird NoMegapode, Micronesian (La Perouse's)Megapodius laperouseE Bird NoMoorhen, Hawaiian CommonGallinula chloropus sandvicensisE Bird NoMoorhen, Mariana CommonGallinula chloropus guamiE Bird NoMurrelet, MarbledBrachyramphus marmoratusT Bird NoNightjar, Puerto RicoCaprimulgus noctitherusE Bird NoNuku Pu'u, KauaiHemignathus lucidus hanapepeE Bird NoNuku Pu'u, MauiHemignathus lucidus affinusE Bird No'O'o, Kauai (='A'a)Moho braccatusE Bird No'O'u (Honeycreeper)Psittirostra psittaceaE Bird NoOwl, Mexican SpottedStrix occidentalis lucidaT Bird NoOwl, Northern SpottedStrix occidentalis caurinaT Bird NoPalilaLoxioides bailleuiE Bird NoParrot, Puerto RicanAmazona vittataE Bird NoParrotbill, MauiPseudonestor xanthophrysE Bird NoPetrel, Hawaiian Dark-rumpedPterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensisE Bird NoPigeon, Puerto Rican PlainColumba inornata wetmoreiE Bird NoPlover, PipingCharadrius melodusE/T Bird NoPlover, Western SnowyCharadrius alexandrinus nivosusT Bird NoPo'ouliMelamprosops phaeosomaE Bird NoPrairie-chicken, Attwater's GreaterTympanuchus cupido attwateriE Bird NoRail, California ClapperRallus longirostris obsoletusE Bird NoRail, GuamRallus owstoniE Bird NoRail, Light-footed ClapperRallus longirostris levipesE Bird NoRail, Yuma ClapperRallus longirostris yumanensisE Bird No123Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Scrub-Jay, FloridaAphelocoma coerulescensT Bird NoShearwater, Newell's Townsend'sPuffinus auricularis newelliT Bird NoShrike, San Clemente LoggerheadLanius ludovicianus mearnsiE Bird NoSparrow, Cape Sable SeasideAmmodramus maritimus mirabilisE Bird NoSparrow, Florida GrasshopperAmmodramus savannarum floridanusE Bird NoSparrow, San Clemente SageAmphispiza belli clementeaeT Bird NoStilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o)Himantopus mexicanus knudseniE Bird NoStork, WoodMycteria americanaE Bird NoSwiftlet, Mariana Gray (=Vanikoro)Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschiE Bird NoTern, California LeastSterna antillarum browniE Bird NoTern, Interior (population) LeastSterna antillarumE Bird NoTern, RoseateSterna dougallii dougalliiE/T Bird NoThrush, Large KauaiMyadestes myadestinusE Bird NoThrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi)Myadestes palmeriE Bird NoTowhee, Inyo BrownPipilo crissalis eremophilusT Bird NoVireo, Black-cappedVireo atricapillaE Bird NoVireo, Least Bell'sVireo bellii pusillusE Bird NoWarbler (=Wood), Golden-cheekedDendroica chrysopariaE Bird NoWarbler (=Wood), Kirtland'sDendroica kirtlandiiE Bird NoWarbler, Bachman'sVermivora bachmaniiE Bird NoWarbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler)Acrocephalus lusciniaE Bird NoWhite-eye, Bridled (Nossa)Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatusE Bird NoWhite-eye, Rota BridledZosterops rotensisE Bird NoWoodpecker, Ivory-billedCampephilus principalisE Bird NoWoodpecker, Red-cockadedPicoides borealisE Bird NoAlabama pearlshellMargaritifera marrianaeE Bivalve NoBankclimber, PurpleElliptoideus sloatianusT Bivalve NoChoctaw BeanVillosa choctawensisE Bivalve NoCombshell, Southern (=Penitent mussel)Epioblasma penitaE Bivalve NoCombshell, UplandEpioblasma metastriataE Bivalve NoElktoe, AppalachianAlasmidonta ravenelianaE Bivalve NoFanshellCyprogenia stegariaE Bivalve NoFatmucket, ArkansasLampsilis powelliT Bivalve No124Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?fuzzy pigtoePleurobema strodeanumT Bivalve NoKidneyshell, TriangularPtychobranchus greeniiE Bivalve NoMucket, Orange-nacreLampsilis perovalisT Bivalve NoMucket, Pink(Pearlymussel)Lampsilis abruptaE Bivalve NoMussel, Acornshell SouthernEpioblasma othcaloogensisE Bivalve NoMussel, Alabama MoccasinshellMedionidus acutissimusT Bivalve NoMussel, Black (=Curtus' Mussel) ClubshellPleurobema curtumE Bivalve NoMussel, ClubshellPleurobema clavaE Bivalve NoMussel, Coosa MoccasinshellMedionidus parvulusE Bivalve NoMussel, Cumberland CombshellEpioblasma brevidensE Bivalve NoMussel, Cumberland ElktoeAlasmidonta atropurpureaE Bivalve NoMussel, Cumberland PigtoePleurobema gibberumE Bivalve NoMussel, Dark PigtoePleurobema furvumE Bivalve NoMussel, Dwarf WedgeAlasmidonta heterodonE Bivalve NoMussel, Fat ThreeridgeAmblema neisleriiE Bivalve NoMussel, Fine-lined PocketbookLampsilis altilisT Bivalve NoMussel, Fine-rayed PigtoeFusconaia cuneolusE Bivalve NoMussel, Flat Pigtoe (=Marshall's Mussel)Pleurobema marshalliE Bivalve NoMussel, Georgia pigtoePleurobema hanleyianumE Bivalve NoMussel, Gulf MoccasinshellMedionidus penicillatusE Bivalve NoMussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge Tait's Mussel)Pleurobema taitianumE Bivalve NoMussel, Heelsplitter CarolinaLasmigona decorataE Bivalve NoMussel, Heelsplitter InflatedPotamilus inflatusT Bivalve NoMussel, Ochlockonee MoccasinshellMedionidus simpsonianusE Bivalve NoMussel, Oval PigtoePleurobema pyriformeE Bivalve NoMussel, Ovate ClubshellPleurobema perovatumE Bivalve NoMussel, OysterEpioblasma capsaeformisE Bivalve NoMussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly)Obovaria retusaE Bivalve NoMussel, Rough PigtoePleurobema plenumE Bivalve NoMussel, ScaleshellLeptodea leptodonE Bivalve NoMussel, Shiny PigtoeFusconaia corE Bivalve NoMussel, Shiny-rayed PocketbookLampsilis subangulataE Bivalve NoMussel, snuffboxEpioblasma triquetraE Bivalve No125Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Mussel, Southern ClubshellPleurobema decisumE Bivalve NoMussel, Southern PigtoePleurobema georgianumE Bivalve NoMussel, Speckled PocketbookLampsilis streckeriE Bivalve NoMussel, Winged MapleleafQuadrula fragosaE Bivalve NoNarrow PigtoeFusconaia escambiaT Bivalve NoPearlshell, LouisianaMargaritifera hembeliT Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Alabama LampLampsilis virescensE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Appalachian MonkeyfaceQuadrula sparsaE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, BirdwingLemiox rimosusE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, CrackingHemistena lataE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Cumberland BeanVillosa trabalisE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Cumberland MonkeyfaceQuadrula intermediaE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Curtis'Epioblasma florentina curtisiiE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, DromedaryDromus dromasE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Fat PocketbookPotamilus capaxE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Green-blossomEpioblasma torulosa gubernaculumE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Higgins' EyeLampsilis higginsiiE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Little-wingPegias fabulaE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Orange-footedPlethobasus cooperianusE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Pale LilliputToxolasma cylindrellusE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Purple Cat's PawEpioblasma obliquata obliquataE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Tubercled-blossomEpioblasma torulosa torulosaE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Turgid-blossomEpioblasma turgidulaE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, White Cat's PawEpioblasma obliquata perobliquaE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, White WartybackPlethobasus cicatricosusE Bivalve NoPearlymussel, Yellow-blossomEpioblasma florentina florentinaE Bivalve NoPurple BeanVillosa perpurpureaE Bivalve NoRabbitsfoot, RoughQuadrula cylindrica strigillataE Bivalve NoRayed BeanVillosa fabalisE Bivalve NoRiffleshell, NorthernEpioblasma torulosa rangianaE Bivalve NoRiffleshell, TanEpioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)E Bivalve NoRock-pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm)Arkansia wheeleriE Bivalve NoRound EbonyshellFusconaia rotulataE Bivalve No126Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Sheepnose musselPlethobasus cyphyusE Bivalve NoSlabshell, ChipolaElliptio chipolaensisT Bivalve NoSouthern KidneyshellPtychobranchus jonesiE Bivalve NoSouthern SandshellHamiota australisT Bivalve NoSpectaclecase musselCumberlandia monodontaE Bivalve NoSpinymussel, AltamahaElliptio spinosaE Bivalve NoSpinymussel, James RiverPleurobema collinaE Bivalve NoSpinymussel, Tar RiverElliptio steinstansanaE Bivalve NoStirrupshellQuadrula stapesE Bivalve NoTapered PigtoeFusconaia burkeiT Bivalve NoCypress, GowenCupressus goveniana ssp. govenianaT Conf/cycds NoCypress, Santa CruzCupressus abramsianaE Conf/cycds NoTorreya, FloridaTorreya taxifoliaE Conf/cycds NoCoral, ElkhornAcropora palmataT Coral NoCoral, StaghornAcropora cervicornisT Coral NoAmphipod, Illinois CaveGammarus acherondytesE Crustacean NoAmphipod, Kauai CaveSpelaeorchestia koloanaE Crustacean NoAmphipod, Noel'sGammarus desperatusE Crustacean NoAmphipod, Peck's CaveStygobromus (=Stygonectes) peckiE Crustacean NoCrayfish, Cave (Cambarus aculabrum)Cambarus aculabrumE Crustacean NoCrayfish, Cave (Cambarus zophonastes)Cambarus zophonastesE Crustacean NoCrayfish, NashvilleOrconectes shoupiE Crustacean NoCrayfish, ShastaPacifastacus fortisE Crustacean NoFairy Shrimp, Conservancy FairyBranchinecta conservatioE Crustacean NoFairy Shrimp, LonghornBranchinecta longiantennaE Crustacean NoFairy Shrimp, RiversideStreptocephalus woottoniE Crustacean NoFairy Shrimp, San DiegoBranchinecta sandiegonensisE Crustacean NoFairy Shrimp, Vernal PoolBranchinecta lynchiT Crustacean NoIsopod, Lee County CaveLirceus usdagalunE Crustacean NoIsopod, Madison CaveAntrolana liraT Crustacean NoIsopod, SocorroThermosphaeroma thermophilusE Crustacean NoShrimp, Alabama CavePalaemonias alabamaeE Crustacean NoShrimp, California FreshwaterSyncaris pacificaE Crustacean No127Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Shrimp, Kentucky CavePalaemonias ganteriE Crustacean NoShrimp, Squirrel Chimney CavePalaemonetes cummingiT Crustacean NoTadpole Shrimp, Vernal PoolLepidurus packardiE Crustacean No(ncn)Cyanea kolekoleensisE Dicot Yes(ncn)Keysseria (=Lagenifera) ericiE Dicot Yes(ncn)Keysseria (=Lagenifera) helenaeE Dicot Yes(ncn)Lysimachia inikiE Dicot Yes(ncn)Lysimachia pendensE Dicot Yes(ncn)Lysimachia scopulensisE Dicot Yes(ncn)Lysimachia venosaE Dicot Yes(ncn)Phyllostegia hispidaE Dicot Yes(ncn)Phyllostegia renovansE Dicot Yes(ncn)Platydesma cornuta var. cornutaE Dicot Yes(ncn)Platydesma cornuta var. decurrensE Dicot Yes(ncn)Schiedea attenuataE Dicot Yes(ncn)Stenogyne kealiaeE Dicot Yes(ncn)Tetraplasandra bisattenuataE Dicot Yes(ncn)Tetraplasandra flynniiE Dicot Yes(ncn)Tetraplasandra lydgateiE Dicot YesAbutilon sandwicense (ncn)Abutilon sandwicenseE Dicot YesAchyranthes mutica (ncn)Achyranthes muticaE Dicot YesAchyranthes splendens var. rotundata (ncn)Achyranthes splendens var. rotundataE Dicot YesAdobe Sunburst, San JoaquinPseudobahia peirsoniiT Dicot Yesa'eZanthoxylum oahuenseE Dicot YesA'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum)Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosumE Dicot YesA'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense)Zanthoxylum hawaiienseE Dicot Yes'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum)Nothocestrum breviflorumE Dicot Yes'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum)Nothocestrum peltatumE Dicot YesAkokoChamaesyce remyi var. kauaiensisE Dicot Yes'akokoChamaesyce eleanoriaeE Dicot Yes'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana)Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenanaE Dicot Yes'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana)Chamaesyce deppeanaE Dicot Yes'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii)Chamaesyce herbstiiE Dicot Yes128Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana)Chamaesyce kuwaleanaE Dicot Yes'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii)Chamaesyce rockiiE Dicot Yes'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. skottsbeChamaesyce skottsbergii var. kalaeloanaE Dicot Yes'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana)Euphorbia haeleeleanaE Dicot YesalaniMelicope christopherseniiE Dicot YesalaniMelicope degeneriE Dicot YesalaniMelicope hiiakaeE Dicot YesalaniMelicope makahaeE Dicot YesalaniMelicope paniculataE Dicot YesalaniMelicope puberulaE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope adscendens)Melicope adscendensE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope balloui)Melicope ballouiE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope haupuensis)Melicope haupuensisE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope knudsenii)Melicope knudseniiE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope lydgatei)Melicope lydgateiE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope mucronulata)Melicope mucronulataE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope ovalis)Melicope ovalisE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope pallida)Melicope pallidaE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope quadrangularis)Melicope quadrangularisE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope saint-johnii)Melicope saint-johniiE Dicot YesAlani (Melicope zahlbruckneri)Melicope zahlbruckneriE Dicot YesAllocarya, CalistogaPlagiobothrys strictusE Dicot YesAlsinidendron obovatum (ncn)Alsinidendron obovatumE Dicot YesAlsinidendron trinerve (ncn)Alsinidendron trinerveE Dicot YesAlsinidendron viscosum (ncn)Alsinidendron viscosumE Dicot YesAmaranth, SeabeachAmaranthus pumilusT Dicot YesAmbrosia, San DiegoAmbrosia pumilaE Dicot YesAmbrosia, South TexasAmbrosia cheiranthifoliaE Dicot YesAmphianthus, LittleAmphianthus pusillusT Dicot Yes'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula)Lepidium arbusculaE Dicot Yes'Anunu (Sicyos alba)Sicyos albaE Dicot YesAster, Decurrent FalseBoltonia decurrensT Dicot YesAster, Florida GoldenChrysopsis floridanaE Dicot Yes129Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Aster, Ruth's GoldenPityopsis ruthiiE Dicot YesAuerodendron pauciflorum (ncn)Auerodendron pauciflorumE Dicot YesAupaka (Isodendrion hosakae)Isodendrion hosakaeE Dicot YesAupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium)Isodendrion laurifoliumE Dicot YesAupaka (Isodendrion longifolium)Isodendrion longifoliumT Dicot YesAvens, SpreadingGeum radiatumE Dicot YesawikiwikiCanavalia napaliensisE Dicot Yes'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides)Centaurium sebaeoidesE Dicot Yes'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana)Hedyotis cookianaE Dicot YesAyenia, TexasAyenia limitarisE Dicot YesBaccharis, EncinitasBaccharis vanessaeT Dicot YesBarbara Buttons, Mohr'sMarshallia mohriiT Dicot YesBarberry, IslandBerberis pinnata ssp. insularisE Dicot YesBarberry, Nevin'sBerberis neviniiE Dicot YesBariacoTrichilia triacanthaE Dicot YesBearclaw poppy, DwarfArctomecon humilisE Dicot YesBedstraw, El DoradoGalium californicum ssp. sierraeE Dicot YesBedstraw, IslandGalium buxifoliumE Dicot YesBellflower, BrooksvilleCampanula robinsiaeE Dicot YesBirch, Virginia Round-leafBetula uberT Dicot YesBird's-beak, Palmate-bractedCordylanthus palmatusE Dicot YesBird's-beak, Pennell'sCordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillarisE Dicot YesBird's-beak, salt marshCordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimusE Dicot YesBird's-beak, SoftCordylanthus mollis ssp. mollisE Dicot YesBirds-in-a-nest, WhiteMacbridea albaT Dicot YesBittercress, Small-antheredCardamine micrantheraE Dicot YesBladderpod, Dudley BluffsLesquerella congestaT Dicot YesBladderpod, KodachromeLesquerella tumulosaE Dicot YesBladderpod, LyrateLesquerella lyrataT Dicot YesBladderpod, MissouriLesquerella filiformisT Dicot YesBladderpod, San Bernardino MountainsLesquerella kingii ssp. bernardinaE Dicot YesBladderpod, Spring CreekLesquerella perforataE Dicot YesBladderpod, WhiteLesquerella pallidaE Dicot Yes130Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Bladderpod, ZapataLesquerella thamnophilaE Dicot YesBlazing Star, Ash MeadowsMentzelia leucophyllaT Dicot YesBlazing Star, Heller'sLiatris helleriT Dicot YesBlazing Star, ScrubLiatris ohlingeraeE Dicot YesBluecurls, Hidden LakeTrichostema austromontanum ssp. compactumT Dicot YesBlue-star, Kearney'sAmsonia kearneyanaE Dicot YesBluet, Roan MountainHedyotis purpurea var. montanaE Dicot YesBonamia menziesii (ncn)Bonamia menziesiiE Dicot YesBonamia, FloridaBonamia grandifloraT Dicot YesBoxwood, Vahl'sBuxus vahliiE Dicot YesBroom, San Clemente IslandLotus dendroideus ssp. traskiaeE Dicot YesBuckwheat, CushenburyEriogonum ovalifolium var. vineumE Dicot YesBuckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill)Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. prostratum)E Dicot YesBuckwheat, ScrubEriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifoliumT Dicot YesBuckwheat, Southern Mountain WildEriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanumT Dicot YesBuckwheat, SteamboatEriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiaeE Dicot YesBush-mallow, San Clemente IslandMalacothamnus clementinusE Dicot YesBush-mallow, Santa Cruz IslandMalacothamnus fasciculatus var. nesioticusE Dicot YesButtercup, AutumnRanunculus aestivalis (=acriformis)E Dicot YesButterfly Plant, ColoradoGaura neomexicana var. coloradensisT Dicot YesButterweed, Layne'sSenecio layneaeT Dicot YesButterwort, Godfrey'sPinguicula ionanthaT Dicot YesButton-celery, San DiegoEryngium aristulatum var. parishiiE Dicot YesCactus, Arizona HedgehogEchinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicusE Dicot YesCactus, BakersfieldOpuntia treleaseiE Dicot YesCactus, Black LaceEchinocereus reichenbachii var. albertiiE Dicot YesCactus, Brady PincushionPediocactus bradyiE Dicot YesCactus, Bunched CoryCoryphantha ramillosaT Dicot YesCactus, Chisos Mountain HedgehogEchinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensisT Dicot YesCactus, Cochise PincushionCoryphantha robbinsorumT Dicot YesCactus, Colorado hooklessSclerocactus glaucusT Dicot YesCactus, KnowltonPediocactus knowltoniiE Dicot YesCactus, Kuenzler HedgehogEchinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleriE Dicot YesCactus, Lee PincushionCoryphantha sneedii var. leeiT Dicot Yes131Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Cactus, Lloyd's MariposaEchinomastus mariposensisT Dicot YesCactus, Mesa VerdeSclerocactus mesae-verdaeT Dicot YesCactus, Nellie CoryCoryphantha minimaE Dicot YesCactus, Nichol's Turk's HeadEchinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholiiE Dicot YesCactus, ParietteSclerocactus brevispinusT Dicot YesCactus, Peebles NavajoPediocactus peeblesianus peeblesianusE Dicot YesCactus, Pima PineappleCoryphantha scheeri var. robustispinaE Dicot YesCactus, San RafaelPediocactus despainiiE Dicot YesCactus, Siler PincushionPediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileriT Dicot YesCactus, Sneed PincushionCoryphantha sneedii var. sneediiE Dicot YesCactus, StarAstrophytum asteriasE Dicot YesCactus, Tobusch FishhookAncistrocactus tobuschiiE Dicot YesCactus, Uinta Basin hooklessSclerocactus wetlandicusT Dicot YesCactus, WinklerPediocactus winkleriT Dicot YesCactus, Wright FishhookSclerocactus wrightiaeE Dicot YesCalyptranthes Thomasiana (ncn)Calyptranthes thomasianaE Dicot YesCampion, FringedSilene polypetalaE Dicot YesCapa RosaCallicarpa amplaE Dicot YesCatchfly, Spalding'sSilene spaldingiiT Dicot YesCatesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn)Catesbaea melanocarpaE Dicot YesCat's-eye, Terlingua CreekCryptantha crassipesE Dicot YesCeanothus, CoyoteCeanothus ferrisaeE Dicot YesCeanothus, Pine HillCeanothus roderickiiE Dicot YesCeanothus, Vail LakeCeanothus ophiochilusT Dicot YesCentaury, Spring-lovingCentaurium namophilumT Dicot YesChaffseed, AmericanSchwalbea americanaE Dicot YesChamaecrista glandulosa (ncn)Chamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilisE Dicot YesChamaesyce Halemanui (ncn)Chamaesyce halemanuiE Dicot YesChecker-mallow, Keck'sSidalcea keckiiE Dicot YesChecker-mallow, Kenwood MarshSidalcea oregana ssp. validaE Dicot YesChecker-mallow, Nelson'sSidalcea nelsonianaT Dicot YesChecker-mallow, PedateSidalcea pedataE Dicot YesChecker-mallow, Wenatchee MountainsSidalcea oregana var. calvaE Dicot Yes132Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Chumbo, HigoHarrisia portoricensisT Dicot YesChupacallosPleodendron macranthumE Dicot YesClarkia, PismoClarkia speciosa ssp. immaculataE Dicot YesClarkia, PresidioClarkia franciscanaE Dicot YesClarkia, SpringvilleClarkia springvillensisT Dicot YesClarkia, Vine HillClarkia imbricataE Dicot YesCliffrose, ArizonaPurshia (=cowania) subintegraE Dicot YesClover, Fleshy Owl'sCastilleja campestris ssp. succulentaT Dicot YesClover, Leafy PrairieDalea foliosaE Dicot YesClover, MontereyTrifolium trichocalyxE Dicot YesClover, Prairie BushLespedeza leptostachyaT Dicot YesClover, Running BuffaloTrifolium stoloniferumE Dicot YesClover, Showy IndianTrifolium amoenumE Dicot YesCobana NegraStahlia monospermaT Dicot YesConeflower, SmoothEchinacea laevigataE Dicot YesCordia bellonis (ncn)Cordia bellonisE Dicot YesCoyote-thistle, Loch LomondEryngium constanceiE Dicot YesCrownbeard, Big-leavedVerbesina dissitaT Dicot YesCrownscale, San Jacinto ValleyAtriplex coronata var. notatiorE Dicot YesCyanea undulata (ncn)Cyanea undulataE Dicot YesCycladenia, JonesCycladenia jonesii (=humilis)T Dicot YesDaisy, LakesideHymenoxys herbaceaT Dicot YesDaisy, Parish'sErigeron parishiiT Dicot YesDaisy, WillametteErigeron decumbens var. decumbensE Dicot YesDaphnopsis hellerana (ncn)Daphnopsis helleranaE Dicot YesDawn-flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed)Hymenoxys texanaE Dicot YesDeBeque phaceliaPhacelia submuticaT Dicot YesDelissea rhytodisperma (ncn)Delissea rhytidospermaE Dicot YesDogweed, AshyThymophylla tephroleucaE Dicot YesDropwort, Canby'sOxypolis canbyiE Dicot YesDubautia latifolia (ncn)Dubautia latifoliaE Dicot YesDubautia pauciflorula (ncn)Dubautia pauciflorulaE Dicot YesDudleya, ConejoDudleya abramsii ssp. parvaT Dicot Yes133Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Dudleya, MarcescentDudleya cymosa ssp. marcescensT Dicot YesDudleya, Santa Clara ValleyDudleya setchelliiE Dicot YesDudleya, Santa Cruz IslandDudleya nesioticaT Dicot YesDudleya, Santa Monica MountainsDudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifoliaT Dicot YesDudleya, Verity'sDudleya verityiT Dicot YesDwarf-flax, MarinHesperolinon congestumT Dicot YesErubiaSolanum drymophilumE Dicot YesEugenia WoodburyanaEugenia woodburyanaE Dicot YesEvening-primrose, Antioch DunesOenothera deltoides ssp. howelliiE Dicot YesEvening-primrose, Eureka ValleyOenothera avita ssp. eurekensisE Dicot YesEvening-primrose, San BenitoCamissonia benitensisT Dicot YesFiddleneck, Large-floweredAmsinckia grandifloraE Dicot YesFlannelbush, MexicanFremontodendron mexicanumE Dicot YesFlannelbush, Pine HillFremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbensE Dicot YesFleabane, ZuniErigeron rhizomatusT Dicot YesFour-o'clock, Macfarlane'sMirabilis macfarlaneiT Dicot YesFrankenia, Johnston'sFrankenia johnstoniiE Dicot YesFringe Tree, PygmyChionanthus pygmaeusE Dicot YesFringepod, Santa Cruz IslandThysanocarpus conchuliferusE Dicot YesFruit, Earth (=geocarpon)Geocarpon minimumT Dicot YesGeranium, Hawaiian Red-floweredGeranium arboreumE Dicot YesGerardia, SandplainAgalinis acutaE Dicot YesGesneria pauciflora (ncn)Gesneria paucifloraT Dicot YesGilia, Hoffmann's Slender-floweredGilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmanniiE Dicot YesGilia, MontereyGilia tenuiflora ssp. arenariaE Dicot YesGoetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey)Goetzea elegansE Dicot YesGolden Sunburst, Hartweg'sPseudobahia bahiifoliaE Dicot YesGoldenrod, Blue RidgeSolidago spithamaeaT Dicot YesGoldenrod, Houghton'sSolidago houghtoniiT Dicot YesGoldenrod, Short'sSolidago shortiiE Dicot YesGoldenrod, White-hairedSolidago albopilosaT Dicot YesGoldfields, Burke'sLasthenia burkeiE Dicot YesGoldfields, Contra CostaLasthenia conjugensE Dicot Yes134Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Gooseberry, MiccosukeeRibes echinellumT Dicot YesGouania hillebrandii (ncn)Gouania hillebrandiiE Dicot YesGouania meyenii (ncn)Gouania meyeniiE Dicot YesGouania vitifolia (ncn)Gouania vitifoliaE Dicot YesGourd, OkeechobeeCucurbita okeechobeensisssp. okeechobeensisE Dicot YesGrass, Hairy OrcuttOrcuttia pilosaE Dicot YesGrass, Sacramento OrcuttOrcuttia viscidaE Dicot YesGrass, Slender OrcuttOrcuttia tenuisT Dicot YesGround-plum, Guthrie'sAstragalus bibullatusE Dicot YesGroundsel, San Francisco PeaksSenecio franciscanusT Dicot YesGumplant, Ash MeadowsGrindelia fraxino-pratensisT Dicot Yesha`iwaleCyrtandra kaulanthaE Dicot Yesha`iwaleCyrtandra sessilisE Dicot YesHahaCyanea calycinaE Dicot YesHahaCyanea dolichopodaE Dicot YeshahaCyanea eleeleensisE Dicot YesHahaCyanea kuhihewaE Dicot YesHahaCyanea lanceolataE Dicot YeshahaCyanea purpurellifoliaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea acuminata)Cyanea acuminataE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea asarifolia)Cyanea asarifoliaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii)Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandiiE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis)Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensisE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa)Cyanea (=Rollandia) crispaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea glabra)Cyanea glabraE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana)Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesianaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae)Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obataeE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii)Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. CarlsoniiE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora)Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatifloraE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea humboldtiana)Cyanea humboldtianaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea koolauensis)Cyanea koolauensisE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea lobata)Cyanea lobataE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea longiflora)Cyanea longifloraE Dicot Yes135Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi)Cyanea mceldowneyiE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea pinnatifida)Cyanea pinnatifidaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea platyphylla)Cyanea platyphyllaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea recta)Cyanea rectaT Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea remyi)Cyanea remyiE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea shipmanii)Cyanea shipmanniiE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea stictophylla)Cyanea stictophyllaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea St-Johnii) (=Rollandia St-Johnii)Cyanea st-johniiE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea superba)Cyanea superbaE Dicot YesHaha (Cyanea truncata)Cyanea truncataE Dicot YeshaiwaleCyrtandra gracilisE Dicot YeshaiwaleCyrtandra palikuE Dicot YeshaiwaleCyrtandra waiolaniE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra crenata)Cyrtandra crenataE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra dentata)Cyrtandra dentataE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra giffardii)Cyrtandra giffardiiE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra limahuliensis)Cyrtandra limahuliensisT Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra munroi)Cyrtandra munroiE Dicot YesHa'iwale (Cyrtandra oenobarba)Cyrtandra oenobarbaE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra polyantha)Cyrtandra polyanthaE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata)Cyrtandra subumbellataE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula)Cyrtandra tintinnabulaE Dicot YesHa'Iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora)Cyrtandra viridifloraE Dicot YesHaplostachys Haplostachya (ncn)Haplostachys haplostachyaE Dicot YesHarebells, Avon ParkCrotalaria avonensisE Dicot YesHarperellaPtilimnium nodosumE Dicot YesHau Kauhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi)Hibiscadelphus woodiiE Dicot YesHau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans)Hibiscadelphus distansE Dicot YesHau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus giffardianus)Hibiscadelphus giffardianusE Dicot YesHau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis)Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensisE Dicot YesHayun Lagu (Tronkon Guafi)Serianthes nelsoniiE Dicot YesHeartleaf, Dwarf-floweredHexastylis nanifloraT Dicot YesHeather, Mountain GoldenHudsonia montanaT Dicot Yes136Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Heau (Exocarpos luteolus)Exocarpos luteolusE Dicot YesHedyotis degeneri (ncn)Hedyotis degeneriE Dicot YesHedyotis parvula (ncn)Hedyotis parvulaE Dicot YesHedyotis St.-Johnii (ncn)Hedyotis st.-johniiE Dicot YesHesperomannia arborescens (ncn)Hesperomannia arborescensE Dicot YesHesperomannia arbuscula (ncn)Hesperomannia arbusculaE Dicot YesHesperomannia lydgatei (ncn)Hesperomannia lydgateiE Dicot YesHibiscus, Clay'sHibiscus clayiE Dicot YesHiguero De SierraCrescentia portoricensisE Dicot Yesho'awaPittosporum napalienseE Dicot YesHolei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis)Ochrosia kilaueaensisE Dicot YesHolly, Cook'sIlex cookiiE Dicot YesHowellia, WaterHowellia aquatilisT Dicot YesHypericum, Highlands ScrubHypericum cumulicolaE Dicot YesIlex sintenisii (ncn)Ilex sintenisiiE Dicot YesIliau (Wilkesia hobdyi)Wilkesia hobdyiE Dicot YesIpomopsis, Holy GhostIpomopsis sancti-spiritusE Dicot YesIvesia, Ash MeadowsIvesia kingii var. eremicaT Dicot YesJacquemontia, BeachJacquemontia reclinataE Dicot YesJewelflower, CaliforniaCaulanthus californicusE Dicot YesJewelflower, Metcalf CanyonStreptanthus albidus ssp. albidusE Dicot YesJewelflower, TiburonStreptanthus nigerE Dicot YesJoint-vetch, SensitiveAeschynomene virginicaT Dicot YeskamakahalaLabordia helleriE Dicot YeskamakahalaLabordia pumilaE Dicot YesKamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae)Labordia cyrtandraeE Dicot YesKamakahala (Labordia lydgatei)Labordia lydgateiE Dicot YesKamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaen)Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensisE Dicot YesKauila (Colubrina oppositifolia)Colubrina oppositifoliaE Dicot YeskauluPteralyxia macrocarpaE Dicot YesKaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis)Pteralyxia kauaiensisE Dicot YesKio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea)Hedyotis coriaceaE Dicot YesKiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa)Phyllostegia racemosaE Dicot Yes137Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?ko`oko`olauBidens amplectensE Dicot YesKoki'o (Kokia drynarioides)Kokia drynarioidesE Dicot YesKoki'o (Kokia kauaiensis)Kokia kauaiensisE Dicot YesKoki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae)Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hanneraeE Dicot YesKoleaMyrsine knudseniiE Dicot YeskoleaMyrsine meziiE Dicot YesKolea (Myrsine juddii)Myrsine juddiiE Dicot YesKolea (Myrsine linearifolia)Myrsine linearifoliaT Dicot YesKo'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha)Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealahaE Dicot YesKo'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii)Abutilon menziesiiE Dicot YeskopikoPsychotria grandifloraE Dicot YeskopikoPsychotria hobdyiE Dicot YesKuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides)Alsinidendron lychnoidesE Dicot YesKulu'I (Nototrichium humile)Nototrichium humileE Dicot YesLarkspur, Baker'sDelphinium bakeriE Dicot YesLarkspur, San Clemente IslandDelphinium variegatum ssp. kinkienseE Dicot YesLarkspur, YellowDelphinium luteumE Dicot YesLaukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago hawaiensis)Plantago hawaiensisE Dicot YesLaukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago princeps)Plantago princepsE Dicot YesLaulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides)Schiedea stellarioidesE Dicot YesLayia, BeachLayia carnosaE Dicot YesLead-plant, CrenulateAmorpha crenulataE Dicot YesLeather-flower, AlabamaClematis socialisE Dicot YesLeather-flower, Morefield'sClematis morefieldiiE Dicot Yeslehua makanoeLysimachia daphnoidesE Dicot YesLessingia, San FranciscoLessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germanorum)E Dicot YesLiliwai (Acaena exigua)Acaena exiguaE Dicot YesLipochaeta venosa (ncn)Lipochaeta venosaE Dicot YesLiveforever, Laguna BeachDudleya stoloniferaT Dicot YesLiveforever, Santa Barbara IslandDudleya traskiaeE Dicot YesLobelia monostachya (ncn)Lobelia monostachyaE Dicot YesLobelia niihauensis (ncn)Lobelia niihauensisE Dicot YesLobelia oahuensis (ncn)Lobelia oahuensisE Dicot Yes138Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Locoweed, Fassett'sOxytropis campestris var. chartaceaT Dicot YesLomatium, Bradshaw'sLomatium bradshawiiE Dicot YesLomatium, Cook'sLomatium cookiiE Dicot YesLoosestrife, Rough-leavedLysimachia asperulaefoliaE Dicot YesLousewort, FurbishPedicularis furbishiaeE Dicot YesLupine, CloverLupinus tidestromiiE Dicot YesLupine, Kincaid'sLupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii(=var. kincaidii)T Dicot YesLupine, Nipomo MesaLupinus nipomensisE Dicot YesLupine, ScrubLupinus aridorumE Dicot YesLyonia truncata var. proctorii (ncn)Lyonia truncata var. proctoriiE Dicot YesLysimachia filifolia (ncn)Lysimachia filifoliaE Dicot YesLysimachia lydgatei (ncn)Lysimachia lydgateiE Dicot YesMahoe (Alectryon macrococcus)Alectryon macrococcusE Dicot YesMakou (Peucedanum sandwicense)Peucedanum sandwicenseT Dicot YesMalacothrix, IslandMalacothrix squalidaE Dicot YesMalacothrix, Santa Cruz IslandMalacothrix indecoraE Dicot YesMallow, KernEremalche kernensisE Dicot YesMallow, Peter's MountainIliamna coreiE Dicot YesManioc, Walker'sManihot walkeraeE Dicot YesManzanita, Del MarArctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifoliaE Dicot YesManzanita, IoneArctostaphylos myrtifoliaT Dicot YesManzanita, MorroArctostaphylos morroensisT Dicot YesManzanita, PallidArctostaphylos pallidaT Dicot YesManzanita, Santa Rosa IslandArctostaphylos confertifloraE Dicot YesMa'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus brackenridgei)Hibiscus brackenridgeiE Dicot YesMa'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos)Schiedea apokremnosE Dicot YesMa'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae)Schiedea kealiaeE Dicot YesMapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides)Cyrtandra cyaneoidesE Dicot YesMeadowfoam, Butte CountyLimnanthes floccosa ssp. californicaE Dicot YesMeadowfoam, Large-flowered WoollyLimnanthes floccosa ssp. GrandifloraE Dicot YesMeadowfoam, SebastopolLimnanthes vinculansE Dicot YesMeadowrue, Cooley'sThalictrum cooleyiE Dicot Yes139Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea)Flueggea neowawraeaE Dicot YesMilkpea, Small'sGalactia smalliiE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Applegate'sAstragalus applegateiE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Ash MeadowsAstragalus phoenixT Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Braunton'sAstragalus brauntoniiE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Clara Hunt'sAstragalus clarianusE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Coachella ValleyAstragalus lentiginosus var. coachellaeE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Coastal DunesAstragalus tener var. titiE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, CushenburyAstragalus albensE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, DeseretAstragalus desereticusT Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Fish SloughAstragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensisT Dicot YesMilk-vetch, HeliotropeAstragalus montiiT Dicot YesMilk-vetch, HolmgrenAstragalus holmgreniorumE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Jesup'sAstragalus robbinsii var. jesupiE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Lane MountainAstragalus jaegerianusE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, MancosAstragalus humillimusE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Pierson'sAstragalus magdalenae var. peirsoniiT Dicot YesMilk-vetch, SentryAstragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylaxE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, ShivwitsAstragalus ampullarioidesE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Triple-ribbedAstragalus tricarinatusE Dicot YesMilk-vetch, Ventura MarshAstragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimusE Dicot YesMilkweed, Mead'sAsclepias meadiiT Dicot YesMilkweed, Welsh'sAsclepias welshiiT Dicot YesMint, Garrett'sDicerandra christmaniiE Dicot YesMint, Lakela'sDicerandra immaculataE Dicot YesMint, LongspurredDicerandra cornutissimaE Dicot YesMint, Otay MesaPogogyne nudiusculaE Dicot YesMint, San Diego MesaPogogyne abramsiiE Dicot YesMint, ScrubDicerandra frutescensE Dicot YesMitracarpus MaxwelliaeMitracarpus maxwelliaeE Dicot YesMitracarpus PolycladusMitracarpus polycladusE Dicot YesMonardella, WillowyMonardella linoides ssp. vimineaE Dicot YesMonkey-flower, MichiganMimulus glabratus var. michiganensisE Dicot Yes140Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Monkshood, Northern WildAconitum noveboracenseT Dicot YesMorning-glory, StebbinsCalystegia stebbinsiiE Dicot YesMountainbalm, Indian KnobEriodictyon altissimumE Dicot YesMountain-mahogany, Catalina IslandCercocarpus traskiaeE Dicot YesMunroidendron racemosum (ncn)Munroidendron racemosumE Dicot YesMustard, Carter'sWarea carteriE Dicot YesMustard, Slender-petaledThelypodium stenopetalumE Dicot YesMyrcia PaganiiMyrcia paganiiE Dicot Yesna`ena`eDubautia imbricata imbricataE Dicot Yesna`ena`eDubautia plantaginea magnifoliaE Dicot YesNa`ena`eDubautia waialealaeE Dicot YesNaenaeDubautia kalalauensisE Dicot YesNaenaeDubautia kenwoodiiE Dicot YesNa'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae)Dubautia herbstobataeE Dicot YesNa'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis)Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilisE Dicot YesNani Wai'ale'ale (Viola kauaensis var. wahiawaensis)Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensisE Dicot YesNanu (Gardenia mannii)Gardenia manniiE Dicot YesNa'u (Gardenia brighamii)Gardenia brighamiiE Dicot YesNaupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea)Scaevola coriaceaE Dicot YesNavarretia, Few-floweredNavarretia leucocephala ssp. PaucifloraE Dicot YesNavarretia, Many-floweredNavarretia leucocephala ssp. plieanthaE Dicot YesNavarretia, SpreadingNavarretia fossalisT Dicot YesNehe (Lipochaeta fauriei)Lipochaeta faurieiE Dicot YesNehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis)Lipochaeta kamolensisE Dicot YesNehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla)Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophyllaE Dicot YesNehe (Lipochaeta micrantha)Lipochaeta micranthaE Dicot YesNehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia)Lipochaeta tenuifoliaE Dicot YesNehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis)Lipochaeta waimeaensisE Dicot YesNeraudia angulata (ncn)Neraudia angulataE Dicot YesNeraudia ovata (ncn)Neraudia ovataE Dicot YesNeraudia sericea (ncn)Neraudia sericeaE Dicot YesNioi (Eugenia koolauensis)Eugenia koolauensisE Dicot YesNiterwort, AmargosaNitrophila mohavensisE Dicot Yes141Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?nohoanuGeranium kauaienseE Dicot YesNohoanu (Geranium multiflorum)Geranium multiflorumE Dicot YesOahu wild coffeePsychotria hexandra ssp. OahuensisE Dicot YesOak, HinckleyQuercus hinckleyiT Dicot Yes'Oha (Delissea rivularis)Delissea rivularisE Dicot Yes'Oha (Delissea subcordata)Delissea subcordataE Dicot Yes'Oha (Delissea undulata)Delissea undulataE Dicot Yes'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis)Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensisE Dicot Yes'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha)Clermontia drepanomorphaE Dicot Yes'Oha Wai (Clermontia lindseyana)Clermontia lindseyanaE Dicot Yes'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis)Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensisE Dicot Yes'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana)Clermontia peleanaE Dicot Yes'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia)Clermontia pyrulariaE Dicot Yes'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii)Clermontia samueliiE Dicot Yes'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa)Sesbania tomentosaE Dicot Yes'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa)Tetraplasandra gymnocarpaE Dicot Yes'Olulu (Brighamia insignis)Brighamia insignisE Dicot YesOpuhe (Urera kaalae)Urera kaalaeE Dicot YesOxytheca, CushenburyOxytheca parishii var. goodmanianaE Dicot YesPagosa SkyrocketIpomopsis polyanthaE Dicot YesPaintbrush, Ash-grey IndianCastilleja cinereaT Dicot YesPaintbrush, GoldenCastilleja levisectaT Dicot YesPaintbrush, San Clemente Island IndianCastilleja griseaE Dicot YesPaintbrush, Soft-leavedCastilleja mollisE Dicot YesPaintbrush, TiburonCastilleja affinis ssp. neglectaE Dicot YesPalo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis)Ternstroemia luquillensisE Dicot YesPalo de JazminStyrax portoricensisE Dicot YesPalo de NiguaCornutia obovataE Dicot YesPalo de RamonBanara vanderbiltiiE Dicot YesPalo de RosaOttoschulzia rhodoxylonE Dicot YesPamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana)Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissonianaE Dicot YesPapalaCharpentiera densifloraE Dicot YesParachute BeardtonguePenstemon debilisT Dicot Yes142Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Pawpaw, BeautifulDeeringothamnus pulchellusE Dicot YesPawpaw, Four-petalAsimina tetrameraE Dicot YesPawpaw, Rugel'sDeeringothamnus rugeliiE Dicot YesPenny-cress, Kneeland PrairieThlaspi californicumE Dicot YesPennyroyal, Todsen'sHedeoma todseniiE Dicot YesPenstemon, BlowoutPenstemon haydeniiE Dicot YesPentachaeta, Lyon'sPentachaeta lyoniiE Dicot YesPentachaeta, White-rayedPentachaeta bellidifloraE Dicot YesPeperomia, Wheeler'sPeperomia wheeleriE Dicot YesPeppergrass, Slick SpotLepidium papilliferumT Dicot YesPhacelia, ClayPhacelia argillaceaE Dicot YesPhacelia, IslandPhacelia insularis ssp. insularisE Dicot YesPhacelia, North ParkPhacelia formosulaE Dicot YesPhlox, Texas TrailingPhlox nivalis ssp. texensisE Dicot YesPhlox, YrekaPhlox hirsutaE Dicot YesPhyllostegia hirsuta (ncn)Phyllostegia hirsutaE Dicot YesPhyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn)Phyllostegia kaalaensisE Dicot YesPhyllostegia knudsenii (ncn)Phyllostegia knudseniiE Dicot YesPhyllostegia mannii (ncn)Phyllostegia manniiE Dicot YesPhyllostegia mollis (ncn)Phyllostegia mollisE Dicot YesPhyllostegia parviflora (ncn)Phyllostegia parvifloraE Dicot YesPhyllostegia velutina (ncn)Phyllostegia velutinaE Dicot YesPhyllostegia waimeae (ncn)Phyllostegia waimeaeE Dicot YesPhyllostegia warshaueri (ncn)Phyllostegia warshaueriE Dicot YesPhyllostegia wawrana (ncn)Phyllostegia wawranaE Dicot YesPilo (Hedyotis mannii)Hedyotis manniiE Dicot Yespilo kea lau li`iPlatydesma rostrataE Dicot YesPinkroot, GentianSpigelia gentianoidesE Dicot YesPitaya, Davis' GreenEchinocereus viridiflorus var. davisiiE Dicot YesPitcher-plant, Alabama CanebrakeSarracenia rubra alabamensisE Dicot YesPitcher-plant, GreenSarracenia oreophilaE Dicot YesPitcher-plant, Mountain SweetSarracenia rubra ssp. jonesiiE Dicot YesPlum, ScrubPrunus geniculataE Dicot Yes143Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa)Portulaca sclerocarpaE Dicot YesPolygala, Lewton'sPolygala lewtoniiE Dicot YesPolygala, TinyPolygala smalliiE Dicot YesPolygonum, Scott's ValleyPolygonum hickmaniiE Dicot YesPondberryLindera melissifoliaE Dicot YesPoolfish, Pahrump (= Pahrump Killifish)Empetrichthys latosE Dicot YesPopcornflower, RoughPlagiobothrys hirtusE Dicot YesPopolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum sandwicense)Solanum sandwicenseE Dicot YesPopolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum)Solanum incompletumE Dicot YesPoppy, Sacramento PricklyArgemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisectaE Dicot YesPoppy-mallow, TexasCallirhoe scabriusculaE Dicot YesPotato-bean, Price'sApios priceanaT Dicot YesPotentilla, Hickman'sPotentilla hickmaniiE Dicot YesPrickly-apple, FragrantCereus eriophorus var. fragransE Dicot YesPrickly-ash, St. ThomasZanthoxylum thomasianumE Dicot YesPrimrose, MaguirePrimula maguireiT Dicot YesPua'ala (Brighamia rockii)Brighamia rockiiE Dicot YesPussypaws, MariposaCalyptridium pulchellumT Dicot YesRattleweed, HairyBaptisia arachniferaE Dicot YesReed-mustard, BarnebySchoenocrambe barnebyiE Dicot YesReed-mustard, ClaySchoenocrambe argillaceaT Dicot YesReed-mustard, ShrubbySchoenocrambe suffrutescensE Dicot YesRemya kauaiensis (ncn)Remya kauaiensisE Dicot YesRemya montgomeryi (ncn)Remya montgomeryiE Dicot YesRemya, MauiRemya mauiensisE Dicot YesRhododendron, ChapmanRhododendron chapmaniiE Dicot YesRidge-cress (=Pepper-cress), BarnebyLepidium barnebyanumE Dicot YesRock-cress, Braun'sArabis perstellata E. L.Braun var. ampla RollinsE Dicot YesRock-cress, Hoffmann'sArabis hoffmanniiE Dicot YesRock-cress, McDonald'sArabis mcdonaldianaE Dicot YesRock-cress, Santa Cruz IslandSibara filifoliaE Dicot YesRock-cress, Shale BarrenArabis serotinaE Dicot YesRock-cress, SmallArabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata FernaldE Dicot Yes144Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Rosemary, ApalachicolaConradina glabraE Dicot YesRosemary, CumberlandConradina verticillataT Dicot YesRosemary, EtoniaConradina etoniaE Dicot YesRosemary, Short-leavedConradina brevifoliaE Dicot YesRoseroot, Leedy'sSedum integrifolium ssp. leedyiT Dicot YesRush-pea, SlenderHoffmannseggia tenellaE Dicot YesRush-rose, IslandHelianthemum greeneiT Dicot YesSandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi)Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaienseE Dicot YesSandlacePolygonella myriophyllaE Dicot YesSand-verbena, Large-fruitedAbronia macrocarpaE Dicot YesSandwort, Bear ValleyArenaria ursinaT Dicot YesSandwort, CumberlandArenaria cumberlandensisE Dicot YesSandwort, MarshArenaria paludicolaE Dicot YesSanicula mariversa (ncn)Sanicula mariversaE Dicot YesSanicula purpurea (ncn)Sanicula purpureaE Dicot YesSchiedea haleakalensis (ncn)Schiedea haleakalensisE Dicot YesSchiedea helleri (ncn)Schiedea helleriE Dicot YesSchiedea hookeri (ncn)Schiedea hookeriE Dicot YesSchiedea kaalae (ncn)Schiedea kaalaeE Dicot YesSchiedea kauaiensis (ncn)Schiedea kauaiensisE Dicot YesSchiedea membranacea (ncn)Schiedea membranaceaE Dicot YesSchiedea nuttallii (ncn)Schiedea nuttalliiE Dicot YesSchiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (ncn)Schiedea spergulina var. leiopodaE Dicot YesSchiedea spergulina var. spergulina (ncn)Schiedea spergulina var. spergulinaT Dicot YesSchiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea adamantis)Schiedea adamantisE Dicot YesSchoepfia arenaria (ncn)Schoepfia arenariaT Dicot YesSea-blite, CaliforniaSuaeda californicaE Dicot YesSilene hawaiiensis (ncn)Silene hawaiiensisT Dicot YesSilene lanceolata (ncn)Silene lanceolataE Dicot YesSilene perlmanii (ncn)Silene perlmaniiE Dicot YesSilversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina)Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalumT Dicot YesSilversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense)Argyroxiphium kauenseE Dicot YesSilversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina)Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicenseE Dicot Yes145Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Skullcap, FloridaScutellaria floridanaT Dicot YesSkullcap, Large-floweredScutellaria montanaT Dicot YesSnakerootEryngium cuneifoliumE Dicot YesSneezeweed, VirginiaHelenium virginicumT Dicot YesSnowbells, TexasStyrax texanusE Dicot YesSpermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn)Spermolepis hawaiiensisE Dicot YesSpineflower, Ben LomondChorizanthe pungens var. hartwegianaE Dicot YesSpineflower, Howell'sChorizanthe howelliiE Dicot YesSpineflower, MontereyChorizanthe pungens var. pungensT Dicot YesSpineflower, Orcutt'sChorizanthe orcuttianaE Dicot YesSpineflower, RobustChorizanthe robusta va r. robustaE Dicot YesSpineflower, Scotts ValleyChorizanthe robusta var. hartwegiiE Dicot YesSpineflower, Slender-hornedDodecahema leptocerasE Dicot YesSpineflower, SonomaChorizanthe validaE Dicot YesSpiraea, VirginiaSpiraea virginianaT Dicot YesSpurge, DeltoidChamaesyce deltoideassp. deltoideaE Dicot YesSpurge, Garber'sChamaesyce garberiT Dicot YesSpurge, Hoover'sChamaesyce hooveriT Dicot YesSpurge, TelephusEuphorbia telephioidesT Dicot YesStenogyne angustifolia (ncn)Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifoliaE Dicot YesStenogyne campanulata (ncn)Stenogyne campanulataE Dicot YesStenogyne kanehoana (ncn)Stenogyne kanehoanaE Dicot YesStickseed, ShowyHackelia venustaE Dicot YesStickyseed, Baker'sBlennosperma bakeriE Dicot YesStonecrop, Lake CountyParvisedum leiocarpumE Dicot YesSumac, Michaux'sRhus michauxiiE Dicot YesSunflower, PecosHelianthus paradoxusT Dicot YesSunflower, San Mateo WoollyEriophyllum latilobumE Dicot YesSunflower, Schweinitz'sHelianthus schweinitziiE Dicot YesSunray, Ash MeadowsEnceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugataT Dicot YesTaraxacum, CaliforniaTaraxacum californicumE Dicot YesTarplant, GaviotaDeinandra increscens ssp. villosaE Dicot YesTarplant, OtayDeinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugensT Dicot Yes146Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Tarplant, Santa CruzHolocarpha macradeniaT Dicot YesTernstroemia subsessilis (ncn)Ternstroemia subsessilisE Dicot YesTetramolopium arenarium (ncn)Tetramolopium arenariumE Dicot YesTetramolopium capillare (ncn)Tetramolopium capillareE Dicot YesTetramolopium filiforme (ncn)Tetramolopium filiformeE Dicot YesTetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (ncn)Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotumE Dicot YesTetramolopium remyi (ncn)Tetramolopium remyiE Dicot YesTetramolopium rockii (ncn)Tetramolopium rockiiT Dicot YesThelypody, Howell's SpectacularThelypodium howellii spectabilisT Dicot YesThistle, Chorro creek BogCirsium fontinale var. obispoenseE Dicot YesThistle, FountainCirsium fontinale var. fontinaleE Dicot YesThistle, La GraciosaCirsium loncholepisE Dicot YesThistle, Pitcher'sCirsium pitcheriT Dicot YesThistle, Sacramento MountainsCirsium vinaceumT Dicot YesThistle, SuisunCirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilumE Dicot YesThornmint, San DiegoAcanthomintha ilicifoliaT Dicot YesThornmint, San MateoAcanthomintha obovata ssp. duttoniiE Dicot YesTownsendia, Last ChanceTownsendia apricaT Dicot YesTrematolobelia singularis (ncn)Trematolobelia singularisE Dicot YesTuctoria, Green'sTuctoria greeneiE Dicot YesTwinpod, Dudley BluffsPhysaria obcordataT Dicot YesUhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis)Caesalpinia kavaienseE Dicot YesUmbel, Huachuca WaterLilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurvaE Dicot YesUvilloEugenia haematocarpaE Dicot YesVernonia Proctorii (ncn)Vernonia proctoriiE Dicot YesVervain, CaliforniaVerbena californicaT Dicot YesVetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii)Vicia menziesiiE Dicot YesVigna o-wahuensis (ncn)Vigna o-wahuensisE Dicot YesViola helenae (ncn)Viola helenaeE Dicot YesViola oahuensis (ncn)Viola oahuensisE Dicot YesWahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium)Isodendrion pyrifoliumE Dicot YesWallflower, Ben LomondErysimum teretifoliumE Dicot YesWallflower, Contra CostaErysimum capitatum var. angustatumE Dicot Yes147Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Wallflower, Menzie'sErysimum menziesiiE Dicot YesWarea, Wide-leafWarea amplexifoliaE Dicot YesWatercress, Gambel'sRorippa gambelliiE Dicot YesWater-willow, Cooley'sJusticia cooleyiE Dicot YesWhitlow-wort, PaperyParonychia chartaceaT Dicot YesWild-buckwheat, Clay-lovingEriogonum pelinophilumE Dicot YesWild-buckwheat, GypsumEriogonum gypsophilumT Dicot YesWings, PigeonClitoria fragransT Dicot YesWireweedPolygonella basiramiaE Dicot YesWoodland-star, San Clemente IslandLithophragma maximumE Dicot YesWoolly-star, Santa Ana RiverEriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorumE Dicot YesWoolly-threads, San JoaquinMonolopia (=Lembertia) congdoniiE Dicot YesXylosma crenatum (ncn)Xylosma crenatumE Dicot YesYellowhead, DesertYermo xanthocephalusT Dicot YesYerba Santa, LompocEriodictyon capitatumE Dicot YesZiziphus, FloridaZiziphus celataE Dicot Yes(ncn)Diellia manniiE Ferns No(ncn)Doryopteris angelicaE Ferns No(ncn)Doryopteris takeuchiiE Ferns NoAsplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn)Asplenium fragile var. insulareE Ferns Noaumakua, PalapalaiDryopteris crinalis podosorusE Ferns NoDiellia erecta (ncn)Diellia erectaE Ferns NoDiellia falcata (ncn)Diellia falcataE Ferns NoDiellia pallida (ncn)Diellia pallidaE Ferns NoDiellia unisora (ncn)Diellia unisoraE Ferns NoDiplazium molokaiense (ncn)Diplazium molokaienseE Ferns NoFern, Adiantum vivesiiAdiantum vivesiiE Ferns NoFern, Alabama Streak-sorusThelypteris pilosa var. alabamensisT Ferns NoFern, American hart's-tongueAsplenium scolopendrium var. americanumT Ferns NoFern, Elaphoglossum serpensElaphoglossum serpensE Ferns NoFern, Pendant Kihi (Adenophorus periens)Adenophorus periensE Ferns NoFern, Thelypteris inabonensisThelypteris inabonensisE Ferns NoFern, Thelypteris verecundaThelypteris verecundaE Ferns No148Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Fern, Thelypteris yaucoensisThelypteris yaucoensisE Ferns No'Ihi'Ihi (Marsilea villosa)Marsilea villosaE Ferns NoPauoa (Ctenitis squamigera)Ctenitis squamigeraE Ferns NoPolystichum calderonense (ncn)Polystichum calderonenseE Ferns NoPteris lidgatei (ncn)Pteris lidgateiE Ferns NoQuillwort, Black-sporedIsoetes melanosporaE Ferns NoQuillwort, LouisianaIsoetes louisianensisE Ferns NoQuillwort, Mat-formingIsoetes tegetiformansE Ferns NoTectaria EstremeranaTectaria estremeranaE Ferns NoTree Fern, ElfinCyathea dryopteroidesE Ferns NoWawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Huperzia) mannii)Huperzia manniiE Ferns NoWawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus(=Lycopodium) nutans)Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus) nutansE Ferns NoCatfish, YaquiIctalurus priceiT Fish NoCavefish, AlabamaSpeoplatyrhinus poulsoniE Fish NoCavefish, OzarkAmblyopsis rosaeT Fish NoChub, BonytailGila elegansE Fish NoChub, ChihuahuaGila nigrescensT Fish NoChub, GilaGila intermediaE Fish NoChub, HumpbackGila cyphaE Fish NoChub, Hutton TuiGila bicolor ssp.T Fish NoChub, Mohave TuiGila bicolor mohavensisE Fish NoChub, OregonOregonichthys crameriE Fish NoChub, Owens TuiGila bicolor snyderiE Fish NoChub, Pahranagat RoundtailGila robusta jordaniE Fish NoChub, SlenderErimystax cahniT Fish NoChub, SonoraGila ditaeniaT Fish NoChub, SpotfinErimonax monachusT Fish NoChub, Virgin RiverGila seminuda (=robusta)E Fish NoChub, YaquiGila purpureaE Fish NoChucky MadtomNoturus crypticusE Fish NoCui-uiChasmistes cujusE Fish NoCumberland darterEtheostoma susanaeE Fish NoDace, Ash Meadows SpeckledRhinichthys osculus nevadensisE Fish No149Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Dace, BlacksidePhoxinus cumberlandensisT Fish NoDace, Clover Valley SpeckledRhinichthys osculus oligoporusE Fish NoDace, DesertEremichthys acrosT Fish NoDace, Foskett SpeckledRhinichthys osculus ssp.T Fish NoDace, Independence Valley SpeckledRhinichthys osculus lethoporusE Fish NoDace, MoapaMoapa coriaceaE Fish NoDarter, AmberPercina antesellaE Fish NoDarter, BayouEtheostoma rubrumT Fish NoDarter, Bluemask (=jewel)Etheostoma sp.E Fish NoDarter, BoulderEtheostoma wapitiE Fish NoDarter, CherokeeEtheostoma scottiT Fish NoDarter, DuskytailEtheostoma percnurumE Fish NoDarter, EtowahEtheostoma etowahaeE Fish NoDarter, FountainEtheostoma fonticolaE Fish NoDarter, GoldlinePercina aurolineataT Fish NoDarter, LeopardPercina pantherinaT Fish NoDarter, MarylandEtheostoma sellareE Fish NoDarter, NianguaEtheostoma nianguaeT Fish NoDarter, OkaloosaEtheostoma okaloosaeE Fish NoDarter, RelictEtheostoma chienenseE Fish NoDarter, SlackwaterEtheostoma boschungiT Fish NoDarter, SnailPercina tanasiT Fish NoDarter, VermilionEtheostoma chermockiE Fish NoDarter, WatercressEtheostoma nuchaleE Fish NoGambusia, Big BendGambusia gaigeiE Fish NoGambusia, Clear CreekGambusia heterochirE Fish NoGambusia, PecosGambusia nobilisE Fish NoGambusia, San MarcosGambusia georgeiE Fish NoGoby, TidewaterEucyclogobius newberryiE Fish NoLaurel daceChrosomus ayloriE Fish NoLogperch, ConasaugaPercina jenkinsiE Fish NoLogperch, RoanokePercina rexE Fish NoMadtom, NeoshoNoturus placidusT Fish No150Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Madtom, PygmyNoturus stanauliE Fish NoMadtom, SciotoNoturus trautmaniE Fish NoMadtom, SmokyNoturus baileyiE Fish NoMadtom, YellowfinNoturus flavipinnisT Fish NoMinnow, Devils RiverDionda diaboliT Fish NoMinnow, LoachTiaroga cobitisE Fish NoMinnow, Rio Grande SilveryHybognathus amarusE Fish NoPupfish, Ash Meadows AmargosaCyprinodon nevadensis mionectesE Fish NoPupfish, Comanche SpringsCyprinodon elegansE Fish NoPupfish, DesertCyprinodon maculariusE Fish NoPupfish, Devils HoleCyprinodon diabolisE Fish NoPupfish, Leon SpringsCyprinodon bovinusE Fish NoPupfish, OwensCyprinodon radiosusE Fish NoPupfish, Warm SpringsCyprinodon nevadensis pectoralisE Fish NoRockfish, BocaccioSebastes paucispinisE Fish NoRush darterEtheostoma phytophilumE Fish NoSalmon, AtlanticSalmo salarE Fish NoSalmon, ChinookOncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytschaE/T Fish NoSalmon, ChumOncorhynchus (=Salmo) ketaT Fish NoSalmon, CohoOncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutchE/T Fish NoSalmon, SockeyeOncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerkaE Fish NoSawfish, SmalltoothPristis pectinataE Fish NoSculpin, PygmyCottus paulus (=pygmaeus)T Fish NoShiner, Arkansas RiverNotropis girardiT Fish NoShiner, BeautifulCyprinella formosaT Fish NoShiner, BlueCyprinella caeruleaT Fish NoShiner, CahabaNotropis cahabaeE Fish NoShiner, Cape FearNotropis mekistocholasE Fish NoShiner, PalezoneNotropis albizonatusE Fish NoShiner, Pecos BluntnoseNotropis simus pecosensisT Fish NoShiner, TopekaNotropis topeka (=tristis)E Fish NoSilverside, WaccamawMenidia extensaT Fish NoSmelt, DeltaHypomesus transpacificusT Fish No151Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?SpikedaceMeda fulgidaE Fish NoSpinedace, Big SpringLepidomeda mollispinis pratensisT Fish NoSpinedace, Little ColoradoLepidomeda vittataT Fish NoSpinedace, White RiverLepidomeda albivallisE Fish NoSpringfish, Hiko White RiverCrenichthys baileyi grandisE Fish NoSpringfish, Railroad ValleyCrenichthys nevadaeT Fish NoSpringfish, White RiverCrenichthys baileyi baileyiE Fish NoSquawfish, ColoradoPtychocheilus luciusE Fish NoSteelheadOncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykissE/T Fish NoStickleback, Unarmored ThreespineGasterosteus aculeatus williamsoniE Fish NoSturgeon, AlabamaScaphirhynchus suttkusiE Fish NoSturgeon, GulfAcipenser oxyrinchus desotoiT Fish NoSturgeon, North American greenAcipenser medirostrisT Fish NoSturgeon, PallidScaphirhynchus albusE Fish NoSturgeon, ShortnoseAcipenser brevirostrumE Fish NoSturgeon, ShovelnoseScaphirhynchus platorynchusSAT Fish NoSturgeon, WhiteAcipenser transmontanusE Fish NoSucker, JuneChasmistes liorusE Fish NoSucker, Lost RiverDeltistes luxatusE Fish NoSucker, ModocCatostomus micropsE Fish NoSucker, RazorbackXyrauchen texanusE Fish NoSucker, Santa AnaCatostomus santaanaeT Fish NoSucker, ShortnoseChasmistes brevirostrisE Fish NoSucker, WarnerCatostomus warnerensisT Fish NoTopminnow, Gila (Yaqui)Poeciliopsis occidentalisE Fish NoTrout, ApacheOncorhynchus apacheT Fish NoTrout, BullSalvelinus confluentusT Fish NoTrout, GilaOncorhynchus gilaeE Fish NoTrout, Greenback CutthroatOncorhynchus clarki stomiasT Fish NoTrout, Lahontan CutthroatOncorhynchus clarki henshawiT Fish NoTrout, Little Kern GoldenOncorhynchus aguabonita whiteiT Fish NoTrout, Paiute CutthroatOncorhynchus clarki selenirisT Fish NoWoundfinPlagopterus argentissimusE Fish No152Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Yellowcheek darterEtheostoma mooreiE Fish NoAbalone, BlackHaliotis cracherodiiE Gastropod NoAbalone, WhiteHaliotis sorenseniE Gastropod NoAmbersnail, KanabOxyloma haydeni kanabensisE Gastropod NoCampeloma, SlenderCampeloma decampiE Gastropod NoCavesnail, Tumbling CreekAntrobia culveriE Gastropod NoElimia, LacyElimia crenatellaT Gastropod NoHornsnail, roughPleurocera foremaniE Gastropod NoLimpet, Banbury SpringsLanx sp.E Gastropod NoMarstonia, Royal (=Royal Snail)Pyrgulopsis ogmorhapheE Gastropod NoPebblesnail, FlatLepyrium showalteriE Gastropod NoRiversnail, Anthony'sAthearnia anthonyiE Gastropod NoRocksnail, interruptedLeptoxis foremaniE Gastropod NoRocksnail, PaintedLeptoxis taeniataT Gastropod NoRocksnail, PlicateLeptoxis plicataE Gastropod NoRocksnail, RoundLeptoxis amplaT Gastropod NoShagreen, Magazine MountainMesodon magazinensisT Gastropod NoSnail, ArmoredPyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachytaE Gastropod NoSnail, Bliss RapidsTaylorconcha serpenticolaT Gastropod NoSnail, Chittenango Ovate AmberSuccinea chittenangoensisT Gastropod NoSnail, Flat-spired Three-toothedTriodopsis platysayoidesT Gastropod NoSnail, Iowa PleistoceneDiscus macclintockiE Gastropod NoSnail, Lioplax CylindricalLioplax cyclostomaformisE Gastropod NoSnail, Morro ShoulderbandHelminthoglypta walkerianaE Gastropod NoSnail, Newcomb'sErinna newcombiT Gastropod NoSnail, NoondayMesodon clarki nantahalaT Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella abbreviata)Achatinella abbreviataE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella apexfulva)Achatinella apexfulvaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bellula)Achatinella bellulaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella buddii)Achatinella buddiiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bulimoides)Achatinella bulimoidesE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella byronii)Achatinella byroniiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella caesia)Achatinella caesiaE Gastropod No153Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella casta)Achatinella castaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella cestus)Achatinella cestusE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella concavospira)Achatinella concavospiraE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella curta)Achatinella curtaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decipiens)Achatinella decipiensE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decora)Achatinella decoraE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella dimorpha)Achatinella dimorphaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella elegans)Achatinella elegansE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fulgens)Achatinella fulgensE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fuscobasis)Achatinella fuscobasisE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juddii)Achatinella juddiiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juncea)Achatinella junceaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lehuiensis)Achatinella lehuiensisE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella leucorraphe)Achatinella leucorrapheE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lila)Achatinella lilaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella livida)Achatinella lividaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lorata)Achatinella lorataE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella mustelina)Achatinella mustelinaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella papyracea)Achatinella papyraceaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella phaeozona)Achatinella phaeozonaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pulcherrima)Achatinella pulcherrimaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pupukanioe)Achatinella pupukanioeE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella rosea)Achatinella roseaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella sowerbyana)Achatinella sowerbyanaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella spaldingi)Achatinella spaldingiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella stewartii)Achatinella stewartiiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella swiftii)Achatinella swiftiiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella taeniolata)Achatinella taeniolataE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella thaanumi)Achatinella thaahumiE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella turgida)Achatinella turgidaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella valida)Achatinella validaE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella viridans)Achatinella viridansE Gastropod NoSnail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vittata)Achatinella vittataE Gastropod No154Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vulpina)Achatinella vulpinaE Gastropod NoSnail, Pecos AssimineaAssiminea pecosE Gastropod NoSnail, Snake River PhysaPhysa natricinaE Gastropod NoSnail, TulotomaTulotoma magnificaT Gastropod NoSnail, Virginia Fringed MountainPolygyriscus virginianusE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, AlamosaTryonia alamosaeE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, Bruneau HotPyrgulopsis bruneauensisE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, ChupaderaPyrgulopsis chupaderaeE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, Koster'sJuturnia kosteriE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, RoswellPyrgulopsis roswellensisE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, San BernardinoPyrgulopsis bernardinaE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, SocorroPyrgulopsis neomexicanaE Gastropod NoSpringsnail, Three ForksPyrgulopsis trivialisE Gastropod NoBeetle, American BuryingNicrophorus americanusE Insect NoBeetle, Casey's JuneDinacoma caseyiE Insect NoBeetle, Coffin Cave MoldBatrisodes texanusE Insect NoBeetle, Comal Springs DryopidStygoparnus comalensisE Insect NoBeetle, Comal Springs RiffleHeterelmis comalensisE Insect NoBeetle, Delta Green GroundElaphrus viridisT Insect NoBeetle, Helotes MoldBatrisodes venyiviE Insect NoBeetle, Hungerford's Crawling WaterBrychius hungerfordiE Insect NoBeetle, Kretschmarr Cave MoldTexamaurops reddelliE Insect NoBeetle, Mount Hermon JunePolyphylla barbataE Insect NoBeetle, Northeastern Beach TigerCicindela dorsalis dorsalisT Insect NoBeetle, Ohlone TigerCicindela ohloneE Insect NoBeetle, Puritan TigerCicindela puritanaT Insect NoBeetle, Salt Creek TigerCicindela nevadica lincolnianaE Insect NoBeetle, Tooth Cave GroundRhadine persephoneE Insect NoBeetle, Valley Elderberry LonghornDesmocerus californicus dimorphusT Insect Noblackline Hawaiian damselflyMegalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatumE Insect NoButterfly [Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, Nickerbean Blue]Leptotes and Hemiargus and Cyclargus genusSAT Insect NoButterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's euphydryas)Euphydryas editha bayensisT Insect NoButterfly, Behren's SilverspotSpeyeria zerene behrensiiE Insect No155Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Butterfly, Callippe SilverspotSpeyeria callippe callippeE Insect NoButterfly, Ceranus BlueHemiargus ceraunus antibubastusSAT Insect NoButterfly, El Segundo BlueEuphilotes battoides allyniE Insect NoButterfly, Fender's BlueIcaricia icarioides fenderiE Insect NoButterfly, Karner BlueLycaeides melissa samuelisE Insect NoButterfly, Lange's MetalmarkApodemia mormo langeiE Insect NoButterfly, Lotis BlueLycaeides argyrognomon lotisE Insect NoButterfly, Miami BlueCyclargus thomasi bethunebakeriE Insect NoButterfly, Mission BlueIcaricia icarioides missionensisE Insect NoButterfly, Mitchell's SatyrNeonympha mitchellii mitchelliiE Insect NoButterfly, Myrtle's SilverspotSpeyeria zerene myrtleaeE Insect NoButterfly, Nickerbean BlueCyclargus ammonSAT Insect NoButterfly, Oregon SilverspotSpeyeria zerene hippolytaT Insect NoButterfly, Palos Verdes BlueGlaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensisE Insect NoButterfly, Quino CheckerspotEuphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti)E Insect NoButterfly, Saint Francis' SatyrNeonympha mitchellii francisciE Insect NoButterfly, San Bruno ElfinCallophrys mossii bayensisE Insect NoButterfly, Smith's BlueEuphilotes enoptes smithiE Insect NoButterfly, Uncompahgre FritillaryBoloria acrocnemaE Insect NoCrimson Hawaiian damselflyMegalagrion leptodemasE Insect NoDamselfly, Flying Earwig HawaiianMegalagrion nesiotesE Insect NoDamselfly, Pacific HawaiianMegalagrion pacificumE Insect NoDragonfly, Hine's EmeraldSomatochlora hineanaE Insect NoFly, Delhi Sands Flower-lovingRhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalisE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila aglaiaE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila hemipezaE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila heteroneuraE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila montgomeryiE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila mulliT Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila musaphiliaE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila neoclavisetaeE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila obataiE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila ochrobasisE Insect No156Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Fly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila substenopteraE Insect NoFly, Hawaiian picture-wingDrosophila tarphytrichiaE Insect NoGrasshopper, Zayante Band-wingedTrimerotropis infantilisE Insect NoHawaiian picture-wing FlyDrosophila sharpiE Insect NoMoth, Blackburn's SphinxManduca blackburniE Insect NoMoth, Kern Primrose SphinxEuproserpinus euterpeT Insect NoNaucorid, Ash MeadowsAmbrysus amargosusT Insect NoOceanic Hawaiian damselflyMegalagrion oceanicumE Insect NoRhadine exilis (ncn)Rhadine exilisE Insect NoRhadine infernalis (ncn)Rhadine infernalisE Insect NoSkipper, Carson WanderingPseudocopaeodes eunus obscurusE Insect NoSkipper, Laguna MountainPyrgus ruralis lagunaeE Insect NoSkipper, Pawnee MontaneHesperia leonardus montanaT Insect NoCladonia, Florida PerforateCladonia perforataE Lichen NoLichen, Rock GnomeGymnoderma lineareE Lichen NoBat, GrayMyotis grisescensE Mammal YesBat, Hawaiian HoaryLasiurus cinereus semotusE Mammal YesBat, IndianaMyotis sodalisE Mammal YesBat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long-nosedLeptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenaeE Mammal YesBat, Little Mariana FruitPteropus tokudaeE Mammal YesBat, Mariana Fruit (=Mariana Flying Fox)Pteropus mariannus mariannusT Mammal YesBat, Mexican Long-nosedLeptonycteris nivalisE Mammal YesBat, Ozark Big-earedCorynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingensE Mammal YesBat, Virginia Big-earedCorynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianusE Mammal YesBear, American BlackUrsus americanusSAT Mammal YesBear, GrizzlyUrsus arctos horribilisT Mammal YesBear, Louisiana BlackUrsus americanus luteolusT Mammal YesBison, WoodBison bison athabascaeE Mammal YesCaribou, WoodlandRangifer tarandus caribouE Mammal YesDeer, Columbian White-tailedOdocoileus virginianus leucurusE Mammal YesFerret, Black-footedMustela nigripesE Mammal YesFox, San Joaquin KitVulpes macrotis muticaE Mammal YesFox, San Miguel IslandUrocyon littoralis littoralisE Mammal Yes157Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Fox, Santa Catalina IslandUrocyon littoralis catalinaeE Mammal YesFox, Santa Cruz IslandUrocyon littoralis santacruzaeE Mammal YesFox, Santa Rosa IslandUrocyon littoralis santarosaeE Mammal YesGray WolfCanis lupusE Mammal YesJaguarPanthera oncaE Mammal YesJaguarundi, Gulf CoastHerpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitliE Mammal YesJaguarundi, SinaloanHerpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi toltecaE Mammal YesKangaroo Rat, FresnoDipodomys nitratoides exilisE Mammal YesKangaroo Rat, GiantDipodomys ingensE Mammal YesKangaroo Rat, Morro BayDipodomys heermanni morroensisE Mammal YesKangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Merriam'sDipodomys merriami parvusE Mammal YesKangaroo Rat, Stephens'Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus)E Mammal YesKangaroo Rat, TiptonDipodomys nitratoides nitratoidesE Mammal YesKiller whale, Southern Resident DPSOrcinus orcaE Mammal YesLynx, CanadaLynx canadensisT Mammal YesManatee, West IndianTrichechus manatusE Mammal YesMountain Beaver, Point ArenaAplodontia rufa nigraE Mammal YesMouse, Alabama BeachPeromyscus polionotus ammobatesE Mammal YesMouse, Anastasia Island BeachPeromyscus polionotus phasmaE Mammal YesMouse, Choctawhatchee BeachPeromyscus polionotus allophrysE Mammal YesMouse, Pacific PocketPerognathus longimembris pacificusE Mammal YesMouse, Perdido Key BeachPeromyscus polionotus trissyllepsisE Mammal YesMouse, Preble's Meadow JumpingZapus hudsonius prebleiT Mammal YesMouse, Salt Marsh HarvestReithrodontomys raviventrisE Mammal YesMouse, Southeastern BeachPeromyscus polionotus niveiventrisT Mammal YesMouse, St. Andrew BeachPeromyscus polionotus peninsularisE Mammal YesOcelotLeopardus (=Felis) pardalisE Mammal YesOtter, Northern SeaEnhydra lutris kenyoniT Mammal YesOtter, Southern SeaEnhydra lutris nereisT Mammal YesPanther, FloridaPuma (=Felis) concolor coryiE Mammal YesPrairie Dog, UtahCynomys parvidensT Mammal YesPronghorn, SonoranAntilocapra americana sonoriensisE Mammal YesPuma (=Cougar), EasternPuma (=Felis) concolor (all subsp. except coryi)E Mammal Yes158Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Rabbit, PygmyBrachylagus idahoensisE Mammal YesRabbit, Riparian BrushSylvilagus bachmani ripariusE Mammal YesSeal, Guadalupe FurArctocephalus townsendiT Mammal YesSeal, Hawaiian MonkMonachus schauinslandiE Mammal YesSeal, spottedPhoca larghaT Mammal YesSea-lion, StellerEumetopias jubatusE/T Mammal YesSheep, Peninsular BighornOvis canadensis nelsoniE Mammal YesSheep, Sierra Nevada BighornOvis canadensis sierraeE Mammal YesShrew, Buena Vista Lake OrnateSorex ornatus relictusE Mammal YesSquirrel, Carolina Northern FlyingGlaucomys sabrinus coloratusE Mammal YesSquirrel, Delmarva Peninsula FoxSciurus niger cinereusE Mammal YesSquirrel, Mount Graham RedTamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensisE Mammal YesSquirrel, Northern Idaho GroundSpermophilus brunneus brunneusT Mammal YesVole, AmargosaMicrotus californicus scirpensisE Mammal YesVole, Florida Salt MarshMicrotus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelliE Mammal YesVole, Hualapai MexicanMicrotus mexicanus hualpaiensisE Mammal YesWhale, belugaDelphinapterus leucasE Mammal YesWhale, FinbackBalaenoptera physalusE Mammal YesWhale, GrayEschrichtius robustusE Mammal YesWhale, HumpbackMegaptera novaeangliaeE Mammal YesWhale, North Atlantic rightEubalaena glacialis (incl. australis)E Mammal YesWhale, SeiBalaenoptera borealisE Mammal YesWhale, SpermPhyseter catodon (=macrocephalus)E Mammal YesWolf, RedCanis rufusE Mammal YesWoodrat, RiparianNeotoma fuscipes ripariaE Mammal YesAlopecurus, SonomaAlopecurus aequalis var. sonomensisE Monocot YesAmole, Cammatta CanyonChlorogalum purpureum var. reductumT Monocot YesAmole, PurpleChlorogalum purpureum var. purpureumT Monocot YesAristida chaseae (ncn)Aristida chaseaeE Monocot YesArrowhead, BunchedSagittaria fasciculataE Monocot YesBeaked-rush, Knieskern'sRhynchospora knieskerniiT Monocot YesBeargrass, Britton'sNolina brittonianaE Monocot YesBeauty, Harper'sHarperocallis flavaE Monocot Yes159Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Bluegrass, HawaiianPoa sandvicensisE Monocot YesBluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii)Poa manniiE Monocot YesBluegrass, NapaPoa napensisE Monocot YesBluegrass, San BernardinoPoa atropurpureaE Monocot YesBrodiaea, Chinese CampBrodiaea pallidaT Monocot YesBrodiaea, Thread-leavedBrodiaea filifoliaT Monocot YesBulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle)Scirpus ancistrochaetusE Monocot YesCranichis RicartiiCranichis ricartiiE Monocot YesFritillary, Gentner'sFritillaria gentneriE Monocot YesGrass, California OrcuttOrcuttia californicaE Monocot YesGrass, ColusaNeostapfia colusanaT Monocot YesGrass, Eureka DuneSwallenia alexandraeE Monocot YesGrass, Fosberg's LoveEragrostis fosbergiiE Monocot YesGrass, San Joaquin Valley OrcuttOrcuttia inaequalisT Monocot YesGrass, SolanoTuctoria mucronataE Monocot YesGrass, Tennessee Yellow-eyedXyris tennesseensisE Monocot YesHala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis)Pleomele hawaiiensisE Monocot YesHilo Ischaemum (Ischaemum byrone)Ischaemum byroneE Monocot YesIris, Dwarf LakeIris lacustrisT Monocot YesIrisette, WhiteSisyrinchium dichotomumE Monocot YesKamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides)Cenchrus agrimonioidesE Monocot YesLadies'-tresses, Canelo HillsSpiranthes delitescensE Monocot YesLadies'-tresses, NavasotaSpiranthes parksiiE Monocot YesLadies'-tresses, UteSpiranthes diluvialisT Monocot YesLau'ehu (Panicum niihauense)Panicum niihauenseE Monocot YesLepanthes eltorensis (ncn)Lepanthes eltoroensisE Monocot YesLily, Minnesota TroutErythronium propullansE Monocot YesLily, Pitkin MarshLilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinenseE Monocot YesLily, Tiburon MariposaCalochortus tiburonensisT Monocot YesLily, WesternLilium occidentaleE Monocot Yeslo`uluPritchardia hardyiE Monocot YesLo`ulu (Pritchardia affinis)Pritchardia affinisE Monocot YesLo`ulu (Pritchardia kaalae)Pritchardia kaalaeE Monocot Yes160Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Lo`ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis)Pritchardia napaliensisE Monocot YesLo`ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri)Pritchardia schattaueriE Monocot YesLo`ulu (Pritchardia viscosa)Pritchardia viscosaE Monocot YesManaca, palma deCalyptronoma rivalisT Monocot YesMariscus fauriei (ncn)Mariscus faurieiE Monocot YesMariscus pennatiformis (ncn)Mariscus pennatiformisE Monocot YesOnion, Munz'sAllium munziiE Monocot YesOrchid, Eastern Prairie FringedPlatanthera leucophaeaT Monocot YesOrchid, Western Prairie FringedPlatanthera praeclaraT Monocot YesPa'iniuAstelia waialealaeE Monocot YesPanicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var.carteri)Panicum fauriei var. carteriE Monocot YesPelos del DiabloAristida portoricensisE Monocot YesPink, SwampHelonias bullataT Monocot YesPiperia, Yadon'sPiperia yadoniiE Monocot YesPlatanthera holochila (ncn)Platanthera holochilaE Monocot YesPoa siphonoglossa (ncn)Poa siphonoglossaE Monocot YesPogonia, Small WhorledIsotria medeoloidesT Monocot YesPondweed, Little Aguja CreekPotamogeton clystocarpusE Monocot YesPu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos)Cyperus trachysanthosE Monocot YesSeagrass, Johnson'sHalophila johnsoniiT Monocot YesSedge, GoldenCarex luteaE Monocot YesSedge, NavajoCarex specuicolaT Monocot YesSedge, WhiteCarex albidaE Monocot YesTrillium, PersistentTrillium persistensE Monocot YesTrillium, RelictTrillium reliquumE Monocot YesWalnut, NogalJuglans jamaicensisE Monocot YesWater-plantain, Kral'sSagittaria secundifoliaT Monocot YesWild-rice, TexasZizania texanaE Monocot YesAlligator, AmericanAlligator mississippiensisT Reptile NoBoa, Puerto RicanEpicrates inornatusE Reptile NoBoa, Virgin Islands TreeEpicrates monensis grantiE Reptile NoCrocodile, AmericanCrocodylus acutusT Reptile NoLizard, Blunt-nosed LeopardGambelia silusE Reptile No161Common NameScientific NameStatusTaxonPotential for DirectEffects to Taxon?Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe-toedUma inornataT Reptile NoLizard, Island NightXantusia riversianaT Reptile NoLizard, St. Croix GroundAmeiva polopsE Reptile NoRattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge-nosedCrotalus willardi obscurusT Reptile NoSea turtle, greenChelonia mydasE/T Reptile NoSea turtle, hawksbillEretmochelys imbricataE Reptile NoSea turtle, leatherbackDermochelys coriaceaE Reptile NoSea turtle, loggerheadCaretta carettaE/T Reptile NoSkink, Blue-tailed MoleEumeces egregius lividusT Reptile NoSkink, SandNeoseps reynoldsiT Reptile NoSnake, Atlantic Salt MarshNerodia clarkii taeniataT Reptile NoSnake, Eastern IndigoDrymarchon corais couperiT Reptile NoSnake, Giant GarterThamnophis gigasT Reptile NoSnake, Northern Copperbelly WaterNerodia erythrogaster neglectaT Reptile NoSnake, San Francisco GarterThamnophis sirtalis tetrataeniaE Reptile NoTortoise, DesertGopherus agassiziiT Reptile NoTortoise, GopherGopherus polyphemusT Reptile NoTurtle, Alabama Red-belliedPseudemys alabamensisE Reptile NoTurtle, BogClemmys muhlenbergiiT Reptile NoTurtle, Flattened MuskSternotherus depressusT Reptile NoTurtle, Plymouth Red-belliedPseudemys rubriventris bangsiE Reptile NoTurtle, Ringed MapGraptemys oculiferaT Reptile NoTurtle, Yellow-blotched MapGraptemys flavimaculataT Reptile NoWhipsnake (=Striped Racer), AlamedaMasticophis lateralis euryxanthusT Reptile No162