Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Etofenprox 

New Uses on Rice and for Vector Control 

Etofenprox 

CAS 80844-07-1 PC Code 128965 

I illlll11111 IIIII III IIIII 11111 Il1 Il1 1111 

2080695 

TEXT SEARCHABLE DOCUMENT
Table of Contents 

1 . Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 4 

1.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor ................................................................................................................... 4 

1.2. Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms .............................................................................................. 4 

1.3. Conclusions . Exposure Characterization ............................................................................................. 5 

1.4. Conclusions . Effects Characterization .................................................................................................. 6 

1.5. Uncertainties and Data Gaps .................................................................................................................. 6 

2 . Problem Formulation ...................................................................................................................................... 8 

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action ................................................................................................................. 8 

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution ........................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor ..................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage ............................................................................................................ 9 

2.3. Receptors .............................................................................................................................................. 10 

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects .................................................................................................... 10 

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk .................................................................................................... 11 

2.4. Assessment Endpoints ........................................................................................................................... 12 

2.5. Conceptual Model .................................................................................................................................. 12 

2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................... 12 

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram ....................................................................................................................... 12 

2.6. Analysis Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 15 

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure ................................................................................................................... 15 

2.6.1.1. Measures of Aquatic Exposure ............................................................................................. 15 

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure ........................................................................................ 17 

2.6.2. Measures of Effect ......................................................................................................................... 18 

2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects ............................................................................................ 21 

3 . Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 

3.1. Use Characterization ............................................................................................................................. 22 

3.2. Exposure Characterization ................................................................................................................... 22 

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization ................................................................ 22 

3.2.1.1. Transport and Mobility ........................................................................................................ 24 

3.2.1.2. Degradation ........................................................................................................................... 25 

3.2.1.3. Field Studies .......................................................................................................................... 25 

3.2.1.4. Degradates ............................................................................................................................. 26 

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure ...................................................................................................... 27 

3.2.2.1. Exposure to Rice Paddy Tail Water .................................................................................... 27 

3.2.2.1. Exposure to Mosquitocide Residues .................................................................................... 29 

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure ................................................................................................. 34 

3.2.3.1. Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 34 

3.2.3.2. Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants ................................................................................... 39 

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization ..................................................................................................... 39 

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment ......................................................................................................... 40 

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish .................................................................................................. 41 

3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates .................................................................................. 42 

3.3.1.3. Toxicity to EstuarineMarine Fish ....................................................................................... 45 

3.3.1.4. Toxicity to EstuarineMarine Invertebrates ....................................................................... 45 

3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants .................................................................................................... 46 

3.3.2 Terrestrial Effects Characterization ............................................................................................. 47 

3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Birds ................................................................................................................... 48 

3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals ............................................................................................................ 49 

3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects ................................................................................................ 50 

3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants ............................................................................................... 52 

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data ................................................................................................................. 53 

4 . Risk Characterization ..................................................................................................................................... 54 
4.1. Risk Estimation ...................................................................................................................................... 54 

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms ................................................................................................................................ 54 

4.1.1.1. Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates ..................................................................................... 54 

4.1.1.2. Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates ........................................................................... 55 

4.1.1.3. Aquatic Plants ....................................................................................................................... 56 

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms ......................................................................................................................... 56 

4.1.2.1. Birds and Mammals ............................................................................................................. 56 

4.1.2.2. Terrestrial Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 56 

4.1.2.3. Terrestrial Plants .................................................................................................................. 57 

4.2. Risk Description ..................................................................................................................................... 57 

4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms .......................................................................................................... 57 

4.2.1.1. Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates ..................................................................................... 58 

4.2.1.2. EstuarineIMarine Fish and Invertebrates ........................................................................... 61 

4.2.1.3. Aquatic Plants ...................................................................................................................... 62 

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms ................................................................................................................... 62 

4.2.2.1. Birds and Mammals .............................................................................................................. 62 

4.2.2.2. Terrestrial Invertebrates ...................................................................................................... 67 

4.2.2.3. Terrestrial Plants .................................................................................................................. 67 

4.2.3. Risk Related to Wastewater Treatment Processes ..................................................................... 68 

5 . Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern ......................................................... 69 

5.1. Action Area ............................................................................................................................................ 70 

5.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk ................................................................................................ 70 

5.2.1. Probit Dose-Response Analysis ..................................................................................................... 72 

5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with New Etofenprox Uses ............................................ 73 

6 . References ........................................................................................................................................................ 74 

6.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies ...................................................... 77 

6.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies .............................................................................................................. 79 

APPENDIX A Bioaccumulation Model . Assumptions ......................................................................................... 83 

APPENDIX B . AGDISP Input Data and Sample PRZM and EXAMS Input/Output Data ............................. 94 

APPENDIX C . Provisionally Modified Tier I Rice Model Equations ................................................................. 99 

APPENDIX D . Chemical Names. Structures. and Maximum Reported Amounts of Etofenprox and Its 

Degradates ............................................................................................................................................................... 101 

APPENDIX E . Example T-REX Input and Output for Etofenprox ................................................................. 106 

APPENDIX F . Example Terrplant (v . 1.2.1) Input and Output for Etofenprox ............................................. 109 

APPENDIX G . LOCATES Output of Listed Species ......................................................................................... 110 

APPENDIX H . Submitted Environmental Fate Studies for Etofenprox .......................................................... 146 

APPENDIX I . Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Etofenprox ................................................................ 148 
1. Executive Summary 

1.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor 

Etofenprox [2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzyl ether] is a synthetic 

pyrethroid ether insecticide. It is the only synthetic pyrethroid ether currently registered for use 

in the U.S. Similar to most pyrethroids, etofenprox is a neurotoxin for insects, mainly acting on 

the neuronal axon. Etofenprox is currently registered on 20 labels for a variety of residential 

non-food uses, including pet treatments, structural spot treatments, and foggers for use indoors 

and in yards and patios. The new uses proposed for etofenprox include control of adult water 

weevils (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus) in rice, which is the first food use for etofenprox, and control 

of adult mosquitoes for vector control. 

The major degradates of etofenprox include the biodegradation product 4'-OH 13-(4- 

hydroxyphenoxy)benzy12-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl ether]; the photolysis products 

alpha-CO [2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzoate] and PENA [2-(4- 

ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl alcohol]; and carbon dioxide. Degradates 4'-OH and alpha-CO 

are structurally similar to the parent compound. 

PENA is not expected to exhibit the parent compound's mode of action because it is not 

structurally similar. Alpha-CO is less toxic than the parent to freshwater organisms. However, 

comparable data regarding the toxicity of 4'-OH on aquatic organisms are not available. In the 

absence of data, 4'-OH is assumed to have similar toxicity to the parent. Therefore, the residues 

of concern for aquatic organisms in this assessment include etofenprox parent and 4'-OH. 

1.2. Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms 

The results of this assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and for 

vector control have the potential for direct acute mortality to listed and non-listed freshwater fish 

and invertebrates and estuarinelrnarine invertebrates. The probability for acute direct effects 

(i.e., mortality or immobilization) in individual federally listed threatedendangered (listed) 

freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates is approximately 77% and loo%, respectively, 

should exposure to predicted etofenprox concentrations occur for species with sensitivity on par 

with the selected acute toxicity endpoint for these taxa. Chronic risk levels of concern for 

freshwater fish and freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates are also exceeded based on 

these use patterns. The use characterization suggests that there could be circumstances where 

vector control may involve direct application to aquatic areas "when necessary"; in these 

situations, risk to aquatic organisms may be higher than those evaluated with the estimated 

environmental concentrations (EEC) considered in this assessment. Given the predicted risk to 

aquatic invertebrates, rice growers should not use etofenprox if planning to raise crayfish and/or 

shrimp in rice paddy fields. 

Estimate's of potential risks to birds and mammals are presumably lower than acute and chronic 

risk levels of concern, based on a comparison of estimated exposure with non-definitive toxicity 

endpoints (i.e., no effect observed at the highest test concentration). The proposed new uses of 
etofenprox on rice and for vector control are likely to result in risk to terrestrial invertebrates 

such as pollinators. Risks to semi-aquatic plants based on exposure to etofenprox from use on 

rice and to terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on etofenprox use for vector control are 

considered to be low; however, risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed new use of 

etofenprox on rice cannot be precluded. 

Potential "may affect" determinations to federally-listed endangered and threatened species 

(listed species) based on LOC exceedances require an in-depth listed species evaluation of the 

potential co-occurrence of listed species and areas in which rice is grown and/or areas where 

etofenprox may be used as an adult mosquitocide for vector control. For the purposes of this 

assessment, it is assumed that etofenprox may be used nationwide for vector control. Identified 

potential direct and indirect risks to listed species that may result from the proposed new uses of 

etofenprox on rice and for vector control are summarized in Table 1.1. 

1.3. Conclusions - Exposure Characterization 

Table 1.1. Potential Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects from the 

Etofenprox is a non-polar, synthetic pyrethroid ether that is expected to display little mobility in 

soil and to rapidly partition to sediment in aquatic environments. The compound is expected to 

bioconcentrate in organisms and may bioaccumulate in food chains. Its major routes of 

Proposed Application of 

Listed Taxon 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants - 

monocots 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants - dicots 

Terrestrial invertebrates 

Birds 

Terrestrial phase 

amphibians 

Reptiles 

Mammals 

Aquatic vascular plants 

Freshwater fish 

Aquatic phase 

amphibians 

Freshwater crustaceans 

Mollusks 

Marinelestuarine fish 

Marinelestuarine 

invertebrates 

Potential indirect effects 

' direct effects on insects 

direct effects on terrestrial dicot plants 

direct effects on freshwater fish 

direct effects on freshwater invertebrates 

direct effects on estuarinelmarine invertebrates 

Etofenprox on 

Direct 

Effects 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

on a taxon 

Rice and for Vector Control. 

Uses of Concern 

Rice 

Rice 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 

None 

Rice and Vector Control 

attributable to: 

Indirect 

Effects 

yes1 

yes1 

yes2 ~es~'~'~'~'~ 

yes1,2,3,4,5 

~es''~'~'~,~ 

~~~1.2,3.4,5 

No 

yes4 

Yes,4 

yes3 

Y es3 

yes5 

No 

Uses of Concern 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 
degradation are aerobic biodegradation and aqueous photolysis. The compound degraded with 

half-lives of 1 to 4 weeks in aerobic soil, 4 to 8 weeks in aerobic water bodies, and 6 months in 

anaerobic water bodies. Therefore, in aerobic environments, etofenprox is not expected to 

persist, which is supported by dissipation half-lives of 5 to 16 days in terrestrial and aquatic field 

studies. 

1.4. Conclusions - Effects Characterization 

Etofenprox is very highly toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine 

invertebrates, and honey bees, and is practially non-toxic to birds and mammals under acute 

exposure conditions. Etofenprox is not toxic to estuarine/marine fish and mollusks at its limit of 

solubility in water of 22.5 pg/L. In addition, the alpha-CO degradate is not toxic to freshwater 

fish and invertebrates at its limit of water solubility. Based on a lack of comparable toxicity data 

for the 4'-OH degradate and parent etofenprox, it is assumed that 4'-OH has similar toxicity to 

the parent. Although etofenprox quickly partitions to the sediment, the available toxicity data are 

not sufficient to characterize its toxicity to benthic invertebrates because the sediment was not 

spiked and only nominal concentrations of etofenprox in overlying water were provided (i. e., 

etofenprox was not measured in pore water or sediment). Under chronic exposure conditions, 

the parent material resulted in mortality to zebrafish (Brachydanio rerio), reproductive effects to 

waterfleas (Daphnia magna) and decreased growth in midges (Chironomus riparius). 

Etofenprox also appears to be non-toxic to aquatic and terrestrial plants. In addition, no chronic 

reproductive, growth, or survival effects have been observed in mammals or birds at the highest 

concentrations tested. 

1.5. Uncertainties and Data Gaps 

A suite of environmental fate data was recently submitted to support the proposed uses of 

etofenprox. While these data provide a much clearer description of the environmental fate 

properties of etofenprox than was previously available, deficiencies in some of the submitted 

studies cause uncertainty in some of the data. For example, the submitted hydrolysis (MRID 

46779702) and aqueous photolysis (MRID 46779703) studies suffer from poor material balances 

caused by residues adsorbing to glass. Therefore, the conclusions from these studies are 

uncertain. 

The largest uncertainty in the environmental fate data is in the soil mobility of etofenprox. The 

submitted batch equilibrium study (MRID 46779729) is unacceptable because the test 

concentrations exceeded the water solubility limit of etofenprox by 16-fold and the test solution 

contained 10% cosolvent by volume. Therefore, the data could not be used for this assessment, 

and the soil mobility of etofenprox was estimated with the EpiSUITE model. This estimate of 

soil mobility has a large uncertainty. An acceptable batch equilibrium study would substantially 

reduce uncertainty in the environmental fate and exposure characteristics of etofenprox and in 

risk conclusions in this assessment. 

There are a number of ecological toxicity data gaps, which are discussed in further detail below, 

associated with the toxicity of sediment-bound etofenprox to benthic invertebrates, comparable 

acute toxicity data for the 4'-OH degradate and parent etofenprox, chronic toxicity of dissolved 
residues of etofenprox to freshwater fish and invertebrates and estuarinelmarine invertebrates, 

and seedling emergence terrestrial plant toxicity data tested at the maximum application rate for 

rice. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's requirements for acute andlor chronic sediment 

toxicity testing with technical grade active ingredients have recently been codified in part 158 of 

Title 40 in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (USEPA, 2006a; FR 72(207):60933-60988; 

October 26,2007) for the registration of conventional pesticide products. The conditional 

requirements for these data are triggered based on the soil-binding ability and persistence of a 

pesticide. Specifically, acute data are required if the half-life of the pesticide in the sediment is 5 

10 days in either the aerobic soil or aquatic metabolism studies, and if any of the following 

conditions exist: 

The soil partition coefficient (&) is 1.50. 

The log ICOW is 2 3. 

The Gc is > 1,000. 

Chronic data are required if the EEC in sediment is B0.1 of the acute LC50~EC50 values, the halflife of the pesticide in the sediment is > 10 days in either the aerobic soil or aquatic metabolism 

studies, and if any of the following conditions exist: 

The soil partition coefficient (Kd) is > 50. 

The log KOW is > 3. 

The Koc is 2 1,000. 

The submitted sediment toxicity data for etofenprox are of limited utility because overlying 

water, not sediment, was spiked, and only nominal exposure concentrations were provided. 

Etofenprox has a strong potential for adsorption to sediment based on its high estimated Koc 

(193,000 L/kgoc) and log Kow (6.9). Given the propensity for etofenprox to partition to the 

sediment and also given its limited solubility, the absence of measured concentrations in 

sediment represents a major uncertainty in the actual bioavailabilty of the test compound to 

benthic invertebrates. Based on the absence of suitable sediment toxicity data, risks associated 

with benthic invertebrate exposure to etofenprox from the new proposed rice and vector control 

uses are presumed. 

Based on a lack of comparable toxicity data for the 4'-OH degradate and parent etofenprox, it is 

assumed that 4'-OH has similar toxicity to the parent. An acute static freshwater invertebrate 

toxicity study with the 4'-OH degradate would provide information on the comparable sensitivity 

of fi-eshwater invertebrates to the 4'-OH degradate and parent and reduce uncertainties associated 

with the assumption of equivalent toxicity. 

There are additional uncertainties associated with the chronic freshwater fish and invertebrate 

data because of analytical variation in test concentrations and a lack of measuredlverified 

concentrations for all treatment levels. In the submitted early life stage toxicity test to zebrafish, 

the reported NOAEC (based on mortality) is one order of magnitude higher than the reported 

acute LCs0 value for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss); therefore, the chronic NOAEC for 
freshwater fish was estimated based on an acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) for freshwater 

invertebrates. It should be noted that there are uncertainties associated with using the ACR for 

freshwater invertebrates to estimate chronic effects to vertebrate taxa, such as fish. Additionally, 

no negative control was tested in the chronic freshwater invertebrate study. Submittal of an early 

life stage freshwater fish study, using rainbow trout, and a full life cycle freshwater invertebrate 

toxicity test, using D. magna, would reduce the uncertainty associated with using an ACR fiom 

freshwater invertebrates to estimate a NOAEC value for freshwater fish. 

Etofenprox may be applied within proximity to estuarinelrnarine environments at up to 25 

applications per year for vector control; therefore, there is likelihood for chronic exposure to 

estuarinelmarine invertebrates. Submittal of a mysid full life cycle test would reduce 

uncertainties associated with the potential for risk to estuarinelmarine invertebrates associated 

with chronic exposure to etofenprox. 

Risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed new use of etofenprox on rice cannot be 

precluded because predicted exposure, which is equal to the maximum application rate for rice, 

exceeds the maximum concentration tested in the Tier I plant toxicity study. A Tier I1 seedling 

emergence test with lettuce (per OPPTS 850.4225) and a Tier I seedling emergence test (per 

OPPTS 850.4100) for the remaining nine tested plant species, using test concentrations that will 

provide a definitive NOAEC and range up to the maximum application rate for rice of 0.27 lbs 

a.i./A, would reduce the uncertainty associated with the non-definitive NOAEC value for lettuce 

seedling emergence and the lack of testing at the highest proposed application rate for rice. 

2. Problem Formulation 

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and 

ecological risk assessment being conducted for new uses of etofenprox on rice and for mosquito 

vector control. It sets the objectives for the risk assessment, evaluates the nature of the problem, 

and provides a plan for analyzing the data and characterizing the risk (USEPA, 1998a). 

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action 

Etofenprox, a synthetic pyrethroid ether insecticide, was first registered in 2002 for a variety of 

residential non-food uses, including pet treatments, structural spot treatments, and foggers for 

use indoors and in yards and patios. Mitsui Chemicals, Inc. is seeking a Section 3 registration, 

under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for a new 

use of etofenprox (Trebon 3G; 3.0% a.i.; granular formulation) on rice to control adult water 

weevils (Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus). The proposed new use on rice is the first food use for 

etofenprox; however, a number of Section 18 emergency use exemptions have been granted for 

use of etofenprox on rice in Louisiana and Texas (USEPA, 2006b, 2007a and b). In addition, 

Wellmark International is also seeking a Section 3 registration for a new use of etofenprox 

(RF2056 OL; 20% a.i.; oil miscible liquid formulation) on adult mosquitos for vector control. 
2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution 

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor 

Etofenprox [2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzyl ether] is a synthetic 

pyrethroid ether insecticide, a class of compounds that includes halfenprox, flufenprox, 

protrifenbute, and silafluofen (Wood, 2007). It is the only member of this class currently 

registered for use in the U.S. Similar to most pyrethroids, etofenprox is a neurotoxin, mainly 

acting on the neuronal axon. The mechanism of action for these compounds is disruption of the 

voltage-gated ~a' membrane channels, which effectively causes a depolarizing block of the 

neuron. 

Etofenprox is currently registered on 20 labels for a variety of residential non-food uses, 

including pet treatments, structural spot treatments, and foggers for use indoors and in yards and 

patios. The new uses proposed for etofenprox include a granular formulation (control of adult 

water weevils in rice), which is the first food use for etofenprox, and control of adult mosquitoes 

for vector control. The proposed use on rice is limited to areas where rice is grown, the vast 

majority of which are found in the Southeastern United States and the Central Valley of 

California. The proposed use for vector control is not geographically limited, but is expected to 

occur in warmer weather, which temporally limits its use with latitude (i.e., it is expected to be 

used year-round in some areas of the Southern U.S. and only during the warmer part of the year 

in the Northern U.S.). 

The major degradates of etofenprox include the biodegradation product 4'-OH [3-(4- 

hydroxyphenoxy)benzy12-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl ether]; the photolysis products 

alpha-CO [2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzoate] and PENA [2-(4- 

ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl alcohol]; and carbon dioxide. Degradates 4'-OH and alpha-CO 

are structurally similar to the parent compound. PENA is not expected to exhibit the parent 

compound's mode of action because it is not structurally similar. The available data for alphaCO indicates that it is not toxic to freshwater fish, invertebrates, and aquatic plants at its 

solubility limit. However, comparable data regarding the toxicity of 4'-OH on aquatic organisms 

are not available. In the absence of data, 4'-OH is assumed to have similar toxicity to the parent. 

Therefore, the residues of concern for aquatic organisms in this assessment include etofenprox 

parent and 4'-OH. 

2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage 

Outside of residential use, etofenprox has been used sporadically in Louisiana and Texas under 

Section 18 emergency exemptions. Estimates of the total current usage of etofenprox are 

unavailable. 
2.3. Receptors 

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects 

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA, 1998a). Consistent 

with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), this risk assessment uses 

a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of etofenprox. Toxicological data generated from 

surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are 

used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these 

taxonomic groupings. 

Acute and chronic toxicity data fkom studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the 

available open literature are used to evaluate potential direct effects of etofenprox to aquatic and 

terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through EPA's database ECOTOX 

(http://cfpub.epa. ~;cov/ecotox/), which provides a source for locating single chemical toxicity data 

for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. 

Table 2.1 provides examples of taxonomic groups and the surrogate species tested to evaluate 

the potential ecological effects of pesticides to these non-target taxonomic groups. Based on a 

preliminary review of the ecological effects data, etofenprox is very highly toxic to freshwater 

fish, aquatic-phase amphibians and invertebrates, estuarinelmarine invertebrates, and honey bees, 

and is practially non-toxic to birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, reptiles and mammals under 

acute exposure conditions. Etofenprox is not toxic to estuarinelmarine fish and mollusks at its 

limit of solubility in water. In addition, the alpha-CO degradate is not toxic to fkeshwater fish 

and invertebrates at its limit of water solubility. Based on a lack of comparable toxicity data for 

the 4'-OH degradate and parent etofenprox, it is assumed that 4'-OH has similar toxicity to the 

parent. Although etofenprox quickly partitions to the sediment, the available toxicity data are 

not sufficient to characterize its toxicity to benthic invertebrates because the study sediment was 

not spiked and only nominal concentrations of etofenprox in overlying water were provided (i. e., 

etofenprox was not measured in pore water or sediment). Under chronic exposure conditions, 

the parent material resulted in mortality to zebra fish, reproductive effects to waterfleas, and 

decreased growth in midges. Etofenprox also appears to be non-toxic to aquatic and terrestrial 

plants. In addition, no chronic reproductive effects have been observed in mammals and birds at 

the highest concentrations tested. 
2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 

Table 2.1. Taxonomic Groups and Test Species Evaluated for Assessing Potential Ecological Effects of 

Etofenprox. 

1 

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify 

specific ecosystems at the screening level. In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at 

risk could include the treated site and areas immediately adjacent to the treated site that may 

receive drift or runoff. These areas could include the site itself, other cultivated fields, fencerows 

and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats, and other 

uncultivated areas. 

~irds' 

Mammals 

Insects 

Freshwater fish2 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to, or down stream from, the 

treated area and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing 

waterways such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat also includes 

marine ecosystems, including estuaries. Based on the cultivation practices for rice, which 

include flooding of rice paddies and subsequent release of rice paddy water following a specified 

holding period, aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk for the proposed new etofenprox rice use 

also include rice paddy water and discharged rice paddy water (tail water). 

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

Laboratory rat (Rattus nowegicus) 

Honey bee (Apis mellifea L.) 

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Relative to the vector control use of etofenprox, the ecosystems that could be potentially at risk 

from drift and runoff include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Etofenprox for vector control 

can be applied directly to terrestrial habitats, with the exception of agricultural crops that are 

used for food, forage, or pasture. The proposed label for RF2056 OL restricts application over 

bodies of water (lakes, rivers, permanent streams, natural ponds, commercial fish ponds, 

swamps, marshes, or estuaries), except when necessary to target areas where mosquitoes are 

present, and when weather conditions will facilitate movement of the applied material away from 

the water in order to minimize incidental deposition into the water body. However, because it 

can be applied as an ultra-low volume (ULV) spray, there is a high potential for drift and 

incidental exposure to aquatic ecosystems. 

Freshwater invertebrates Water flea (Daphnia magna) 

Estuarinelmarine fish 

Estuarinelmarine invertebrates 

Terrestrial plantsJ 

Aquatic plants and algae 

Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) 

Mysid (Americamysis bahia) 

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) 

Monocots - corn (Zea mays) 

Dicots - soybean (Glycine ma) 

Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

Freshwater (Pseudokirchneriella subcapita) 

Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 

2 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. 

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. 
2.4. Assessment Endpoints 

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by 

an ecological entity (species, community, or other entity) and its attribute or characteristics 

(USEPA, 1998a). For etofenprox, the ecological entities include the following: birds, 

amphibians, reptiles, mammals, fieshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarinelmarine fish and 

invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, and aquatic plants and algae. The attributes for each of 

these entities may include growth, survival, and reproduction. (See Table 2.2 in Section 2.6.2, 

the Analysis Plan, for further discussion). 

2.5. Conceptual Model 

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically 

significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the 

environment fkom a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete, 

it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of 

exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure. 

The conceptual model is intended to provide a written description and visual representation of 

the predicted relationships between etofenprox, potential routes of exposure, and the predicted 

effects for the assessment endpoint. The conceptual model consists of two major components: 

risk hypotheses and a conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998a). 

2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses 

For etofenprox, the following ecological risk hypothesis is being employed for this screeninglevel risk assessment: 

Based on the application methods, mode of action, direct toxicity to non-target aquatic 

and terrestrial species, and potential indirect effects to trophic food webs, the proposed 

new uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control (as a mosquito adulticide) have the 

potential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms. 

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram 

The potential exposure pathways and effects of the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and 

for mosquito vector control are depicted in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2, respectively. Solid 

arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines depict potential routes 

of exposure that are not considered likely for etofenprox. Due to the low partial vapor pressure 

and low estimated soil mobility of etofenprox, it is not expected to significantly volatilize or 

leach into ground water. However, because etofenprox was detected greater than 30 cm from the 

soil surface two days after application to loamy sand in a terrestrial field dissipation study, 

leaching may occur under certain unspecified conditions and contribute uncertainty to this 

assessment. 
Although not depicted in the conceptual diagrams, exposure and effects in wastewater treatment 

facilities are also considered using provisional data. Risk to activated sludge and to non-target 

organisms exposed to biosolids fiom treatment is briefly characterized in Section 4.2.3. 

Rice cultivation relies on the use of paddies that undergo a series of flooding and draining 

periods for optimal growth and yield. Given the cultivation practices associated with rice, 

pesticides are fkequently applied directly to rice paddy water. As depicted in Figure 2.1, 

etofenprox is applied as aerial granules directly to flooded rice fields; therefore, direct deposition 

of granules into rice paddy water and inadvertent application to non-target areas are the primary 

transport pathways. Because rice paddies are drained on a routine basis, aquatic receptors are 

unlikely to be present within flooded rice fields. It should be noted, however, that some rice 

growers may raise crayfish simultaneously, although the extent to which this practice may occur 

on rice fields treated with etofenprox is uncertain. The proposed label for use on rice (Trebon 

3G) stipulates a 2 1 -day holding period after application for the paddy-water. Therefore, it is 

assumed that aquatic animal species are exposed only to discharged rice paddy water (tail water) 

and any associated sediment that is released 21 days after application. 

The major routes of exposure for aquatic animals in this assessment are considered to be via the 

respiratory surface (gills) or the integument. Aquatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake 

and adsorption. In addition, etofenprox has a strong potential for adsorption to sediment and 

bioaccumulation in the lipids of aquatic organisms; therefore, exposure to benthic organisms 

from sediment (pore water), ingestion of residues by invertebrates and fish, and to piscivorous 

mammals and birds via consumption of aquatic invertebrates and fish fi-om treated rice paddy tail 

water is possible. 

Terrestrial organisms may also be exposed to etofenprox via consumption of granules and 

drinking water intake direct fiom treated flooded rice paddies. Terrestrial and semi-aquatic 

plants may be exposed to granules that are inadvertently applied to non-target areas. In addition, 

terrestrial invertebrates may be exposed via direct contact to dry granular etofenprox that is 

inadvertently applied to non-target areas adjacent to rice paddies. 
Stressor 

Etofenprox (Trebon 3G) applied as aerial granules to flooded rice fields to 

control adult rice water weevils 

,----------------------- 4 ........................ 

Source/ 

Transport 

Pathways 

I ---- x ----- I Volatilization1 I 

I Wind Suspension I ---------- \ Percolation) ' I 

--------I ; 

I + 

Source/ Upland1 Discharged r -&Join;iaTey 

Exposure Riparian Tailwater1 '-------- 

Media Soil Sediment Sediment 

t + 

Exposure Direct contact1 Ingestion Ingestion1 Uptake1 Gill1 Food Web Exposure 

Route Root Uptake Adsorption Integument (Bioaccumulation) 

Receptors Birds, Mammals, 

Reptiles, Terrestrial Aquatic Birds and 

Phase Amphibians Vertebrates Mammals 

Reduced survival, Reduced 

Vegetative vigor growth, and population and 

reproduction 

vertebrates and 

invertebrates 

Reduced 

survival, 

growth, and 

Animals 

Reduced 

survival, 

growth, and 

Figure 2.1. Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Non-target Species Prom the Proposed Use of 

Etofenprox on Rice to Control Adult Rice Water Weevils. 

Figure 2.2 depicts the potential exposure of non-target animals and plants to etofenprox from 

ground/aerial spray to residential, industrial, commercial, urban, recreational, woodland, and 

other areas including golf courses to control adult mosquitos, non-biting midges, and biting and 

non-biting flies. Because etofenprox, for use in vector control, is applied as a spray, the primary 

transport routes are direct deposition, spray drift, and runoff, including eroded sediment. 

For terrestrial organisms, the major route of exposure is the dietary route via consumption of 

food items such as plant leaves or insects that have etofenprox residues as a result of spraying. 

There is also the potential for dietary exposure to piscivorous mammals and birds via 

consumption of contaminated aquatic species in which etofenprox may have bioaccumulated. 

For aquatic animal species, the major routes of exposure are considered to be via the respiratory 

surface (gills) or the integument. Simliar to terrestrial organisms, exposure of aquatic organisms 

to etofenprox may also occur through ingestion of residues in sedimentlforage. As discussed 

above, benthic organisms may be exposed to etofenprox via adsorption to sediment. Direct 

contact andlor root uptake is the major route of exposure for terrestrial and wetland (riparian) 

plants, while aquatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption. In addition, nontarget terrestrial invertebrates may be exposed to etofenprox via direct deposition andlor spray 

dri fi. 
Stressor 

Source/ 

Transport 

Pathways 

Source/ 

Exposure 

Media 

Exposure 

Route 

Receptors 

Attribute 

Changes 

Etofenprox (RF2056 OL) applied as groundlaerial spray to residential, 

industrial, recreational, and other areas for adult mosquitovector control 

I 

Terrestrial Food 

Residues (foliage, 

fruit, insects 

Erosion 

1 uplap 

FoliagelSoil Water Body1 

FoliageJSoil Sediment 

I 

----- J 

I Leaching i (Infiltration1 : 

: Percolation) : ----- r---7- 

I 

i ----- 1 Groundwater i L - - - - - - - - - - 

1 + 

I I I + t t t 

Ingestion Direct contact' Direct contact1 Uptake/ Gill1 Food Web Exposure Root Uptake Root Uptake Adsorption Integument (Bioaccumulation) 

Birds, Mammals, 

Reptiles, Terrestrial 

Phase Amphibians 

W etlandl 

Riparian 6 Plants 

Individual Animals Individual Plants 

Seedling emergence 

survival, growth, Vegetative vigor 

land re~roduction I 

Aquatic Birds and 

Vertebrates Mammals 

I JSUMMI, 

growth, and 

lndividual 

Reduced 

growth, and 

reproduction 

[reproduction I 

Figure 2.2. Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Non-target Species From the Proposed Use of 

Etofenprox for Mosquito Vector Control. 

2.6. Analysis Plan 

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure 

2.6.1.1. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

Aquatic organisms are exposed to dissolved or sediment-bound residues of etofenprox via the 

following pathways: 1) contact in watq bodies that receive released paddy water from flooded 

etofenprox-treated rice paddies; 2) contact in water bodies that receive spray drift and/or runoff 

from spray applications for mosquito vector control. 

The models, Tier I Rice Model (v1.0, May 8,2007), AGricultural DISPersal (AGDISP v8.15, 

May 12,2005), and Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2, May 12,2005) linked with 

Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, Apr. 25,2005) via the 

PRZMIEXAMS model shell (PE v5.0, Nov. 15,2006) were run to estimate screening-level 

exposure of ecological water bodies to etofenprox. The Tier I Rice Model was used to assess 

exposure from the proposed use on rice. Consistent with recent emergency exemption (Section 
18) assessments of etofenprox (USEPA, 2006b; 2007a; and 2007b), the Tier I Rice Model was 

provisionally modified to include simple biodegradation processes (photolysis was not modeled, 

as rice paddy water may be turbid). This modification allows for estimation of screening-level 

peak and annual mean estimates of untreated surface water concentrations following use on rice. 

The AGDISP model was used to assess exposure through spray drift from vector control uses. 

This model provides deposition estimates across a range of distances from areas of aerial 

application and does not estimate chronic exposure over time. PRZM and EXAMS were used to 

simulate the loading of deposition from vector control applications (estimated with AGDISP) 

into a downwind standard water body. 

2.6.1.1.1. Use on Rice 

A modified version of the Tier I Rice Model was used to generate estimated environmental 

concentrations (EEC) of etofenprox that may occur in rice paddy water and in rice paddy tail 

water discharged into water bodies downstream. 

The original Tier I Rice Model relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide 

conservative estimates of EECs resulting from application of pesticides to rice paddies. When a 

pesticide is applied to a rice paddy, the model assumes that it will instantaneously partition 

between a water phase and a sediment phase. The model does not account for pesticide 

degradation, mass transfer rates between the aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, 

dilution, or other dissipation processes. The Tier I Rice Model was calibrated to generate 

estimates that are consistent with or conservative for dissolved concentrations measured within 

rice paddies and in discharged paddy water. The model was not evaluated or calibrated for 

concentrations measured in sediment and does not account for residues bound to suspended 

sediment. Guidance for using the Tier I Rice Model may be found on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2008b). 

Consistent with previously conducted emergency exemption (Section 1 8) assessments (USEPA, 

2006b; 2007a; and 2007b), the Tier I Rice Model was provisionally modified to account for 

biodegradation in the paddy. Residues in the water column and pore water were assumed to 

aerobically biodegrade. Residues bound to sediment were assumed to anaerobically biodegrade. 

Assumptions of the Tier I Rice Model, other than stability to biodegradation, apply to the 

modified model. The equations used in the provisionally modified Tier I Rice Model are briefly 

described in Appendix C. 

Due to a range of environmental variables and other factors, the Tier I Rice Model is expected to 

generate conservative EECs that exceed peak measured concentrations of pesticides in water 

bodies downstream of rice paddies by less than one order of magnitude to multiple orders of 

magnitude. Also, EECs are expected to be more conservative downstream of rice paddies in 

California and inland areas of the Southeastern U.S., where dilution is expected to occur. In 

contrast, tidal influences in surface waters of the coastal areas of the Southeastern U.S. may 

effectively reduce dilution of etofenprox residues from discharged paddy water, lengthening the 

period of chronic etofenprox exposure in waterways influenced by rice paddies. 
2.6.1.1.2. Use for Vector Control 

The AGDISP model was used to estimate peak exposure from drifting residues of etofenprox 

following an ultra-low volume (ULV) application for vector control. This model estimates 

deposition from spray drift using inputs that describe the spray material, droplet spectrum, nozzle 

array, aircraft design, and environmental features at and around the application site. Deposition 

estimates from AGDISP were used to assess aquatic exposure in the standard pond from vector 

control applications. The proposed label for vector control use prohibits application over bodies 

of water, agricultural crops, and pastures used for grazing, except where necessary to achieve 

vector control. However, in a 10-mph wind, AGDISP estimates peak deposition from 

applications at the labeled altitudes of 100-300 feet occurring 1160-2250 feet from the most 

downwind flight line. Therefore, co-exposure may be expected to occur in rice-growing areas 

where vector control applications are made, even when applicators follow labeled directions and 

avoid treating rice paddies and water bodies downstream of the paddies. 

Consistent with exposure modeling conducted for the resmethrin and permethrin Reregistration 

Eligibility Decisions (RED) (USEPA, 2006c; 2007c), application efficiency and downwind areaaverage deposition estimates from AGDISP were used as application efficiency and spray drift 

input values in the PRZMIEXAMS model in order to estimate exposure in water bodies 

downwind of vector control applications. PRZM and EXAMS are simulation models coupled 

with the input shell PE v5.0 to generate EECs of etofenprox residues that may occur in surface 

water. The PRZM model simulates pesticide movement and transformation from crop 

application through soil residue processes. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via 

runoff, erosion, and spray drift assuming a standard application area of 10 ha that drains into an 

adjacent standard farm pond of 1 ha, with a depth of 2 m. A more detailed description of the 

standard farm pond can be found in Appendix B of Session 1 of the July 29-30, 1998 Scientific 

Advisory Panel (USEPA, 1998b). The coupled PRZMIEXAMS model and user's manuals may 

be downloaded from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web-page 

(USEPA, 2008a). 

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 

Terrestrial wildlife are exposed to etofenprox via the following pathways: 1) ingestion of 

granules from aerial application to rice; 2) drinking water from flooded etofenprox-treated rice 

paddy fields; 3) consumption of contaminated aquatic species in which etofenprox may have 

bioaccumulated as a result of use on rice or for mosquito vector control; and 4) consumption of 

etofenprox residues on food items via spray applications for mosquito vector control. 

For granular applications of etofenprox, estimation of loadings of pesticide per unit is calculated 

using the T-REX model aerrestrial Besidue mposure model; version 1.3.1 ; 07/07/2007). For 

spray vector control applications, the T-REX model is also used to predict dietary exposure to 

etofenprox residues on foliar surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by 

Fletcher (Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972; Fletcher et al., 1994). Estimates of exposure to 

etofenprox-treated flooded rice paddy fields via water consumption are based on body weightspecific consumption rates (USEPA, 1993; 1998a). Estimated exposures of etofenprox to 

terrestrial insects are qualitatively evaluated. 
In order to estimate potential concentrations of etofenprox residues in aquatic organisms, a 

bioaccumulation model is used. This bioaccumulation model is based upon work by Arnot and 

Gobas (2004), who parameterized it based on PCBs and a number of hydrophobic organic 

pesticides (e.g., lindane, DDT) in the Great Lakes. The model relies upon a chemical's Kow to 

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

trophic levels of the aquatic community. Etofenprox residue concentrations are calculated at the 

basic levels of a food web (e.g., phytoplankton). Accumulation in higher trophic level organisms 

is modeled through diet and respiration. The model used in this assessment incorporates seven 

trophic levels, including: phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, filter feeders, small 

juvenile fish, medium sized fish, and larger upper trophic level fish. Once etofenprox residue 

concentrations are calculated for aquatic organisms, they are translated into dietary, chronic 

exposures to piscivorous animals. A description of the model, including its equations, input 

parameters, and assumptions, is located in Appendix A. 

The model used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial and wetland plants for the proposed new 

use of etofenprox for vector control is TerrPlant. EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and 

wetland areas are derived using TerrPlant (version 1.2.2, 12/26/2006). This model uses 

estimates of pesticides in runoff and in spray drift based upon solubility, application rate, and 

minimum incorporation depth to calculate EECs. Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plant EECs for the 

proposed new use of etofenprox on rice were derived based on the maximum application rate 

(for terrestrial plants in dry areas) and an assumption that one acre-ft of water is released from 

treated rice paddy water to a drainage ditch where semi-aquatic vegetation may be present (for 

semi-aquatic plants). 

2.6.2. Measures of Effect 

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

conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species (Table 2.1). The test species are not 

intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were selected based on their 

ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment 

utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the 

U.S. In addition, the ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in January 2008 in 

order to provide more ecological effects data for etofenprox; however, all available data in 

ECOTOX provided endpoints that were less sensitive than those studies submitted by the 

registrants (ECOTOX, 2008). 

The acute measures of effect used in this screening-level assessment are the LD50 (Lethal Dose), 

LCso (Lethal Concentration) or ECso (Effects Concentration). These are measures of acute 

toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for 

chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed Adverse Effects Concentration) 

and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level). Toxicity studies were submitted for 

freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarinelmarine fish and invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, 

mammals, bees, and other terrestrial invertebrates. The endpoints used for risk characterization 

were derived from studies which underwent review and were classified as "acceptable" 

(conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically valid) or 
"supplemental" (conditions deviated fiom guidelines but the results are considered to be 

scientifically valid). 

Table 2.2 lists the measures of environmental exposure and ecological effects used to assess the 

potential risks of etofenprox to non-target organisms. The methods used to assess the risk are 

consistent with those outlined in the document "Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment 

Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs" (USEPA, 2004). 

Table 2.2. Measures of Exposure and 

Proposed Use of Etofenprox on Rice and 

Measures of Effect Used in Assessing Potential 

Vector Control. 

Surrogate Species and Measures of 

Ecological ~ffect' 

Mallard duck LDso : (>2000 mgkg) 

Bobwhite quailiMallard duck dietary 

: >4890 mgikg feed 

Bobwhite quaiVMallard duck chronic 

reproduction NOAEC: >10 10 

mgkg feed 

Laboratory rat acute oral LDso: '42,880 

mag 

Laboratory rat oral reproduction chronic 

NOAEC: 4900 mag feed 

Rainbow trout acute 96-hour LCSO : 2.7 

pg a.i./L 

ACR-derived NOAEC of 0.57pg a.i./L 

assumed 

Water flea acute 48-hour ECS0: 0.8 pg 

a.i./L 

-- No acute data for chironomid . 

Water flea chronic reproduction (full 

life cycle) NOAEC and LOAEC: 

0.17 and 0.25 pg a.i./L 

Chironomid (10-day) NOAEC and 

LOAEC: 3.8 and 20.9 pg a.i./L 

(based on spiked overlying water) 

Assessment Endpoint 

~irds~ 

Mammals 

Freshwater fish3 

Freshwater invertebrates 

Risks Associated with the 

Measures of 

Upper-bound residues on 

food items (vector 

control: foliar exposure) 

LDsolsqft (rice: granular 

ingestion) 

Estimated total concentration 

of etofenprox (uglkg) in 

different aquatic food 

items based on 

bioaccumulation model 

(rice and vector control 

water 60-d EECS)~ 

Peak EEC from rice paddy 

water (rice drinking 

water exposure) 

Peak EEC from rice paddy 

tail water (rice14 

Peak EEC (vector contt-ol14 

60-day average EEC from 

rice paddy tail water 

(rice14 

60-day EEC (vector contr01)~ 

Peak EEC from rice paddy 

tail water (rice14 

Peak EEC (vector cont~-ol14 

2 1 -day average EEC from 

rice paddy tail water4 

21-day EEC (vector 

survival 

Reproduction 

and Growth 

Survival 

Reproduction 

and Growth 

Survival 

Reproduction 

and Growth 

Survival 

Reproduction 

and Growth 
Risks Associated with the 

Measures of Exposure 

Peak EEC from rice paddy 

tail water (rice14 

Peak EEC (vector contr01)~ 

60-day average EEC from 

rice paddy tail water 

(rice)4 

60-day EEC (vector contr01)~ 

Peak EEC from paddy tail 

water (rice14 

Peak EEC (vector contr01)~ 

2 1 -day average EEC from 

rice paddy tail water4 

2 1 -day EEC (vector contr01)~ 

Estimates of runoff and spray 

drift to non-target areas 

Maximum application rate 

Peak EEC from paddy tail 

water (rice)4 

Peak EEC (vector ~ontrol)~ 

risk assessments. 

Birds represent surrogates for amphibians (terrestrial-phase) and reptiles. 

Freshwater fish represent surrogates for amphibians (aquatic-phase). 

4~quatic EECs for rice and vector control are based on the modeling described in Sections 2.6.1 and 3.2.2. 

Because the chronic NOAEC based on mortality from an early life stage test with zebrafish (23 pg/L) is two orders of 

magnitude higher than the LC50 value for freshwater fish, the chronic NOAEC for freshwater fish is based on the acuteto-chronic ratio for freshwater invertebrates. 

FOUT species of two families of monocots - one is corn, six species of at least four dicot families, of which one is 

soybeans. EC25 = Effect concentration to 25% of the test population; NOAEC =No observed adverse effect 

concentration. 

Measures of Effect Used in Assessing Potential 

Vector Control. 

Surrogate Species and Measures of 

Ecological ~ffect' 

Sheepshead minnow acute 96-hour 

LC50: >16.5 pg a.i./L 

Sheepshead minnow chronic (early lifestage) NOAEC and LOAEC 

no study available 

Mysid acute 96-hour LC501 0.0 188 pg 

a.i./L 

~~sid chronic NOAEC and LOAEC 

(no study available); ACR-derived 

NOAEC of 0.004 pg a.i.1L 

assumed 

Monocot seedling emergence ECzs and 

NOAEC: 

> 0.151 and0.151 lbs a.i./A 

Dicot seedling emergence ECzS and 

NOAEC: 

>0.148 and <0.151 lbs a.i./A 

Monocot vegetative vigor ECZ5 and 

NOAEC: 

>0.151 and 0.151 lbs a.i./A 

Dicot vegetative vigor ECZ5 and ECo5: 

>0.157 and 0.157 Ibs a.i./A 

Honeybee acute contact LD5o : 0.0145 

MI'= 

Duckweed 7-day ECS0 and NOAEC: 

>26 and 26 pg a.i./L 

Algae 72-hour ECS0 and NOAEC: >18.8 

and 18.8 pg a.i./L 

taxonomic groups is used for screening-level 

Table 2.2. Measures of Exposure and 

Proposed Use of Etofenprox on Rice and 

Assessment Endpoint 

Estuarinelmarine fish 

Estuarinelmarine 

invertebrates 

Terrestrial plants6 

Insects 

Aquatic plants 

' The most sensitive species 

Survival 

Reproduction 

and 

Survival 

Reproduction 

and Growth 

Survival and 

growth 

Survival (not 

quantitatively 

assessed) 

Survival and 

growth 

tested within 
2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects 

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse 

ecological effects on non-target species. For the risk assessment of etofenprox, the risk quotient 

(RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ 

method involves dividing estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) by acute and chronic 

toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOC) 

(USEPA, 2004) (Table 2.3). These criteria are used to indicate when applications of etofenprox, 

as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms. 

Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class. 

RISK CLASS I RISK DESCRIPTION RQ I LOC 

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates) 

Acute 

Acute 

Restricted Use 

Acute Listed 

Species 

Chronic 

Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures 

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures 

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification 

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures 

Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures 

Aquatic Plants 

Peak EEC/LC~~~ 

Peak EEC/LC~~~ 

Peak EECILC~~' 

60-day EECINOAEC 

(fish) 

2 1-day EECMOAEC 

(invertebrates) 

0.5 

0.1 

0.05 

1 

Non-Listed 

Listed 

Potential for effects to non-listed plants from exposures 

Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures 

Peak EEC/LC~~~ 

Peak EECMOAEC 

1 

1 

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds) 

Acute 

Acute 

Restricted Use 

Acute Listed 

Species 

Chronic 

Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures 

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures 

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification 

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures 

Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from 

chronic exposures 

EEC~ILC~~ (Dietary) 

EEC/LDS0 (Dose) 

EEC~ILC~~ (Dietary) 

- EE,-JLD,~ (D~~~) 

EEC~ILC~~ (Dietary) 

EEC/LD50 (Dose) 

EEC 21N~AE~ 

0.5 

0.2 

0.1 

1 

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants 

Non-Listed 

Listed Plant 

1 LCs0 or EC50. 

2 Based on upper bound Kenaga values (for foliar exposure), LD5o1sq ft (for granular exposure), and concentration 

of etofenprox (uglkg) in aquatic food items (for food chain exposure to piscivorous wildlife). 

Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants from 

exposures 

Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from 

exposures 

EECI EC25 

EECI NOAEC 

EECI ECo5 

1 

1 
Analysis 

3.1. Use Characterization 

Etofenprox is currently registered on 20 end-use-product labels to control flying and crawling 

insects in residential settings and is proposed for control of adult water weevils in rice and of 

adult mosquitoes for vector control. The current uses of etofenprox (including foggers, structural 

treatments, and cat treatments) are not expected to produce appreciable ecological exposure, in 

contrast to the newly proposed uses. Estimates of the current total usage of etofenprox are 

unavailable. 

This assessment analyzes the proposed uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control. The 

proposed use on rice is a granular formulation (Trebon 3G; 3 .O% a.i.) and the proposed vector 

control use is an oil miscible liquid formulation (RF2056 OL; 20% a.i.). Table 3.1 displays the 

maximum use patterns on the proposed labels that may lead to exposure in the environment. 

The maximum annual application rate for vector control is 0.175 lbs a.i./A. The maximum 

annual application rate for use on rice is 0.270 lbs a.i./A, assuming one season of rice occurs 

each year (including ratoon crops). Although the proposed label for vector control use prohibits 

application over water bodies (except when necessary), agricultural crops, and pastures for 

grazing, the small droplets applied at 100 to 300 feet may drift onto rice paddies located 

hundreds or thousands of feet away. Therefore, co-exposure between vector control and rice 

uses is qualitatively considered in this assessment. 

Table 3.1. Maximum Use Patterns for Proposed Etofenprox Uses that May Result in Environmental 

Exposure. 

3.2. Exposure Characterization 

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization 

Use Pattern 

Rice 

Vector control 

A suite of environmental fate data was recently submitted to support the newly proposed uses of 

etofenprox. Appendix H lists these studies as well as their review classifications and any 

deficiencies they may have. The submitted hydrolysis (MRID 46779702) and aqueous 

photolysis (MRID 46779703) studies suffer from poor material balances caused by residues 

adsorbing to glass. Also, the submitted batch equilibrium study (MRID 46779729) is 

unacceptable because the test concentrations exceeded the water solubility limit of etofenprox by 

16-fold and the test solution contained 10% cosolvent by volume. Deficiencies such as these in 

the submitted studies cause some uncertainty in some of the data, but overall, the newly 

' "NIA" means not applicable. 

Annual 

Number of 

App. 

llseason 

25 

Current1 

Proposed 

Proposed 

Proposed 

Single App. 

Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

0.27 

0.0070 

Annual App. Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

0.27 (seasonal) 

0.175 

Interval 

(days) 

NIA' 

3 -4 

Application 

Type 

Aerial 

Aerial/ground 
submitted data provide a much clearer description of the environmental fate properties of 

etofenprox than was previously available. Table 3.2 lists the currently submitted chemical 

properties and environmental fate parameters of etofenprox. 

Etofenprox is a non-polar, synthetic pyrethroid ether that is expected to display little mobility in 

soil and to rapidly partition to sediment in aquatic environments. The compound is expected to 

bioconcentrate in organisms and may bioaccumulate in food chains. Its major routes of 

degradation are aerobic biodegradation and aqueous photolysis. The compound is expected to 

degrade with half-lives of 1 to 4 weeks in aerobic soil, 4 to 8 weeks in aerobic water bodies, and 

Table 3.2. General Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Etofenprox. 

Parameter Value Reference 

Selected PhysicaYChemical Parameters 

Molecular mass 

Vapor pressure (25°C) 

Water solubility (20°C) 

Octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) 

376.47 glmol 

6.10 x torr 

0.0225 mg/L 

8 x lo6 

MRID 4023770 1 

MRID 4744 1 10 1 

MRID 4744 1 102 

MRID 47441 103 

Persistence 

Hydrolysis half-life pH 4 

(50°C) PH 7 

PH 9 

Aqueous photolysis half-life; 

Residues of concern half-life 

Soil photolysis half-life; 

Residues of concern half-life 

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life; 

Residues of concern half-life (soil texture) 

Aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life; 

Residues of concern half-life 

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life; 

Residues of concern half-life 

No significant degradation 

No significant degradation 

No significant degradation 

8.4 d; 8.4 d 

340 d; 389 d 

6.48 d; 7.22 d (silty clay loam) 

8.35 d; 9.52 d (loam) 

13.8 d; 14.7 d (loamy sand) 

25.2 d; 27.7 d (sandy loam) 

26.0 d; 27.3 d 

32.4 d; 38.8 d 

47.2 d; 51.8 d 

52.0 d; 61.5 d 

195 d; 317 d 

MRID 46779702 

MRID 46779703 

MRID 46779726 

MRID 46779727 

MRID 47 13284 1 

MRID 46779704 

MRID 47132842 

MRID 47132843 

MRID 46779728 

Mobility 

Organic carbon partitioning coefficient (Koc) 

Fish bioconcentration factor 

1.93 x lo5 L/kgoc 

4822-4846X (whole fish) 

1363-1702X (edible tissue) 

5724-7767X (viscera) 

(EpiSUITE v3.20) 

MRID 47132809 

Field Dissipation 

Terrestrial field dissipation half-life 

(top 15 cm of soil) 

Aquatic field dissipation half-life 

(top 15 cm of soil) 

4.8, 13.4, 13.6 d 

1.6, 1.7 d (water) 

7.3, 15.7 d (sediment) 

MRID 47 132844 

MRID 47132846 
6 months in anaerobic water bodies. Therefore, in aerobic environments, etofenprox is not 

expected to persist, which is supported by dissipation half-lives of 5 to 16 days in terrestrial and 

aquatic field studies. 

3.2.1.1. Transport and Mobility 

Acceptable batch equilibrium data on etofenprox have not been submitted. However, in general, 

pyrethroid compounds display little mobility in soil, with a poor correlation between partitioning 

to soil and soil organic matter (Jones, 1993). Publicly available batch equilibrium data on the 

soil sorption of etofenprox in two soils in California indicate that the compound is immobile, 

with a Koc range of 1 x lo6 to 2 x lo6 (Tjeerdema, 2008). However, the reliability of these data 

is uncertain because the concentration of acetone cosolvent was not reported, 200 mg/L sodium 

azide was added to samples, and the mass balance in treated samples within glass serum bottles 

was not reported (although the mass balance in the controls ranged from 77% to 124%). The 

cosolvent and sodium azide in the samples may have altered the adsorption of the test substance. 

In the absence of acceptable mobility data for etofenprox, the EpiSUITE model (v3.20; Feb. 

2007) was used to estimate an organic carbon partition coefficient (bc) of 1.93 x 10' L/kgoc, 

which classifies etofenprox as immobile, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations (FAO, 2000). EpiSuite predicted geometric mean Koc values to within an 

order of magnitude (a factor of 10) for 70% of 89 pesticides. Compounds for which EpiSuite 

estimates Koc values with less accuracy include those likely to be ionized at pH 5-9, those 

containing fluorine, those with 1,2,4-triazole groups and aromatic mines, organometallics, and 

those with diverse functional groups in close proximity to each other (Eckel, 2006). As 

etofenprox does not share these qualities, the bc estimate from EpiSUITE is likely to be within 

an order of magnitude of an experimental value. 

However, etofenprox leached below 15 cm in two of three field plots studied in the submitted 

terrestrial field dissipation study (discussed in the "Degradation" section below), which suggests 

that the EpiSUITE estimate of Koc may be high andlor that the soil mobility of etofenprox is 

poorly explained by affinity to organic carbon and better explained by other mechanisms, such as 

affinity to flat particle surfaces andlor separate-phase migration of non-aqueous liquids. These 

uncertainties in the soil mobility of etofenprox contribute to large uncertainty in aquatic exposure 

assessments because the screening exposure models are sensitive to soil mobility parameter 

values. An acceptable batch equilibrium study would substantially reduce these large 

uncertainties. 

As a non-polar synthetic pyrethroid, etofenprox is hydrophobic and only soluble in water up to 

0.0225 mg/L at 20°C. With a high octanol-water partition coefficient (8 x lo6), the compound is 

expected to bioconcentrate. This was observed in fish, in which bioconcentration was up to 

4800x in whole fish and up to 7800x in inedible tissue. Depuration occurred in whole fish tissue 

with a half-life of 15.9 days. 

The compound does not volatilize significantly, with a partial vapor pressure of 6.1 x lob9 torr at 

25°C. Therefore, dissipation in the environment is expected to occur predominantly via runoff of 

eroded soil and sediments to which etofenprox is adsorbed. However, etofenprox was detected 
in the 30- to 45-cm depth of soil two days after application to loamy sand in Wayne County, 

New York, which indicates that leaching of residues may occur under certain unidentified 

conditions. Etofenprox in leachate is expected to persist in anaerobic soil compartments. 

3.2.1.2. Degradation 

Etofenprox biodegrades in 1 to 4 weeks in aerobic soil (half-lives of 6.5-25 days) and in 4 to 8 

weeks in aerobic water bodies (half-lives of 26-52 days). However, the compound persists for 

months in anaerobic water bodies (half-life of 195 days). Etofenprox is photolyzed in water 

(half-life of 8.4 days) under ideal light conditions, but is relatively stable to photolysis on soil 

(half-life of 340 days). However, characterization of the aqueous photolysis of etofenprox is 

uncertain due to a poor material balance in the submitted study caused by residues adsorbing to 

glass. The compound showed no evidence of degradation by hydrolysis at pH values fiom 4 to 

9. 

Residue of concern half-lives were calculated by summing the percent radioactivity applied for 

the residues of concern (parent compound and 4'-OH) at each sampling interval, without 

adjustment, and treating the total as equivalent to the parent compound. No adjustments were 

used because the degradate of concern is expected to be no more or less toxic than the parent. 

Residue of concern half-lives were similar to the half-lives calculated for the parent alone, 

because 4'-OH was not produced in large quantities (122.0% of the applied). In the absence of 

submitted chemical properties and soil mobility data for 4'-OH, the chemical properties and 

organic carbon partition coefficient estimated for etofenprox parent was used to represent the 

residues of concern. 

3.2.1.3. Field Studies 

Dissipation, resulting from both degradation and off-site transport, occurred with half-lives of 5 

to 16 days in terrestrial and aquatic field studies, which is consistent with the submitted, 

laboratory-derived aerobic metabolism data. On bare soil, etofenprox formulated as an 

emulsifiable concentrate (Etofenprox 30% EC) dissipated with half-lives of 4.8 days (sandy loam 

in California), 13.4 days (loamy sand in New York), and 13.6 days (loamy sand in Georgia). 

The compound did not leach further than 0-1 5 crn in Georgia, 15-30 crn in California, or 30-45 

cm (single replicate, two days after application) in New York. It is unknown why etofenprox, a 

compound with a high estimated Gc, leached past 15 cm in California and past 30 cm in New 

York. It is possible that the inert carriers in the formulation increased the product's mobility or 

that there was too much dense, non-aqueous liquid in the soil. When the latter occurs, the phases 

can separate and migrate downward. Runoff fiom the bare soil plots was not assessed. 

On flooded plots, etofenprox dissipated fiom the water with half-lives of 1.6 days (Arkansas) and 

1.7 days (California), quickly partitioning to the underlying sediment. Dissipation fiom the 

sediment was slower, with half-lives of 7.3 days (Arkansas) and 15.7 days (California). 

Leaching from the sediment was not investigated. 
3.2.1.4. Degradates 

Chemical names, structures, and maximum reported amounts of etofenprox's degradates are 

listed in Appendix D. The major degradates of etofenprox include: 

the biodegradation product 3-(4-hydroxyphenoxy)benzyl2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylprop yl ether (4'-OH), 

the photolysis product 2-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzoate 

(alpha-CO), 

the photolysis product, 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl alcohol (PENA), and 

carbon dioxide (COz). 

Biodegradation studies of etofenprox parent produced 4'-OH at up to 22.0% of the applied (7 

days after application). In these studies, 4'-OH degraded with a variable half-life of 14 to 44 

days in aerobic soil and with a half-life of 54.5 to 61.9 days in aerobic aquatic systems. 4'-OH 

displayed high affinity to sediment in aquatic systems, similar to the partitioning of etofenprox 

parent. 

Photolysis of etofenprox produced alpha-CO, which was 63.7% of recovered residues and 

increasing at the final sampling interval after 15 days of continuous irradiation. Alpha-CO is 

more soluble in water than etofenprox parent, especially in acidic environments [range of 

0.0425-0.0435 mg/L (pH 7-9) to 0.100 mg/L (pH 4)] (Inveresk Project No. 80047 1). Alpha-CO 

does not hydrolyze in acidic to neutral environments. However, in alkaline environments, alphaCO hydrolyzes to form equal amounts of PENA and mPBAcid. These alkaline hydrolysis 

products of alpha-CO were increasing in concentration at the final sampling interval after 8 days 

of irradiation at 45OC. In a study of etofenprox parent, minor amounts of alpha-CO degraded in 

aerobic soil with a variable half-life of 12-45 days. 

Photolysis of etofenprox also produced PENA, which was 12.0% of recovered residues and 

increasing at the final sampling interval after 15 days of irradiation. PENA appears to be a 

hydrolytic product of either etofenprox or alpha-CO, but neither etofenprox nor alpha-CO was 

shown to hydrolyze at pH 7. 

Carbon dioxide was a major degradate in the aerobic biodegradation studies of etofenprox, in 

which it was detected at up to 45.6% of the applied. Carbon dioxide was not detected as a 

photolytic degradate. 

The minor degradates of etofenprox include: 

3-phenoxybenzoic acid (mPBAcid), 

3-phenoxybenzyl2-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-2-methylpropyl ether (DE), 

3-hydroxybenzyl2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl ether (DP), and 

2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropionic acid (EPMP). 
The degradate mPBAcid, the sister cleavage product of PENA, was not formed in detectable 

amounts until the final sampling interval of the photolysis study of etofenprox. This suggests 

that mPBAcid may be rapidly degraded to an unradiolabeled product, such as benzyl ether. 

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure 

3.2.2.1. Exposure to Rice Paddy Tail Water 

Input parameters for the provisionally modified Tier I Rice Model (listed in Table 3.3) were 

chosen in accordance with current input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2002a). The organic 

carbon partition coefficient input reflects the single estimate generated with the EpiSUITE model 

in the absence of acceptable, submitted data. The aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life input is 

the upper 90% confidence bound on the mean of four residue-of-concern half-lives. The 

anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life input is the single available residue-of-concern half-life 

multiplied by three to account for the uncertainty associated with a single data point. 

Peak and mean exposure estimates fiom the provisionally modified Tier I Rice Model are 

presented in Table 3.4. These estimates represent residue-of-concern exposure in paddy tail 

water following the labeled 21-day holding period. The modified model degrades dissolved and 

sediment-bound residues using aerobic aquatic metabolism kinetics and anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism kinetics, respectively. This results in little degradation of etofenprox over time (i.e., 

similar peak and mean EECs) because the compound readily partitions to the sediment and is 

characterized by slow anaerobic metabolism. Therefore, residue-of-concern EECs based on 

entirely aerobic paddy sediment are also listed in Table 3.4 for characterization. Furthermore, in 

order to characterize the uncertainty in the estimated soil mobility of etofenprox, residue-ofconcern EECs based on a Koc value one order of magnitude less than the predicted value are 

listed. The EECs for residues of concern in Table 3.4 are 0% to 8.4% higher than EECs for 

etofenprox parent alone. Figure 3.1 compares modeled exposure estimates for the residues of 

concern over time for both anaerobic and aerobic degradation scenarios in the sediment. 

Table 3.3. Modified Tier I Rice Model Input Parameters for Etofenprox. Source Data are in Table 3. 

Input Parameter 

Application Rate in 

Ibs a.i./A (kg a.i./ha) 

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient 

Koc) (Llkgoc) 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

Residue-of-Concern Half-life (days) 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

Residue-of-Concern Half-life (days) 

Value [value for characterization] 

0.270 (0.303) 

1.93 x lo5 L/kgoc 

57.1 

950 

Source 

Proposed label 

EpiSUITE v3.20 

MRID 46779704 

MRID 47132842 

MRID 47132843 

MRID 46779728 
Aqueous Concentration vs Time, 21 Days After Etofenprox Use on 

Rice. 

Table 3.4. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Use of Etofenprox on Rice at 0.270 lbs a.i./A (values in 

brackets are for characterization). 

Days Postapplication 

---Anaerobic Sediment -Aerobic Sediment 

Water Body 

Paddy water 

Tail water1 

Paddy water 

Tail water1 

Paddy water 

Tail water1 

Figure 3.1. Residue-of-Concern EECs of Etofenprox Following Use on Rice and a 21-day 

Holding Period. 

Peak and mean exposure estimates for the residues of concern are approximately 1 ppb in paddy 

water and tail water released 2 1 days after application. If all degradation in the water column 

and sediment is aerobic, 60-day mean exposure in tail water may be a factor of two lower than 1 

ppb (i.e., 0.67 pg/L). If the predicted Koc value for etofenprox is one order of magnitude high, 

exposure estimates are low by a similar magnitude, i. e., if an experimental Koc is 1 Ox less, EECs 

will increase in tail water to 10.9-1 1.3 pg/L for peak and mean exposures. 

Tail water represents paddy water released 21 days after application. 

Anaerobic 

sediment? 

Yes 

Yes 

[No] 

[No] 

Yes 

Yes 

Calibration of the Tier I Rice Model indicates that it may underestimate dissolved concentrations 

of chemicals with high Koc. The model overpredicts 16 of 17 observed, dissolved 

concentrations of 7 compounds (USEPA, 2007d). The single concentration underpredicted 

(observed 3x higher than the model estimate) was of lambda cyhalothrin (Koc of 3.00 x lo5). 

However, model evaluation indicates that model estimates are conservative for water bodies 

Koc 

1.93 x lo5 

1.93 x lo5 

1.93 x lo5 

1.93 x lo5 

[1.93 x lo4] 

[1.93 x lo4] 

Peak 

Exposure 

(PgW 

1.20 

1.18 

[1.20] 

[0.932] 

[l 1.61 

[11.3] 

21-day Mean 

Exposure (pg/L) 

1.19 

1.17 

[1.07] 

[0.828] 

[11.5] 

(1 1.21 

60-day Mean 

Exposure @g/L) 

1.18 

1.16 

[0.859] 

[0.666] 

111.21 

[10.9] 
downstream of rice paddies, as model estimates exceeded peak measured concentrations of 

pesticides in water bodies well downstream of rice paddies by less than one order of magnitude 

to multiple orders of magnitude due to chemical, environmental, and study-specific factors. 

Therefore, the model may underestimate dissolved concentrations of etofenprox near where 

water bodies receive rice paddy tail water, but is expected to be conservative for water bodies 

fbrther downstream. 

The Tier I Rice Model was not calibrated for estimating compound concentrations in suspended 

or settled sediment. Because etofenprox readily partitions to sediment, the compound is 

expected to be found downstream of rice paddies, bound to sediment. Desorbed residues fiom 

the sediment are not expected to yield dissolved concentrations higher than those estimated in 

rice paddy tail water, however, as aerobic degradation is expected to attenuate concentrations of 

dissolved and some sediment-bound residues. 

For characterization, the Tier I Rice Model was provisionally modified to produce exposure 

estimates of etofenprox in sediment, despite the lack of calibration for this function. Peak 

residue-of-concern EECs in sediment were 2.32 mg/kg on the day of application and 1.80 mglkg 

(assuming only aerobic degradation) 21 days after application, the latter of which represents 

residues in sediment available for suspension in or erosion via released tail water. These 

exposure values were not used quantitatively in this assessment due to the lack of toxicity data 

for sediment-dwelling freshwater invertebrates for comparison. 

3.2.2.1. Exposure to Mosquitocide Residues 

Input parameter values for the AGDISP model appear in Table 3.5 and in Appendix B. Most 

input values represent defaults, either in general or specifically for aerial application. The 

droplet size distribution was set to the "aerosol to very fine" reference distribution, which is 

characterized by a DV0.5 of 47.8 pm and a relative span of 1.62. This distribution complies with 

the label instructions to "ensure that the droplet [volume median diameters (VMD)] are less than 

60 microns with greater than 90% of the droplets less than 100 microns." The aerial release 

height input (1 00 ft) is the minimum labeled release height for aerial application. Consistent 

with vector control modeling conducted for the malathion Reregistration Eligibility Decision 

(RED) (USEPA, 2006d), the wind speed was set at 2 mph. Spray material inputs reflect the 

submitted product chemistry data and information fiom the proposed label, such as the active 

ingredient fraction, maximum application rate, and mass per gallon of product (used to calculate 

the spray volume rate; i.e., 0.0070 lbs a.i./A 1 1.5 lbs a.i./gal product = 0.0047 gal product/A). 

No canopy was modeled, which represents grassland or bare soil areas. The temperature and 

relative humidity were set to 85OF and 90%, respectively, to simulate typical conditions in 

mosquito habitat. 
Table 3.5. AGDISP Input Parameter Values for Etofenprox Aerial Applications. 

Parameter Value 

Aircraft Features 

GUI Section 

Application method 

Aircraft name 

Aircraft type 

Wing semispan 

Aircraft weight 

Propeller rpm 

Reference 

Aerial 

Air Tractor AT-40 1 

Fixed wing 

24.5 ft 

6000 lbs 

2000 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Application method 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodfircraft 

Propeller radius 

Planform area 

Engines 

Engine vertical 

Engine forward 

Wing vertical 

Vortex decay rate 

IGE 

Vortex decay rate 

OGE 

Aircraft drag 

coefficient 

Propeller eficiency 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, ?003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

pp 

pp 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Nozzle Array 

4.5 ft 

294 ft2 

1 

-1.2 ft 

11.9 ft 

1.51 ft 

1.25 mph 

0.3355 mph 

0.1 

0.8 

Boom vertical 

Boom forward 

Number of nozzles 

Nozzle extent 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

-1.15 ft 

-0.8333 ft 

42 

65% (regular distribution) 

Droplet Size Distribution 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. technique/Nozzles 

App. technique/Nozzles 

Reference 

distribution 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Aerosol to Very Fine 

Aircraft Operation 

App. technique/Drop 

size distribution 

Typical flight speed 

Release height 

Flight lines 

Swath width 

Swath displacement 

Default swath offset 

Proposed label 

120 mph 

100 ft 

20 

60 ft 

0 ft 

112 swath 

Spray Material 

App. methodAircraft 

Application method 

Application method 

Swath 

Swath 

Advanced Settings 

Spray material 

Spray volume rate 

Active fraction 

Nonvolatile fi-action 

Specific gravity, 

carrier 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Proposed label 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Oil 

0.0047 gdA 

0.2 (0.007 lbs a.i.1A) 

0.9999 

0.891 

Spray material 

Spray material 

Spray material 

Spray material 

Advanced settings 

Proposed label 

Proposed label 

Proposed label 

MRID 47195616 

MRID 47195616 
Consistent with drinking water exposure modeling conducted for the resmethrin and permethrin 

REDS (USEPA, 2006c; 2007c), application efficiency and spray drift input values for the 

PRNEXAMS model were estimated with application efficiency and downwind area-average 

deposition estimates from AGDISP. Application efficiency is listed in the "Numerical Values" 

window under "View" in the toolbar. Downwind area-average estimates are calculated in the 

"Deposition Assessment" window under "Toolbox" in the toolbar. The "Initial Average 

Deposition" value calculated with a downwind water body width of 208.7 ft is divided by the 

application rate to yield the spray drift fraction input value for EXAMS. 

Table 3.5. AGDISP Input Parameter Values for Etofenprox Aerial Applications. 

Parameter 

Specific gravity, 

nonvolatile 

Evaporation rate 

Value 

0.891 

2.49 um210~/sec 

GUI Section 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Reference 

MRID 471956 16 

Minimum value 

allowed by model 

Wind speed 

Wind speed 

measurement height 

Wind direction 

Ground reference 

Transport distance 

Upslope angle 

Sideslope angle 

Relative humidity 

Temperature 

Ambient pressure 

Stability 

Canopy height 

Surface roughness 

Downwind water 

body width 

Environmental 

2 mph 

6.56 ft 

-90" 

0 ft 

0 ft 

0" 

0° 

90% 

85°F 

29.91 in Hg 

Overcast at night 

None 

0.0246 ft 

208.7 ft 

Computational 

Features 

Meteorology 

Advanced settings 

Meteorology 

Advance settings 

Transport 

Surface 

Surface 

Meteorology 

Meteorology 

Advanced settings 

Atm. Stability 

Sur facelcanop y 

SurfaceISurface details 

Deposition assessment/ 

Aquatic area 

Limits 

Maximum 

computational time 

Maximum 

downwind distance 

Consistent with 

malathion RED 

(USEPA, 2006a) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Consistent with 

resmethrin DWA 

(USEPA, 2002a) 

Consistent with 

resmethrin DWA 

(USEPA, 2002a) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Consistent with 

resmethrin DWA 

(USEPA, 2002a) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Width of standard 

farm pond (USEPA, 

1998b) 

600 sec 

2608.24 ft 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 
Application efficiency and spray drift estimates were also modeled assuming a 200-ft buffer 

between the edge of the application area and the water body in order to estimate exposure 

resulting flom an applicator that arbitrarily maintains this horizontal buffer in an effort to keep 

from directly treating water bodies. Application efficiency was estimated, in this case, by the 

average deposition estimate from 0-ft to 2004 downwind of the application area (i.e., the buffer 

area adjacent to the water body). Spray drift over the water body was estimated with the average 

deposition estimate from 200-ft to 209-ft downwind of the application area (i.e., the width of the 

standard farm pond beyond the 200-ft buffer). In order to calculate this value, terrestrial point 

estimates must be exported from AGDISP and averaged in a spreadsheet application, such as 

~icrosoft~ Office Excel 2003. 

Deposition estimates for within the application area, the edge of the application area, and 

downwind of the application area are provided in Table 3.6. For characterization, deposition 

estimates for aerial application in a 10-mph wind and ground application in both a 4-mph wind 

and a 10-mph wind are also provided. Spray drift in a 10-mph wind was not used to estimate 

risk in this assessment because it results in lower exposure estimates than are modeled using a 2- 

mph wind. Spray drift estimates from ground application were not used for risk estimation 

because AGDISP has not been extensively validated for ground applications and the exposure 

estimates in downwind water bodies are similar to those based on spray drift from aerial 

application (USEPA, 2008b). 

A wind speed of 10 mph reduced deposition at all distances downwind versus lower wind 

speeds. Deposition reduction with greater wind speed was more dramatic for higher release 

heights, as expected. Wind speeds less than 2 mph were not assessed, but are expected to 

produce greater deposition on the application area and less drift off-site. 

Table 3.6. Spray Drift Exposure Downwind of ULV Use of Etofenprox for Vector Control (expressed as 

fractions of the application rate). 

The model input parameters used in PRZM and EXAMS to simulate etofenprox application and 

deposition from vector control use are provided in Table 3.7. The modeled input/output file is 

reproduced in Appendix B. Consistent with the resmethrin DWA in support of the RED 

(USEPA, 2002b), the Florida turf scenario was used as a conservative scenario that represents 

areas of grass or bare soil and no canopy cover. The initial application date (April lSt) was 

chosen as the likely initial period of co-occurrence between vector control applications and use 

on rice. The AGDISP-produced application-area and mean 0- to 209-ft downwind deposition 

estimates for aerial application at a 100-ft altitude and in a 2-mph breeze were used as 

application efficiency and spray drift inputs, respectively. Because proposed labels prohibit 

spraying over water bodies (except when necessary), aerial applicators may keep a certain 

distance upwind of water bodies during application. Therefore, a hypothetical buffer of 200 ft 

APP. Type 

(release height) 

Aerial (100 ft) 

Aerial (100 ft) 

Ground (10 ft) 

Ground (1 0 ft) 

Wind 

Speed 

(mph) 

2 

10 

4 

1 0 

Mean App. 

Area Dep. 

0.49 

None 

0.45 

0.1 1 

Edge-ofApp.-Area 

Dep. 

0.58 

0.06 

0.69 

0.40 

Peak Dep. 

Downwind 

(distance) 

0.63 (164 fi) 

0.15 (1370 ft) 

0.72 (20 fi) 

0.44 (13 1 ft) 

Mean Dep. 0- 

209 ft 

Downwind 

0.61 

0.07 

0.66 

0.40 

Mean Dep. 0- 

200 ft 

Downwind 

0.61 

0.07 

0.66 

0.40 

Mean Dep. 

200-409 ft 

Downwind 

0.60 

0.09 

0.51 

0.38 
was modeled as well to yield application efficiency and spray drift inputs for PRZM and 

EXAMS that reflect mean deposition on the buffer (0-200 ft downwind from the application 

area) and on the water body downwind from the buffer (200-409 ft downwind from the 

application area), respectively. 

The general chemical and environmental fate data for etofenprox listed in Table 3.2 were used 

for generating model input parameters for PRZM and EXAMS (listed in Table 3.8). The 

organic carbon partition coefficient (Koc) input reflects the single estimate generated with the 

EpiSUITE model in the absence of acceptable, submitted data. High-end confidence bounds on 

the mean degradation residue-of-concern half-life were used to represent biodegradation half-life 

inputs. 

Table 3.7. PRZM and EXAMS Input Parameters Describing the Application and Scenario Inputs Used to 

Model the Vector Control Use of Etofenprox. 

Residue-of-concern EECs, modeled with PRZM and EXAMS and assuming the standard pond is 

downwind of vector control applications of etofenprox, are listed in Table 3.9. In order to 

characterize the uncertainty in the estimated soil mobility of etofenprox, residue-of-concern 

EECs based on a Koc value one order of magnitude less than the predicted value are also listed 

for aerial application in a 2-mph wind. 

Scenario 

FLturf 

App. 

per 

Year 

25 

App. Rate 

in lbs a.i./A 

(kg a.i./ha) 

0.00700 

(0.00785) 

Table 3.8. PRZM and EXAMS 

Input Parameter 

Molecular Mass (glmol) 

Henry's Law Constant (atm 

m3/mol) 

Vapor Pressure at 25OC (torr) 

Solubility in Water at 20°C 

(mg/L) 

Organic Carbon Partition 

Coefficient (Koc) (L/kgoc) 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

Half-life (days) 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

Half-life (days) 

Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism Half-life (days) 

Hydrolysis Half-lives (days) 

Aqueous Photolysis 

Half-life (days) 

Chemical 

Value 

376.47 

.34 0-7 

6.10 x 10'~ 

0.225 

1.93 x 10' 

22.3 

57. 

950 

Stable (pH 7) 

8.4 

Input Parameters for Etofenprox. 

Justification 

Product chemistry data 

Represents the ratio of vapor pressure to water 

solubility. 

Study value 

Represents 1 Ox the measured water solubility 

value. 

Represents the predicted value in EpiSUITE. 

Represents the 90" percentile confidence bound 

on the mean residue-of-concern half-life. 

Represents the 9ofh percentile confidence bound 

on the mean residue-of-concern half-life. 

Represents 3 times a single residue-of-concern 

half-life. 

Study value 

Represents the single environmental 

phototransformation residue-of-concern half-life. 

App. 

Interval 

(days) 

3,4 

(alternating) 

Source 

MRID 40237701 

MRID 4744 1 10 1 

MRID 47441 102 

MRID 47441 101 

MRID 4744 1 102 

EpiSUITE v3.20 

MRID 46779727 

MRID 47 13284 1 

MRID 46779704 

MRlDI 47132842 47132843 

MRID 46779728 

MRlD 46779702 

MRID 46779703 

Date of 

Initial 

App. 

Apr. 1 

App. 

Method 

Aerial 

CAM 

Input 

2 

IPSCND 

Input 

3 

Application 

Efficiency 

AGDISPdefined 

Spray Drift 

AGDISPdefined 
For each combination of application type and wind speed modeled, exposure estimates for the 

residues of concern were similar whether the water body was modeled adjacent to the application 

area or 200-ft downwind. Also, using the EpiSUITE-estimated Koc, peak and mean 1 -in-1 Oyear-EECs were all within an order of magnitude (range of 0.17 - 0.43 pg/L) with the exception 

of aerial applications in a 10-mph wind (range of 0.030 - 0.059 pg/L), where most residues 

drifted over the water body without depositing. If the predicted Koc value for etofenprox is one 

order of magnitude too high, exposure estimates increase by approximately 3-fold. 

Peak, 21 -day mean, and 60-day mean 1 -in- 1 0-year residue-of-concern EECs for aerial 

application in a 2-mph wind (0.40 pg/L, 0.27 pg/L, and 0.27 pg/L, respectively) were used to 

represent a relatively conservative exposure scenario for vector control use. These values are 3- 

4x less than those estimated for use on rice. Although co-exposure between vector control use 

and use on rice is not quantitatively assessed, this difference in values indicates that co-exposure 

will not be of concern. 

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure 

3.2.3.1. Terrestrial Wildlife 

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals, 

emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These exposures 

are considered as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians as well as reptiles. For exposure to 

terrestrial organisms, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues on food items are estimated, 

based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide residues in a given exposure use 

pattern. For etofenprox, application methods for the proposed new uses on rice and for vector 

control include aerial application of granules and groundlaerial ultra-low volume (ULV) spray, 

respectively. Therefore, dietary exposures for terrestrial wildlife include incidental ingestion of 

granules, consumption of drinking water fiom treated flooded rice fields, consumption of 

contaminated aquatic species in which etofenprox may have bioaccumulated, and consumption 

of etofenprox residues on food items via spray applications. Further description of these 
exposures is provided in Sections 3.2.3.1.1 through 3.2.3.1.4. A summary of the exposure routes 

considered for terrestrial wildlife, based on the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and 

vector control, is provided in Table 3.10. 

Birds and mammals may be exposed to granules that are inadvertently applied to non-target areas 

during aerial application of etofenprox to rice by ingesting material directly with the diet. 

Although a bird's or mammal's habitat is not limited to a square foot, there is presumably a 

direct correlation between the concentration of a pesticide in the environment (mglf?) and the 

chance that an animal could be exposed to a concentration that could adversely affect its 

survival. Further description of the mglft2 index is provided in USEPA, 2004 and USEPA, 1992. 

Table 3.10. Terrestrial Wildlife Exposure Routes Based on the Proposed New Uses of Etofenprox. 

The ~~~dfi~ method modeled by T-REX v1.3.1 (Jul. 7,2007) is used to estimate the magnitude 

by which the LD5() is exceeded for a bird or mammal occupying one square foot of the treated 

non-target area. The ~~5olft~ mehod estimates exposure (EECs) with a conversion of a single 

application rate for rice of 0.27 lbs a.i./A to 2.81 mg a.i./ft2 (mglf? EEC = application rate (lbs 

a.i./A) x 453,590 (mgllb) 1 43,560 (ft2/~)). Because all of the granules in the treated non-target 

area are unincorporated, it is assumed that 100% of the granules are available for consumption 

by birds and mammals. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Route of Exposure 

Ingestion of granules 

Drinking water 

Aquatic food chain via potential bioaccumulationl 

Ingestion of foliar residues on food items 

3.2.3.1.2. Ingestion of Drinking Water 

Application of etofenprox granules to flooded rice paddies may result in exposure of mammals, 

waterfowl, and wading birds via consumption of treated rice paddy water. Estimates of exposure 

to etofenprox through water consumption are based on body-weight specific drinking water 

consumption rates (USEPA, 1993; 1998a). Avian and mammalian exposure to drinking water is 

based on the peak modeled EEC from rice paddy water (0.0012 mglL) (see Table 3.4). Table 

3.11 provides a summary of drinking water intake values for different sized birds and mammals, 

based on allometric equations for drinking water ingestion. 

For piscivorous mammals and birds. 

X=possible route of exposure 

New Etofenprox Use 

Rice 

X 

X 

X 

Vector Control 

X 

X 
3.2.3.1.3. Ingestion of Aquatic Biota 

Table 3.11. Drinking Water Intake Exposure for Birds and Mammals. 

As discussed previously, a bioaccumulation model developed by Arnot and Gobas (2004) is used 

to characterize the exposure of piscivorous mammals and birds to etofenprox residues in aquatic 

biota. The model relies on the Kow of etofenprox to estimate uptake and elimination constants 

through respiration and diet of orgamisms in different trophic levels. Seven different trophic 

levels including phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, filter feeders, small-sized 

(juvenile) forage fish, medium-sized forage fish, and larger piscivorous fish, are used to describe 

movement of etofenprox in an aquatic food web. Aquatic tissue residues were estimated using 

default parameters that are considered to be representative of ecological parameters that result in 

conservative estimates of bioaccumulation. The use of this model in this screening-level 

assessment is intended for qualitative characterization of potential risks and not quantitative risk 

assessment. Further description of the bioaccumulation model is provided in Appendix A. 

Taxa 

Birds 

Mammals 

Four pesticide-specific inputs are required to estimate etofenprox residue concentrations in 

aquatic organism tissues: 1) log Kow, 2) Koc, 3) aqueous concentration of etofenprox residues, 

and 4) sediment pore water concentrations of etofenprox residues. The Koc is based on the 

upper bound value of 1.93E+05 Llkgoc (EpiSuite v. 3.20), although the impact of using the 

lower bound Koc on estimated residue concentrations is qualitatively addressed in the risk 

description. Etofenprox concentrations in treated rice paddy tail water are based on the Tier I 

rice model. Vector control use exposures are based on deposition estimates fi-om the AGDISP 

model (to estimate exposures from drifiing residues following ULV application) coupled with 

the Florida turf scenario from the PRZMIEXAMS model. The 60-day EECs are used because 

the model assumes that the aquatic environment is at steady state, and short-term (peak) 

estimates of exposure are not appropriate. For the purposes of this assessment, it is 

conservatively assumed that the aqueous and sediment pore water concentrations of etofenprox 

are similar. A summary of etofenprox-specific inputs used to estimate residue concentrations in 

aquatic organisms, based on the proposed new uses on rice and vector control is provided in 

Table 3.12. Additional model input paramaters related to aquatic organisms (including body 

weight, and food and water intake) and environmental characteristics (e.g., temperature, organic 

carbon content) are identified and explained in Appendix A. 

Avian Drinking Water Intake (Llday) = 0.059 x [body weight (kg)IA0.67; Mammalian Dlvlking Water Intake 

(Llday) = 0.099 x [body weight (kg)lAO.90. 

Estimated Dose (mg a.i.lkg. d) = peak EEC in treated paddy water (mg a.i.1L) x Drinking Water Intake (Llday) I 

BW. 

Body Weight (g) 

20 

100 

1000 

15 

35 

1000 

Drinking Water Intake 

&/day)' 

0.0043 

0.0126 

0.059 

0.0023 

0.0048 

0.099 

Estimated Dose 

(mg a.i./kg d)2 

2.57E-04 

1.5 1E-04 

7.08E-05 

1.81E-04 

1.66E-04 

1.19E-04 
Based on the bioaccumulation model, estimated concentrations of etofenprox residues in tissue 

of organisms in the different trophic levels following application of etofenprox on rice and for 

vector control range from 1 o3 to 1 o6 pglkg (Table 3.13) with increasing residue concentrations 

fi-om lower to higher trophic levels. The bioaccumulation model calculates rate constants for 

etofenprox uptake through the respiratory area includings gills and skin (K1) and elimination of 

etofenprox through the respiratory area (K2) according to the equations provided in Appendix A. 

However, use of the measured maximum uptake and minimum elimination rate constants from 

the BCF study with bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochivus) (K1 = 742 and K2 = 0.13) results in 

fish concentrations well below predicted concentrations for invertebrates and one to three orders 

of magnitude less than predicted concentrations in fish that are based on model-derived rate 

constants (Table 3.13). In addition, the model conservatively assumes no metabolism of 

etofenprox by aquatic organisms; however the bluegill sunfish BCF study reports that sunfish 

depurate etofenprox with half-lives of 9-16 days. Therefore, the model over-estimates fish tissue 

residues as compared to measured concentrations in the bluegill BCF study. Although 

etofenprox is expected to bioaccurnulate based on its chemical and physical properties, the 

results of the bluegill sunfish BCF study indicate that uptake of etofenprox in fish appears to be 

offset by rapid depuration. 

Table 3.12. Bioaccumulation Model Input Values for Etofenprox. 

Parameter 

Pesticide Name 

Low hw 

Kow 

Koc (estimated) 

Use patterns 

Concentration in sediment 

pore water (ppb) 

Total pesticide concentration 

in water (ppb) 

Table 3.13. Predicted Concentrations of Etofenprox Residues in Aquatic Organism Tissues at Different 

Trophic Levels. 

Trophic Level 

Phytoplankton 

Zooplankton 

Benthic Invertebrates 

Filter Feeders 

Small Forage Fish 

Source 

MRID 47441 103 

Calculated by spreadsheet 

EpiSuite v. 3.20 

Required input 

(60-d value from PRZMJEXAMS 

benthic file) 

Required input 

(60-d value from PRZMJEXAMS 

water column) 

Input Value 

Etofenprox 

6.9 

7943282 

1.93E+05 L/kgoc 

Rice 

1.16 

1.16 

Predicted concentrations of etofenprox in fish assuming model-calculated uptake and elimination rate constants 

provided in Appendix A. 

Predicted concentrations of etofenprox in fish assuming measured uptake (K1 = 742) and elimination (K2 = 0.13) 

rate constants from the submitted bluegill sunfish BCF study. 

Estimated Total Concentration (pdkg) 

Vector Control 

0.27 

0.27 

Rice 

10,385 

30,894 

37,629 

103,417 

403,572~ (10,891)~ 

Vector Control 

2,417 

7,191 

8,758 

24,07 1 

93,935l (2,535)' 
3.2.3.1.4. Ingestion of Food Items Based on Foliar 

Application 

T-REX (v1.3.1) is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs of etofenprox residues on food 

items via proposed vector control spray applications for mammals and birds. Input values for 

deriving EECs in T-REX are located in Table 3.14. Upper-bound Kenaga nomogram values are 

used to derive EECs for etofenprox exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds (Table 3.15). A 

1 -year time period is simulated. Consideration is given to different types of feeding strategies 

for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. For dose-based exposures, 

three weight classes of birds (20, 100, and 1000 g) and three weight classes of mammals (15,35, 

and 1000 g) are considered. Differences in exposures between ground and aerial applications for 

mosquito vector control cannot be assessed with the current model. Therefore, terrestrial risk 

conclusions for vector control uses apply to both ground and aerial exposures resulting fi-om 

application of etofenprox in RF2056 OL. Uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily 

associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces. 

When data are absent, as in this case, EFED assumes a 35-day foliar dissipation half life, based 

on the work of Willis and McDowell(1987). An example output fi-om the T-REX model is 

provided in Appendix E. 

Table 3.14. Input Parameters for Deriving Terrestrial EECs for Etofenprox Use on Vector Control Using 

T-REX. 

Parameter Description 

Etofenprox Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) 

Foliar Dissipation Half-life (days) 

Minimum Application Interval (days) 

Number of Applications 

Table 3.15. T-REX Calculated EECs of Etofenprox Vector Control Use on Food Residues. 

Values 

0.007 

35l 

3 

25 

Food Type 

Short grass 

Tall grass 

Broadleaf 

plantslsm insects 

Fmits/pods/lg 

insects 

Seeds (granivore) 

' Default value 

Dietary Based 

(PP~) 

(mammals 

and birds) 

AU Size 

Classes 

22.53 

10.33 

12.76 

1.41 

1.41 

Dose Based 

(mglkg-bw) 

(birds) 

Small 

(20 g) 

25.66 

11.76 

14.43 

1.60 

1.60 

Dose Based 

(mglkg-bw) 

(mammals) 

Small 

(15 g) 

21.48 

9.85 

12.08 

1.34 

0.30 

Medium 

(100 g) 

14.63 

6.71 

8.23 

0.9 1 

0.9 1 

Large 

(1000 g) 

6.55 

3.00 

3.68 

0.41 

0.41 

Medium 

(35 g) 

14.85 

6.80 

8.35 

0.93 

0.21 

Large 

(1000 g) 

3.44 

1.58 

1.94 

0.22 

0.05 
3.2.3.2. Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants 

Exposure of naturally-occurring terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is typically 

estimated using OPP's TerrPlant (v1.2.2) model and is assumed to encompass areas outside the 

immediate use site. The TerrPlant model is used to daive EECs for terrestrial and semi-aquatic 

plants near areas where etofenprox has been applied for mosquito vector control. For nonwetland areas, exposure calculations are based on the amount of pesticide present in soil as a 

function of drift. Loading via drift to dry, non-target, adjacent areas is assumed to occur from 

one acre of treatment to one acre of the non-target area. Spray drift is also a source of pesticide 

loading to non-target areas. The default spray drift assumptions are 1 % for ground spray 

applications, 5% for aerial spray applications, and 0% for granular applications. TerrPlant 

estimates EECs based on application rate, solubility factor and default assumptions of drift. The 

EECs for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants for a single application of etofenprox at the 

maximum label rate for proposed etofenprox use on vector control are presented in Table 3.16 

(Appendix F). 

Etofenprox is applied directly to flooded rice paddies via aerial application of granules; 

therefore, exposure from runoff via sheet flow and spray drift do not occur for rice applications. 

As such, the TerrPlant model is not appropriate to estimate potential EECs for terrestrial and 

semi-aquatic plants based on the proposed use of etofenprox on rice. Therefore, EECs for 

loading to semi-aquatic areas are derived by assuming that one acre-ft of water is released to a 

drainage ditch where semi-aquatic vegetation may be present. Given that 1 acre-ft of water = 

43,560 ft3 (or 1,233,482 L), the EEC for loading to semi-aquatic areas is based on the following 

equation: 

Table 3.16. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Near Etofenprox Use Areas. 

1,233,482 LIA x [concentration of etofenprox in paddy water of 1.2 pg a.i./L] = 1,480,178 pg 

a.i./A x [I kg/109 yg] = 0.00148 kg a.i.lA x [2.2 lbll kg] = 0.003 lbs ai1A. 

Crop 

Vector Control 

The EEC for loading to terrestrial plants is conservatively assumed to be equal to the maximum 

application rate for etofenprox use on rice or 0.27 lbs a.i./A. 

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization 

Single Max. 

Application 

Rate 

(lbs a.i./A) 

0.007 

The ecological effects characterization for etofenprox is based on registrant-submitted toxicity 

data for the parent compound and its alpha-CO and 4'-OH degradates. It should be noted that 

many of the ecotoxicity studies used in past Section 18 assessments were classified as 

EECs (lbs a.i./A) 

(Ground Spray, Aerial Spray) 

Total Loading to 

Semi-Aquatic Areas 

Ground 

spray 

0.00077 

Aerial 

spray 

0.00105 

Spray Drift 

Ground 

spray 

0.00007 

Dry Areas (Total) 

Aerial 

spray 

0.00035 

Ground 

spray 

0.00014 

Aerial 

spray 

0.00042 
bbprovisional", and have since been formally reviewed by the Agency. Appendix I lists these 

studies, their review classifications, and associated deficiencies. In addition, the 

ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) was searched in order to provide more ecological effects 

data. The available open literature data for etofenprox indicate lesser sensitivity to aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms, as compared to the registrant-submitted studies (ECOTOX, 2008). 

A description of available aquatic and terrestrial toxicity data for etofenprox and its degradates is 

provided in Section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, respectively. In addition, the results of a May 2008 review 

of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described in Section 3.3.3. 

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment 

A summary of the most sensitive aquatic toxicity data for etofenprox, based on a current Agency 

review of all submitted data, including studies previously classified as "provisional", is provided 

in Table 3.17 and discussed further in Sections 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.5. It should be noted that 

recoveries of etofenprox in the submitted aquatic toxicity studies were generally low, given the 

compound's low solubility in water and its propensity to sorb to glass surfaces. Although 

cosolvents were used to increase the solubility of etofenprox in aqueous solutions and Teflon 

tubing was utilized in a number of studies to decrease sorption to glass, there is uncertainty 

associated with reported test concentrations where low recovery is reported. 

The available data for the alpha-CO degradate indicate that it is not toxic to freshwater fish, 

invertebrates, and aquatic non-vascular plants at its limit of solubility in water (42.5 pg/L). With 

respect to the 4'-OH degradate, there is a lack of comparable toxicity data for 4'-OH and parent 

etofenprox; therefore, it is assumed that 4'-OH has similar toxicity to the parent. 

Table 3.17. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to 

Etofenprox Technical. 

Species 

Rainbow Trout 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Sheepshead Minnow 

Cyprinodon variegatus 

Waterflea 

Daphnia magna 

Midge 

Chironomus riparius 

Mysid 

Americanmysis bahia 

Aquatic Animals 

96-hr 

LC5dEC50 

(pg a.i./L) 

2.7 

>16.5 

-- 

-- 

0.0188 

Chronic 

NOAECI 

LOAEC 

(pg a.i./L) 

0.57 

(NoAEC 

based on 

ACR) 

-- 

0'1710'25 

3'8'20'9 

0.004 

(NOAEC 

based on 

Toxicity 

Endpoiots 

mm) 

NA 

-- 

Reproduction 

(47 1491-01) 

Dry weight 

(471328-10) 

NA 

Acute Toxicity 

48-hr EC50 

(pg a.i./L) 

-- 

-- 

0.8 

-- 

-- 

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID) 

toxic 

(436213-01) 

Not toxic at 

limit of 

solubility 

(436213-01) 

Very highly 

toxic 

(404497-30) 

-- 

Very highly 

toxic 

(471328-04) 
3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 

Table 3.17. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to 

Etofenprox Technical. 

Two freshwater fish acute toxicity studies using the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) are 

required to evaluate the toxicity of etofenprox to fish in support of registration for the new 

proposed food (i.e., rice) and non-food uses (i.e., vector control). Results from two submitted 

flow-through acute toxicity tests with fi-eshwater fish are listed in Table 3.18 below. The LCso 

values fall in the range of 2.7-12.6 yg a.i./L; therefore, etofenprox technical is classified as very 

highly toxic to fi-eshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. 

Eastern oyster 

Crassostrea virginica 

One additional freshwater fish acute flow-through toxicity study using the etofenprox degradate, 

alpha-CO, was submitted for the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Table 3.18). Based on 

the results of this limit test, no mortality or sublethal effects were observed at the highest meanmeasured test of concentration of 48.8 pglL (recovery was 79% of the nominal test 

concentration). Although the reported water solubility for alpha-CO is 42.5 pg/L, slightly lower 

than the highest mean-measured test concentration, a dimethyl formamide (DMF) solvent was 

used during the test. Based on the results of this study, it appears that alpha-CO does not cause 

acute mortality to freshwater fish at its limit of water solubility. 

>12 

Freshwater Algae 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapita 

Duckweed 

Lemna gibba 

Aquatic Plants 

Not toxic at 

limit of 

solubility 

(471328-03) 

Degradate. 

Study 

Classification 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Table 3.18. Freshwater 

Test Species1 

Test Substance 

(Flow-throughlstatic) 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Etofenprox technical 

(Flow-through) 

Bluegill sunfish 

(Lepomis rnacrochirus) 

Etofenprox technical 

(Flow-through) 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

alpha-CO degradate 

(Flow-through) 

72-hr ECS0= >18.8 

NOAEC = 18.8 

7-day ECS0 = >26 

NOAEC = 26 

ACR) 

-- 

No effect 

(471328-21) 

No effect 

(471328-1 1) 

-- 

Fish Acute Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical and 

Toxicity 

Category 

Very 

toxic 

Very 

toxic 

Not toxic at 

limit of 

water 

solubility 

Yo 

a.i. 

95.6 

95.6 

99.74 

Alpha-CO 

MRID No. 

436213-01 

4362 13-02 

471328-05 

96-hour LC,, (95% 

C.I.) 

(Measuredl 

Nominal)/ 

Slope 

2.7 (2.3-3.5) pg/L 

(Measured) 

Slope = 5.11 (2.76 - 

7.46) 

12.6 (1 1-18) pg/L 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 

>48.8 pgL 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 
A freshwater fish chronic early life stage toxicity test was submitted for zebrafish (Brachydanio 

rerio) with etofenprox (Table 3.19). The test had a duration of 40 days under flow-through 

conditions. No treatment-related effect on time to hatch, percent hatch, or terminal growth was 

observed; however, post-hatch survival was significantly reduced by approximately 49% at the 

highest test concentration of 52.1 pg/L. Test concentrations above the limit of solubility for 

etofenprox were achieved by using a DMF solvent; however, it should be noted that excessive 

analytical variation in measured concentrations (64% ranging from 28.2 to 77.5 pg/L) was 

observed in the highest test concentration. Therefore, there is uncertainty associated with the 

reported measured test concentrations. The corresponding NOAEC value for this study is 23 

pg/L. The zebrafish NOAEC value of 23 pg/L, which is based on mortality, is roughly one order 

of magnitude higher than the reported acute LC50 value for rainbow trout of 2.7 pg/L; therefore, 

it appears that there may be a wide range of freshwater fish species sensitivity to the toxic effects 

of etofenprox. Given that the zebrafish NOAEC is higher than the rainbow trout, a chronic 

NOAEC for freshwater fish was estimated based on the acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR) for 

freshwater invertebrates. Based on the ACR for freshwater invertebrates (daphnid ECso of 0.8 / 

daphnid NOAEC of 0.17 = 4.7), an estimated NOAEC value of 0.57 pg/L (rainbow trout LCso of 

2.7 pg/L 1 4.7) was derived for freshwater fish. It should be noted that there is uncertainty 

associated with applying an ACR derived for freshwater invertebrates to vertebrate taxa such as 

fish. 

Submittal of an early-life stage freshwater fish study, using rainbow trout and completed in 

accordance with the OPPTS 850.1400 guidelines, would reduce the uncertainty associated with 

using an ACR-derived NOAEC based on freshwater invertebrates to predict potential chronic 

mortality for freshwater fish. 

3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 

Table 3.19. Freshwater Fish Chronic Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical. 

Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity data for the waterflea are available for the TGAI and the 

alpha-CO degradate, and are presented in Table 3.20. The 48-hr ECso value for Daphnia 

exposure to the TGAI is 0.8 pg/L, classifying etofenprox as very highly toxic to freshwater 

invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. However, the available acute data for the alpha-CO 

degradate show that it is not toxic to freshwater invertebrates at the limit of its water solubility. 

Freshwater invertebrate acute toxicity data are not available for the 4'-OH degradate. An acute 

static freshwater invertebrate test with the waterflea for the 4'-OH degradate, per the OPPTS 

Test Species 

(Flow-throughlstatic; 

Duration) 

Zebrafish 

(Brachydanio rerio) 

(Flow-through; 40 days) 

% 

a,i. 

99 

NOAECILOAEC 

(Measuredl 

Nominal)/ 

NOAEC = 23.0 pg/L 

LOAEC = 52.1 pg/L 

(Measured) 

Effect 

Mortality 

MRID No. 

471328-08 

Study 

Classification 

Supplemental 

(variability in 

measured test 

concentrations; 

measured 

concentrations not 

provided for all 

treatment levels) 
850.101 0 guidelines, would provide information on the comparable sensitivity of freshwater 

invertebrates to the 4'-OH degradate and parent and reduce uncertainties associated with the 

assumption that 4'-OH has equivalent toxicity to parent etofenprox. 

One freshwater aquatic invertebrate chronic full life cycle toxicity test using the TGAI was 

submitted to evaluate the toxicity of etofenprox to aquatic invertebrates over 21 days in staticrenewal conditions. The results of the study, which are summarized in Table 3.21, indicate that 

the number of offspring per adult was reduced by 30% as compared to the solvent control at test 

concentrations of 0.25 yg/L; the corresponding NOAEC is 0.17 y g/L. It should be noted, 

however, that this study was classified as "supplemental" based on issues related to the lack of 

negative control testing and insufficient verification of concentrations and stability of etofenprox 

in aqueous solutions before and after each renewal period. Presumably, there is a greater 

propensity for etofenprox to sorb to glass and/or precipitate out of solution in a static-renewal 

study, given the dissipation of the cosolvent. Therefore, a chronic full life cycle toxicity test 

with the waterflea, according to OPPTS 850.1300 guidelines, would reduce the uncertainties 

associated with the chronic freshwater invertebrate data and its use in freshwater invertebrate 

ACR-based NOAEC values for freshwater fish and estuarinelmarine invertebrates. 

Table 3.20. Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical and Alpha-CO Degradate. 

Test Species/ 

Test Substance 

(Flow-throughlstatic) 

Waterflea 

(Daphnia magna) 

Etofenprox technical 

(Static) 

Waterflea 

(Daphnia magna) 

alpha-CO degradate 

(Static) 

Based on its high Koc (193,000 Llkgoc) and Kow (7.9E+06), etofenprox has a strong potential 

for adsorption to sediment. Therefore, two static studies, which are summarized in Table 3.22, 

have been submitted by the registrant to assess potential exposure of sediment-dwelling 

fieshwater invertebrate midge to etofenprox and its degradate, 4'-OH. However, both studies are 

of limited utility because overlying water, not sediment, was spiked, and only nominal exposure 

concentrations were provided. According to OECD guideline 2 19, spiking of the water column 

Table 3.21. Freshwater Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical 

Yo 

a.i. 

95.6 

99.74 

Test Species 

(Flow-throughlstatic; 

Duration) 

Waterflea 

(Daphnia magna) 

(Static-renewal; 2 1 days) 

48-hour ECS0 (95% 

C.I.) 

(Measured 

Nominal)/ 

Slope 

0.8 (0.6-1.0) yg/L 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 

'44 P& 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 

% 

a.i. 

96.5 

Toxicity 

Category 

Very 

toxic 

Not toxic at 

limit of 

water 

solubility 

NOAECILOAEC 

(Measured 

Nominal)/ 

NOAEC = 0.17 pa 

LOAEC = 0.25 yg/L 

(Measured) 

MRID No. 

404497-30 

471328-02 

Effect 

Reproduction 

Study 

Classification 

Supplemental 

(variability in 

measured test 

concentrations) 

Acceptable 

MRID No. 

471491-01 

Study 

Classification 

Supplemental (no 

negative control; 

variability in test 

concentrations) 
is intended to simulate a pesticide spray drift event and be representative of the initial peak of 

concentrations in pore water. However, given the rapid partitioning of etofenprox to sediment in 

aquatic systems, it is unlikely that nominal exposure concentrations in overlying water provide 

an accurate representation of exposure over time for benthic invertebrates such as C. riparius. 

In the non-guideline study with technical grade etofenprox, a 25% reduction in dry weight of C. 

riparius was observed after 10 days of static exposure as compared to the control at a 

concentration of 20.9 y g/L (LOAEC), with a corresponding NOAEC value of 3.8 y glL. The test 

system for this study included artificial sediment and spiked overlying water; however, only 

nominal concentrations of the water were provided and no measurements of etofenprox in pore 

water or sediment were reported. The treated sedimentlwater systems were established 8 days 

prior to introduction of the test organisms. Given the propensity for etofenprox to sorb and also 

given its limited solubility, the absence of measured concentrations represents a major 

uncertainty in the actual bioavailabilty of the test compound. 

In a second acute (48-hour) toxicity study under static conditions with the degradate, 4'-OH, an 

LC50 value of 50.2 yg/L (solubility of 4'-OH = 2 17 yg/L) was reported for C. riparius. 

However, this static test system included only water and no sediment. 

Given the persistence of and tendency for etofenprox to bind to sediment, submittal of an 

additional chronic spiked sediment study with C. riparius for the TGAI per OPPTS 850.1735 

guidelines would reduce the uncertainty associated with the potential exposure of sedimentbound etofenprox to sediment-dwelling freshwater invertebrates. A chronic 28-day spiked 

sediment study (with suitable corresponding range finding tests) is needed based on the predicted 

half-life of etofenprox in sediment of 7 to 25 days. 

Table 3.22. Toxicity of Sediment-Dwelling Freshwater Invertebrates to Etofenprox Technical and 4'-OH 

Degradate 

Test Species 

(Test Substance; Flowthrough / 

StatiqDuration) 

Chironomus riparius 

(Etofenprox technical; 

Static; 10 days; spiked 

overlying water in test 

system including water 

and sediment) 

Chironomus riparius 

(4'-OH; Static; 48 hours; 

spiked overlying water in 

test system including 

water and no sediment) 

Endpoint (Measuredl 

Nominal)/ 

NOAEC = 3.8 pg/L 

LOAEC = 20.9 pg/L 

(Nominal) 

48-hr LCso = 50.2 pg/L 

(95% CI = 43.3-58.2 

P~L) 

Slope = 8.60 

(Measured) 

% 

a.i. 

99.7 

96 

Effect 

Dry Weight 

Mortality 

MRID No. 

471328-10 

47 1328- 1 1 

Study Classification 

Supplemental (nonguideline study; 

concentrations not 

measured in overlying 

water, pore water, or 

sediment; static test 

regime; spiked 

overlying water) 

Supplemental (nonguideline study; 

exposure concentrations 

not verified for all test 

concentrations; no 

sediment included in 

test system) 
3.3.1.3. Toxicity to EstuarineIMarine Fish 

One estuarinelrnarine fish acute toxicity study with the TGAI was required to evaluate the 

toxicity of etofenprox to fish in support of registration for food and non-food uses. Results from 

the submitted flow-through acute test are listed in Table 3.23 below. No mortality or sublethal 

effects were observed at the highest test concentration; therefore, the LC50 value for sheepshead 

minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) is >16.5 pglL. Although the highest mean-measured test 

concentration of 16.5 pg/L is slightly below the solubility limit of etofenprox (22.5 yglL); the 

corresponding nomimal concentration of 20 pg/L was selected to represent the limit of solubility 

in saltwater. Therefore, etofenprox technical is not acutely toxic to estuarinelrnarine fish at the 

limit of the chemical's solubility in saltwater. 

Chronic toxicity data for estuarinelmarine fish are not available. 

Table 3.23. EstuarineMarine Fish Acute Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical. 

3.3.1.4. Toxicity to EstuarineIMarine Invertebrates 

Test Species 

(Flow-throughlstatic) 

Sheepshead Minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus) 

(Flow-through) 

Estuarinelmarine invertebrate acute toxicity data for etofenprox are summarized in Table 3.24. 

The 96-hr LC50 value for mysid shrimp (Americamysis bahia) exposure to the TGAI is 0.01 88 

yg/L, classifying etofenprox as very highly toxic to estuarinelmarine invertebrates. In a 96-hr 

flow-through shell deposition study with estuarinelmarine mollusks, the ECS~ value for the 

Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) was reported as >12 pg/L, the highest test concentration. 

Although significant reduction in mean shell deposition of 22% and 24% was observed in the 

two highest test concentrations (7.3 and 12 pg/L, respectively) relative to the negative control, it 

appears that this level of reduction in shell deposition is similar to that observed in the solvent 

control (20%). Mean shell deposition in the negative and solvent controls was reported as 5.4 

rnm and 4.3 mm, respectively; at test concentrations of 7.3 and 12 pg/L, respective mean shell 

deposition values were 4.2 mm and 4.1 mm. The study authors report no significant differences 

(p0.05) between the negative and solvent control groups, and, therefore, pooled the control data 

for comparison with the etofenprox treatment groups. Based on a comparison of the pooled data 

with treatment levels, no significant reduction in shell deposition was observed at any of the test 

concentrations. Time-weighted average concentrations yielded recoveries of 53-68% of 

nominal; however, the test material appeared to be stable with 96-hour recoveries ranging from 

89-109% of 0-hour measured concentrations. Similar to what was done for the estuarinelrnarine 

fish study, the highest mean-measured test concentration of 12 pg/L is less than the aqueous 

solubility limit of etofenprox (22.5 pg/L); however, the corresponding nomimal concentration of 

20 pg/L was selected to represent the limit of solubility in saltwater. Therefore, etofenprox 

technical is not acutely toxic to estuarinelrnarine mollusks at its limit of solubility in saltwater. 

YO 

a.i. 

>99.5 

96-hour LC5, (95% 

C.1.) 

(Measuredl 

Nominal)/ 

Slope 

>16.5 pg/L 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 

Toxicity 

Category 

Not toxic at 

the limit of 

its solubility 

MRID No. 

471328-06 

Study 

Classification 

Acceptable 
Chronic toxicity data for estuarinelmarine invertebrates are not available. Therefore a chronic 

NOAEC for estuarinelrnarine invertebrates was estimated based on the acute-to-chronic ratio 

(ACR) for freshwater invertebrates. Given the ACR for freshwater invertebrates (daphnid ECS0 

of 0.81 daphnid NOAEC of 0.1 7 = 4.7), an estimated NOAEC value of 0.004 pg/L (mysid LCSo 

of 0.0 1 88 pg/L 1 4.7) was derived for estuarinelmarine invertebrates. However, as previously 

discussed, there are uncertainties associated with the chronic freshwater invertebrate data based 

on the lack of negative control testing and insufficient stability of etofenprox in aqueous 

solutions. 

Given that etofenprox may be applied within proximity to estuarinelrnarine environments at up 

to 25 applications per year for vector control, there is likelihood for chronic exposure to 

estuarinelmarine invertebrates. In addition, the available aquatic toxicity data indicates 

etofenprox is very highly toxic to estuarinelrnarine invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. 

Submittal of a mysid full life cycle test would reduce uncertainties associated with the potential 

for risk to estuarinelrnarine invertebrates associated with chronic exposure to etofenprox. 

Table 3.24. EstuarineIMarine Invertebrate Acute Toxici3 

3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants 

to Etofenprox Technical. 

Tier I acute aquatic plant toxicity studies were submitted for non-vascular and vascular plants 

using the TGAI. In addition, a Tier I study was also submitted for non-vascular plants with the 

etofenprox degradate, alpha-CO. The results of these studies, which are summarized in Table 

3.25, indicate that etofenprox and its alpha-CO degradate are not toxic to aquatic plants on an 

acute exposure basis at its limit of solubility in water. 

96-hour LC/ECSO 

(95% C.I.) 

(Measuredl 

Nominal)/ 

Slope 

= 0.0188 

(0.0144-0.0249) pg/L 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 

Shell deposition EC50 

= >12 pgn 

(Measured) 

Slope = NA 

Test Species 

(Flow-throughlstatic) 

Mysid 

(Arnericamysis bahia) 

(Flow-through) 

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) 

(Flow-through) 

Toxicity 

Category 

Very highly 

toxic 

toxic at 

the limit of 

its solubility 

YO 

a.i. 

>99.5 

>99.5 

MRID No. 

471328-04 

471328-03 

Study 

Classification 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 
3.3.2 Terrestrial Effects Characterization 

Table 3.25. Acute Toxiciy 

Test Species 

(Test Substance; Flowthrough / 

Static;Duration) 

Freshwater Algae 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapita 

(Etofenprox technical; 

Static; 72 hours 

Duckweed 

Lemnp gibba 

(Etofenprox technical; 

Static-renewal; 7 days) 

Freshwater Algae 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapita 

(alpha-CO; Static; 96 

hours 

A summary of the most sensitive terrestrial animal toxicity data for etofenprox, based on a 

current Agency review of all submitted data, including studies previously classified as 

"provisional", is provided in Table 3.26 and discussed Mher in Sections 3.3.2.1 through 

3.3.2.3. The data indicate that etofenprox is practically non-toxic to birds and mammals on an 

acute exposure basis. The available data for terrestrial plants, which are provided in Section 

3.3.2.4, indicate that no effect greater than 25% was observed in seedling emergence or 

vegetative vigor Tier I tests. 

of 

% 

a.i. 

98.86 

>99.5 

99.74 

Table 3.26. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Animals Exposed to 

Aquatic Plants to Etofenprox 

Endpoint (Measuredl 

Nominal)/ 

72-hr ECSo >18.8 pglL 

NOAEC = 18.8 pg/L 

(Measured) 

7-D ECso >26 pg1L 

NOAEC = 26 pglL 

(Measured) 

96-hr EC50 >53 pg/L 

NOAEC = 53 pg/L 

(Measured) 

Technical and 

Effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Species/ 

Chemical 

Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Mallard Duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

Laboratory Rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus) 

Honey Bee 

(Apis mellifera) 

Alpha-CO 

MRID No. 

471328-21 

47 1328-22 

467797-07 

Chronic 

NOAEC/ 

LOAEC 

(mglkg diet 

(ppm)) 

y0171>71017 

170101>1y010 

479001>47900 

-- 

Degradate 

Study Classification 

Supplemental (duration 

of exposure is less than 

96 hours) 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Etofenprox Technical. 

Toxicity 

Endpoints 

(MRID) 

No effect 

(467797-05) 

No effect 

('7132,13) 

No effect on 

reproductive 

parameters 

(404497- 13) 

-- 

Toxicity 

Classification 

Wm) 

Practically nontoxic 

(404497-26) 

Practically nontoxic 

(404497-25, - 

27) 

Practically nontoxic 

(404497-24) 

Highly toxic 

(471328-14) 

Toxicity 

%day LCS0 

(mglkg diet 

(ppm) 

>4,890 

>4y890 

-- 

-- 

48-hr 

LD5o 

Pg 

a.i./bee 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.0145 

Acute 

14-day 

LD50 

(mglhg 

bw) 

-- 

>2,000 

>42,880 

-- 
3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Birds 

One avian acute oral study using the TGAI was required to establish the toxicity of etofenprox to 

birds. The preferred test species are mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) or bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus). Results of this test are presented in Table 3.27 below. The LDS0 for 

mallard duck is >2,000 mg/kg body weight (BW); therefore, etofenprox is classified as 

practically non-toxic to avian species on an acute oral exposure basis. In addition, no treatmentrelated clinical signs of toxicity or effects on body weight or feed consumption were observed. 

Avian subacute dietary toxicity tests were required for upland game and waterfowl bird species. 

Results of two submitted tests are listed in Table 3.28 below. The LCso values for both avian 

species are greater than the highest treatment level of 4,890 mglkg-diet; therefore, etofenprox is 

classified as practically non-toxic to avian species on a subacute dietary exposure basis. No 

treatment-related sublethal effects related to body weight changes or clinical signs of toxicity 

were observed in either study. 

Table 3.27. Avian Acute Oral Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical. 

Test Species 

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 

Two avian reproduction tests using the TGAI were submitted to establish the chronic toxicity of 

etofenprox to birds. Results from these studies are summarized in Table 3.29 below. In both 

studies, no treatment-related effects on survival, growth, andlor reproduction were observed at 

the highest dietary concentrations tested. The chronic avian NOAEC values for bobwhite quail 

and mallard duck are 1,O 17 and 1,010 mg/kg-diet, respectively. 

Table 3.28. Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical. 

% 

a.i. 

96.3 

Test Species 

Northern bobwhite 

quail 

(Colinus virginianus) 

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 

LD50 (mglkg 

BW) 

>2,000 

YO 

a.i. 

96.3 

96.3 

Toxicity 

Category 

Practically 

non-toxic 

8-Day LCSo 

(mglkg-diet) 

(Measured/Nominal) 

>4,890 

(Measured) 

>4,890 

(Measured) 

MRID 

404497-25 

Toxicity 

Category 

Practically 

non-toxic 

Practically 

non-toxic 

Study 

Classification 

Acceptable 

MRID No. 

404497-26 

404497-27 

Study Classification 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 
3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals 

Table 3.29. Avian Chronic Toxicity to Etofenprox Technical. 

Three mammalian acute oral toxicity studies using the TGAI were submitted to establish the 

toxicity of etofenprox to mammals. Results of these tests are presented in Table 3.30 below. 

The acute mammalian oral LD50 values exceed 5,000 mgkg body weight; therefore, etofenprox 

is classified as practically non-toxic to mammalian species on an acute oral exposure basis. 

Test Species 

Northern bobwhite 

quail 

(Colinus virginianus) 

Mallard duck 

(Anus platyrhynchos) 

A 2-generation rat (Rattus nowegicus) reproduction study using the TGAI was submitted to 

establish the toxicity of etofenprox to mammals over prolonged periods. Results from this test 

are listed in Table 3.31 below. Etofenprox resulted in a significant increase of liver weights in 

offspring at 700 ppm diet with a corresponding NOAEC of 100 ppm diet. Histopathological 

effects in the liver included centrilobular hepatocyte enlargement; however, no histopathological 

effects were observed in the thyroid. Measures of growth, survival, and reproduction were not 

impaired at any of the dietary test concentrations. Although an increase in liver weight was 

observed, it is not possible to quantitatively link the impact of increased liver weight in offspring 

to the assessment endpoints of impaired growth, survival, andlor reproduction. No treatmentrelated effects on mating performance, pregnancy rate, duration of pregnancy, sex ratio, and live 

litter weight at the highest treatment level; therefore, the NOAEC for reproductive parameters is 

4,900 ppm. 

% 

a.i. 

96.3 

>99.5 

Table 3.30. Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity to Etofenprox 

NOAEC/LOAEC 

(mglkg-diet) 

NOAEC = 1,017 

LOAEC = >1,017 

NOAEC = 1,010 

LOAEC = >1 ,O 10 

Test Species 

Rat 

(Sprague-Dawley) 

(Rattus nowegicus) 

Mouse 

(IcR) 

(Mus musculus) 

Dog 

(Beagle) 

(Canis lupus familiaris) 

Technical. 

Toxicity 

Category 

Practically 

non-toxic 

Practically 

non-toxic 

Practically 

non-toxic 

Effect 

No effect 

No effect 

YO 

a.i. 

96.3 

96.3 

96.3 

LDso 

(mglkg- BW) 

>42,880 

>107,200 

>5,000 

MRID 

402377-03 

402377-04 

404497-24 

MRID No. 

467797-05 

471328-13 

Study 

Classification 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Study Classification 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 
3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects 

Table 3.31. Mammalian Chronic Toxicity of Etofenprox Technical. 

An acute contact toxicity study of bees is required, and a 72-hr acute contact toxicity study using 

the TGAI was submitted to establish the toxicity of etofenprox to honey bees (Apis mellifera). 

Based on the results of this study, significant effects on mortality of bees were observed at all 

treatment levels, ranging from 0.005 to 0.5 yg a.i./bee. The corresponding LDso is 0.0145 yg 

a.i./bee; therefore, etofenprox is categorized as highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact 

toxicity basis. 

Given the reported acute honeybee LDsO value for the TGAI, an additional honey bee toxicity 

study of residues on foliage was required for the typical end-use product (TEP). A foliage 

residue toxicity test with the honey bee was submitted for RF2056 OL, an oil miscible liquid 

(OL) formulation of etofenprox (20% a.i.) product proposed for new use as a mosquito 

adulticide. Based on the results of this study, honeybees showed no treatment-related mortality 

and/or sublethal effects when exposed for 24 hours to alfalfa foliage collected at 3, 8, and 24 

hours after application of RF2056 OL (etofenprox) at the highest allowable application rate of 

0.007 lb a.i./A. Alfalfa foliage was at flowering stage during the study, and the bees were 

confined to the treated test chambers for the duration of the test. 

The results of the acute contact and foliage residue toxicity studies with honeybees are 

summarized in Table 3.32. 

Effect 

Increased liver 

weight in offspring 

No effect on 

reproductive 

parameters 

NOAELI 

LOAEL 

NOAEC =lo0 ppm (5 

mglkglday) 

LOAEC = 700 ppm (35 

mglkglday) 

NOAEC = 4,900 ppm 

(245 mglkglday) 

LOAEC = 4,900 ppm 

(245 mglkglday) 

Test Species 

Rat 

(Charles River) 

(Rattus 

norvegicus) 

% 

a.i. 

96.3 

MRID 

404497-1 3 

Study 

Classification 

Acceptable 
As shown in Table 3.33, five additional non-guideline laboratory studies on non-target 

arthropods were submitted for Trebonm 30 EC and MTI--~OO 30% EC, which are synonyms for 

similar emulsifiable concentrate formulations of etofenprox. These studies were submitted as 

part of a European Union (EU) requirement for non-target arthropod toxicity testing. Both 

products contain approximately 30% of TGAI etofenprox. Tests were conducted on the green 

lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea), predatory heteropteran bug (Orius laevigatus), and the 

predaceous mite (Typhlodrornuspyri) via exposure to TrebonM 30 EC-treated dwarf bean leaves. 

Studies were also conducted with MTI~~-~OO 30% EC on the predaceous mite and the parasitoid 

wasp (Aphidius rholaposiphi); these arthropods were exposed to MTI~-~OO 30% EC via treated 

glass of the treatment units. All studies are classified as supplemental because they are nonguideline tests. 

Table 3.32. Honeybee Acute Toxicity. 

Based on the results of non-target arthropod studies of various exposure durations (ranging from 

2 to 30 days), it appears that the predaceous mite and the parasitoid wasp are most sensitive to 

MTfM-500 30% EC (~rebon- 30 EC) with respective LCso values of 0.0006 lb a.i./A and 0.0004 

lb a.i./A as compared to values ranging from 0.002 to 0.016 lb a.i./A for the other tested 

arthropods. In addition to mortality, significant reproductive effects were also observed in the 

green lacewing and parasitoid wasp at treatment levels of 0.008 and 0.0003 lb a.i./A, 

respectively. 

Toxicity 

Category 

Highly 

toxic 

Test Species / 

Test Substance 

Honeybee 

(Apis mellvera) 

Etofenprox 

Technical 

% 

a.i. 

99.6 

Exposure 

Route 

Acute 

contact 

-- 

Acceptable 

Source 

471328-14 

72-hr LDsO = 

0.0145 &bee 

(95% CI = 

0.0076 - 

0.0278 

~g/bee) 

Slope = 0.914 

RTZs = Residue threshold causing effect to 25% of the test population. 

Study 

Classification 

Supplemental (no 

negative control) 

Honeybee 

-- 

(Apis mellifera) 

RF2056 OL 

-20 Foliage 

residue 

RT2, = > 

0.007 lb aiiA1 NA 473260-0 1 
3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 

Table 3.33. Toxicity 

Test Species I Test 

Substance 

Green lacewing 

(Chrysoperla 

carnea) 

~rebon~ 30 EC 

Predatory bug 

(Orius laevigatus) 

~rebo;~ 30 EC 

Predaceous mite 

(Typhlodromus 

PY~, 

MTI -50030% 

EC 

Predaceous mite 

(Typhlodromus 

PY~ , 

Trebon 30 EC 

Parasitoid wasp 

(Aph idius 

rholaposiphi) 

MT~~-~OO 30% 

EC 

Terrestrial plant vegetative vigor and seedling emergence toxicity tests using monocotyledonous 

(monocots) and dicotyledonous (dicots) plants are required. Two Tier I terrestrial non-target 

plant studies with MTP-500 30% EC (~rebon~" 30 EC) were submitted to assess the toxicity of 

etofenprox to terrestrial plants. The results of these tests are summarized in Table 3.34. 

Nominal application rates of 0 (negative and formulation blank controls) and 0.176 lb a.i./A were 

tested; however, the values reported in Table 3.34 are based on mean-measured concentrations. 

The Tier I test concentration of 0.176 lbs a.i./A is roughly equivalent to the maximum allowable 

annual application rate for the proposed ULV spray use of etofenprox for vector control. It 

should be noted, however, that this test concentration is less than the single maximum granular 

application rate being proposed for rice (0.27 lbs a.i./A). Given that terrestrial plant exposure to 

granules during application of etofenprox to rice paddies is expected to occur when granules are 

inadvertently applied to non-target areas, the lack of toxicity testing at the maximum application 

rate for rice adds uncertainty to this assessment. 

No effect greater than 25% was observed in either the seedling emergence or vegetative vigor 

Tier I tests; therefore, Tier I1 studies are not required. Based on lowest mean-measured 

concentration, the EC25 value for all test plant species is greater than the highest treatment 

concentration tested, i.e., ECz5>0.148 lb a.i./A. The only statistically significant reduction was 

observed for the dicot lettuce (Latuca sativa), where dry weight and shoot height were reduced 

by 16% and 1 1 %, respectively, in the seedling emergence test at 0.15 1 lb a.i./A as compared to 

to Other 

Purity 

30.3% 

wlw 

3 0.3% 

wlw 

30.0% 

wlw 

30'3" wlw 

30.0% 

wlw 

Beneficial Insects. 

Endpoint 

30-day LCs0 = 0.016 lb 

a.i./A 

NOAEC = 0.004 lb a.i.1A 

LOAEC = 0.008 lb a.i./A 

9-day LCSo = 0.002 Ib 

a.i./A 

NOAEC = 0.006 lb a.i.1A 

LOAEC = 0.001 lb a.i./A 

7-day LC50 = 0.0006 lb 

a.i./A; slope = 2.02 

NOAEC = <0.0002 lb 

a.i.1A 

LOAEC = 0.0002 Ib ai1A 

7-day LCS0 = 0.005 Ib 

a.i./A; slope = 6.79 

NOAEC = 0.0009 Ib 

a.i./A 

LOAEC = 0.004 lb a.i./A 

2-day LC50 = 0.0004 lb 

a.i./A; slope = 14.1 

NOAEC = 0.0002 lb 

a.i./A 

LOAEC = 0.0003 lb 

a.i.lA 

Effect 

LCso = mortality; 

NOAECILOAEC 

= gcundity 

LC50 and 

NOAECILOAEC 

= mortality 

and 

NOAECILOAEC 

= mortality 

and 

NOAECILOAEC 

= mortality 

LCs0 = mortality; 

NOAECILOAEC 

= mortality and 

reproduction 

Source 

47 1328- 15 

471 328- 16 

47 1328-1 7 

471328-18 

471328-19 

Study 

Classification 

Supplemental 

(non-guideline 

study) 

Supplemental 

(non-guideline 

study) 

Supplemental 

(non-guideline 

study) 

Supplemental 

(non-guideline 

study) 

Supplemental 

(nonyideline 

study) 
the control. The corresponding NOAEC seedling emergence value is <0.15 1 lb a.i./A for lettuce 

and between 0.148 lb a.i./A and 0.165 lb a.i.lA for all other dicots and monocots. No statistically 

significant effects were reported on any of the test species in the vegetative vigor tests; therefore, 

the NOAEC values are equal to the lowest measured application rate for monocots and dicots of 

0.15 1 lb a.i./A and 0.157 lb a.i./A, respectively. Without plant toxicity data for the maximum 

proposed application rate for rice of 0.27 lbs a.i./A, it is unclear whether an EC25 value could 

have been established for lettuce, given the 16% reduction in dry weight at a concentration of 

0.15 1 lbs a.i./A. A Tier I1 seedling emergence test with lettuce and a Tier I seedling emergence 

test with the nine other tested plant species at a maximum test concentration of 0.27 lbs a.i./A, 

per OPPTS 850.4225 and OPPTS 850.4100, respectively, would reduce the uncertainties 

associated with potential effects to terrestrial plants following application of etofenprox to rice. 

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data 

Dicots 

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), which is maintained by the Agency's Office 

of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if any ecological incidents have been reported 

for etofenprox. Based on a May 2008 review of EIIS, no ecological incidents had been reported 

-Page 53 of 150- 

* Based on measured application rates. Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoints. ' The seedling emergence toxicity tests are classified as supplemental because the Tier I test concentration 

is approximately two times less the maximum application rate for rice of 0.27 lbs a.i./A. Based on the 

method of application for rice (aerial application of granules), the submitted Tier I vegetative vigor tests are 

classified as acceptable. 

Lettuce 

Rape 

Tomato 

Cucumber 

Soybean 

>0.160 

3.165 

>O. 160 

>O. 165 

>0.157 

0.160 

0.165 

0.160 

0.165 

0.157 

none 

none 

none 

none 

none 

467797-06 

467797-06 

467797-06 

47 1328-20 

47 1328-20 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 
for etofenprox. Because of limitations in the incident reporting system, the lack of incident 

reports cannot be construed as the absence of incidents from the registered use of etofenprox. 

Given that previous registered uses have been limited to residential environments and are 

primarily indoor uses, the likelihood of non-target effects has been low. 

4. Risk Characterization 

4.1. Risk Estimation 

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms 

Surface water EECs for the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control are 

based on the Tier I Rice Model (with a provisional modification to allow for biodegradation) and 

a combination of the AGDISP and PRZMIEXAMS model, respectively. Based on the residues 

of concern, peak EECs are used to represent acute exposure to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and 

aquatic plants, and the highest 21 -day and 60-day average EECs represent chronic exposure to 

aquatic invertebrates and fish, respectively. Because rice paddies are drained periodically, 

aquatic receptors are unlikely to be present within flooded rice fields. Therefore, risk quotients 

for the proposed new rice use are derived for aquatic organisms based on exposure to etofenprox 

residues of concern in treated, discharged rice paddy water (tail water). Vector control EECs are 

derived for a water body downwind of application. Both vector control and rice paddy tail water 

EECs used in aquatic RQ derivation are based the upper-bound estimated Koc value of 1.93E+05 

L/kgoc (EpiSuite v3.20). 

4.1.1.1. Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates 

Acute and chronic RQs are calculated for freshwater fish and pelagic invertebrates that may be 

exposed to treated rice paddy tail water as well as surface water following aerial applications of 

etofenprox for vector control. As shown in Table 4.1, the acute risk to listed species LOC 

(RQ20.05) and the acute restricted use LOC (RQLO. 1) are exceeded for freshwater fish and 

invertebrates based on the proposed new uses of etofenprox. The acute risk to non-listed species 

LOC (RQ20.5) for freshwater invertebrates is also met or exceeded based on the proposed new 

uses of etofenprox. In addition, RQs exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ21 .O) for freshwater fish 

and invertebrates based on the new rice use and for freshwater invertebrates based on the new 

vector control use. 
It is not possible to derive RQs for freshwater benthic invertebrates because the available toxicity 

data for C. riparius provide only nominal concentrations of etofenprox in overlying water, not 

sediment. Given the likely rapid partitioning of etofenprox to sediment in aquatic systems, 

nominal concentrations in overlying water are not expected to provide a realistic measure of 

exposure to benthic invertebrates. Therefore, risks to benthic invertebrates are presumed. The 

potential for adverse effects to benthic invertebrates, based on the proposed new etofenprox uses 

for rice and vector control, is discussed further as part of the risk description in Section 4.2.1.1. 

Table 4.1. Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates Exposed to Etofenprox in Rice 

Paddy Tail Water and Surface Water Following Vector Control Use. 

4.1.1.2. EstuarineIMarine Fish and Invertebrates 

Acute RQs were not derived for estuarinelrnarine fish and mollusks because the available 

toxicity data indicate that etofenprox is not toxic to these taxa at the limit of its solubility in 

water. However, as shown in Table 4.2, acute RQs for estuarinelmarine invertebrates (i.e., 

mysid) exceed the acute risk to listed speces, acute restricted use, and acute risk to non-listed 

species LOCs for both proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control with RQ 

values ranging from approximately 21 to 63. No data are available to calculate RQs for chronic 

exposures to estuarinelmarine invertebrates; therefore, a NOAEC value of 0.004 yg/L was 

estimated based on the ACR for freshwater invertebrates. Based on the estimated NOAEC 

value, chronic RQs ranging from 68 to 293 exceed the LOC for estuarinelmarine invertebrates 

for both proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control. 

Use 

(APP. 

Method) 

Rice (aerial 

granular) 

Vector 

Control 

(aerial 

RQ > the acute listed species LOC (0.05) and the acute restricted use LOC (0.1). 2 RQ > the acute non-listed species LOC (0.5). 

RQ 2 the chronic risk LOC (1.0). 

Application 

Rate 

lbs a.i./A 

(#app 1 interval 

in days) 

0.27 

(110) 

0.007 

EECs 

(~gn) 

Table 4.2. Acute RQs for EstuarineIMarine Invertebrates Exposed to Etofenprox in Rice Paddy Tail Water 

and Surface Water Following Vector Control Use. 

Peak 

1.18 

0.40 

Fish and Amphibian 

RQs 

LCs0 = 2.7 pgL 

NOAEC = 0.57 pglL 

Use 

(App' 

Method) 

Rice (aerial 

granular) 

Vector 

Control 

(aerial) 

21-day 

1.17 

0.27 

Acute 

0.44' 

0.19 

Invertebrate RQs 

LCs0 = 0.8 pg/L 

NOAEC = 0.17 

RQ 2 the acute listed species LOC (0.05), acute restricted use LOC (0.1), and the acute non-listed species LOC 

(0.5). 

RQ 2 the chronic risk LOC (1.0). 

Application Rate 

lbs a.i./A 

(#app / interval in 

days) 

0.27 

(110) 

0.007 

(2513) 

60-day 

1.16 

(25/3) 

0.27 

Chronic 

2.04~ 

0.47 

Acute 

1.48'~ 

0.50'~' 

EECs 

(Ccgm 

Chronic 

6.8g3 

1.59~ 

Peak 

1.18 

0.40 

Invertebrate RQs 

Mysid LCSo = 0.0188 yg/L 

Estimated NOAEC = 0.004 yg/L 

21-day 

1.17 

0.27 

Acute 

62.8' 

21.3' 

Chronic 

293' 

68' 
4.1.1.3. Aquatic Plants 

For aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants, all RQ values are 10.5 (based on a peak exposure 

concentration of 1.18 pg/L and no adverse effects to duckweed and freshwater algae at 

respective concentrations of 26 and 18.8 pgIL); therefore, LOCs are not exceeded for aquatic 

plants. 

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms 

4.1.2.1. Birds and Mammals 

Although birds and mammals may be exposed to etofenprox via incidental ingestion of granules 

(rice), consumption of drinking water fiom treated rice paddy fields (rice), consumption of 

contaminated aquatic species in which etofenprox may have bioaccumulated (rice and vector 

control), and consumption of etofenprox residues on food items via spray applications (vector 

control), acute and chronic RQs are not calculated for these exposure pathways because only 

non-definitive acute and chronic toxicity endpoints are available for birds and mammals. Based 

on the available toxicity data, no acute mortality and/or chronic growth, reproductive, or survival 

effects were observed in any of the avian and mammalian studies at the highest 

concentrations/doses tested. Therefore, the risk of acute mortality andlor chronic effects from 

the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control is presumably lower than the 

Agency's concern levels (i.e., based on a comparison of estimated exposure with non-definitive 

toxicity endpoints where no effect was observed at the highest test concentration). Further 

discussion of the predicted exposure values relative to the levels at which no mortality or other 

sublethel effects were observed is provided as part of the risk description in Sections 4.2.2.1.1 

through 4.2.2.1.4. 

4.1.2.2. Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Toxicity information for beneficial insects is used to develop precautionary label language where 

necessary. Based on the available data for honey bees, etofenprox TGAI is classified as highly 

toxic to non-target terrestrial invertebrates on an acute contact basis. The results of the acute 

contact study show significant mortality to bees at all treatment levels ranging from 0.005 to 0.5 

pg a.i./bee with a corresponding LDso value of 0.0145 pg a.i./bee. 

In addition, a foliage residue toxicity test with the honey bee was submitted for oil miscible 

liquid formulation (RF2056 OL; 20% a.i) proposed for vector control use as an adult 

mosquitocide. The results of this study show no treatment-related mortality and/or sublethal 

effects to honey bees exposed to RF2056 OL for 24 hour on alfalfa foliage at the highest 

allowable application rate of 0.007 lb a.i./A. Therefore the RT~s was determined to be >0.007 lb 

a.i./A. 

The results of the honey bee studies indicate that direct contact exposure to etofenprox may 

result in adverse effects to beneficial terrestrial invertebrates such as pollinators in and around 

the use areas for the proposed new uses of etofenprox, although adverse effects to honey bees 
based on the limited 24-hr exposure to the RF2056 OL formulation on foliage appear to be low. 

Additional characterization of the potential risks of etofenprox to terrestrial invertebrates, 

including consideration of non-guideline laboratory studies to non-target arthropods, is provided 

as part of the risk description in Section 4.2.2.2. 

4.1.2.3. Terrestrial Plants 

The results of the non-target terrestrial plant data show no effect to the ten tested plants greater 

than 25% in either the seedling emergence or vegetative Tier I tests at the single nominal test 

concentration of 0.176 lbs a.i.1A (mean-measured values ranged from 0.148 to 0.165 lbs a.i./A); 

therefore, all of the EC25 values are non-definitive endpoints. Out of the ten species tested in 

both the seedling emergence and the vegetative vigor studies, there were no adverse effects 

reported, with the exception of a reduction in dry weight and shoot height (16 and 1 1 % as 

compared to the control) in lettuce in the seedling emergence study. It should be noted, 

however, that the maximum rate tested in the Tier I tests (0.176 lbs a.i./A) is approximately 65% 

of the maximum proposed application rate for rice (0.27 lbs a.i.1A); therefore, it is unclear 

whether effects to lettuce may have approached the EC25 if the higher application rate for rice 

had been tested. 

Based on the lack of definitive endpoints and submitted Tier I testing with application rates that 

are less than the maximum etofenprox application rate for rice, it is not possible to derive RQs 

for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants. Further discussion of the predicted exposure values for 

terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants relative to the levels at which no effects were observed and 

uncertainties associated with predicted risks based on the proposed use of etofenprox on rice is 

provided as part of the risk description in Section 4.2.2.3. 

4.2. Risk Description 

The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of 

etofenprox on rice and for vector control have the potential for direct adverse acute effects to 

freshwater fish and invertebrates and estuarinelmarine invertebrates. Chronic risk LOCs for 

freshwater fish and freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates are also exceeded based on 

these use patterns. With respect to terrestrial risks, potential risks to birds and mammals are 

presumably lower than acute and chronic risk LOCs; however, the proposed new uses of 

etofenprox on rice and for vector control are likely to result in risk to terrestrial invertebrates 

such as pollinators. In addition, risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed new use of 

etofenprox on rice cannot be precluded. Therefore, the risk hypothesis [...the proposed 

etofenprox uses have the potential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/or growth in terrestrial 

and aquatic organisms] is supported. These results are based on the maximum application rate 

for the proposed new etofenprox uses. 

4.2.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms 

For the purposes of aquatic RQ derivation, rice paddy tail water and vector control EECs were 

based on an estimated Koc value of 1.9E+05 L/kgoc (EpiSuite v3.20). However, as previously 

discussed in Section 3.2.2.1., there is uncertainty associated with the soil mobility of etofenprox 

-Page 57 of 150- 
value, and the actual bc may be less than the estimated EpiSuite value. In order to characterize 

the uncertainty associated with the estimated Koc, potential aquatic exposures and resulting risk 

conclusions are evaluated by considering a Koc that is an order of magnitude less than the 

EpiSuite-predicted value of 1.9E+05 Lkgm. Use of the lower Koc value results in higher 

aquatic EECs because less etofenprox is bound to soil and more is mobile/available in surface 

water. Additionally, rice paddy tail water EECs are characterized based on aerobic degradation 

only. 

The use characterization suggests that there could be circumstances where vector control may 

involve direct application to aquatic areas "when necessary"; in these situations, risk to aquatic 

organisms may be higher than those evaluated with the EECs considered in this assessment. 

4.2.1.1. Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates 

With the exception of chronic risk to freshwater fish based on the new vector control use, acute 

and chronic RQs for freshwater fish and invertebrates exceed the Agency's listed species, acute 

restricted use, and chronic LOCs for the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and vector 

control. In addition, non-listed species acute risk LOCs are exceeded for freshwater 

invertebrates based on etofenprox use on rice and for vector control. These conclusions are 

based on an assumed EpiSuite bc value of 1.93E+05 Lkgoc; however, as previously discussed, 

this value may be overestimated. Consideration of a Koc value that is reduced by a factor of 10 

would result in predicted aquatic EECs and resulting RQs that are one order of magnitude higher 

than those presented in the risk estimation, The risk conclusions would not change based on 

consideration of the lower bound Koc value. 

Characterization of Rice Paddy Tail Water EECs 

Further characterization of the rice paddy tail water EECs includes comparison of peak and 60- 

day EECs assuming only aerobic degradation (ranging from 0.666 pg/L to 0.932 yglL) with 

EECs assuming anaerobic degradation (ranging from 1.16 pg/L to 1.1 8 pg/L). However, 

consideration of EECs assuming aerobic degradation do not change the risk conclusions for 

freshwater invertebrates because acute and chronic LOCs would still be exceeded (acute and 

chronic RQs = 1.17 and 4.87, respectively). Additionally, acute and chronic LOCs for 

freshwater fish (acute and chronic RQs = 0.35 and 1.17, respectively) would also be exceeded. 

Peak EECs for etofenprox would have to be reduced from maximum estimated rice paddy tail 

water modeling concentrations of 1.18 pg/L (based on an upper bound Koc) to < 0.12 pg/L 

(approximately 10-fold lower for freshwater fish) and c0.04 pg/L (approximately 30-fold lower 

for fi-eshwater invertebrates) to result in acute RQ values that are less than the listed species 

acute LOC of 0.05. In order to achieve these reductions in peak concentration, the proposed 

maximum application rate for use on rice (0.27 lbs a.i./A) would have to be reduced by 

corresponding amounts, i.e., reduced to 0.026 lbs a.i./A or to 0.0079 lbs a.i./A, in order to 

eliminate potential risk to listed freshwater fish or to all listed freshwater organisms, 

respectively. The proposed maximum application rate for vector control use (0.007 lbs a.i./A) 

would have to be reduced to 0.0023 lbs a.i.lA or to 0.0007 lbs a.i./A in order to eliminate 

potential risk to listed fieshwater fish or to all listed freshwater organisms, respectively. At the 
proposed application rate for vector control, even one application per year results in a peak 

aquatic exposure estimate (0.17 pg/L) that is above the levels of concern for listed freshwater 

fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

Chronic Risk to Freshwater Fish 

As previously discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, there is uncertainty associated with the chronic 

NOAEC value of 0.57 yg/L for freshwater fish because it is based on a cross-taxa ACR of 4.7 

for freshwater invertebrates. The only available freshwater fish chronic early life stage study 

showed mortality to zebrafish at the highest test concentration of 52.1 yg/L, despite a reported 

acute LCso value of 2.7 pg/L for rainbow trout. 

Although the chronic NOAEC of 23 pglL in the zebrafish early life stage study is approximately 

14 times higher than the highest 60-day EEC for rice paddy tail water (1.16 yg/L), 5% mortality 

was observed in the acute test at 1.1 y g/L (the acute LOAEC). Therefore, the ACR-derived 

NOAEC value of 0.57 yg/L, which is approximately two-fold lower than the concentration at 

which acute mortality was observed, is considered to provide a conservative estimate of the 

potential for chronic effects to freshwater fish. The ACR-derived chronic NOAEC of 0.57 yg/L 

exceeds chronic concern levels based on predicted 60-day EECs for rice paddy tail water (1.16 

pg/L). However, the extent to which chronic risks to freshwater fish may occur based on the 

vector control use at predicted concentrations of 0.27 pg/L (or an order of magnitude higher 

assuming a lower bound &c value) is uncertain. For freshwater fish chronic effects to occur 

based on proposed vector control uses, the chronic NOAEC would have to be approximately 2- 

fold lower than the value predicted based on the freshwater invertebrate ACR (0.54 yg/L). 

Submittal of an early-life stage freshwater fish study, using rainbow trout and completed in 

accordance with the OPPTS 850.1400 guidelines, would reduce the uncertainty associated with 

using an ACR-derived NOAEC to predict potential chronic mortality for freshwater fish. 

Risk to Water Column Freshwater Invertebrates 

Further evaluation of the chronic full life cycle data for freshwater invertebrates shows that the 

number of daphnid offspring per adult was reduced by 30% at test concentrations of 0.25 y g/L 

(corresponding NOAEC = 0.17 yg/L). This endpoint is well within the range of 2 1 -day 

etofenprox EECs for rice paddy tail water (0.828 pg/L based on aerobic degradation to 11.2 yg/L 

based on a lower bound bc value), and it is rougly equivalent to or below the range of 21 -day 

EECs for vector control (0.27 pg/L based on the upper bound &c to 0.92 yg/L based on the 

lower bound ISoc). Therefore, environmentally relevant concentrations of etofenprox in rice 

paddy tail water and surface water bodies following application of etofenprox for mosquito 

adulticide vector control may result in reproductive effects to freshwater invertebrates, and 

chronic risk is predicted for this taxa. 

Based on the refined characterization of exposure and consideration of available ecotoxicity data, 

the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and vector control are likely to result in direct acute 

and chronic risk for listed and non-listed freshwater fish and invertebrates. In situations where 

farmers may use rice paddies to raise crayfish, exposure concentrations in treated rice paddy 
water are expected to be slightly higher than estimated concentrations in rice paddy tail water, 

and risks are also predicted for these invertebrates. 

Risk to Sediment-Dwelling Benthic Invertebrates 

The potential for etofenprox exposure to sediment-dwelling benthic invertebrates is likely to be 

pronounced because etofenprox is hydrophobic, with a high Koc and BCF. However, it is not 

possible to quantify the associated toxicity of sediment-bound etofenprox to benthic 

invertebrates because the available submitted sediment toxicity data with C. riparius provide 

only nominal concentrations in overlying water with no corresponding measurement of 

etofenprox in water column, pore water or sediment. While a 25% reduction in dry weight of C. 

riparius was observed after 10 days of exposure to etofenprox at a nominal concentration in 

overlying water of 20.9 pg/L (corresponding NOAEC of 3.8 pg/L), exposure to etofenprox in 

spiked overlying water is intended to be representative of spray drift from vector control and the 

initial treatment of rice. However, when rice paddy water is released, it is presumably the 

suspended solids with their associated residues that are of concern for benthic invertebrates in the 

receiving waters, given the environmental fate properties of etofenprox. 

Additional submitted acute data on the toxicity of the etofenprox degradate, 4-'OH, to C. 

riparius are also of limited utility because the test systems did not include sediment and only 

nominal concentrations in overlying water were provided. The 48-hour C. riparius LCso value 

for 4'-OH is 50.2 pg/L; however, it is not possible to determine whether the 4'-OH degradate is 

less toxic than parent etofenprox because of differences in duration of exposure for C. riparius. 

In addition, although a 48-hour acute toxicity test with D. magna is available for parent 

etofenprox, it is not possible to determine whether the 4'-OH degradate is less toxic than the 

parent due to potential differences sensitivity between Cladocera (D. magna) and Chironomidae 

(C. riparius). An acute static freshwater invertebrate toxicity study with the 4'-OH degradate, 

per OPPTS 850.1010, would provide information on the comparable sensitivity of freshwater 

invertebrates to the parent and 4'-OH degradate and reduce uncertainties associated with the 

assumption that 4'-OH has equivalent toxicity to parent etofenprox. The 4'-OH degradate 

displays partitioning and high affinity to sediment in aquatic systems similar to the parent. Until 

it can be demonstrated that the 4'-OH degradate is less toxic to aquatic invertebrates than the 

parent, there is uncertainty associated with the potential for risk to benthic invertebrates based on 

the toxicity of sediment-bound and pore water residues of parent etofenprox and the 4'-OH 

degradate. 

Given the tendancy for etofenprox to rapidly partition to the sediment and the highly toxic nature 

of etofenprox to freshwater invertebrates, risks to benthic invertebrates are presumed based on 

the proposed new etofenprox uses on rice and vector control. As previously discussed in Section 

3.3.1.2, submittal of spiked sediment studies (with suitable range finding tests) with etofenprox 

TGAI per OPPTS 850.1735 guidelines would reduce the uncertainties associated with the 

potential exposure of sediment-bound etofenprox to sediment-dwelling freshwater invertebrates. 

Based on the presumed risk of sediment-bound etofenprox to benthic invertebrates, there may be 

concern related to stormwater management issues (i.e., urban runoff) associated with the need for 

whole effluent sediment toxicity testing to characterize benthic invertebrate risk associated with 
newly registered pyrethroids-like pesticides. In addition, some instances of water column 

toxicity due to pyrethroids have been observed in California stormwater, and available data 

suggest that Hyalella azteca may be approximately two orders of magnitude more sensitive to 

pyrethroids than Daphnia magna, which was the species tested for etofenprox (personal 

communication with Patti Tenbrook [USEPA, Region 91,2008). 

Summary of Risks to Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates 

In summary, the refined characterization of exposure and consideration of available ecotoxicity 

data indicates that the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and for vector control are likely 

to result in acute and chronic risk for listed and non-listed freshwater fish and invertebrates. The 

proposed maximum application rate for use on rice (0.27 lbs a.i./A) would have to be reduced to 

0.026 lbs a.i.1A or to 0.0079 lbs a.i./A in order to eliminate potential risk to listed freshwater fish 

or to all listed freshwater organisms, respectively. The proposed maximum application rate for 

vector control use (0.007 lbs a.i.1A) would have to be reduced to 0.0023 lbs a.i./A or to 0.0007 

lbs a.i./A in order to eliminate potential risk to listed freshwater fish or to all listed freshwater 

organisms, respectively. At the proposed application rate for vector control, even one 

application per year results in a peak aquatic exposure estimate (0.17pg/L) that is above the 

levels of concern for listed freshwater fish and aquatic invertebrates. 

4.2.1.2. EstuarineIMarine Fish and Invertebrates 

Acute risks are not predicted for estuarinelrnarine fish and mollusks because the available 

toxicity data show no adverse effects to these taxa at etofenprox's limit of solubility in water. 

However, acute and chronic risk LOCs are exceeded for estuarinelrnarine invertebrates (mysid) 

based on both proposed new use patterns for etofenprox. Consideration of a Gc value that is 

reduced by a factor of 10 would result in EECs and corresponding RQs that are higher than those 

provided in Table 4.2 by one order of magnitude. In addition, consideration of rice EECs based 

on aerobic metabolism would result in acute and chronic RQs of 49.6 and 207, respectively, well 

above the chronic risk LOC for estuarinelmarine invertebrates. 

Peak EECs for etofenprox would have to be reduced from maximum estimated rice paddy tail 

water modeling concentrations of 1.18 pg/L (based on an upper bound Koc) to < 0.0009 pg/L 

(over 1,300-fold) to result in acute RQ values that are less than the listed species acute LOC of 

0.05 for estuarinelmarine invertebrates. In order to achieve these reductions in peak 

concentration, the proposed maximum application rate for use on rice (0.27 lbs a.i./A) would 

have to be reduced by a corresponding amount, i.e., reduced to 0.0002 lbs a.i./A, in order to 

eliminate potential risk to listed estuarinelmarine invertebrates. For the proposed vector control 

use, PRZMIEXAMS cannot model a theoretical application rate that is low enough to eliminate 

potential risk to listed estuarinelmarine invertebrates (i.e., the application rate would have to be 

appreciably less than 0.0001 lbs a.i./A). 

As discussed in Section 3.3.1.2, chronic toxicity data are unavailable for mysid shrimp. 

Therefore, chronic risk to estuarinelmarine invertebrates is based on an ACR of 4.7 using 

available acute and chronic data for fi-eshwater invertebrates. The same ACR approach can be 

applied to approximate the lowest concentration where effects (LOAEC) would be expected to 
be observed. Based on the available toxicity data for the waterflea, the acute ECS0 is 0.8 pg/L. 

With an acute waterflea ECso of 0.8 pg/L and a chronic LOAEC for daphnia of 0.25 pg/L, the 

acute to chronic effects ratio is 3.2 (0.8 pg/L 10.25 pg/L). When this ACR is applied to the 

mysid data, the resulting estimated LOAEC for estuarine invertebrates is 0.006 pg/L, well within 

the range of predicted 21 -day etofenprox concentrations (0.27 pg/L based on vector control EEC 

with an upper bound Koc to 1 1.2 pg/L based on rice paddy tail water EEC with a lower bound 

Koc) in rice paddy tail water and surface water following application of etofenprox for vector 

control. 

Therefore, the proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice and vector control are likely to result in 

acute and chronic risk for listed and non-listed estuarinelrnarine invertebrates not including 

mollusks. Based on the highly toxic acute nature of etofenprox to estuarinelrnarine invertebrates 

and the potential for chronic exposure given vector control use patterns near estuarinelmarine 

environments, submittal of a mysid full life cycle test, in accordance with OPPTS 850.1350 

guidelines, would reduce the uncertainties associated with the potential for chronic risk to 

estuarinelmarine invertebrates. 

4.2.1.3. Aquatic Plants 

Adverse effects to vascular and non-vascular aquatic plants are unlikely to occur based on the 

proposed new uses of etofenprox because no adverse effects to duckweed and freshwater algae 

occur at respective concentrations of 26 and 19 pg/L, above the range of predicted peak EECs 

for etofenprox (0.40 pg/L based on vector control EEC with an upper bound Koc to 11.3 pg/L 

based on rice paddy tail water EEC with a lower bound ISoc). 

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms 

4.2.2.1. Birds and Mammals 

4.2.2.1.1. Ingestion of Granules 

Although the proposed label for etofenprox use on rice specifies aerial application of granules to 

flooded rice paddies and avoidance of application to non-target areas, inadvertent treatment of 

non-target areas and ingestion of granules by birds and mammals may occur. 

The LDS~I~~~ method modeled by T-REX v1.3.1 (Jul. 7,2007) is used to estimate the magnitude 

by which the LDS0 is exceeded for a bird or mammal occupying one square foot of the treated 

area subject to all routes of exposure. The LD~OI~? method does not, however, capture avian 

feeding behaviors that would increase exposure, such as incidental granule ingestion with soil, as 

birds may consume soil at a rate of 2 to 14% of daily diet (Beyer et al., 1994), active 

consumption of etofenprox granules due to their resemblance to grain seeds, or efforts to collect 

grit to assist in food breakdown. 

As previously discussed in Section 3.2.3.1.1, the ~~solft~ mehod estimates exposure (EECs) by 

converting the maximum single application rate for rice of 0.270 lbs a.i./A to 2.81 mg a.i./ft2. 

For granular applications, the mg a.i./ft2 values are compared to weight-adjusted avian and 
mammalian LDso values to estimate the potential for acute mortality (Table 4.3). However, 

definitive avian and mammalian LDso values are not available for etofenprox; therefore, acute 

RQs are not calculated. Etofenprox is classified as practically non-toxic to birds and mammals 

on an acute exposure basis. In addition, no lethal or sublethal effects were observed at the 

highest test concentration in acute oral avian and mammalian studies. 

Assuming that RQs for granular exposures are normally derived by dividing the EEC by the 

adjusted LDS0 value x BW (in kg), the lowest LD50 in mg a.i. would be >20.76 mg a.i. (>I038 

mg a.i./kg BW x 0.02 kg BW) for a bird occupying one square foot. Therefore, >20.76 mg a.i. 

(based on a 20 g bird) is equivalent to the lowest dose in one square foot where no adverse 

effects are observed. Doses for larger sized birds and mammals would be greater than the 

predicted "no effect7' dose for the 20 g bird. Comparison of the >20.76 mg a.i. "no effect" dose 

with the estimated EEC of 2.81 mg a.i.lft2 indicates that the risk of mortality via ingestion of 

granules from the proposed new etofenprox use on rice is presumably less than the levels of 

concern. 

4.2.2.1.2. Ingestion of Drinking Water 

Table 4.3. Summary of EECs and Adjusted Avian and Mammalian LD5(, Values Resulting from Ingestion 

of Granular Etofenprox in Non-target Areas from Use on Rice. 

Application of etofenprox granules to flooded rice paddies may result in exposure of mammals, 

waterfowl, and wading birds via consumption of treated rice paddy water. Estimates of exposure 

to etofenprox through water consumption are based on body-weight specific drinking water 

consumption rates (USEPA 1993, 1998a). For ingestion of drinking water, the estimated dose is 

compared to weight-adjusted avian and mammalian LDso values; however, as previously 

discussed, definitive LDS0 values are not available for birds and mammals because no mortality 

or sublethal effects were observed at the limit dose of 2000 mglkg bw. Therefore, acute RQs are , 

not derived. As shown in Table 4.4, the adjusted avian and mammalian LDS0 values, which are 

representative of the dose at which no adverse effects occurred, are well above the predicted dose 

from drinking water exposure. In addition, it should be noted that the predicted dose fi-om 

drinking water exposure is based on the peak EEC (1.20 yg/L) assuming an upper bound Koc 

value. If the resulting drinking water doses were increased by approximately one order of 

Taxa 

Birds 

Mammals 

Avian toxicity values are scaled to body weight (BW) from >2000 mg a.i./kg acute oral toxicity value, 1580 g 

standard mallard body weight, and 1.15 Mineau et al. scaling factor: Adj. LDS0 = study LDSO x [BW (g) / 1580 

gIA(1.15-1). Mammalian toxicity values are scaled to body weight from >5000 mg a.i./kg acute oral toxicity 

value and 350 g standard rat weight: Adj. LDS0 = study LDSO x [350 g 1 BW (g)IA(0.25). 

Body Weight (K) 

20 

100 

1000 

15 

3 5 

1000 

EEC (mg a.i.lf?) 

2.81 

2.81 

2.81 

2.81 

2.81 

2.81 

Adjusted LD~~' (mg a.i./kg BW) 

>lo38 

>I322 

>I867 

>lo989 

>8891 

>3846 
magnitude to 1 1.6 pgIL, assuming the lower bound Koc value, the dose levels would still be less 

than the respective doses at which no adverse effects occurred. Therefore, the risk of acute 

mortality to birds and mammals via ingestion of drinking water from etofenprox-treated rice 

waddv water is considered to be below levels of concern. 

Table 4.4. Comparison of Estimated Dose and Adjusted LDso Values Resulting from Avian and Mammalian 

Ingestion of Etofenprox-treated Rice Paddy Water. 

I I I I 

Taxa 

Birds 

Mammals 

(Lld) = 0.099 x [Body Weight (kg)IA0.90. 

2. Avian Adj. LD5o (mg a.i./kg BW) = [Study LD50 (>2000 mg a.i./kg)] x [BW (g) I (1580 g)IA(1.15-1); 

Mammalian Adj. LDso (mg a.i.1kg BW) = [Study LD50 (>5000 mg a.i.lkg)] x [(350 g) I BW (g)IA(0.25). 

3. Estimated Dose (mg a.i.1kg.d) = EEC (mg a.i./L) x Drinlung Water Intake (Lld) I Body Weight (kg). 

Body 

Weight (g) 

1000 

4.2.2.1.3. Ingestion of Aquatic Biota 

20 

100 

1000 

15 

Given the high Kow of etonfenprox, piscivorous birds and mammals may be exposed to 

etofenprox residues in aquatic biota. As discussed in Appendix A, dose-based (mglkg-bw day) 

and dietary-based (ppm or mg/kg-diet day) EECs are estimated assuming that pesticide intake as 

a function of the amount of pesticide contained in the food of several selected species, including 

mink (Neovison vison), river otter (Lontra canadensis), belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), 

herring gull (Larus argentatus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), mallard duck, great blue heron 

(Ardea herodias), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Available dose-based toxicity 

values are adjusted for the weights of the animal tested (e.g., laboratory rat and mallard duck or 

bobwhite quail) and the animal for which the risks are being assessed (e.g., mink, bald eagle, 

etc.). Dietary- and dose-based EECs are provided for both model predicted EECs and those 

derived by considering measured uptake and elimination rate constants from the bluegill sunfish 

BCF study. As shown in Table 4.5, dietary- and dose-based EECs based on measured rate 

constants for fish are approximately one to two orders of magnitude lower than modeled EECs 

for those piscivorous species that consume fish (i.e.,all species with the exception of the mallard 

duck). Further information on the calculations used to derive dose- and dietary-based EECs and 

toxicity values is provided in Appendix A. 

Drinking Water 

1ntake1 (Lld) 

1. Avian Drinking Water Intake (Lld) = 0.059 x pody Weight (kg)IA0.67; Mammalian Drinking Water Intake 

0.099 I >3846 

As previously discussed, the available dose- and dietary-based toxicity values are considered to 

represent the lower bound of acute and chronic "no effect" levels for birds and mammals because 

no mortality or reproductive sublethal effects were observed at the limit doses/concentrations. 

The extent to which "no effects" may be observed at etofenprox levels higher than the limit dose 

is uncertain. Given the uncertainty associated with defining a specific threshold for effects in 

0.0043 

0.0126 

0.059 

0.0023 

1.19E-04 

Adj. LD~' 

(mg a.i.1 kg BW) 

Estimated ~ose~ (mg 

a.i.1kg.d) 

>lo38 

>I322 

>I867 

>lo989 

2.57E-04 

1.5 1E-04 

7.08E-05 

1.81E-04 
birds and mammals and the available information indicating that etofenprox is practically nontoxic to birds and mammals, dose- and dietary-based exposures (based on the assumed upper 

bound of Koc for the proposed use of etofenprox on rice) and toxicity values (which represent 

the level at which no effects occurred) are provided for comparative puposes only. As shown in 

Table 4.5, model predicted dose- and dietary-based EECs are less than their respective "no 

adverse effect" values for all surrogate species, with the exception of the river otter. However, 

the dose-based EEC for the river otter using measured rate constants for fish (1.49 mgkg-bwld) 

is well below the chronic non-definitive "no effect" dose-based value of 112 mglkg-bwld. 

Therefore, EECs based on measured rate constants for fish are well below the "no effect" values 

for each of the selected surrogate mammalian and avian piscivorous species. 

Although potential enlargement of the liver following prolonged exposure may occur similar to 

what was observed in the 2-generation rat reproduction study, no measureable quantitative 

effects to growth, reproduction, or survival were observed. Similar uncertainties apply when 

comparing the non-definitive toxicity values relative to exposures that are one order of 

magnitude higher (based on a lower bound Koc). Given that toxicity values are representative of 

lower bound "no effect" levels for birds and mammals, it is uncertain whether adverse effects to 

piscivorous birds and mammals would occur at the predicted levels of exposure. No additional 

data on the toxicity of etofenprox to birds and mammals were located in the open literature, and 

no ecological incidents associated with avian and mammalian exposure to etofenprox have been 

reported. Although EECs are not presented for the proposed new use of etofenprox for vector 

control, these values are likely to be well below the non-definitive toxicity values, given the 

range in possible 60-day surface water EECs (0.19 to 0.70 pg/L) for vector control. 

Comparison of the measured BCF for etofenprox, based on a submitted bluegill sunfish flowthrough study (MRID 471328-09), with the bioaccumulation model-predicted BCF value for 

medium forage fish shows that the model-predicted value of 6922 is approximately 1.4 times 

higher than the measured bluegill BCF value of 4846. It appears that the variability in modelpredicted and measured BCF values may be due to the percentage of lipid in the bluegill study 

(approximately 4%) versus the model-assumed lipid percentage value of 6%. Therefore, the 

bioaccumulation model provides a reasonable approximation (within a factor of 1.5 considering 

the variability in lipid percentage) of the potential for bioconcentration in medium forage fish. 

Based on the available toxicity information for birds and mammals, which shows no acute 

mortality andlor chronic reproductive effects at the highest test levels, and data indicating that 

uptake of etofenprox in fish is offset by rapid depuration, the risk associated with consumption of 

aquatic species exposed to etofenprox by piscivorous birds and mammals is considered to be 

lower than the levels of concern. However, if acute andlor chronic toxicity data becomes 

available that indicate a threshold for adverse effects in avian and mammalian receptors andlor 

incident data are reported for these taxa, these risk conclusions will be revisited. 
L I 

Bald eagle 102 I 0.94 I 476 14.37 1 >5714 1 >2000 1 NA 1 >lo10 

EECs assuming model-calculated uptake and elimination rate constants for fish provided in Appendix A. 

2 EECs assuming measured uptake (KI = 742) and elimination (IS2 = 0.13) rate constants from the submitted 

bluegill sunfish BCF study. 

Dose-based EEC exceeds non-definitive dose- based chronic toxicity value. 

4.2.2.1.4. Ingestion of Food Items Based on Foliar 

Application 

The proposed new use of etofenprox as a mosquito adulticide for vector control may result in 

exposures to birds and mammals via ingestion of foliar etofenprox residues on food items 

including vegetation, insects, and seeds. As previously discussed in Section 3.2.3.1.4, dietaryand dose-based EECs of etofenprox residues on food items were derived based on the T-REX 

model (v1.3.1). Similar to the other evaluated exposure pathways for birds and mammals, acute 

and chronic RQs were not derived because the available data shows no acute mortality andlor 

chronic reproductive, growth or survival effects at the highest etofenprox test concentrations. 

Predicted dose- and dietary-based EECs are compared to weight-adjusted dose-based and dietary 

toxicity values to determine if predicted EECs may exceed the concentrationldose where no 

adverse effects were observed. As shown in Table 4.6, all predicted EECs are well below the 

non-definitive acute and chronic exposure values where no adverse effects were observed. 

Therefore, the risk of acute mortality andlor chronic reproductive effects to birds and mammals 

via ingestion of foliar etofenprox residues on food items following vector control is presumably 

lower than the Agency's concern levels. 
4.2.2.2. Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Table 4.6. Comparison of EECs and Toxicity Values for Mammals and Birds Consuming Foliar Etofenprox 

Residues on Food Items Following Vector Control Use. 

The available toxicity data for honey bees indicate that direct contact exposure to etofenprox 

may result in adverse effects to beneficial terrestrial invertebrates such as pollinators in and 

around the use areas for the proposed new uses of etofenprox. Although the results of a foliage 

residue test with RF2056 OL show no mortality andlor sublethal effects to honey bees at the 

highest allowable application rate for vector control of 0.007 lb a.i/A, toxicity data for honey 

bees indicate that etofenprox TGAI is highly toxic to non-target terrestrial invertebrates on an 

acute contact basis. In addition, non-guideline tests with non-target arthropods exoposed to other 

etofenprox formulations show mortality and reproductive effects at lower application rates. The 

results of the additional non-guideline non-target arthropod toxicity data for formulations of 

etofenprox containing 30% a.i. report mortality LOAEC values ranging from 0.001 to 0.0002 lb 

a.i./A and reproductive LOAECs ranging from 0.008 to 0.0003 lb a.i./A. Based on the available 

toxicity data for honey bees and non-target soil arthropods, etofenprox's use as an insecticide 

and its mode of action, the proposed new etofenprox uses on rice and for vector control may 

cause adverse effects to non-target terrestrial invertebrates and particularly pollinators. 

Body Weight 

4.2.2.3. Terrestrial Plants 

As previously discussed in Section 4.1.3.2, there is uncertainty associated with the 

characterization of potential risks to terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on the new 

proposed use of etofenprox on rice because the single test concentration tested in the submitted 

Tier I data is less than the maximum proposed application rate for rice. 

Based on the predicted EECs for vector control ranging from 0.00007 to 0.00105 lbs a.i.1A (see 

Table 3.16) and NOAEC values for lettuce (<0.15 1 lbs a.i./A) and the other plant species (0.148 

to 0.165 lbs a.i./A), the risk of phytotoxicity fiom the proposed new use of etofenprox for vector 

control is considered to be lower than the Agency's concern levels. Although there is 

uncertainty associated with the non-definitive NOAEC value for lettuce, the actual NOAEC 

value would have to be 143 times lower to result in an exceedance of the Agency's listed species 

LOC for terrestrial plants. 

EECS~ 

(mglkg-bwtd) 

Toxicity Values 

Dietary-Based (ppm) 

Birds 

1.41 - 22.53 

1.41 - 22.53 

1.41 - 22.53 

>lo38 

>I322 

>I867 

20 g 

100 g 

1000 g 

Acute 

1.60 - 25.66 

0.91 - 14.63 

0.41 - 6.55 

Mammals 

DoseBased 

Chronic 

15 g 

35 g 

1000 g 

DietaryBased 

DoseBased 

>4900 

>4900 

, >4900 

>2000 

>2000 

>2000 

DietaryBased 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Range of predicted EECs provided in Table 3.15. 

0.30 - 21.48 

0.21 - 14.85 

0.05 - 3.44 

1.41 - 22.53 

1.41 - 22.53 

1.41 - 22.53 

>lo989 

>a891 

>3846 

NA 

NA 

NA 

>53 8 

>436 

>I88 

>lo10 

>lo10 

>lo10 
As previously discussed in Section 3.2.3.3, terrestrial and semi-aquatic plant EECs for the 

proposed new use of etofenprox on rice were derived based on the maximum application rate 

(0.27 lbs a.i./A for terrestrial plants in dry areas) and an assumption that one acre-ft of water is 

released from heated rice paddy water to a drainage ditch where semi-aquatic vegetation may be 

present (0.003 lbs a.i./A for semi-aquatic plants). The estimated semi-aquatic plant EEC of 

0.003 lbs a.i./A is well below the lowest NOAEC value for all tested plants based on vegetative 

vigor (0.151 lbs a.i./A) and the lowest NOAEC value for nine out of ten tested plants based on 

seedling emergence (0.15 1 lbs a.i./A). Although there is uncertainty associated with the nondefinitive NOAEC endpoint of <0.15 1 lbs a.i.lA for lettuce in the seedling emergence test, the 

actual NOAEC for lettuce would have to be approximately 50 times lower to result in an 

exceedance of the listed species LOC for semi-aquatic plants. Given the available data showing 

no effect to nine out of ten tested plant species at concentrations 50 times higher than predicted 

levels of exposure, risks to semi-aquatic plants based on the proposed use of etofenprox on rice 

are are considered low.. 

In addition to the uncertainty associated with the non-definitive NOAEC value for lettuce, it is 

not possible to characterize risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed etofenprox use on 

rice because the predicted EEC of 0.27 lbs a.i./A is approximately two times higher than the 

single concentration tested in the submitted Tier I studies. A Tier I1 seedling emergence test 

with lettuce (per OPPTS 850.4225) and a Tier I seedling emergence test with the remaining nine 

tested plant species (per OPPTS 850.41 OO), using test concentrations that will provide a 

definitive NOAEC and range up to the maximum application rate for rice of 0.27 lbs a.i./A, 

would reduce the uncertainty associated with the non-definitive NOAEC value for lettuce 

seedling emergence and the lack of testing at the highest application rate for rice. 

In summary, based on the EECs and available toxicity data, the risk of phytotoxicity from the 

proposed new use of etofenprox for vector control is considered to be lower than the Agency's 

LOC. In addition, risks to semi-aquatic plants based on exposure to etofenprox use on rice are 

also considered to be low. However, given the lack of a suitable Tier I and Tier I1 seedling 

emergence data for lettuce and the other nine plant species, respectively, at the maximum 

application rate for rice, risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed new use of etofenprox 

on rice cannot be precluded. 

4.2.3. Risk Related to Wastewater Treatment Processes 

Provisional data, prepared to fulfill European Union data requirements and recently submitted to 

the Agency in June, 2008, are briefly summarized to characterize etofenprox's hazard to and 

biodegradability in activated sludge used in wastewater treatment facilities. 

A provisional 3-hour respiration inhibition test on activated sludge microorganisms conducted at 

concentrations (6.25-100 mg/L) well above the water solubility limit of etofenprox (0.0225 

mg/L) indicated that etofenprox has no significant inhibitory effect (<I 5%) on activated sludge 

at the tested concentrations (MRID 4743 8703). 

A provisional activated sludge biodegradation study indicated that activated sludge does not 

readily biodegrade etofenprox in a closed bottle (up to 17% biodegradation in 28 days; MRID 
47438701). The study also indicates that etofenprox is non-toxic to microorganisms, as sodium 

acetate was biodegraded over 56 days in the presense of etofenprox. However, etofenprox alone 

was biodegraded or dissipated 14% in 15 days, but only 3% more in the following 23 days. 

Therefore, it is possible that etofenprox is toxic to the microorganisms that metabolize it (which 

would explain why the compound underwent little degradation 5-23 days after application), but 

not toxic to the microorganisms that metabolize sodium acetate. 

A provisional activated sludge biodegradation study indicated that activated sludge readily 

biodegrades etofenprox in an aerobic system (99% biodegraded or dissipated in 1 week, which is 

the first sampling interval; MRID 47438702). 

Therefore, based on these provisional data, use of etofenprox is not expected to pose a hazard to 

the operation of wastewater treatment facilities that employ activated sludge under aerobic 

conditions. However, there is a potential for hazard to facilities that treat wastewater under 

anoxic conditions. Furthermore, due to the lack of biodegradation in closed systems, biosolids 

collected fiom facilities operating under anoxic conditions may contain significant residues of 

etofenrprox for an unknown duration. 

5. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of 

Concern 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2), requires all federal 

agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and 

anadromous listed species, and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for 

listed wildlife and ffeshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may affect listed 

species or their designated critical habitat. Each federal agency is required under the Act to 

ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means "to engage in an 

action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the 

likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02). 

To facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (subsection 

(a)(2)), the Office of Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a 

proposed registration action may directly or indirectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of both 

the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, 

or distribution of any listed species (USEPA, 2004). After the Agency's screening level risk 

assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency's listed species LOCs are exceeded for either 

direct or indirect effects, an analysis is conducted to determine if any listed or candidate species 

may co-occur in the area of the proposed pesticide use or areas downstream or downwind that 

could be contaminated fiom drift or runoff/erosion. If listed or candidate species may be present 

in the proposed action area, further biological assessment is undertaken. The extent to which 

listed species may be at risk is considered, which then determines the need for the development 

of a more comprehensive consultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act. 
The federal action addressed herein is the proposed registration of two new uses for etofenprox 

on rice and for mosquito adulticide vector control. It is expected that the new vector control use 

of etofenprox could occur nationwide; however, according to the USDA National Agricultural 

Statistics Service (NASS) 2002 census, the proposed new rice uses are likely to predominately 

occur in the states of California, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri (USDA, 

2008; www.agcensus.udsa.~ov; searched on 5/24/08). According to the NASS (2002) census 

rice is also grown, to a lesser extent, in other states including Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. 

5.1. Action Area 

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected 

directly or indirectly by etofenprox use and not merely the immediate area where etofenprox is 

applied. At the initial screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly described 

taxonomic groups and conservatively assumes that listed species within those broad groups are 

co-located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are 

assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be 

located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that the 

listed species are located within an assumed area, which has the relatively highest potential 

exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with distance from the 

treatment area. Section 1.0 of this risk assessment presents the proposed pesticide use sites that 

are used to establish initial co-location of species with treatment areas. 

5.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk 

If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area result in RQs that are below 

the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed 

species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs 

below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect 

effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated. 

However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed 

species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and 

may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may 

extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a 

resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of 

these species, and the locations of use sites are considered to determine the extent to which 

screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These 

subsequent refinement steps will consider how this information would impact the action area for 

a particular listed organism and potentially include areas of exposure that are downwind and 

downstream of the pesticide use site. 

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual models addressing proposed new 

etofenprox uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for the etofenprox 

screening-level risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3. The assessment endpoints used in the 

screening-level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced survival and 
reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival, 

reproduction, and growth of aquatic and terrestrial plant species from both direct acute and 

chronic exposures. These assessment endpoints address the standard set forth in the Endangered 

Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize does not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild 

by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQs) 

which, integrating exposure and effects, are calculated for broad based taxonomic groups in the 

screening-level risk assessment presented in Section 4. 

Both acute endangered species and chronic risk LOCs are considered in the screening-level risk 

assessment to identify direct and indirect effects to taxa of listed species. This section identifies 

direct effect concerns, by taxa, that are triggered by exceeding endangered LOCs in the 

screening-level risk assessment, with an evaluation of the potential probability of individual 

effects for exposures that may occur at the established endangered species LOC. Data on 

exposure and effects collected under field and laboratory conditions are evaluated to make 

determinations on the predictive utility of the direct effect screening assessment findings to listed 

species. Additionally, the results of the screen for indirect effects to listed species, using direct 

effect acute and chronic LOCs for each taxonomic group, is presented and evaluated. 

Table 5.1. Potential Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects from the 

Proposed Application of 

Listed Taxon 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants - rnonocots 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants - dicots 

Terrestrial invertebrates 

Birds 

Terrestrial phase 

amphibians 

Reptiles 

Mammals 

Aquatic vascular plants 

Freshwater fish 

Aquatic phase 

amphibians 

Freshwater crustaceans 

Mollusks 

Marinelestuarine fish 

Marinelestuarine 

invertebrates 

Potential indirect effects ' direct effects on insects 

direct effects on terrestrial dicot plants 

direct effects on freshwater fish 

direct effects on freshwater invertebrates 

direct effects on estuarinelmarine invertebrates 

Etofenprox on 

Direct 

Effects 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

on a taxon 

Rice and for Vector Control. 

Uses of Concern 

Rice 

Rice 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 

None 

Rice and Vector Control 

attributable to: 

Indirect 

Effects 

yes' 

yes1 

yes2 ~es''~'~'~'~ 

yes1,2,3,4,5 

~es''~'~~'~ 

~es~'~~~~~~ 

No 

yes4 

yes4 

yes3 

yes3 

yes5 

No 

Uses of Concern 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

Rice and Vector Control 

None 
5.2.1. Probit Dose-Response Analysis 

The Agency uses the probit dose-response relationship as a tool for providing additional 

information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic 

animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA, 2004). As part of this 

evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is presented in terms of the chance of an individual 

event (i. e., mortality or immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species 

with sensitivity to etofenprox on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation. 

To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses 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 that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated 

with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit doseresponse relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean, 

upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in 

the slope, if available. Based on the available acute toxicity for etofenprox, a summary of the 

probit dose-response analysis is provided in Table 5.2. If no dose response information is 

available to estimate a slope for this analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 (with lower and 

upper bounds of 2 to 9) (Urban and Cook, 1986) is used. 

Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECVl .1 

(Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1 .l) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division (June 22,2004). The model allows for such calculations by entering 

the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter 

for the spreadsheet. The desired threshold for the probability of an individual effect is entered as 

the listed species LOC. In addition, the probability of an individual effect is also derived based 

on the calculated acute RQ, if available. 

Table 5.2. Summary of Etofenprox Probit Dose Response Analysis for Listed Species 

Acute Effect Chance of Individual Chance of Individual 

Taxa (study type) Slope (95% C.I.) Effect at Listed Species Effect at Derived Acute 

RQ' (95% c.I.) 

Bird oral dose 

Bird dietary 

Mammal oral dose 

Freshwater fish 

No mortality observed 

No mortality observed 

No mortality observed 

Mortality 

Slope = 5.11 (2.76 - 7.46) 

Freshwater invertebrate 

Estuarinelmarine fish 

Estuarinelmarine 

invertebrate 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

1 in 6.74E+lO 

(1 in 5770 to 1 in 

701E+21) 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

1 in 32.7 

(1 in 6.42 to 1 in 320) 

Maximum Acute RQs = 0.43 (for freshwater fish); 1.46 (for freshwater invertebrates); and 62.2 (for 

estuarinelmarine invertebrates). 

Irnmobilization~mortality 

Slope NA = 4.5 (2 - 9) 

No mortality observed 

Mortality 

Slope NA = 4.5 (2 - 9) 

1 in 4.18E+08 

(1 in216to 1 in 

1.75E+3 1) 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

1 in4.18E+08 

(1 in 216 to 1 in1.75E+31) 

1 in 1.3 

(1 in 1.59 to 1 in 1.07) 

Not calculated; no 

mortality observed 

1 in 1 

(1 in 1 to 1 in 1) 
As shown in Table 5.2, the probability for acute direct effects (i.e., mortality or immobilization) 

to individual listed fish and invertebrates at the listed species LOC ranges from 1 in 4.18E+08 

(2.4E-07%) for freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebrates to 1 in 6.74E+10 (1.5E-09%) for 

freshwater fish. However, at the highest derived RQ value for the proposed new uses of 

etofenprox, the chance of an individual effect for these taxa increase to approximately 3% for 

freshwater fish, 77% for fieshwater invertebrates, and 100% for estuarinelmarine invertebrates. 

5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with New Etofenprox Uses 

A preliminary analysis of the co-occurrence of listed species and the proposed new uses of 

etofenprox was conducted using OPP's LOCATES database (v2.10.3; Mar. 2006). The goal of 

the analysis for co-location is to determine whether sites of pesticide use are geographically 

associated with known locations of listed species. The objective is to provide insight into the 

potential for exposure of listed species and to identify those areas, crop uses, and listed species 

that warrant Mer attention. The LOCATES database uses location information for listed 

species at the county level and compares it to agricultural census data (from 2002) for crop 

production at the same county level of resolution. The product is a listing of federally-listed 

species that are located within counties known to produce the crops upon which the pesticide 

will be used. Given that the proposed new etofenprox use for vector control is not an agricultural 

use and is likely to be used nationwide, state and county-level summaries are not provided for 

this use pattern. However, a smary of listed species that may be directly or indirectly affected 

by the proposed vector control use is provided in Appendix G. Appendix G also provides a 

species listing by State for those listed species that may potentially be impacted by the proposed 

new use of etofenprox on rice. 

A tabulation of the number of unique listed species in each state that may co-occur with the 

proposed new uses of etofenprox on rice is provided in Table 5.3. With respect to predicted 

risks for terrestrial invertebrates, it is assumed that indirect effects could occur to insectivorous 

mammals and birds as well as terrestrial plants (monocots and dicots) that require terrestrial 

insects for pollination andlor seed dispersal. In addition piscivorous mammals and birds may be 

indirectly affected based on direct effects to freshwater fish and invertebrates and 

estuarinelmarine invertebrates. However, LOCATES does not currently differentiate between 

different feeding guilds of mammals and birds andlor identify those plant species that require 

terrestrial insects for pollination. Therefore, the number of potentially affected listed mammals, 

birds, dicots, and monocots may be overestimated and include species that are not likely to be 

indirectly affected because they do not rely on terrestrial invertebrates or aquatic food items 

andlor require terrestrial insects for pollination or seed dispersal. 

Based the results of the LOCATES database query, there are a total of 1,153 listed species from 

all taxa associated with counties where etofenprox may potentially be used nationwide for vector 

control. The number of listed species that may potentially co-occur with counties where rice is 

grown is 141. A total of 13 states have listed species associated with rice crops on which 

etofenprox may be used. California has the highest number (76) of listed species that may cooccur with proposed etofknprox use on rice, followed by Florida (21) and Mississippi, Texas, 

and Louisisana (1 7). 
This preliminary analysis indicates that there is a potential for etofenprox 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 proposed uses of etofenprox 

and the best available information on the temporal and spatial co-location of listed species with 

respect to the action area. This analysis has not been conducted for this assessment. 

Table 5.3. Tabulation by State and Taxonomic Group of Listed Species that Occur in Etofenprox Use 

Areas for Rice. 

State 

3 

6. References 

Arnot, J.A. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2004. A food web bioaccumulation model for organic 

chemicals in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23 (10): 

2343-2355. 

Beyer, W. N., E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Survey of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 58: 375-382. 

Eckel, W. 2006. Evaluation of EPI SuiteTM for Use in Filling Data Gaps for Pesticide 

Degradates. (abstract). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide 

Programs, Washington, DC. Feb. 7,2006. 

ECOTOX, 2008. ECOTOXicology Database. Created and maintained by the U.S. EPA Office 

of Research and Development (ORD), and the National Health and Environmental 
Effects Research Laboratory's (NHEERL's) Mid-Continent Ecology Division. Accessed 

January 2008. 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2000. FA0 Pesticide Disposal 

Series 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. Parameters 

of Pesticides that Influence Processes in the Soil. Editorial Group, FA0 Information 

Division: Rome, 2000. Online at: 

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/x2570e/x2570E00.htm 

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the 

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9): 13 83-1 391. 

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative 

data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and 

F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and 

Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28. 

Jones, R. (1 993). Chemical properties of the pyrethroid insecticide to support surface water 

modeling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and 

Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. Undated. 

Jones, R. 2006. Rice Screen Documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC. Feb. 21,2006. 

Tenbrook, P. 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9; Personal 

Communications. June, 2008. 

Tjeerdema, R. (2008). Annual Report: Comprehensive Research on Rice. January 1,2007 - 

December 3 1,2007. The Environmental Fate of Pesticides Important to Rice Culture. 

Project No. RP-5. University of California, Davis; College of Agricultural and 

Environmental Sciences, Department of Environmental Toxicology. Undated. 

United States Departement of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Teske, M. and T. Curbishley. 

AGDISP Version 8.07 User Manual. C.D.I. Technical Note No. 02-06. June 2003. 83 p. 

USDA. 2008. 2002 Census of Agriculture: Agricultural Atlas of the United States. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Online at: 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/atlasO2/. Accessed September, 2007. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Comparitive Analysis of 

Acute Risk from Granular Pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 

March, 1992. 
USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPN600lR- 1311 87a, Office of Research 

and Development, Washington, D.C. 

USEPA 1998a. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPN630lR-951002F. Published in 

63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

April, 1998. 

USEPA. 1998b. Appendix B. EXAMS Scenario Input Parameters for Standard Pond. Session 

1 : Proposed Methods for Basin-scale Estimation of Pesticide Concentrations in Flowing 

Water and Reservoirs for Tolerance Reassessment. Scientific Advisory Panel; July 29- 

30, 1998. Online at: http://www.epa. ~ov/sci~ol~/sap/meetin~s/l998/072998 mtghtm 

USEPA. 2002a. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate 

and Transport of Pesticides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Feb. 28,2002. Online at: 

http://www .epa.govloppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2~28~02.htm/ 

USEPA. 2002b. Melendez, J. Revised Tier I1 Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations for 

Resmethrin. DP Barcode: 326096. EFED memorandum to HED. Feb. 13,2002. 35 p. 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species 

Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. January 23,2004. Online at: 

http:/Iwww.epa.gov/oppfeadl /endanger/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf 

USEPA. 2006a. Pesticides; Data Requirments for Conventional Chemicals, Technical 

Amendments, and Data Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final 

Rule. October 26,2007. FR 72(207):60933-60988. 

USEPA. 2006b. Etofenprox: Section 18 for Granular Etofenprox to Control Rice Water Weevil 

in Louisiana. DP Barcode: 325 107. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, DC. EFED Memorandum. 

March 16,2006. 

USEPA. 2006c. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Resmethrin. EPA 738-R-06-003. U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 

Substances. Jun., 2006. 102 p. 

USEPA. 2006d. Arthur, J. Malathion: Residential Exposure and Risk Assessment for the 

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document. DP Barcode: 330678. Internal 

HED Memorandum. Jul. 6,2006. 
USEPA. 2007a. Etofenprox: Section 18 for Granular Etofenprox to Control Rice Water Weevil 

in Louisiana. DP Barcode: 335102. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, DC. EFED Memorandum. 

January 3 1,2007. 

USEPA. 2007b. Etofenprox: Section 18 for Granular Etofenprox to Control Rice Water Weevil 

in Texas. DP Barcode: 339676. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, DC. EFED Memorandum. July 

17,2007. 

USEPA. 2007c. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Permethrin: Revised December 

2007. EPA 73 8-R-06-017. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Dec., 2007. 202 p. 

USEPA. 2007d. Bradbury, S. Guidance for Tier I Estimation of Aqueous Pesticide 

Concentrations in Rice Paddies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substance, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

Internal Memorandum. May 8,2007. 

USEPA. 2008a. Water Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Science 

and Policy. Last updated: Apr 23,2008. Online at: 

htt~:!/~~~.cpa.aov/oppefedl!models/watcr! 

USEPA. 2008b. Orrick, G. Etofenprox New Uses (Rice and Vector Control): Transmittal of 

Drinking Water Exposure Assessment. DP Barcode: 342969. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, DC. EFED 

Memorandum to RD. May 27,2008. 

Urban, D.J. and N.J. Cook, 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure 

Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 54019-85-001. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 

Willis, G.H., and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide Persistence on Foliage in Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 100: 23 -73. 

Wood, A. 2007. Compendium of Pesticide Common Names. Last updated on Feb. 8,2007. 

Online at: http://www.alanwood.net/pesticides/index.html 

6.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies 

MRID 40237701. Jaksa, S. 1987. Physical/Chemical Data - Technical Ethofenprox. Project ID: N859A. 

Unpublished study performed and submitted by Zoecon Industries, Zoecon Corp., Dallas, TX. 46 p. 
MRID 46779702. Van der Gaauw, A. 2001. 14c-~tofen~rox: Hydrolysis at Three Different pH Values. Lab. 

Report ID: 73 1158. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag., Itingen, Switzerland and 

submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 35 p. 

MRID 46779703. Van der Gaauw, A. 2003. Aqueous Photolysis of [14~]-~tofenprox under Laboratory Conditions 

and Determination of Quantum Yield. Lab Study Number: 755526. Unpublished study prepared by RCC 

Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 120 p. 

MRID 46779704. Lewis, C. 2001. (14c)-~~1-500: Degradation and Retention in Water-sediment Systems. Lab. 

Report ID: CLE 71916-D2142. Unpublished study performed by Covance Laboratories Ltd., Harrogate, 

U.K and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Amended, 2002. 154 p. 

MRID 47132809. Van Dijk, A. 2002. Bioconcentration: Flow-through Fish Test with MTI-500 (Trebon) in 

Bluegill Sunfish. RCC Study Number: 762254. Unpublished study performed by RCC Ltd, Itingen, 

Switzerland; sponsored by Mitsui Chemicals Inc.,Tokyo, Japan. 136 p. 

MRID 46779726. Mamouni, A. 2002. Photolysis of 14c-~~1-500 on Soil Surface under Laboratory Conditions. 

Lab. Study Number: 800616. Unpublished study performed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland and 

submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 73 p. 

MRID 46779727. Volkl, S. 2001. 14c-~tofen~rox: Degradation and Metabolism in Four Soils Incubated under 

Aerobic Conditions. Lab. Report ID: 728987. Unpublished study performed by RCC Umweltchemie Ag., 

Itingen, Switzerland and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 160 p. 

MRID 46779728. Volkl, S. 2002. 14c-~tofen~rox: Anaerobic Soil Degradation and Metabolism. Lab. Report ID: 

729022. Unpublished study performed by RCC Umweltchemie Ag., Itingen, Switzerland and submitted by 

Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 122 p. 

MRID 46779729. Volkel, W. 1999. AdsorptionlDesorption of MTI-500 (Etofenprox) on Three Soils. Lab. Report 

ID: 663 175. Unpublished study performed by RCC Umweltchemie Ag., Itingen, Switzerland and 

submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 32 p. 

MRID 47132841. Volkl, S. 2007. Amendment to MRID No. 46779727 14c-~tofen~rox: Degradation and 

Metabolism in Four Soils Incubated under Aerobic Conditions. RCC Study No.: 728987. Unpublished 

study performed by RCC Ltd, Itingen, Switzerland and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 

40 p. 

MRID 47132842. Lewis, C. 2007. Amendment to MRID No. 46779704 14C-MTI-500: Degradation and Retention 

in Water-Sediment Systems. Lab. Report No.: CLE 71916-D2142. Amendment prepared by Covance 

Laboratories Ltd., North Yorkshire, England; sponsored and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, 

Japan. 6 p. 

MRID 47132843. Lewis, C. 2002. (14c)-~~1-500: Recovery of Radioactivity, Isolation and Analysis of a 

Degradation Product from a Water-Sediment System. Lab. Report ID: CLE 719114-D2149. Unpublished 

study performed by Covance Laboratories Ltd., Harrogate, U.K.; submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., 

Tokyo, Japan. 106 p. 

MRID 47132844. Hummel, R. 2006. Terrestrial Field Dissipation of Residues following Application of Etofenprox 

to Bare Soil. Landis Protocol No.: 43421A025; Wildlife Protocol No.: 236C-133. Unpublished study 

performed by Landis International, Inc., Valdosta, GA (study management); Research For Hire, Porterville, 

CA, AG Research Associates, Sycamore, GA, ACDS Research, Inc., North Rose, NY (field phases); 

Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, MD (analytical phase); and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., 

Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 201 p. 

MRID 47132846. Hummel, R. 2006. Aquatic Field Dissipation of Residues following Application of Etofenprox to 

Water. Landis Protocol No.: 43421A026. Unpublished study performed by Landis International, Inc., 
Valdosta, GA (study management); Research For Hire, Porterville, CA; Shofher Farm Research, Newport, 

AR (field phases); Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, MD (analytical phase); and submitted by Mitsui 

Chemicals, Inc., Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 200 p. 

MRID 47 1956 16. Johnston, J. 2007. Occupational and Residential Exposure and Risk Assessments for a Mosquito 

Abatement Product Containing Etofenprox. Wellmark International Study No. 3293. Performed by 

Exponent@, Inc., Washington, DC; sponsored and submitted by Wellmark International, Schaumburg, IL. 

Jun. 12,2007. 43 p. 

MRID 47441 101. Tognucci, A. 2000. Determination of the vapour pressure of etofenprox. RCC Study No. 

751803. Unpublished study performed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland; sponsored by Mitsui Chemicals, 

Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Sep. 8,2000. 20 p. 

MRID 47441 102. Kunz, C. 2000. Determination of the water solubility of 14c-etofenprox at three pH values. 

RCC Study No. 7555 15. Unpublished study performed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland; sponsored by 

Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Sep. 14,2000. 35 p. 

MRID 47441 103. Tognucci, A. 1998. Determination of the partition coefficient (N-octanol / water) of etofenprox. 

RCC Report No. 692763. Unpublished study performed by RCC Umweltchemie AG, ItingenIBL, 

Switzerland; sponsored by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Sep. 8,2000. 17 p. 

MRID: 47438701. Thus, J., J. van der Laan-Straathof. 1992. Determination of the Biodegradability of Etofenprox 

in a Closed Bottle Test. Labooratory Project ID: C.DNL.62.001. Unpublished study performed by Solvay 

Duphar B.V., The Netherlands; sponsored by Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., c/o Landis International, Inc., 

Valdosta, GA. Feb. 28, 1992. 18 p. 

MRID: 47438702. Thus, J., J. van der Laan-Straathof, W. Keetelaar-Jansen. 1993. Determination of the 

Biodegradation of 14c-~tofen~rox in an Adapted Modified Sturm Test. Study Number: C.DNL.62.002. 

Unpublished study performed by Solvay Duphar B.V., The Netherlands; sponsored by Mitsui Chemicals, 

Inc., c/o Landis International, Inc., Valdosta, GA. Sep. 10, 1993. 24 p. 

MRID: 47438703. Czech, P. 2002. Toxicity of Etofenprox to Activated Sludge in a Respiration Inhibition Test. 

RCC Study Number: 84 16 15. Unpublished study performed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland; sponsored 

by Spiess-Urania Chemicals GMBH, Hamburg, Germany. Jun. 1 1,2002. 20 p. 

6.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies 

MRID: 40449725. Roberts, N.; Hakin, B.; Anderson, A. (1985) The Acute Toxicity (LD50) of MTI-500 

(Ethofenprox) to the Mallard Duck: Laboratory Project ID MTC 77C/84793. Unpublished study prepared 

by Huntingdon Research Centre plc. 34 p. 

MRID: 40449726. Roberts, N.; Hakin, B. (1985) The Subacute Dietary Toxicity (LC50) of MTI-500 (Ethofenprox) 

to the Bobwhite Quail: Laboratory Project ID MTC 77Al8479512. Unpublished study prepared by 

Huntingdon Research Centre plc. 42 p. 

MRID: 40449727. Reberts, N.; Hakin, B. (1985) The Subacute Dietary Toxicity (LC50) of MTI-500 (Ethofenprox) 

to the Mallard Duck: Laboratory Project ID MTC 77B/84794/2. Unpublished study prepared by 

Huntingdon Research Centre plc. 4 1 p. 

MRID: 40449728. Surprenant, D. (1987) Static Acute Toxicity of SAN 81 1 I Technical to Rainbow Trout (Salmo 

gairdneri): Revised Final Report: Report #87-9-2492: Study #10828.0687.6108.103. Unpublished study 

prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 32 p. 
MRID: 40449729. Surprenant, D. (1987) Static Acute Toxicity of SAN 81 1 I Technical to Bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus): Report #87-11-2550: Study #10828.0687.6108.100. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 33 p. 

MRID: 40715801. Surprenant, D. (1988) Static Acute Toxicity of SAN 81 1 I (Ethofen- prox) Technical to 

Rainbow Trout (Salrno gairdneri): Report #87- 9-2492: Study #10828.0687.6108.103. Unpublished study 

prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 33 p. 

MRID: 40715802. Surprenant, D. (1988) Static Acute Toxicity of SAN 8 11 I (Ethofen- prox) Technical to Bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus): Report #87- 1 1-2550: Study #10828.0687.6 108.100. Unpublished study prepared 

by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 34 p. 

MRID: 43621301. Machado, M. (1995) Etofenprox Technical--Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout (Onchorhynchus 

mykiss) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 94-12-5625: 

13538.0994.6 102.108. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 72 p. 

MRID: 4362 1302. Machado, M. (1995) Etofenprox Technical--Acute Toxicity to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis 

macrochirus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 95-1-5653: 13538.0994.6101.105. 

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs., Inc. 71 p. 

MRID: 40449730. Surprenant, D. (1987) Static Acute Toxicity of SAN 81 1 I Technical to Daphnids (Daphnia 

magna): Report #87-11-2551: Study #10828.0687.6108.110. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Life Sciences, Inc. 30 p. 

MRID: 47132815. Walker, H. (2004) A Tier 2 Laboratory Study to Determine the Median Lethal Rate of Trebon 

30 EC to the Green Lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Project Number: 

EN03lHMA448, HMA/448,500/8/57. Unpublished study prepared by Ecotox Limited. 96 p. 

MRID: 47132816. Sprosne, R. (2004) A Tier 2 Laboratory Study to Determine the Median Lethal Rate of Trebon 

30 EC to the Predatory Bug Orius laevigatus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Project Number: HMAi447, 

ER/03/HMA447,500/8/56. Unpublished report prepared by Ecotox Limited. 59 p. 

MRID: 47 1328 17. Bakker, F. (200 1) A Laboratory Dose-Response Study to Evaluate the Effects of MTI-500 30% 

EC on Survival and Reproduction of the Predaceous Mite Typhodromus pyrl Scheuten (Acari: 

Phytoseiidae). Project Number: 50018140, LK002TPL. Unpublished study prepared by Mitox Stichting 

Duurzame. 33 p. 

MRID: 471328 18. Sprosen, R. (2004) A Tier 2 Laboratory Study to Determine the Median Lethal Rate of Trebon 

30 EC to the Predatory Mite Typhlodromus pyri (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Project Number: HMN445, 

ER/03lHMA445,500/8/55. Unpublished report prepared by Ecotox Limited. 62 p. 

MRID: 471328 19. Bakkar, F. (2001) A Laboratory Dose-Response Study to Evaluate the Effects of MTI-500 30 % 

EC on Survival and Reproduction of the Parasitoid Wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DeStephani-Perez) 

(Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Project Number: 50018139, LK001ARL. Unpublished study prepared by 

Mitox Stichting Duurzame. 30 p. 

MRID: 47132802. Batscher, R. (2002) Acute Toxicity of Alpha-CO to Daphnia magna in a 48-Hour 

Immobilization Test. Project Number: 841575,50018/10. Unpublished study prepared by RCC 

Umweltchemie Ag. 49 p. 

MRID: 47132803. Sutherland, C.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2006) Etofenprox: A 96-Hour Shell Deposition Test 

with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Final Report. Project Number: 236Ai109, 

236103300610YS1DEP1100P1611. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 61 p. 
MRID: 47132804. Palmer, S.; Sutherland, C.; Chafey, K.; et. al. (2006) Etofenprox: A 96-Hour Flow-Through 

Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysis bahia): Final Report. Project Number: 

500/8178,236A/107. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 64 p. 

MRID: 47132805. Batscher, R. (2002) Acute Toxicity of Alpha-CO to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 

96-Hour Flow Through Test. Project Number: 500/8/09,841573. Unpublished study prepared by RCC 

Umweltchemie Ag. 55 p. 

MRID: 47 132806. Sutherland: C.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2006) Etofenprox: A 96-Hour Flow-Through Acute 

Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report. Project Number: 

236N108. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 59 p. 

MRID: 47149101. Groeneveld, A.; Berends, A.; van der Laan, J.; et al. (1993) The Chronic Toxicity of [Carbon141-Etofenprox to Daphnia magna. Project Number: C/DNL/51/007,56835/32/93,500/8/18. Unpublished 

study prepared by Solvay Duphar B.V. 32 p. 

MRID: 47132808. Peither, A. (2005) Toxic Effects of MTI-500 (Etofenprox) to Zebra Fish (Brachydanio rerio) in 

an Early-Life Stage Toxicity Test. Project Number: 853517,500/8/66,853518. Unpublished study 

prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 86 p. 

MRID: 46779705. Rodgers, M. (1996) MTI-500: Effects on Reproduction in Bobwhite Quail After Dietary 

Administration. Project Number: MTCl270, MTCl2701962282. Unpublished study prepared by 

Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 270 p. 

MRID: 47132813. Temple, D.; Martin, K.; Beavers, J.; et al. (2006) Etofenprox: A Reproduction Study with the 

Mallard Duck: Final Report. Project Number: 236/120,500/8/77. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 

International, Ltd. 156 p. 

MRID: 47132814. Feije, R. (2005) Etofenprox: An Acute Contact Toxicity Test to Evaluate the Effect on Survival 

of the Honeybee Apis mellifera L.. Project Number: 500/8170, LK006AMT. Unpublished study prepared 

by Mitox Stichting Duurzame. 30 p. 

MRID: 47326001. Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2007) RF2056 OL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study 

with the Honeybee: Final Report. Project Number: 6361101,3235. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wellmark International. 34 p. 

MRID: 46779706. Buche, C. (2004) Terrestrial (Non-Target) Plant Test with MTI-500 30%EC: Seedling 

Emergence and Seedling Growth & Vegetative Vigour Test. Project Number: 853515. Unpublished study 

prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 99 p. 

MRID: 47132820. Buche, C. (2007) Terrestrial (Non-Target) Plant Test with MTI-500 30% EC: Seedling 

Emergence and Seedling Growth & Vegetative Vigour Test. Project Number: 500/8/65,854546,854547. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 92 p. 

MRID: 46779706. Buche, C. (2004) Terrestrial (Non-Target) Plant Test with MTI-500 30%EC: Seedling 

Emergence and Seedling Growth & Vegetative Vigour Test. Project Number: 853515. Unpublished study 

prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 99 p. 

MRID: 47132820. Buche, C. (2007) Terrestrial (Non-Target) Plant Test with MTI-500 30% EC: Seedling 

Emergence and Seedling Growth & Vegetative Vigour Test. Project Number: 500/8/65, 854546, 854547. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 92 p. 

MRID: 46779707. Batscher, R. (2002) Toxicity of alpha-CO to Pseudokirchneriella Subcapitata (Formerly 

Selenastnun Capricornutum) in a 96-Hour Algal Growth Inhibition Test. Project Number: 84 1577, 

84 1578. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 55 p. 
MRID: 47132821. Onuma, K. (2003) Etofenprox Technical: Static Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Algae 

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata: Final Report. Project Number: 50018152, 104510001430, 104510001250. 

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Laboratories (Europe) Ag. 47 p. 

MRID: 47132822. Desjardins, D.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2006) Etofenprox: A Static-Renewal Toxicity Test 

with Duckweed (Lemma gibba G3): Final Report. Project Number: 236A1110, 

23610330061LEM710ECD10PPTS1100P1618. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 

68 p. 

MRID: 47132810. Memmert, U. (2002) Effects of MTI-500 on Larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 10-Day 

Toxicity Test. Project Number: 500/8/21,803777. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie 

Ag. 61 p. 

MRID: 471328 11. Memmert, U. (2002) Acute Toxicity of 4'-OH to First-Instar Larvae of the Midge Chironomus 

riparius. Project Number: 50018112,841579,841580. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie 

Ag. 51 p. 

MRID: 47132812. Memmert, U. (2007) Effects of MTI-500 on the Development of Sediment-Dwelling Larvae of 

Chironomus riparius in a Water- Sediment System. Project Number: 50018122, 803608, 803610. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65 p. 
APPENDIX A. Bioaccumulation Model Assumptions 

Model description and parameterization 

The bioaccumulation model used in this assessment relies upon 8 equations for predicting the 

concentration of etofenprox in tissues of aquatic organisms (hot and Gobas 2004). Tissue 

residues are first calculated at the lowest level of the aquatic food chain (phytoplankton). 

Concentrations of etofenprox residues are then calculated for zooplankton, including 

consideration that the diet of zooplankton includes phytoplankton, which contain etofenprox 

residues. Tissue residues are then calculated for the next 5 trophic levels based on their diets of 

organisms from lower trophic levels. The equations, their parameters and associated assumptions 

are described below (Tables A.l- A.8). Parameter definitions and abbreviations are consistent 

with those published by Arnot and Gobas (2004) in order to ensure consistency with the 

publication and transparent methodology used in this assessment. 

associated parameters and assumptions. 

k, *(m, *@*ern* +mp *Cmp)+kD *Z(e *CD,) Eq.A. 1 C, = 

k, +k, +k, +k, 

Parameters: 

Symbol Definition 

CB pesticide concentration in the organism calculated 
k~ 

W 

m, - 

Table A.2. Equation A.2, derivation of available pesticide fraction in water (<P) and its associated 

parameters and assumptions. 

Eq.A.2 = 

1 

1 + XTOC * Kow 

Parameters: 

rate constant for pesticide metabolic transformation 

fraction of resporatory ventilation involving overlying water 

fraction of respiratory ventilation that involves pore-water of sediment 

Symbol 

XToC 

&w 

cf, 

& 

user defined 

fraction of the overlying water concentration of the pesticide that is 

cf, freely dissolved and can be abosrbed via membrane diffusion Equation A.2 

- none 

none 

Phytoplankton: 0.1 

0 

1 -m, 

55%; 

0 for organisms with 

no contact with pore 

water 

Assumptions: 

1. If a pesticide is associated with organic carbon in the water column, it is not bioavailable to organisms to the 

extent that it is in equilibrium with water; however, some fraction of it is always available. 

2. This equation assumes that equilibrium exists between the pesticide concentration in the water and in the 

organic carbon in the water column. 

3. The partitioning of the pesticide into organic carbon in the water column is equal to the phase partitioning into 

octanol. This is not consistent with Arnot and Gobas (2004), which had separate partition coefficients for POC 

(0.35) and DOC (0.08). Use of the phase partitioning coefficients increases a, resulting in increased available 

pesticide in the water and increased concentrations of pesticide in organisms (increased CB values). 

4. The sum of particulate organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon is the total organic carbon in the water 

column. 

Definition 

concentration of TOC in water 

octanol water partition coefficient 

fraction of the overlying water concentration of the pesticide that is 

freely dissolved and can be absorbed via membrane diffusion 

Assumptions: 

1. The pesticide is distributed homogenously throughout the organism, accounting for phase partitioning. 

2. The organism is considered to be a single compartment which exchanges the pesticide with its surrounding 

environment. 

3. Effects of pesticide concentration in egg and sperm tissue are not considered separately. 

4. This equation is based on a steady state assumption that involves no change in the concentration of the chemical 

over time. 

5. The growth of an organism over time is constant and can be represented by a constant fraction of the body 

weight of the organism. 

6. It is assumed that etofenprox is not metabolized within aquatic organisms (kM = 0). 

7. For plants, kE is considered insignificant. 

8. To calculate CBR, it is assumed that kD is equal to 0. 

d- 

% 

% 

Value 

user defined 

user defined 

calculated 

Units 

kg/L 

none 

none 
Table A.3. Derivation of pesticide concentration in the solid portion of the sediment (Cs). 

Eq.A.3 C, =Cm, *OC 

Where : C,,, = Cmp * KO, 

Parameters: 

Symbol 

cs 

csoc 

CWDp 

hc 

OC 

Table A.4. Equations associated with the derivation of pesticide clearance through the respiratory system 

(kl) and associated parameters and assumptions. 

Eq.A.4.1 ForPhytoplankton: k, = 1 

Eq.A.4.2 ForAnimals : k, = Ew * Gv 

WB 

Where:E, =1.85+ [g - J' 

G, =1400* [::I - 

Cox = (-0.24 * T + 14.04) * S 

Parameters 

Definition Value Units 

concentration of the chemical in sediment ( dry wei g ht of sediment) 

Symbol 

A 

B 

COX 

Ew 

Gv 

kl 

Kow 

normalized (for OC content) pesticide concentration in sediment 

freely dissolved pesticide concentration in pore water 

organic carbon partition coefficient 

percent organic carbon in sediment 

Definition 

constant related to the resistance to pesticide uptake through the 

aqueous phase of plant 

constant related to the resistance to pesticide uptake through the 

organic phase of plant 

concentration of dissolved oxygen 

pesticide uptake efficiency by gills 

ventilation rate of fish, invertebrates, zooplankton 

pesticide clearance rate constant through respiratory area (i.e. gills, 

skin) 

octanol water partition coefficient 

Value 

6.0~ 1 0-5 (default) 

5.5 (default) 

calculated 

calculated 

calculated 

calculated 

user defined 

Units 

none 

none 

(mg Oz)/L 

% 

Lld 

L/kg*d 

none 

calculated 

input parameter 

(from 

PRZM/EXAMS) 

user defined 

user defined 

g/(kg 

OC) 

g/L 

Llkg OC 

% 

Where : ED = (3 .ox1 o-~ * KO, + 2.0)-' 

For animals (except Jileter feeders) : GD = 0.022 * wi8' * exp(0.06 * T) 

For Jliter feeders : GD = G, * Css * 0 

-- 

0 

assumptions. 

Eq.A.6.1 kG = 0.0005 * W? (T = 10 "C) 

Eq.A.6.2 kG = 0.00251 * wio2 (T = 25 "C) 

Parameters: 

Symbol 

kc 

T temperature user defined 

WB wet weight of the organism at t user defined 

Assumptions: 

1. If T < 17.5 (midpoint between 10 and 25"C), equation A.6.1 is used. If T > 17.5, equation A.6.2 is used. 

2. These equations provide an approximation of growth of aquatic organisms based on weight and temperature. 

Definition 

organism growth rate constant 

Value 

calculated 

Units 

d-' 
1. The equation for GD applies to fish, zooplankton and invertebrates. The equation was derived based on studies 

2. Empirical ED values vary from 0-100%. Variability in ED has been attributed to various factors, including: 

sorption coefficients of chemicals, composition of diet, digestibility of diet (and more). Based on several different 

observations, it is assumed that this value can be related to Kow. 

3. The equation for ED is based on a lipid-water (2 phase) resistance model. 

4. It is assumed that the scavenging efficiency of filter feeders is 100%. 

kGB Eq.A.8 k, = G, * ED * - 

WB 

Where : ED = (3.0~10" * Kow + 2.0)-' 

~GB = (vA *KO, + vm * B ow + vwG) 

(~u ow +v& *B*~ow +vm) 

VLG = 

(l-&L)*vLD 

(I-E~)*v, +(I-E,)*v,, +(I-E~)*v~ 

VNG = 

(l-&,)*~,, 

(~-E~)*v~ +(I-E~)*v,~ +(I-E~)*v~ 

VWG = 

(l-&w)*vm 

(l-&,)*v, +(I-&,)*V,, + (1-&,)*vm 

G, = [(i-&J*vLD +(l-qJ*vND +(~-E~)*v~]*G~ 

For animals (except Jileter feeders) : GD = 0.022 * wiS5 * exp(0.06 * T) 

For Jliter feeders : GD = Gv * C,, * o 

G, ~1400" [z:) - 

C,, = (-0.24 * T + 14.04) * S 

Parameters: 
- GF 

k~ 

~GB 

Kow 

S 

T 

VLB 

VLD 

VLG 

VNB 

VND 

VNG 

. VWB 

VWD 

VWG 

WB 

$ 

EL 

egestion rate of fecal matter 

rate constant for elimination of the pesticide through excretion 

of contaminated feces 

partition coefficient of the pesticide between the gastrointestinal tract and the organism 

octanol water partition coefficient 

oxygen saturation in water column 

temperature 

lipid fraction of organism 

overall lipid content of diet 

lipid contents in the gut 

NLOM (Non Lipid Organic Matter) fraction of animals, 

NLOC (Non Lipid Organic Carbon) of plants 

overall NLOM content of diet 

NLOM contents in the gut 

water content of the organism 

overall water content of diet 

water contents in the gut 

wet weight of the organism at t 

proportionality constant expressing the sorption capacity of 

NLOM to that of octanol 

dietary assimilation rate of lipids 

calculated 

for animals: 

calculated 

for plants: 0 

calculated 

user defined 

user defined 

user defined 

user defined 

user defined 

calculated 

user defined 

user defined 

calculated 

user defined 

user defined 

calculated 

user defined 

0.035 for animals 

fish: 92%; 

aquatic inverts: 75%; 

zooplankton: 72% 

(kg feces)/(kg 

organism)*d 

6' 

none 

none -- - 

% 

"C 

(kg lipid)/ 

(kg organism 

wet weight) 

kglkg 

(kg lipid)/(kg 

digesta wet 

weight) 

kg NLOMI 

(kg organism 

wet weight) 

kglkg 

(kg 

NLOM)/(kg 

digesta wet 

weight) 

kg water/ 

(kg organism 

wet weight) 

kglkg 

(kg water)/(kg 

digesta wet 

weight) 

kg 

none 

YO 
In order to estimate concentrations of etofenprox residues in tissues of aquatic organisms, biotic 

and abiotic characteristics of the model ecosystem must be defined. Necessary biotic 

components of the ecosystem determined, including: trophic levels, body weights, body 

compositions (e.g. % lipids, % NLOW, % water), and the diet composition of organisms in the 

trophic level. Parameters used to define the biotic components of the model aquatic food web 

are identified in Tables A.9 and A.lO. Parameters are selected according to hot and Gobas 

(2004). Abiotic characteristics are identified in Equations A.l-A.8 and are defined in Table 

A.lO. Parameter values were selected to provide representative estimates of parameters that were 

considered conservative. 

EN 

E w 

Assumptions: 

1. GF is a function of the feeding rate and the digestibility of the diet, which is a fhction of the composition of the 

diet. 

2. For invertebrates, dietary assimilation efficiencies vary significantly, leading to uncertainty in assigning one 

value to this parameter. 

3. Since hydrophobic chemicals are not likely to be stored in the water of organism tissue, this route is not 

, considered significant to bioaccumulation. 

dietary assimilation rate of NLOM 

dietary assimilation rate of water 

fish: 55%; 

aquatic inverts: 75%; 

zooplankton: 72% 

freshwater 

organisms: 25% 

YO 

% 
Calculation of parameters related to piscivorous animals 

Table A.lO. Abiotic 

Characteristic 

TOC (kg OCIL) 

% oxygen sat 

Water Temperature 

("c) 

concentration of 

suspended solids 

(kg/L) 

Sediment OC (%) 

Source of NAWQA data: 

In order to assess risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms that have 

bioaccumulated etofenprox, several species were selected, including mink, river otter, belted 

kingfisher, herring gull, osprey, mallard duck, great blue heron and bald eagle. 

Species body weight data (in kg) are consistent with the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook 

(USEPA, 1993). Food intake values for mink, herring gull, osprey, great blue heron and bald 

eagle were taken fiom data cited in USEPA 1993. Food ingestion rates were estimated for otter 

(mammal equation) mallard duck and kingfisher (bird equation). Food ingestion rates (FI) were 

estimated by Equations A.11 and A.12, where FI is calculated in kg dry foodlkg-bw day and Wt 

is animal body weight in kg. FI rates were converted from food dry weightlkg-bw day to food 

wet weightlday by assuming the diet of river otter and belted kingfisher includes food of 75% 

water by weight. The FI rate for mallard duck was converted fiom food dry weightlkg-bw day to 

food wet weightlday by assuming the diet of mallard duck includes food of 80% water by weight 

(USEPA, 1993). 

characteristics of 

Value 

1 .~oE-06 

100% 

14.3 

3.04E" 

1.7% 

USGS 2006. 

Eq.A. 1 1 FI = 0.0687 * (mammals) wt 

the model ecosystem. 

Comments/Guidance 

Default = 1.20 x10-~. Lower TOC results in higher CB values. Therefore, 

25th percentile of NAWQA data for organic carbon in water is set as 

default (n=25084). Mean is 4.4~10.~~ 10thpercentile is 0.4x10-~, 75th 

percentile is 5.2~1 o-~. 

Default = 100%. Lower %02 results in lower CB values. Therefore, 75th 

percentile of NAWQA data is set as default (n=8066). Mean = 82.5%. 

Some values were greater than 100% saturation. All values >200% were 

removed fiom data set for calculation of mean and percentiles. 

Default = 14.3. The influence of the water temperature on CB is dependant 

upon log Kow. For low log Kow chemicals (e.g. 5), increasing temperature 

results in an increase in CB values. For high log Kow chemicals (e.g. 7), 

increasing temperature results in lower CB values. Therefore, the mean of 

NAWQA data on water temperature (n=77,669) is set as default. 25th 

percentile = 9.0, 75" percentile = 19.8. 

Default = 3.04~10~. The influence of the concentration of suspended solids 

on CB is dependant upon log KOW. For low log Kow chemicals (e.g. 5), 

increasing suspended solids results in a decrease in CB values. For high log 

Kow chemicals (eg. 7), higher concentration of suspended solids results in 

lower CB values. Therefore, the mean of NAWQA data on suspended 

sediment concentration (n=23,924) is set as default. 25" percentile = 1.2 

x10-~, 75th percentile = 1 .2x10e4. 

Default = 1.7%. Higher % OC results in higher CB values. Therefore, 75th 

percentile of NAWQA data for bed sediment OC (<2mrn wet sieved) 

(n=2,253) is set as default. Mean = 1.38%, 90" percentile is 3.2%. 

Eq.A.12 FI= 0.0582 * ~t~.~~~ (birds) Wt 
Drinking water intakes (DW) for mammals and birds are calculated based on the Equations 

A.13 and A.14 (USEPA 1993); where BW represents the body weight (in kg) of the animal for 

which the drinking water intake is being assessed. Resulting units of DW are Llday. 

Eg.A. 13 D W = (0.099 * B W0.09) (mammals) 

Eq.A.14 DW=(0.059*~~~.~') (birds) 

Dose-based (mglkg-bw day) and dietary-based (ppm or mgkg-diet day) EECs are estimated 

assuming that pesticide intake is a function of the amount of pesticide contained in the food and 

drinking water of an animal. The pesticide concentration in food is based on the concentration of 

pesticide in the prey items and the percent of each prey item in the diet of the animal. Mink, 

belted kingfisher, great blue heron, and osprey consume 100% forage fish. River otter, herring 

gull and bald eagle are assumed to consume 80% forage fish and 20% pisciverous fish. Mallard 

ducks are assumed to consume 34% phytoplankton, 33% zooplankton and 33% benthic 

invertebrates (USEPA, 1993). 

The dose-based EEC is calculated by Equation A.15. The pesticide intake through food is 

calculated by multiplying the percent of each prey item (% prey) by the pesticide tissue residue 

concentration for that prey item (CBprey). The sum of the pesticide residues ingested through food 

is converted into units of mg pesticidelkg food. This value is then multiplied by the food intake 

(in units of kglkg-bw day) for a resulting value in units of mg pesticidekg-bw day. The 

pesticide intake through drinking water is calculated by multiplying the concentration of the 

pesticide in water (CWTO, which is in units of ma) by the water intake (DW, units of Lld) and 

dividing by the bodyweight. This results in units of mg pesticidekg-bw day. The sum of 

pesticide intake through diet and through drinking water is the dose-based EEC. 

Cmo *DW Eq.A. 15 Dose - based EEC = (% ,,, * CBprey ) * FI + BW 

The dietary-based EEC is calculated by Equation A.16. Pesticide intake through food is 

calculated by multiplying the percent of each prey item (% prey) by the pesticide tissue residue 

concentration for that prey item (CBprey). The sum of the pesticide residues ingested through food 

is converted into units of mg pesticidekg food. This value is then multiplied by the food intake 

(in units of kg foodkg-bw day) and animal body weight (kg-bw) for a resulting value in units of 

mg pesticidelday. The pesticide intake through drinking water is calculated by multiplying the 

bioavailable concentration of the pesticide in water (CWTO) (which is in units of mglL) by the 

water intake (DW, units of Lld). This results in units of mg pesticidelday. The sum of pesticide 

intake through diet and through drinking water is the dietary-based EEC. 

Eq.A. 16 Dietary- based EEC = (% , * CBprey )* FI * Wt + (c,, * D W) 
Available dose-based toxicity values are adjusted for the weights of the animal tested (e.g. 

laboratory rat and mallard duck or bobwhite quail) and of the animal for which the risks are 

being assessed (e.g. mink, bald eagle, etc.). These adjustments are made according to the 

equations below (USEPA 2006), where: AT = adjusted toxicity value; LDso or NOAEL = 

endpoint reported by toxicity study; TW = body weight of tested animal (350g rat; 1580g 

mallard or 178 g Northern bobwhite quail); AW = body weight of assessed animal; x = Mineau 

scaling factor (default value of 1.15 used) (Equations A.17 and A.18). 

Eq.A.1'7 AT=(LD,oTNOAEL)[~~ (mammals ) 

AW (x-1) 

Eq A. AT = LD (,) (birds ) 

Available dose- and dietary-based toxicity values for etofenprox are non-definitive and 

considered to represent the lower bound of acute and chronic "no effect" levels for piscivorous 

birds and mammals because no mortality or reproductive sublethal effects were observed a the 

limit doses/concentration. Given the uncertainty associated with defining a specific threshold of 

effects in birds and mammals, RQ values were not derived. Instead, as presented in the 

etofenprox assessment, dose- and dietary-based exposures (based on the assumed upper bound of 

Koc for the proposed new use of etofenprox on rice) and toxicity values (which represent the 

level at which no effects occurred) are provided for comparative purposes. 
APPENDIX B. AGDISP Input Data and Sample PRZM and EXAMS 

Input/Output Data. 

A GDISP Input Data 

Table B.1. AGDISP Input Parameter Values for Etofenprox Aerial Applications. 

Parameter Value I GUI Section 1 Reference 

Application method 

Aircraft name 

Aircraft type 

Wing semispan 

Aircraft weight 

Propeller rpm 

Propeller radius 

Planform area 

Engines 

Engine vertical 

Engine forward 

Wing vertical 

Vortex decay rate 

IGE 

Vortex decay rate 

OGE 

Aircraft drag 

coefficient 

Propeller efficiency 

Aircraft Features 

Aerial 

Air Tractor AT-40 1 

Fixed wing 

24.5 ft 

6000 lbs 

2000 

4.5 ft 

294 f? 

1 

-1.2 ft 

11.9 ft 

1.51 ft 

1.25 mph 

0.3355 mph 

0.1 

0.8 

Boom vertical 

Boom forward 

Number of nozzles 

Nozzle extent 

Nozzle Array 

Application method 

App. methodAircraI? 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodfAircraft 

App. method1Aircraft 

App. methodIAircraf3 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

App. methodAircraft 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

-1.15 ft 

-0.8333 ft 

42 

65% (regular distribution) 

Droplet Size Distribution 

App. methodAircraft 

App. method1Aircraft 

App. technique/Nozzles 

App. technique/Nozzles 

Reference 

distribution 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Aerosol to Very Fine 

Aircraft Operation 

App. techniqueIDrop 

size distribution 

Proposed label 

Typical flight speed 

Release height 

Flight lines 

Swath width 

Swath displacement 

Default swath offset 

App. method/Aircraft 

Application method 

Application method 

Swath 

Swath 

Advanced Settings 

120 mph 

100 ft 

20 

60 ft 

0 ft 

112 swath 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Proposed label 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Spray Material 

Spray material 

Spray volume rate 

Oil 

0.0047 gal/A 

Spray material 

Spray material 

Proposed label 

Proposed label 
Table B.1. AGDISP Input Parameter Values for Etofenprox Aerial Applications. 

Parameter 

Active fraction 

Nonvolatile fi-action 

Specific gravity, 

carrier 

Specific gravity, 

nonvolatile 

Evaporation rate 

Value 

0.2 (0.007 lbs a.i./A) 

0.9999 

0.891 

0.891 

2.49 um'?"~/sec 

Wind speed 

Wind speed 

measurement height 

Wind direction 

Ground reference 

Transport distance 

Upslope angle 

Sideslope angle 

Relative humidity 

Temperature 

Ambient pressure 

Stability 

Canopy height 

Surface roughness 

Downwind water 

body width 

GUI Section 

Spray material 

Spray material 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Reference 

Proposed label 

MRID 40237701 

MRID 40237701 

MRID 40237701 

Minimum value 

allowed by model 

Environmental 

2 mph 

6.56 ft 

-90" 

0 ft 

0 ft 

0" 

0" 

90% 

85°F 

29.91 inHg 

Overcast at night 

None 

0.0246 ft 

208.7 ft 

Computational 

Maximum 

computational time 

Maximum 

downwind distance 

Features 

Meteorology 

Advanced settings 

Meteorology 

Advance settings 

Transport 

Surface 

Surface 

Meteorology 

Meteorology 

Advanced settings 

Atm. stability 

Surfacelcanop y 

SurfaceISurface details 

Deposition assessment1 

Aquatic area 

Limits 

Consistent with 

malathion RED 

(USEPA, 2006) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Consistent with 

resmethrin DWA 

(USEPA, 2002a) 

Consistent with 

resmethrin DWA 

(USEPA, 2002a) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Consistent with 

resmethrin DWA 

(USEPA, 2002a) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Width of standard farm 

pond (USEPA, 1998b) 

600 sec 

2608.24 ft 

Advanced settings 

Advanced settings 

Default (USDA, 2003) 

Default (USDA, 2003) 
PRZM and EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data for Aerial Application in a 2-mph 

Wind, Adjacent to the Standard Farm Pond 

stored as Eto-A2-0.out 

Chemical: Etofenprox 

PRZM environment: FLturfSTD.txt modified Tueday, 21 February 2006 at 14:38:26 

EXAMS environment: pond298.e~~ modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 16:33:30 

Metfile: w12834.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09:04:28 

Water segment concentrations (ppb) 

Year 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

1968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

198 1 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

Sorted results 

Prob. 

0.032258064516129 

0.0645161290322581 

0.0967741935483871 

0.129032258064516 

0.161290322580645 

0.193548387096774 

0.225806451612903 

0.2580645 16129032 

0.290322580645 161 

0.322580645 16 129 

0.354838709677419 

Peak 

0.22 

0.2606 

0.29 19 

0.3163 

0.3358 

0.3527 

0.3623 

0.3724 

0.3793 

0.3824 

0.3855 

0.3869 

0.3881 

0.3876 

0.3886 

0.39 13 

0.3934 

0.3934 

0.3918 

0.393 1 

0.3939 

0.3953 

0.3979 

0.4002 

0.3978 

0.3972 

0.3962 

0.3967 

0.395 

0.393 

Peak 

0.4002 

0.3979 

0.3978 

0.3972 

0.3967 

0.3962 

0.3953 

0.395 

0.3939 

0.3934 

0.3934 

21 Day 

0.09535 

0.1361 

0.1675 

0.1919 

0.21 15 

0.2275 

0.2381 

0.2483 

0.2552 

0.2583 

0.2613 

0.2623 

0.264 

0.2635 

0.2644 

0.2673 

0.2694 

0.2693 

0.2677 

0.269 

0.2699 

0.2709 

0.2738 

0.2761 

0.2738 

0.2731 

0.2721 

0.2726 

0.2709 

0.2689 

21 Day 

0.2761 

0.2738 

0.2738 

0.273 1 

0.2726 

0.2721 

0.2709 

0.2709 

0.2699 

0.2694 

0.2693 

60 Day 

0.08408 

0.1256 

0.1577 

0.1826 

0.2019 

0.2182 

0.2291 

0.2396 

0.247 

0.2502 

0.2528 

0.254 

0.2558 

0.2551 

0.2562 

0.2587 

0.2616 

0.2615 

0.2595 

0.2608 

0.2621 

0.2626 

0.2654 

0.2677 

0.266 

0.265 

0.2641 

0.2645 

0.2629 

0.2609 

60 Day 

0.2677 

0.266 

0.2654 

0.265 

0.2645 

0.2641 

0.2629 

0.2626 

0.2621 

0.2616 

0.2615 

90 Day 

0.07536 

0.1173 

0.1498 

0.1749 

0.1943 

0.2108 

0.2219 

0.2325 

0.24 

0.2434 

0.2458 

0.247 

0.2489 

0.2482 

0.2494 

0.2515 

0.2548 

0.2549 

0.2526 

0.254 

0.2553 

0.2556 

0.2584 

0.2607 

0.2594 

0.2582 

0.2573 

0.2576 

0.2562 

0.2542 

90 Day 

0.2607 

0.2594 

0.2584 

0.2582 

0.2576 

0.2573 

0.2562 

0.2556 

0.2553 

0.2549 

0.2548 

Yearly 

0.04306 

0.0833 1 

0.1 144 

0.1384 

0.1575 

0.1731 

0.1843 

0.1936 

0.2004 

0.2033 

0.2061 

0.2074 

0.2089 

0.209 

0.2099 

0.2122 

0.2145 

0.2142 

0.2129 

0.2136 

0.2151 

0.2161 

0.2182 

0.2204 

0.219 

0.2177 

0.2168 

0.2174 

0.2159 

0.2139 

Yearly 

0.2204 

0.219 

0.2182 

0.2177 

0.2174 

0.2168 

0.2161 

0.2159 

0.2151 

0.2145 

0.2142 
0.39774 0.29633 0.27373 0.26536 0.25838 0.21815 

Average of yearly averages: 0.192352333333333 

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006 

Data used for this run: 

Output File: Eto-A2-0 

Metfile: w12834.dvf 

PRZM scenario: FLturfSTD.txt 

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv 

Chemical Name: Etofenprox 

Description Variable Name Value 

Molecular weight mwt 376.47 

Henry's Law Const. henry 1.34e-7 

Vapor Pressure vapr 6.10e-9 

Solubility sol 0.225 

Kd Kd 

Koc Koc 1.93e5 

Photolysis half-life kd~ 8.4 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 57.1 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 950 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 22.3 

Hydrolysis: PH 7 0 

Method: CAM 2 

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 

Application Rate: TAPP 0.0079 

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.49 

Spray Drift DRFT 0.61 

Application Date Date 0 1-04 

Interval 1 interval 3 

app. rate 1 apprate 

Interval 2 interval 4 

app. rate 2 apprate 

Interval 3 interval 3 

app. rate 3 apprate 

Interval 4 interval 4 

Units Comments 

g/mol 

atm-mA3/mol 

torr 

mg/L 

mg/L 

ma 

days Half-life 

days Halfife 

days Halfife 

days Halfife 

days Half-life 

integer See PRZM manual 

cm 

kglha 

fraction 

fraction of application rate applied to pond 

dd/rnm or ddlmrnm or dd-mm or dd-rnmm 

days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

kglha 

days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

kglha 

days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

kglha 

days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 
app. rate 4 

Interval 5 

app. rate 5 

Interval 6 

app. rate 6 

Interval 7 

app. rate 7 

Interval 8 

app, rate 8 

Interval 9 

app. rate 9 

Interval 10 

app. rate 10 

Interval 1 1 

app. rate 1 1 

Interval 12 

app. rate 12 

Interval 13 

app. rate 13 

Interval 14 

app. rate 14 

Interval 15 

app. rate 15 

Interval 16 

app. rate 16 

Interval 17 

app. rate 17 

Interval 18 

app. rate 18 

Interval 19 

app. rate 19 

Interval 20 

app. rate 20 

Interval 2 1 

app. rate 2 1 

Interval 22 

app. rate 22 

Interval 23 

app. rate 23 

Interval 24 

app. rate 24 

Record 17: 

Record 18 : 

Flag for Index Res. Run 

Flag for runoff calc. 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

interval 

apprate 

FILTRA 

IPSCND 

UPTKF 

PLVKRT 

PLDKRT 

FEXTRC 

IR 

RUNOFF 

0.5 

EPA Pond 

none 

k&a 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

k&a 

days 

kglha 

days 

k&a 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kgha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

k@ 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

kglha 

days 

k&a 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

Set to 0 or delete line for single app. 

none, monthly or total(average of entire run) 
APPENDIX C. Provisionally Modified Tier I Rice Model Equations. 

The Tier I Rice Model v1.0 (Equation 1) is a simple equilibrium partitioning equation that 

calculates a single, screening-level concentration in paddy water and released tail water based on 

a compound's application rate and soil mobility. The provisionally modified Tier I Rice Model 

(Equation 2) includes time, the aerobic degradation rate, and the anaerobic degradation rate as 

inputs in order to estimate a single, screening-level concentration in paddy water or tail water at 

a given time after application. 

Equation 1: Tier I Rice Model v1.O (USEPA, 2007b). 

and, if appropriate: 

K, = 0.01K,, 

where: 

C, = water concentration [yglL] 

ma{ = mass applied per unit area [kglha] 

& = water-sediment partitioning coefficient [Lkg] 

Koc = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [Lkg] 

d, = water column depth = 0.10 m 

dsed = sediment depth = 0.0 1 m 

esed = porosity of sediment = 0.509 

PI, = bulk density of sediment = 1300 kgim3 

Example calculation: 

Equation 2: Provisional Modifled Rice Model (Jones, 2006). 

where, 

t = interval since last application (d) 

kl = aerobic aqueous metabolism upper 9oth percentile rate constant = 0.0121 l/d 

k2 = anaerobic aqueous metabolism upper 9oth percentile rate constant = 0.0007 

1 /d 
Example calculation: 

C, (21 d) = 1.20 yg/L x exp {-(21 d) x [(0.10 m x 0.0121 lld) + (0.01 m x 0.509 x 0.0007 l/d) + 

(0.01 m x 1300 kgim3 x 0.01 x 1.93 x lo5 Lkg x 0.0007 lld 1 1000)l I [0.10 m + 0.01 m x (0.509 

+ 1300 kgim3 x 0.01 x 1.93 x lo5 Lkg I lOOO)]) 

= 1.1 8 u.dL (vpb) 

Equation 3: Provisional Sediment Concentration Equation. 

where: 

Csed = sediment concentration [mglkg soil] 

Example calculation: 

CSd = [lo5 x 0.303 kg a.i./ha] 1 [(0.01 m x 1300 kg/m3) + (lo3 x (0.10 m + (0.01 m x 0.509)) 1 

(0.01 x 1.93 x 10' Lkg))] = 2.32 mdk~ soil (vpm) 

Equation 4: Provisional Modified Sediment Concentration Equation. 

Example calculation: 

Csed (21 d) = 2.32 mglkg soil x exp {-(21 d) x [(0.10 m x 0.0121 l/d) + (0.01 m x 0.509 x 0.0007 

l/d) + (0.01 m x 1300 kg/m3 x 0.01 x 1.93 x lo5 Llkg x 0.0007 l/d / 1000)]/ [0.10 m + 0.01 m x 

(0.509 + 1300 kg/m3 x 0.01 x 1.93 x lo5 L/kg 1 1000)l) 

= 2.26 m&a soil (vpm) 
APPENDIX D. Chemical Names, Structures, and Maximum Reported Amounts of Etofenprox and Its 

Degradates. 

Table D. Etofenprox and Its Degradates. 

Name and Structure 

Maximum Percent of Applied Dose 

Parent: Etofenprox 

IUPAC Name: 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzyl ether 

CAS Name: 1-[[2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylpropoxy]methyl]-3-phenoxybenzene 

CAS. NO.: 80844-07-1 

Synonyms: Ethofenprox, MTI-500 

H2 

MRID 

46779702 

46779703 

46779726 

46779727 

47132841 

46779728 

46779704 

47132842 

47132843 

47132844 

47132846 

(interval) 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Study Type (OPPTS 

guideline) 

Hydrolysis 

(835.2120) 

Aqueous photolysis 

(835.2240) 

Soil photolysis 

(835.2410) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(835.4100) 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4400) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Terrestrial field 

dissipation (835.6 100) 

Aquatic field dissipation 

(835.6200) 

% of applied dose 

at final sampling 

interval (study 

duration in days) 

97.2%-99.5% of 

recovered (5 d) 

9.4% (15 d) 

3 1.5% (30 d) 

2.4-8.0% (120 d) 

61.7% (121 d) 

7.8% (99 d) 

22.4% (100 d) 

<LOQ* (45 d) 

1.5% (90 d) 

<LOQ* (90 d) 

0.02% (90 d) 

18.6% (90 d) 

<0.01% (90 d) 

7.6% (90 d) 

Comments 

pH 4, tl,2 = Stable 

pH 7, tlI2 = Stable 

pH 9, tlI2 = Stable 

(50°C, poor recoveries) 

t112 = 8.4 d 

(poor material balance) 

tl12 = 140-340 d 

(natural-sunlight-intensity estimations 

yielded uncertain half-lives.) 

tlI2 = 6.5-25.2 d 

t112 = 195 d 

tlI2 = 26.0-32.4 d 

(foreign soils, 15x max. app. rate) 

t112 = 15.2-33.5 d 

(foreign soil, 16x max. app. rate) 

t112 = 4.8 d (sandy loam; California) 

tllz = 13.6 d (loamy sand; Georgia) 

tl12 = 13.4 d (loamy sand; New York) 

*LOQ = 0.7% 

tlIz = 1.7 d (water; California) 

t1,2 = 15.7 d (sediment; California) 

t1/2 = 1.6 d (water; Arkansas) 

tIl2 = 7.3 d (sediment; Arkansas) 
Table D. Etofenprox and Its Degradates. 

Name and Structure 

Maximum Percent of Applied Dose 

Degradate 1: Alpha-CO 

IUPAC Name: 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylpropyl3-phenoxybenzoate 

Synonym: a-CO 

0 H3c-cbe Y ,Ox$ 

- CH, vOo I / 

C", 

Degradate 2: 4'-OH 

IUPAC Name: 3-(4-hydroxyphenoxy)benzyl 

2-(4-ethox~~hen~l)-2-meth~l~ro~~l ether 

OH 

(interval) 

63.7% of 

recovered 

(increasing at 

end of study) 

7.7% (20 d) 

3.4% (7 d) 

1.1% (121 d) 

3.6% (3 d) 

7.3% (0.25 d) 

8.1%(3-9d) 

0.7% (2 d) 

0.9% (1 d) 

3.1% (20 d) 

5 -3% ( 14 d) 

12.2% (121 d) 

22.0% (7 d) 

20.3% (7 d) 

% of applied dose 

at final sampling 

interval (study 

duration in days) 

63.7% of 

recovered (15 d) 

4.3% (30 d) 

0.3% (120 d) 

1.1% (121 d) 

<LOQ* (45 d) 

<LOQ* (90 d) 

<LOQ*(90d) 

<0.0 1 % (90 d) 

<0.01% (90 d) 

1.2% (30 d) 

1.4% ( 120 d) 

12.2% (121 d) 

6.1% (99 d) 

8.5% (100 d) 

MRID 

46779703 

46779726 

46779727 

47132841 

46779728 

47132844 

47 132846 

46779726 

46779727 

47132841 

46779728 

46779704 

47132842 

47 132843 

Study Type (OPPTS 

guideline) 

Aqueous photolysis 

(835.2240) 

Soil photolysis 

(835.2410) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(835.4100) 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4400) 

Terrestrial field 

dissipation (835.6 100) 

Aquatic field dissipation 

(835.6200) 

Soil photolysis 

(835.2410) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(835.4100) 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4400) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Comments 

None 

None 

tlI2 = 12-45 d 

None 

(sandy loam; California) 

(loamy sand; Georgia) 

(loamy sand; New York) 

*LOQ= 1.1-1.3% 

(water layer; California) 

(water layer; Arkansas) 

None 

tlI2 = 14-44 d 

Study terminated w/ 58-66% parent 

undegraded. 

tIl2 = 54.5 d - 

t112 = 58.7-61.9 d 
Study Type (OPPTS 

guideline) 

Terrestrial field 

dissipation (835.6 100) 

Aquatic field dissipation 

(835.6200) 

Soil photolysis 

(835.2410) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(835.4100) 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4400) 

Soil photolysis 

(835.2410) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(835.4100) 

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4400) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

MRID 

47132844 

47132846 

46779726 

46779727 

47132841 

46779728 

46779726 

46779727 

47132841 

46779728 

46779704 

47 132842 

47 132843 

Table D. Etofenprox and Its Degradates. 

Name and Structure 

Maximum Percent of Applied Dose 

Degradate 3: DE 

IUPAC Name: 3-phenoxybenzyl2-(4- 

hydroxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl ether 

H ,0y2 

HoecH3yJ0yJ - 

CH3 

Degradate 4: DP 

IUPAC Name: 3-hydroxybenzyl2-(4- 

ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl ether 

H H3c-cb9H27 "2 ,olc2 OH 

- C"3 

(3"' 

Comments 

(sandy loam; California) 

(loamy sand; Georgia) 

(loamy sand; New York) 

*LOQ = 0.6-0.7% 

(water layer; California) 

(water layer; Arkansas) 

None 

tIl2 = 32-41 d 

None 

None 

tlI2 = 17-66 d 

None 

Not analyzed in water past 14 days. 

None 

(interval) 

1.8% (9 d) 

3.2% (2-3 d) 

6.4% (2 d) 

0.02% (1 d) 

0.2% (1 d) 

2.0% (20 d) 

3.6% (7 d) 

1.4% (28 d) 

1.6% (30 d) 

3.6% (21 d) 

2.5% (121 d) 

5.5% (14 d) 

2.1%(100d) 

% of applied dose 

at final sampling 

interval (study 

duration in days) 

<LOQ* (45 d) 

<LOQ* (90 d) 

<LOQ* (90 d) 

<0.02% (90 d) 

<0.02% (90 d) 

0.6% (30 d) 

0.7% (120 d) 

1.1 (121 d) 

1.6% (30 d) 

1.1% (120 d) . 

2.5% (121 d) 

NA,2.4% (99 d) 

2.1%(100d) 
Table D. Etofenprox and Its Degradates. 

Name and Structure 

Maximum Percent of Applied Dose 

Degradate 5: EPMP 

IUPAC Name: 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylpropionic acid 

Synonyms: Pacid, EtO-Pacid 

"2 o* / OH 

H3C-C, 0a+-CH3 

CH3 

Degradate 6: PENA 

IUPAC Name: 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylpropyl alcohol 

CAS Name: 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2- 

methylpropan- 1-01 

"2 ,OH 

H3C-C, Oaq-CH3 

- 

CH3 

Degradate 7: mPBAcid 

IUPAC Name: 3-phenoxybenzoic acid 

CAS No.: 3739-38-6 

Synonyms: m-PB-acid, PBacid 

0 HO, '1 

% of applied dose 

at final sampling 

interval (study 

duration in days) 

NA,O.l% (99 d) 

45.3% (8 d, 45°C) 

12.0% (15 d) 

44.9 (8 d, 45OC) 

5.0% (15 d) 

1.2% (30 d) 

ND (120 d) 

(interval) 

2.7% (14 d) 

(45.3% of 

applied alphaCO; increasing 

at end of study) 

12.0% 

(increasing at 

end of study) 

(44.9% of 

applied alphaCO; increasing 

at end of study) 

5.0% (detected 

at end of study) 

2.0% (20 d) 

2.5% (14 d) 

Comments 

Not analyzed in water past 14 days. 

Study of alpha-CO, not etofenprox parent 

(alpha-CO was stable to hydrolysis at pH 

4 and 7). PENA is a hydrolytic product 

of alpha-CO at pH 9. 

None 

Study of alpha-CO, not etofenprox parent 

(alpha-CO was stable to hydrolysis at pH 

4 and 7). mPBAcid is a hydrolytic 

product of alpha-CO at pH 9. 

None 

None 

None 

MIUD 

46779704 

47132842 

46779724 

46779703 

46779724 

46779703 

46779726 

46779727 

47132841 

Study Type (OPPTS 

guideline) 

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Hydrolysis 

(835.2120) 

Aqueous photolysis 

(835.2240) 

Hydrolysis 

(835.2120) 

Aqueous photolysis 

(835.2240) 

Soil photolysis 

(835.2410) 

Aerobic soil metabolism 

(835.4100) 
Degradate 8: m-PB-alc 

IUPAC Name: 3-phenoxybenzyl alcohol 

CAS NO.: 13826-35-2 

Synonym: PBalc 

Degradate 9: Carbon dioxide 28.2% 

IUPAC Name: Carbon dioxide (increasing at 

CAS Name: Carbon dioxide end of study) 

CAS NO.: 124-38-9 

NA = Not analyzed. 

ND = Not detected. 

% of applied dosa 

at final sampling 

interval (study 

duration in days) 

0 guideline) 

metabolism (835.4400) 

None None 

I 

46779726 Soil photolysis 

. (835.2410) 

46779727 Aerobic soil metabolism 

47132841 (835.4100) 

46779728 Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4400) 

47 132843 Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism (835.4300) 

Comments 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 
APPENDIX E. Example T-REX Input and Output for Etofenprox. 

Table E.1. Dose- and Dietary-based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs Based on the Proposed 

New Use of Etofenprox for Vector Control (Acute and chronic RQs were not calculated 

[NC] because non-defiiitive toxicity endpoints exist for birds and mammals) 

Summary of Risk Quotient Calculations Based on Upper Bound Kenaga EECs 

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients , 

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

Size 

'lass 

(grams) 

20 

100 

1000 

EECs and RQs 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Adjusted 

LD50 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

Short Grass 

LC50 

0 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

EECs and RQs 

Tall Grass 

EEC 

22.53 

Short Grass 

Broadleaf 

Plants/ 

Small Insects 

RQ 

NC 

EEC 

25.66 

14.63 

6.55 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

EEC 

10.33 

Tall Grass 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

RQ 

NC 

EEC 

11.76 

6.71 

3.00 

EEC 

12.67 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

RQ 

NC 

EEC 

1.41 

EEC 

14.43 

8.23 

3.68 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds/ 

Large Insects 

RQ 

NC - 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

EEC 

1.60 

0.91 

0.41 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 
Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk 

Quotients 

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients 

Size 

'lass 

(grams) 

15 

3 5 

1000 

LC50 

(PP~) 

I 0 

Adjusted 

LD50 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

EECs and RQs 

EECs and RQs 

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients 

Short Grass 

EEC 

21.48 

14.85 

3.44 

Short Grass 

Size 

'lass 

(grams) 

15 

3 5 

1000 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Tall Grass 

EEC 

22.53 

Adjusted 

NOAEL 

0.00 

0.00 

0.00 

EECs and RQs 

EEC 

9.85 

6.80 

1.58 

RQ 

NC 

Tall Grass 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

EEC 

Short Grass 

EEC 

12.08 

8.35 

1.94 

RQ 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

EEC 

21.48 

14.85 

3.44 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Fruits/Pods/ 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

, 10.33 , NC 

EEC 

Fruits/Podsl 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Tall Grass 

EEC 

1.34 

0.93 

0.22 

Granivore 

RQ EEC 

1.41 

EEC 

9.85 

6.80 

1.58 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

EEC 

0.30 

0.21 

0.05 

, 12.67 , NC 

RQ 

NC 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Broadleaf 

Plants1 

Small Insects 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

EEC 

12.08 

8.35 

1.94 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Fruits/Podsl 

Seeds1 

Large Insects 

EEC 

1.34 

0.93 

0.22 

Granivore 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 

EEC 

0.30 

0.21 

0.05 

RQ 

NC 

NC 

NC 
Table E.2. EECs Based on the Proposed New Use of Granular Etofenprox for Rice 

(LDSOIsq. ft values were not calculated [NC] because non-definitive toxicity endpoints exist 

for birds and mammals) 

Summary of 

LDSOISquare 

Foot Results 

RowtBandIIn-kow applications 

I I I Table X. Avian LD50 per Square Foot I 

Size Class 

(grams) 

20 

100 

1000 

Table X. Mammalian LD50 per Square Foot 

Adjusted 

LD50 

1038.45 

1322.00 

1867.37 

Size Class 

(grams) 

15 

3 5 

1000 

Adjusted 

LD50 

1038.45 

1322.00 

1867.37 

mglsq. ft LD5OIsq. ft 

Broadcast 

2.81 

Row, banded, in 

furrow 

mgtsq. ft 

Broadcast 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Granular 

#VALUE! 

Row, banded, in 

furrow 

LD5OIsq. ft 

Liquid 

#VALUE! 

Granular 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Broadcast 

2.81 

Row, banded, in 

furrow 

Liquid 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Broadcast 

NC 

NC 

NC 

Granular 

#VALUE! 

Row, banded, in 

furrow 

Liquid 

#VALUE! 

Granular 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 

Liquid 

NIA 

NIA 

NIA 
APPENDIX F. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.1) Input and Output for 

Etofenprox. 

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 

Green values signify user iuprxls (Tables 1,2 and 4). 

Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows. 

Total for semi-aquatic areas I ((AII)*R*lO)+(A*D) I 0.00105 
APPENDIX G. LOCATES Output of Listed Species. 

Species Listing by State with Use Criteria 

No species were excluded 

Minimum of 1 Acre. 

All Medium Types Reported 

Mammal, Bird, Amphibian, Reptile, Fish, Crustacean, Bivalve, Arachnid, 

Insect, Dicot, Monocot 

rice, rice - wild, rice, sweet 

Arkansas ( 12) species: 

Tern, Interior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

(Picoides borealis) 

Fatmucket, Arkansas 

(Lampsilis powelli) 

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) 

(Lampsilis abrupta) 

Mussel, Scaleshell 

(Leptodea leptodon) 

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook 

(Potamilus capax) 

Rock-pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) 

(Arkansia wheeleri) 

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) 

(Geocarpon minimum) 

Harperella 

(Ptilimnium nodosum) 

Pondberry 

(Lindera melissifolia) 

Sturgeon, Pallid 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) 

Bat, Gray 

(Myotis grisescens) 

California ( 76) species: 

Frog, California Red-legged 

(Rana aurora draytonii) 

Salamander, California Tiger 

(Ambystoma californiense) 

Murrelet, Marbled 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) 

Owl, Northern Spotted 

(Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

- Taxa 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Freshwater 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Critical Habitat 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Mammal No 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Amphibian Yes 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Amphibian No 

Terrestrial, Vernal pool 

Bird Yes 

Freshwater, Terrestrial, Saltwater 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

612512008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 1 of 1 1 
California ( 76) species: 

Pelican, Brown 

(Pelecanus occidenfalis) 

Plover, Western Snowy 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) 

Rail, California Clapper 

(Rallus longirostris obsoletus) 

Crayfish, Shasta 

(Pacifasfacus fortis) 

Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Fairy 

(Branchinecta wnservatio) 

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool 

(Branchinecta lynchi) 

Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool 

(Lepidurus packardi) 

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin 

(Pseudobahia peirsonii) 

Bird's-beak, Palmate-bracted 

(Cordylanthus palmatus) 

Bird's-beak, Soft 

(Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) 

Checker-mallow, Keck's 

(Sidalcea keckii) 

Clover, Fleshy Owl's 

(Casfilleja campestris ssp. succulents) 

Coyote-thistle, Loch Lomond 

(Etyngium constancei) 

Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley 

(Dudleya sefchellii) 

Evening-primrose, Antioch Dunes 

(Oenofhera deltoides ssp. howellii) 

Fiddleneck, Large-flowered 

(Amsinckia grandiflora) 

Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's 

(Pseudobahia bahiifolia) 

Goldfields, Burke's 

(Lasthenia burkei) 

Goldfields, Contra Costa 

(Lasthenia wnjugens) 

Grass, Hairy Orcutt 

(Orcuffia pilosa) 

Grass, Sacramento Orcutt 

(Orcuffia viscida) 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

- Taxa 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Crustacean 

Freshwater 

Crustacean 

Vernal pool 

Crustacean 

Vemal pool 

Crustacean 

Vernal pool 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Brackish, Saltwater 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Vemal pool 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Vernal pool 

Dicot 

Vernal pool 

Critical Habitat 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

612512008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 2 of 11 
California ( 76) species: 

Grass, Slender Orcutt 

(Orcuttia tenuis) 

Jewelflower, California 

(Caulanthus califomicus) 

Meadowfoam, Butte County 

(Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica) 

Navarretia, Few-flowered 

(Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (=N. 

Navarretia, Many-flowered 

(Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha) 

Pussypaws, Mariposa 

(Calyptridium pulchellum) 

Rock-cress, McDonald's 

(Arabis mcdonaldiana) 

Spineflower, Howell's 

(Chorizanthe howellii) 

Spurge, Hoover's 

(Chamaesyce hooveri) 

Stonecrop, Lake County 

(Parvisedum leiocarpum) 

Thistle, Suisun 

(Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum) 

Tuctoria, Green's 

(Tuctoria greenei) 

Wallflower, Menzie's 

(Erysimum menziesii) 

Woolly-threads, San Joaquin 

(Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii) 

Chub, Hutton Tui 

(Gila bicolor ssp.) 

Goby, Tidewater 

(Eucyclogobius newberryi) 

Salmon, Chinook (California Coastal Run) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) 

Salmon, Chinook (Central Valley Fall Run) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) 

~almon,'~hinook (Central Valley Spring Run) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) 

Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento River Winter Run) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) 

Salmon, Coho (Central California Coast population) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch) 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

pauciflora)) 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Dicot Yes 

Vernal pool 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot Yes 

Vernal pool 

Dicot No 

Vernal pool, Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial, Vernal pool 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot Yes 

Vernal pool 

Dicot No 

Vernal pool 

Dicot No 

Brackish, Terrestrial 

Dicot Yes 

Vernal pool 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Fish No 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater, Saltwater, Brackish 

Fish No 

Brackish, Freshwater, Saltwater 

Fish Yes 

Brackish, Saltwater, Freshwater 

Fish No 

Saltwater, Freshwater, Brackish 

Fish No 

Saltwater, Brackish, Freshwater 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page3 of 11 
California ( 76) species: 

Salmon, Coho (Southern OWNorthem CA Coast) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch) 

Smelt, Delta 

(Hypomesus transpacificus) 

Steelhead, (California Central Valley population) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) 

Steelhead, (Central California Coast population) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) 

Steelhead, (Northern California population) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) 

Sturgeon, green 

(Acipenser medirostris) 

Sucker, Lost River 

(Deltistes luxatus) 

Sucker, Modoc 

(Catostomus microps) 

Sucker, Shortnose 

(Chasmistes brevirostris) 

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat 

(Oncorhynchus clarki hensha wi) 

Trout, Little Kern Golden 

(Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) 

Trout, Paiute Cutthroat 

(Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris) 

Beetle, Delta Green Ground 

(Elaphrus viridis) 

Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn 

(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) 

Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot 

(Speyeria zerene behrensii) 

Butterfly, Lotis Blue 

(Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis) 

Skipper, Carson Wandering 

(Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) 

Fox, San Joaquin Kit 

(Vulpes macrotis mutica) 

Kangaroo Rat, Fresno 

(Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) 

Kangaroo Rat, Giant 

(Dipodomys ingens) 

Mountain Beaver, Point Arena 

(Aplodontia rufa nigra) 

Threatened 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater, Brackish, Saltwater 

Threatened Fish Yes 

Freshwater, Brackish 

Threatened Fish Yes 

Brackish, Freshwater, Saltwater 

Threatened Fish Yes 

Freshwater, Saltwater, Brackish 

Threatened Fish No 

Saltwater, Brackish, Freshwater 

Threatened Fish No 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

lnsect 

Vernal pool, Terrestrial 

lnsect 

Terrestrial 

lnsect 

Terrestrial 

lnsect 

Terrestrial 

lnsect 

Terrestrial 

Mammal 

Terrestrial 

Mammal 

Terrestrial 

Mammal 

Terrestrial 

Mammal 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 4 of 1 1 
California ( 76) species: 

Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest 

(Reithrodontomys raviventris) 

Rabbit, Riparian Brush 

(Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) 

Woodrat, Riparian 

(Neotoma fuscipes riparia) 

Grass, Colusa 

(Neostapfia colusana) 

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt 

(Orcuttia inaequalis) 

Grass, Solano 

(Tuctoria mucronata) 

Lizard, Blunt-nosed Leopard 

(Gambelia silus) 

Sea turtle, olive ridley 

(Lepidochelys olivacea) 

Snake, Giant Garter 

(Thamnophis gigas) 

Florida ( 21) species: 

Salamander, Flatwoods 

(Ambystoma cingulatum) 

Caracara, Audubon's Crested 

(Polyborus plancus audubonii) 

Kite, Everglade Snail 

(Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) 

Plover, Piping 

(Charadrius melodus) 

Scrub-Jay, Florida 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens) 

Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper 

(Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) 

Stork, Wood 

(Mycteria americana) 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

(Picoides borealis) 

Mussel, Oval Pigtoe 

(Pleurobema pyrifome) 

Gourd, Okeechobee 

(Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis) 

Jacquemontia, Beach 

(Jacquemontia reclinata) 

Pawpaw, Four-petal 

(Asimina tetramera) 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

Monocot No 

Vernal pool 

Monocot Yes 

Vernal pool 

Monocot Yes 

Vernal pool, Terrestrial 

Reptile No 

Terrestrial 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Amphibian No 

Freshwater, Vernal pool, Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial, Coastal (neritic) 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Page 5 of 11 
Florida ( 21) species: 

Polygala, Tiny 

(Polygala smallii) 

Sturgeon, Gulf 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Panther, Florida 

(Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi) 

Seagrass, Johnson's 

(Halophila johnsonii) 

Sea turtle, green 

(Chelonia mydas) 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

(Dermochelys wriacea) 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

(Caretta careila) 

Snake, Eastern Indigo 

(Drymarchon corais couperi) 

lllinois ( 8) species: 

Tern, Interior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) 

(Lampsilis abrupta) 

Pearlymussel, Orange-footed 

(Plethobasus cooperianus) 

Aster, Decurrent False 

(Boltonia decurrens) 

Sturgeon, Pallid 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) 

Bat, Gray 

(Myotis grisescens) 

Bat, Indiana 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Wolf, Gray 

(Canis lupus) 

Louisiana ( 17) species: 

Pelican, Brown 

(Pelecanus occidentalis) 

Plover, Piping 

(Charadrius melodus) 

Tern, California Least 

(Sterna antillarum brown;) 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Fish Yes 

Saltwater, Freshwater 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

Monocot Yes 

Coastal (neritic), Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

Reptile Yes 

Saltwater 

Reptile Yes 

Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Fish No 

Freshwater 

Mammal No 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Mammal Yes 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Mammal Yes 

Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

612512008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 6 of 11 
Louisiana ( 17) species: 

Tem, Interior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

(Picoides borealis) 

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) 

(Lampsilis abrupta) 

Pearlshell, Louisiana 

(Margaritifera hembeli) 

Chaffseed, American 

(Schwalbea americana) 

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) 

(Geocarpon minimum) 

Sturgeon, Gulf 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Sturgeon, Pallid 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) 

Bear, Louisiana Black 

(Ursus americanus luteolus) 

Sea turtle, green 

(Chelonia mydas) 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii) 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) 

Minnesota ( 3) species: 

Plover, Piping 

(Charadrius melodus) 

Lynx, Canada 

(Lynx canadensis) 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed 

(Platanthera praeclara) 

Mississippi ( 17) species: 

Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) 

(Rana capito sevosa) 

Pelican, Brown 

(Pelecanus occidenfalis) 

Plover, Piping 

(Charadrius melodus) 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Bivalve 

Freshwater 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Fish 

Saltwater, Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Mammal 

Terrestrial 

Reptile 

Saltwater 

Reptile 

Saltwater 

Reptile 

Saltwater 

Critical Habitat 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Reptile Yes 

Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

Monocot No 

Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Amphibian No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 7 of 11 
Mississippi ( 17) species: 

Tern, lnterior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

(Picoides borealis) 

Pondberry 

(Lindera melissifolia) 

Potato-bean, Price's 

(Apios priceana) 

Sturgeon, Gulf 

(Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) 

Sturgeon, Pallid 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) 

Bat, Gray 

(Myotis grisescens) 

Bear, Louisiana Black 

(Ursus americanus luteolus) 

Sea turtle, green 

(Chelonia mydas) 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii) 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) 

Snake, Eastern Indigo 

(Drymarchon corais couperi) 

Tortoise, Gopher 

(Gopherus polyphemus) 

Turtle, Yellow-blotched Map 

(Graptemys flavimaculata) 

Missouri ( 15) species: 

Tern, lnterior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) 

(Lampsilis abrupta) 

Pearlymussel, Curtis' 

(Epioblasma florentina curtisii) 

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook 

(Potamilus capax) 

Aster, Decurrent False 

(Boltonia decurrens) 

Clover, Running Buffalo 

(Trifolium stoloniferum) 

Pondberry 

(Lindera melissifolia) 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Dicot 

Terrestrial 

Fish 

Saltwater, Freshwater 

Fish 

Freshwater 

Mammal 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Mammal 

Terrestrial 

Reptile 

Saltwater 

Reptile 

Saltwater 

Reptile 

Saltwater 

Reptile 

Terrestrial 

Reptile 

Terrestrial 

Reptile 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 
Missouri ( 15) species: 

Darter, Niangua 

(Etheostoma nianguae) 

Shiner, Topeka 

(Notropis topeka (=tristis)) 

Sturgeon, Pallid 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) 

Beetle, American Burying 

(Nicrophorus americanus) 

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald 

(Somatochlora hineana) 

Bat, Gray 

(Myotis grisescens) 

Bat, lndiana 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Wolf, Gray 

(Canis lupus) 

Oklahoma ( 9) species: 

Plover, Piping 

(Charadrius melodus) 

Tern, Interior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

(Picoides borealis) 

Mussel, Scaleshell 

(Leptodea leptodon) 

Rock-pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) 

(Arkansia wheeleri) 

Darter, Leopard 

(Perciha pantherina) 

Beetle, American Burying 

(Nicrophorus americanus) 

Bat, lndiana 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Bat, Ozark Big-eared 

(Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingens) 

Oregon ( 13) species: 

Owl, Northern Spotted 

(Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Checker-mallow, Nelson's 

(Sidalcea nelsoniana) 

Daisy, Willarnette 

(Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens) 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater 

Fish No 

Freshwater 

Insect No 

Terrestrial 

Insect Yes 

Freshwater, Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Mammal Yes 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Mammal Yes 

Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Bivalve No 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater 

Insect No 

Terrestrial 

Mammal Yes 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial, Subterraneous 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 9 of 11 
Oregon ( 13) species: 

Lomatium, Bradshaw's 

(Lomatium bradshawii) 

Lupine, Kincaid's 

(Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. 

Chub, Oregon 

(Oregonichthys crameri) 

Salmon, Chinook (Upper Willamette River) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) 

Steelhead, (Upper Willamette River population) 

(Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) 

Trout, Bull 

(Salvelinus con fluentus) 

Trout, Bull (Columbia River population) 

(Salvelinus con fluentus) 

Trout, Bull (Klamath River population) 

(Salvelinus confluentus) 

Butterfly, Fender's Blue 

(Icaricia icarioides fenderi) 

Wolf, Gray 

(Canis lupus) 

Tennessee ( 3) species: 

Tern, lnterior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Sturgeon, Pallid 

(Scaphirhynchus albus) 

Bat, Indiana 

(Myotis sodalis) 

Texas ( 17) species: 

Toad, Houston 

(Bufo houstonensis) 

Crane, Whooping 

(Grus americana) 

Curlew, Eskimo 

(Numenius borealis) 

Pelican, Brown 

(Pelecanus occidentalis) 

Plover, Piping 

(Charadrius melodus) 

Prairie-chicken, Attwater's Greater 

(Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) 

Tern, lnterior (population) Least 

(Sterna antillarum) 

Endangered 

Threatened 

kincaidii)) 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Fish No 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Saltwater, Brackish, Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Brackish, Saltwater, Freshwater 

Fish No 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater 

Fish Yes 

Freshwater 

Insect No 

Terrestrial 

Mammal Yes 

Terrestrial 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Fish No 

Freshwater 

Mammal Yes 

Subterraneous, Terrestrial 

Critical Habitat 

Amphibian Yes 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

6/25/2008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 10 of 11 
Texas ( 17) species: 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

(Picoides borealis) 

Dawn-flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed) 

(Hymenoxys texana) 

Phlox, Texas Trailing 

(Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis) 

Beetle, American Burying 

(Nicrophorus americanus) 

Bear, Louisiana Black 

(Ursus americanus luteolus) 

Sea turtle, green 

(Chelonia mydas) 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

(Lepidochelys kempii) 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

(Dermochelys coriacea) 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

(Caretta caretta) 

Wisconsin ( 3) species: 

Crane, Whooping 

(Grus americana) 

Butterfly, Karner Blue 

(Lycaeides melissa samuelis) 

Lynx, Canada 

(Lynx canadensis) 

No species were selected for exclusion. 

Dispersed species included in report. 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Endangered 

Endangered 

Threatened 

Critical Habitat 

Bird No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Dicot No 

Terrestrial 

Insect No 

Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

Reptile Yes 

Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

Reptile Yes 

Saltwater 

Reptile No 

Saltwater 

- Taxa Critical Habitat 

Bird Yes 

Terrestrial, Freshwater 

Insect No 

Terrestrial 

Mammal No 

Terrestrial 

612512008 2:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 11 of 11 
G.2. Species Listing for Vector Control 

Common Name 

Frog, California Red-legged 

Salamander, Santa Cruz Long-toed 

Salamander, Shenandoah 

Salamander, Sonora Tiger 

Salamander, Texas Blind 

Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) 

Salamander, California Tiger 

Salamander, San Marcos 

Salamander, Red Hills 

Salamander, Desert Slender 

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard 

Salamander, Barton Springs 

Toad, Arroyo Southwestern 

Toad, Houston 

Toad, Puerto Rican Crested 

Salamander, Flatwoods 

Toad, Wyoming 

Guajon 

Frog, Mountain Yellow-legged 

Coqui, Golden 

Salamander, Cheat Mountain 

Meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave 

Spider, Kauai Cave Wolf 

Spider, Vesper Cave 

Spider, Spruce-fir Moss 

Spider, Madla's Cave 

Spider, Robber Baron Cave 

Harvestman, Robber Baron Cave 

Spider, Tooth Cave 

Harvestman, Bone Cave 

Harvestman, Bee Creek Cave 

Spider, Government Canyon Cave 

Pseudoscorpion, Tooth Cave 

'Akepa, Hawaii 

'Akepa, Maui 

'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus) 

Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's 

'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) 

Towhee, Inyo Brown 

Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) 

Pelican, Brown 

Parrotbill, Maui 

Eagle, Bald 

Plover, Piping 

Kite, Everglade Snail 

Scientific Name 

Rana aurora draytonii 

Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum 

Plethodon shenandoah 

Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi 

Typhlomolge rathbuni 

Rana capito sevosa 

Ambystoma californiense 

Eurycea nana 

Phaeognathus hubrichti 

Batrachoseps aridus 

Rana chiricahuensis 

Eurycea sosorum 

Bufo californicus (=microscaphus) 

Bufo houstonensis 

Peltophryne lemur 

Ambystoma cingulatum 

Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys) 

Eleutherodactylus cooki 

Gopherus agassizii 

Eleutherodactylus jasperi 

Plethodon nettingi 

Cicurina venii 

Gopherus polyphemus 

Cicurina vespera 

Microhexura montivaga 

Cicurina madla 

Cicurina baronia 

Texella cokendolpheri 

Neoleptoneta myopica 

Texella reyesi 

Texella reddelli 

Neoleptoneta microps 

Tartarocreagris texana 

Loxops coccineus coccineus 

Loxops coccineus ochraceus 

Hemignathus procerus 

Puffinus auricularis newelli 

Hemignathus munroi 

Pipilo crissalis eremophilus 

Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis 

Pelecanus occidentalis 

Pseudonestor xanthophrys 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Charadrius melodus 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus 

Taxon 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Amphibian 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Arachnid 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 
Thrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) 

Thrush, Molokai (Oloma'o) 

Thrush, Large Kauai 

Sparrow, San Clemente Sage 

Tern, Roseate 

Crane, Mississippi Sandhill 

Tern, Interior (population) Least 

Tern, California Least 

Swiftlet, Mariana Gray (=Vanikoro) 

'O'u (Honeycreeper) 

Parrot, Puerto Rican 

White-eye, Ponape greater 

Cahow 

Petrel, Hawaiian Dark-rumped 

Hawk, Hawaiian (10) 

Hawk, Puerto Rican Broad-winged 

Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned 

Honeycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe) 

Elepaio, Oahu 

Scrub-Jay, Florida 

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded 

Vireo, Black-capped 

Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead 

Vireo, Least Bell's 

White-eye, Bridled (Nossa) 

Kingfisher, Guam Micronesian 

Warbler, Bachman's 

Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain 

Millerbird, Nihoa 

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's 

Warbler (=Wood), Golden-cheeked 

Warbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler) 

Gnatcatcher, Coastal California 

Woodpecker, Ivory-billed 

Creeper, Molokai (Kakawahie) 

Finch, Laysan 

Moorhen, Mariana Common 

Crane, Whooping 

Rail, Guam 

Eider, Spectacled 

Nightjar, Puerto Rico 

Caracara, Audubon's Crested 

Falcon, Northern Aplomado 

White-eye, Rota Bridled 

Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) 

Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) 

Rail, California Clapper 

Creeper, Hawaii 

Prairie-chicken, Attwater's Greater 

Myadestes palmeri 

Myadestes lanaiensis rutha 

Myadestes myadestinus 

Amphispiza belli clementeae 

Sterna dougallii dougallii 

Grus canadensis pulla 

Sterna antillarum 

Sterna antillanun browni 

Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi 

Psittirostra psittacea 

Amazona vittata 

Rukia longirostra 

Pterodroma cahow 

Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis 

Buteo solitarius 

Buteo platypterus brunnescens 

Accipiter striatus venator 

Palmeria dolei 

Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis 

Aphelocoma coerulescens 

Picoides borealis 

Vireo atricapilla 

Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi 

Vireo bellii pusillus 

Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus 

Halcyon cinnarnomina cinnamomina 

Vermivora bachrnanii 

Columba inornata wetmorei 

Acrocephalus farniliaris kingi 

Dendroica kirtlandii 

Dendroica chrysoparia 

Acrocephalus luscinia 

Polioptila californica californica 

Campephilus principalis 

Paroreomyza flammea 

Telespyza cantans 

Gallinula chloropus guami 

Grus americana 

Rallus owstoni 

Somateria fischeri 

Caprimulgus noctitherus 

Polyborus plancus audubonii 

Falco femoralis septentrionalis 

Zosterops rotensis 

Fulica americana alai 

Paroreomyza maculata 

Rallus longirostris obsoletus 

Oreomystis mana 

Tympanuchus cupido attwateri 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 
Rail, Light-footed Clapper 

Duck, Laysan 

Bobwhite, Masked 

Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) 

Nuku Pu'u 

Murrelet, Marbled 

Rail, Yuma Clapper 

Albatross, Short-tailed 

Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) 

Palila 

Eider, Steller's 

Stork, Wood 

Stilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o) 

Starling, Ponape Mountain 

Condor, California 

Plover, Western Snowy 

Megapode, Micronesian (La Perouse's) 

'0'0, Kauai (='Ata) 

Po'ouli 

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow 

Finch, Nihoa 

Curlew, Eskimo 

Owl, Northern Spotted 

Owl, Mexican Spotted 

Crow, White-necked 

Crow, Mariana 

Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper 

Sparrow, Cape Sable Seaside 

Blackbird, Yellow-shouldered 

Moorhen, Hawaiian Common 

Pygmy-owl, Cactus Fermginous 

Coral, Elkhorn 

Coral, Staghorn 

Amphipod, Illinois Cave 

Isopod, Lee County Cave 

Isopod, Madison Cave 

Isopod, Socorro 

Shrimp, Alabama Cave 

Shrimp, California Freshwater 

Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Fairy 

Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn 

Fairy Shrimp, Riverside 

Fairy Shrimp, San Diego 

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool 

Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool 

Shrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave 

Shrimp, Kentucky Cave 

Crayfish, Nashville 

Amphipod, Hay's Spring 

Rallus longirostris levipes 

Anas laysanensis 

Colinus virginianus ridgwayi 

Anas wyvilliana 

Hemignathus lucidus 

Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus 

Rallus longirostris yurnanensis 

Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus 

Corvus hawaiiensis 

Loxioides bailleui 

Polysticta stelleri 

Mycteria americana 

Himantopus mexicanus knudseni 

ApIonis pelzelni 

Gymnogyps californianus 

Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

Megapodius laperouse 

Moho braccatus 

Melamprosops phaeosoma 

Empidonax traillii extimus 

Telespyza ultima 

Nurnenius borealis 

Strix occidentalis caurina 

Strix occidentalis lucida 

Corvus leucognaphalus 

Corvus kubaryi 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus 

Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis 

Agelaius xanthomus 

Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis 

Glaucidium brasilianum cactonun 

Acropora palmata 

Acropora cervicornis 

Gammarus acherondytes 

Lirceus usdagalun 

Antrolana lira 

Thermosphaeroma thermophilus 

Palaemonias alabamae 

Syncaris pacifica 

Branchinecta conservatio 

Branchinecta longiantenna 

Streptocephalus woottoni 

Branchinecta sandiegonensis 

Branchinecta lynchi 

Lepidurus packardi 

Palaemonetes cummingi 

Palaemonias ganteri 

Orconectes shoupi 

Stygobromus hayi 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Bird 

Coral 

Coral 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 
Amphipod, Kauai Cave 

Abalone, White 

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus aculabrum) 

Amphipod, Peck's Cave 

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus zophonastes) 

Crayfish, Shasta 

Amphipod, Noel's 

Cactus, Pima Pineapple 

Four-o'clock, Macfarlane's 

Flannelbush, Pine Hill 

Mitracarpus Polycladus 

Mitracarpus Maxwelliae 

Mint, Scrub 

Mint, San Diego Mesa 

Cactus, San Rafael 

Mint, Longspurred 

Monkey-flower, Michigan 

Mint, Lakela's 

Mint, Garrett's 

Cactus, Mesa Verde 

Cactus, Nellie Cory 

Milkweed, Welsh's 

Milkweed, Mead's 

Milkpea, Small's 

Mint, Otay Mesa 

Cactus, Kuenzler Hedgehog 

Cactus, Siler Pincushion 

Dudleya, Conej o 

Dudleya, Marcescent 

Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley 

Dudleya, Santa Monica Mountains 

Dudleya, Verity's 

Monardella, Willowy 

Cactus, Knowlton 

Cactus, Peebles Navajo 

Cactus, Lee Pincushion 

Mountainbalm, Indian Knob 

Cactus, Lloyd's Mariposa 

Morning-glory, Stebbins 

Fiddleneck, Large-flowered 

Flannelbush, Mexican 

Monkshood, Northern Wild 

Cordia bellonis (ncn) 

Meadowfoam, Sebastopol 

Milk-vetch, Clara Hunt's 

Milk-vetch, Braunton's 

Milk-vetch, Ash Meadows 

Milk-vetch, Applegate's 

Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) 

Spelaeorchestia koloana 

Haliotis sorenseni 

Cambarus aculabrum 

Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki 

Cambarus zophonastes 

Pacifastacus fortis 

Gammarus desperatus 

Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina 

Mirabilis macfarlanei 

Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens 

Mitracarpus polycladus 

Mitracarpus maxwelliae 

Dicerandra fhtescens 

Pogogyne abramsii 

Pediocactus despainii 

Dicerandra cornutissima 

Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis 

Dicerandra immaculata 

Dicerandra christmanii 

Sclerocactus mesae-verdae 

Coryphantha minima 

Asclepias welshii 

Asclepias meadii 

Galactia smallii 

Pogogyne nudiuscula 

Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri 

Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri 

Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens 

Dudleya setchellii 

Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia 

Dudleya verityi 

Monardella linoides ssp. viminea 

Pediocactus knowltonii 

Pediocactus peeblesianus peeblesianus 

Coryphantha sneedii var. leei 

Eriodictyon altissimurn 

Echinomastus mariposensis 

Calystegia stebbinsii 

Amsinckia grandiflora 

Fremontodendron mexicanum 

Aconitum noveboracense 

Cordia bellonis 

Limnanthes vinculans 

Astragalus clarianus 

Astragalus brauntonii 

Astragalus phoenix 

Astragalus applegatei 

Flueggea neowawraea 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Crustacean 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Fringe Tree, Pygmy 

Milk-vetch, Triple-ribbed 

Manzanita, Del Mar 

Milk-vetch, Cushenbury 

Meadowfoam, Butte County 

Cactus, Nichol's Turk's Head 

Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) 

Manzanita, Presidio (=Raven's) 

Manzanita, Pallid 

Manzanita, Morro 

Manzanita, Ione 

Meadowrue, Cooley's 

Manioc, Walker's 

Cobana Negra 

Coneflower, Tennessee Purple 

Mallow, Kern 

Mallow, Peter's Mountain 

Cactus, Cochise Pincushion 

Milk-vetch, Sentry 

Coneflower, Smooth 

Milk-vetch, Coachella Valley 

Milk-vetch, Pierson's 

Milk-vetch, Coastal Dunes 

Milk-vetch, Osterhout 

Milk-vetch, Mancos 

Milk-vetch, Lane Mountain 

Milk-vetch, Jesup's 

Milk-vetch, Heliotrope 

Milk-vetch, Fish Slough 

Fleabane, Zuni 

Frankenia, Johnston's 

Paintbrush, San Clemente Island Indian 

Palo de Ramon 

Haha (Cyanea superba) 

Palo de Nigua 

Palo de Jazmin 

Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) 

Butterweed, Layne's 

Button-celery, San Diego 

Paintbrush, Tiburon 

Buttercup, Autumn 

Paintbrush, Golden 

Paintbrush, Ash-grey Indian 

Oxytheca, Cushenbury 

Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley 

Crownbeard, Big-leaved 

Clover, Fleshy Owl's 

Dubautia pauciflorula (ncn) 

Haha (Cyanea St-Johnii) (=Rollandia StChionanthus pygmaeus 

Astragalus tricarinatus 

Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia 

Astragalus albens 

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica 

Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii 

Cyrtandra cyaneoides 

Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii 

Arctostaphylos pallida 

Arctostaphylos morroensis 

Arctostaphylos myrtifolia 

Thalictrum cooleyi 

Manihot walkerae 

Stahlia monosperma 

Echinacea tennesseensis 

Eremalche kernensis 

Iliamna corei 

Coryphantha robbinsorum 

Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax 

Echinacea laevigata 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae 

Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii 

Astragalus tener var. titi 

Astragalus osterhoutii 

Astragalus humillimus 

Astragalus jaegerianus 

Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi 

Astragalus montii 

Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis 

Erigeron rhizomatus 

Frankenia johnstonii 

Castilleja grisea 

Banara vanderbiltii 

Cyanea superba 

Cornutia obovata 

Styrax portoricensis 

Ternstroemia luquillensis 

Senecio layneae 

Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii 

Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta 

Ranunculus aestivalis (=acriformis) 

Castilleja levisecta 

Castilleja cinerea 

Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana 

Atriplex coronata var. notatior 

Verbesina dissita 

Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta 

Dubautia pauciflorula 

Cyanea st-johnii 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Johnii) 

Daisy, Parish's 

Phacelia, Clay 

Daisy, Lakeside 

Peperomia, Wheeler's 

Pentachaeta, White-rayed 

Pentachaeta, Lyon's 

Penstemon, Blowout 

Pennyroyal, Todsen's 

Palo de Rosa 

Clover, Prairie Bush 

Cycladenia, Jones 

Pawpaw, Rugel's 

Pawpaw, Four-petal 

Pawpaw, Beautiful 

Taraxacum, California 

Daphnopsis hellerana (ncn) 

Bush-mallow, San Clemente Island 

Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog 

Daisy, Maguire 

Mustard, Carter's 

Navarretia, Few-flowered 

Cactus, Black Lace 

Nanu (Gardenia mannii) 

Nani Wai'aie'ale (Viola kauaensis var. 

wahiawaensis) 

Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) 

Myrcia Paganii 

Buttenvort, Godfrey's 

Mustard, Penland Alpine Fen 

Nehe (Lipochaeta fauriei) 

Dubautia latifolia (ncn) 

Munroidendron racemosum (ncn) 

Cactus, Brady Pincushion 

Cactus, Bunched Cory 

Cactus, Chisos Mountain Hedgehog 

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos) 

Cactus, Key Tree 

Mustard, Slender-petaled 

Delissea rhytodisperma (ncn) 

Cactus, Bakersfield 

Oak, Hinckley 

Nohoanu (Geranium multiflorum) 

Nitenvort, Amargosa 

Nioi (Eugenia koolauensis) 

Dawn-flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas 

Bittenveed) 

Neraudia angulata (ncn) 

Navarretia, Many-flowered 

Erigeron parishii 

Phacelia argillacea 

Hymenoxys herbacea 

Peperomia wheeleri 

Pentachaeta bellidiflora 

Pentachaeta lyonii 

Penstemon haydenii 

Hedeoma todsenii 

Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon 

Lespedeza leptostachya 

Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis) 

Deeringothamnus rugelii 

Asimina tetramera 

Deeringothamnus pulchellus 

Taraxacum californicum 

Daphnopsis hellerana 

Malacothamnus clementinus 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus 

Erigeron maguirei 

Warea carteri 

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (=N. pauciflora) 

Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii 

Gardenia mannii 

Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis 

Gardenia brighamii 

Myrcia paganii 

Pinguicula ionantha 

Eutrema penlandii 

Lipochaeta fauriei 

Dubautia latifolia 

Munroidendron racemosum 

Pediocactus bradyi 

Coryphantha ramillosa 

Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis 

Schiedea apokremnos 

Pilosocereus robinii 

Thelypodium stenopetalum 

Delissea rhytidosperma 

Opuntia treleasei 

Quercus hinckleyi 

Geranium multiflorum 

Nitrophila mohavensis 

Eugenia koolauensis 

Hymenoxys texana 

Neraudia angulata 

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) 

Navarretia, Spreading 

Nehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) 

Dogweed, Ashy 

Coyote-thistle, Loch Lomond 

Dropwort, Canby's 

Nehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla) 

Nehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis) 

Checker-mallow, Nelson's 

Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) 

Joint-vetch, Sensitive 

Cactus, Sneed Pincushion 

Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra limahuliensis) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra munroi) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) 

Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. 

wahiawaen) 

Kamakahala (Labordia lydgatei) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra dentata) 

Jewelflower, Tiburon 

Jewelflower, Metcalf Canyon 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) 

Jewelflower, California 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) 

Haha (Cyanea acuminata) 

Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) 

Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) 

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. 

kalealaha) 

Koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) 

Ko'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii) 

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens wiebkei) 

Clarkia, Presidio 

Clarkia, Pismo 

Potentilla, Hickman's 

Grass, Hairy Orcutt 

Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) 

Grass, Slender Orcutt 

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii) 

Chupacallos 

Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) 

Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) 

Chumbo, Higo 

Ground-plum, Guthrie's 

Groundsel, San Francisco Peaks 

Gumplant, Ash Meadows 

Lipochaeta tenuifolia 

Navarretia fossalis 

Lipochaeta micrantha 

Thymophylla tephroleuca 

Eryngium constancei 

Oxypolis canbyi 

Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla 

Lipochaeta kamolensis 

Sidalcea nelsoniana 

Lipochaeta waimeaensis 

Aeschynomene virginica 

Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii 

Colubrina oppositifolia 

Cyrtandra limahuliensis 

Cyrtandra munroi 

Cyrtandra polyantha 

Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis 

Labordia lydgatei 

Cyrtandra giffardii 

Cyrtandra subumbellata 

Cyrtandra dentata 

Streptanthus niger 

Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus 

Cyrtandra tintinnabula 

Caulanthus californicus 

Cyrtandra viridiflora 

Cyanea acuminata 

Cyanea asarifolia 

Labordia cyrtandrae 

Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha 

Kokia drynarioides 

Abutilon menziesii 

Bidens wiebkei 

Clarkia fianciscana 

Clarkia speciosa ssp. imrnaculata 

Potentilla hickmanii 

Orcuttia pilosa 

Pteralyxia kauaiensis 

Orcuttia tenuis 

Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii 

Pleodendron macranthum 

Phyllostegia racemosa 

Hedyotis coriacea 

Harrisia portoricensis 

Astragalus bibullatus 

Senecio fianciscanus 

Grindelia kino-pratensis 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

. Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Grass, Sacramento Orcutt 

Haha (Cyanea platyphylla) 

Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) 

Heather, Mountain Golden 

Heartleaf, Dwarf-flowered 

Hayun Lagu (Tronkon Guafi) 

Haha (Cyanea longiflora) 

Haha (Cyanea mannii) 

Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) 

Jacquemontia, Beach 

Haha (Cyanea pinnatifida) 

Hedyotis parvula (ncn) 

Harperella 

Harebells, Avon Park 

Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) 

Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) 

Haha (Cyanea shipmanii) 

Haha (Cyanea procera) 

Haha (Cyanea recta) 

Hau Kauhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) 

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) 

Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. 

hannerae) 

Haha (Cyanea dunbarii) 

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) 

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae) 

Ipomopsis, Holy Ghost 

Iliau (Wilkesia hobdyi) 

Ilex sintenisii (ncn) 

Hedyotis degeneri (ncn) 

Howellia, Water 

Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) 

Holly, Cook's 

Higuero De Sierra 

Hibiscus, Clay's 

Hesperomannia lydgatei (ncn) 

Hesperomannia arbuscula (ncn) 

Hesperomannia arborescens (ncn) 

Hedyotis St.-Johnii (ncn) 

Ivesia, Ash Meadows 

Hypericum, Highlands Scrub 

Locoweed, Fassett's 

Capa Rosa 

Gerardia, Sandplain 

Loosestrife, Rough-leaved 

Gesneria pauciflora (ncn) 

Gilia, Monterey 

Clarkia, Vine Hill 

Lomatium, Bradshaw's 

Orcuttia viscida 

Cyanea platyphylla 

Exocarpos luteolus 

Hudsonia montana 

Hexastylis naniflora 

Serianthes nelsonii 

Cyanea longiflora 

Cyanea mannii 

Cyanea mceldowneyi 

Jacquemontia reclinata 

Cyanea pinnatifida 

Hedyotis parvula 

Ptilimnium nodosum 

Crotalaria avonensis 

Haplostachys haplostachya 

Cyanea stictophylla 

Cyanea shipmannii 

Cyanea procera 

Cyanea recta 

Hibiscadelphus woodii 

Cyanea hamatiflora carlsonii 

Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae 

Cyanea dunbarii 

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana 

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae 

Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus 

Wilkesia hobdyi 

Ilex sintenisii 

Hedyotis degeneri 

Howellia aquatilis 

Cyanea koolauensis 

Ilex cookii 

Crescentia portoricensis 

Hibiscus clayi 

Hesperomannia lydgatei 

Hesperomannia arbuscula 

Hesperomannia arborescens 

Hedyotis st.-johnii 

Ivesia kingii var. eremica 

Hypericum cumulicola 

Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea 

Callicarpa ampla 

Agalinis acuta 

Lysimachia asperulaefolia 

Gesneria pauciflora 

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria 

Clarkia imbricata 

Lomatium bradshawii 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Ceanothus, Pine Hill 

Charnaecrista glandulosa (ncn) 

Cactus, Wright Fishhook 

Lobelia oahuensis (ncn) 

Lobelia niihauensis (ncn) 

Lobelia monostachya (ncn) 

Cat's-eye, Terlingua Creek 

Liveforever, Santa Barbara Island 

Liveforever, Laguna Beach 

Koki'o (Kokia kauaiensis) 

Goetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey) 

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) 

Haha (Cyanea remyi) 

Ma'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus brackenridgei) 

Lysimachia maxima (ncn) 

Lysimachia lydgatei (ncn) 

Clover, Showy Indian 

Lysimachia filifolia (ncn) 

Clover, Running Buffalo 

Campion, Fringed 

Cliffrose, Arizona 

Calyptranthes Thomasiana (ncn) 

Lyonia truncata var. proctorii (ncn) 

Geranium, Hawaiian Red-flowered 

Lupine, Scrub 

Lupine, Clover 

Lousewort, Furbish 

Cactus, Tobusch Fishhook 

Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless 

Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's 

Clover, Monterey 

Clarkia, Springville 

Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago princeps) 

Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago hawaiensis) 

Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) 

Larkspur, Yellow 

Larkspur, San Clemente Island 

Larkspur, Baker's 

Checker-mallow, Kenwood Marsh 

Ceanothus, Coyote 

Phacelia, North Park 

Gouania vitifolia (ncn) 

Primrose, Maguire 

Checker-mallow, Pedate 

Kulu'I (Nototrichium humile) 

Kuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides) 

Kolea (Myrsine linearifolia) 

Kolea (Myrsine juddii) 

Cactus, Star 

Ceanothus roderickii 

Chamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilis 

Sclerocactus wrightiae 

Lobelia oahuensis 

Lobelia niihauensis 

Lobelia mono~tachya 

Cryptantha crassipes 

Dudleya traskiae 

Dudleya stolonifera 

Kokia kauaiensis 

Goetzea elegans 

Geocarpon minimum 

Cyanea remyi 

Hibiscus brackenridgei 

Lysimachia maxima 

Lysimachia lydgatei 

Trifolium amoenum 

Lysimachia filifolia 

Trifolium stoloniferum 

Silene polypetala 

Purshia (=cowania) subintegra 

Calyptranthes thomasiana 

Lyonia truncata var. proctorii 

Geranium arboreum 

Lupinus aridorum 

Lupinus tidestromii 

Pedicularis furbishiae 

Ancistrocactus tobuschii 

Sclerocactus glaucus 

Pseudobahia bahiifolia 

Trifolium trichocalyx 

Clarkia springvillensis 

Plantago princeps 

Plantago hawaiensis 

Chamaesyce halemanui 

Delphinium luteum 

Delphinium variegatum ssp. kinkiense 

Delphinium bakeri 

Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida 

Ceanothus ferrisae 

Phacelia formosula 

Gouania vitifolia 

Primula maguirei 

Sidalcea pedata 

Nototrichium humile 

Alsinidendron lychnoides 

Myrsine linearifolia 

Myrsine juddii 

Astrophytum asterias 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Gourd, Okeechobee 

Gooseberry, Miccosukee 

Goldenrod, Blue Ridge 

Goldenrod, Houghton's 

Goldenrod, Short's 

Goldenrod, White-haired 

Goldfields, Burke's 

Goldfields, Contra Costa 

Ceanothus, Vail Lake 

Laulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) 

Lessingia, San Francisco 

Layia, Beach 

Leptocereus grantianus (ncn) 

Chaffseed, American 

Leather-flower, Morefield's 

Leather-flower, Alabama 

Lead-plant, Crenulate 

Gouania hillebrandii (ncn) 

Gouania meyenii (ncn) 

Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. 

imrnaculatus) 

Centaury, Spring-loving 

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora) 

Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (ncn) 

Schiedea haleakalensis (ncn) 

Popolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum) 

Haha (Cyanea Macrostegia var. gibsonii) 

Haha (Cyanea humboldtiana) 

Kamakahala (Labordia triflora) 

Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. 

lanaiensis) 

Kanaloa kahoolawensis (ncn) 

Pamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. 

chamiss,oniana) 

Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) 

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae) 

Haha (Cyanea glabra) 

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) 

Alani (Melicope munroi) 

Rock-cress, Santa Cruz Island 

Woodland-star, San Clemente Island 

Mountain-mahogany, Catalina Island 

Checker-mallow, Keck's 

Kopa (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. 

remyi) 

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis) 

Silene hawaiiensis (ncn) 

Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) 

Makou (Peucedanum sandwicense) 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis 

Ribes echinellum 

Solidago spithamaea 

Solidago houghtonii 

Solidago shortii 

Solidago albopilosa 

Lasthenia burkei 

Lasthenia conjugens 

Ceanothus ophiochilus 

Schiedea stellarioides 

Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germanorurn) 

Layia carnosa 

Leptocereus grantianus 

Schwalbea americana 

Clematis morefieldii 

Clematis socialis 

Amorpha crenulata 

Gouania hillebrandii 

Gouania meyenii 

Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus 

Centaurium namophilum 

Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora 

Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda 

Schiedea haleakalensis 

Solanum incompletum 

Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii 

Cyanea humboldtiana 

Labordia triflora 

Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis 

Kanaloa kahoolawensis 

Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana 

Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis 

Schiedea kealiae 

Cyanea glabra 

Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis 

Clermontia samuelii 

Melicope munroi 

Sibara filifolia 

Lithophragma maximum 

Cercocarpus traskiae 

Sidalcea keckii 

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi 

Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis 

Silene hawaiiensis 

Scaevola coriacea 

Peucedanum sandwicense 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Neraudia ovata (ncn) 

Neraudia sericea (ncn) 

Lipochaeta venosa (ncn) 

Liliwai (Acaena exigua) 

Koki'o, Cooke's (Kokia cookei) 

Tetramolopium arenarium (ncn) 

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) 

Trematolobelia singularis (ncn) 

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus giffardianus) 

Cyanea undulata (ncn) 

Haha (Cyanea truncata) 

Haha (Cyanea lobata) 

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra crenata) 

Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) 

Aupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium) 

Silversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina) 

Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island 

Holei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) 

Vigna o-wahuensis (ncn) 

Checker-mallow, Wenatchee Mountains 

Water-willow, Cooley's 

Warea, Wide-leaf 

Walnut, Nogal 

Wallflower, Menzie's 

Wallflower, Contra Costa 

Wallflower, Ben Lomond 

Prickly-apple, Fragrant 

Whitlow-wort, Papery 

Phlox, Texas Trailing 

Wild-buckwheat, Clay-loving 

Vetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) 

Vervain, California 

Vernonia Proctorii (ncn) 

Uvillo 

Umbel, Huachuca Water 

Ulihi (Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis) 

Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) 

Twinpod, Dudley Bluffs 

Silene alexandri (ncn) 

Viola lanaiensis (ncn) 

Manzanita, Santa Rosa Island 

Phyllostegia knudsenii (ncn) 

Fringepod, Santa Cruz Island 

Phacelia, Island 

Malacothrix, Island 

Malacothrix, Santa Cruz Island 

Bush-mallow, Santa Cruz Island 

Gilia, Hoffmann's Slender-flowered 

Bedstraw, Island 

Neraudia ovata 

Neraudia sericea 

Lipochaeta venosa 

Acaena exigua 

Kokia cookei 

Tetramolopium arenarium 

Hibiscadelphus distans 

Trematolobelia singularis 

Hibiscadelphus giffardianus 

Cyanea undulata 

Cyanea truncata 

Cyanea lobata 

Cyrtandra crenata 

Isodendrion longifolium 

Isodendrion laurifolium 

Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicense 

Dudleya nesiotica 

Ochrosia kilaueaensis 

Vigna o-wahuensis 

Sidalcea oregana var. calva 

Justicia cooleyi 

Warea amplexifolia 

Juglans jamaicensis 

Erysimum menziesii 

Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum 

Erysimurn teretifolium 

Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans 

Paronychia chartacea 

Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis 

Eriogonum pelinophilum 

Vicia menziesii 

Verbena californica 

Vernonia proctorii 

Eugenia haematocarpa 

Lilaeopsis schaflkeriana var. recurva 

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis 

Caesalpinia kavaiense 

Physaria obcordata 

Silene alexandri 

Viola lanaiensis 

Arctostaphylos confertiflora 

Phyllostegia knudsenii 

Thysanocarpus conchuliferus 

Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis 

Malacothnx squalida 

Malacothrix indecora 

Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. nesioticus 

Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii 

Galium buxifolium 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Watercress, Gambel's 

Barberry, Island 

Rush-rose, Island 

Rock-cress, Hof£inannls 

Ziziphus, Florida 

Xylosma crenatum (ncn) 

Woolly-threads, San Joaquin 

Woolly-star, Santa Ana River 

Wireweed 

Wire-lettuce, Malheur 

Wings, Pigeon 

Wild-buckwheat, Gypsum 

Paintbrush, Soft-leaved 

Aster, Florida Golden 

Amaranth, Seabeach 

Osmoxylon mariannense (ncn) 

Nesogenes rotensis (ncn) 

Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) 

Catchfly, Spalding's 

Ambrosia, San Diego 

Amaranthus brownii (ncn) 

Ambrosia, South Texas 

Opuhe (Urera kaalae) 

Aster, Decurrent False 

Stickseed, Showy 

Aster, Ruth's Golden 

Auerodendron pauciflorum (ncn) 

Milk-vetch, Ventura Marsh 

Aupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) 

Avens, Spreading 

Ayenia, Texas 

Baccharis, Encinitas 

Barbara Buttons, Mohr's 

Amphianthus, Little 

Alani (Melicope saint-johnii) 

Alani (Melicope adscendens) 

Alani (Melicope balloui) 

Alani (Melicope haupuensis) 

Alani (Melicope knudsenii) 

Alani (Melicope lydgatei) 

Alani (Melicope mucronulata) 

Alani (Melicope ovalis) 

Alani (Melicope pallida) 

Lomatium, Cook's 

Alani (Melicope reflexa) 

Meadowfoam, Large-flowered Woolly 

Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) 

Allocarya, Calistoga 

Polygonum, Scott's Valley 

Rorippa gambellii 

Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis 

Helianthemurn greenei 

Arabis hofhannii 

Ziziphus celata 

Xylosma crenatum 

Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii 

Eriastnun densifolium ssp. sanctorum 

Polygonella basiramia 

Stephanomeria malheurensis 

Clitoria fiagrans 

Eriogonum gypsophilum 

Castilleja mollis 

Chrysopsis floridana 

Amaranthus pumilus 

Osmoxylon mariannense 

Nesogenes rotensis 

Gopherus polyphemus 

Silene spaldingii 

Ambrosia pumila 

Amaranthus brownii 

Ambrosia cheiranthifolia 

Urera kaalae 

Boltonia decurrens 

Hackelia venusta 

Pityopsis ruthii 

Auerodendron pauciflorum 

Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissirnus 

Isodendrion hosakae 

Geum radiatum 

Ayenia limitaris 

Baccharis vanessae 

Marshallia mohrii 

Amphianthus pusillus 

Melicope saint-johnii 

Melicope adscendens 

Melicope balloui 

Melicope haupuensis 

Melicope knudsenii 

Melicope lydgatei 

Melicope mucronulata 

Melicope ovalis 

Melicope pallida 

Lomatium cookii 

Melicope reflexa 

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Grandiflora 

Melicope zahlbruckneri 

Plagiobothrys strictus 

Polygonum hickmanii 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) 

Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) 

Alsinidendron viscosum (ncn) 

Milk-vetch, Holmgren 

Milk-vetch, Shivwits 

Bear-poppy, Dwarf 

Alani (Melicope quadrangularis) 

Sea-blite, California 

Barberry, Nevin's 

Tarplant, Santa Cruz 

Thelypody, Howell's Spectacular 

Sunflower, Pecos 

Schiedea verticillata (ncn) 

Sneezeweed, Virginia 

Schoepfia arenaria (ncn) 

Bird's-beak, Soft 

Thistle, La Graciosa 

Popcornflower, Rough 

Yerba Santa, Lompoc 

Catesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn) 

Wahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium) 

Schiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea 

adamantis) 

Schiedea nuttallii (ncn) 

Schiedea kauaiensis (ncn) 

Schiedea hookeri (ncn) 

Sanicula purpurea (ncn) 

Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa) 

Phyllostegia parviflora (ncn) 

Thistle, Suisun 

Milk-vetch, Deseret 

Viola helenae (ncn) 

Cactus, Winkler 

Phlox, Yreka 

Beardtongue, Penland 

Bedstraw, El Dorado 

Bellflower, Brooksville 

Schiedea helleri (ncn) 

Schiedea kaalae (ncn) 

Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina (ncn) 

Penny-cress, Kneeland Prairie 

Bariaco 

Bladderpod, Zapata 

Schiedea lydgatei (ncn) 

Lupine, Kincaid's 

Daisy, Willamette 

Schiedea membranacea (ncn) 

Butterfly Plant, Colorado 

Alsinidendron obovatum 

Alsinidendron trinerve 

Alsinidendron viscosum 

Astragalus holmgreniorurn 

Astragalus ampullarioides 

Arctomecon humilis 

Melicope quadrangularis 

Suaeda califomica 

Berberis nevinii 

Holocarpha macradenia 

Thelypodium howellii spectabilis 

Helianthus paradoxus 

Schiedea verticillata 

Helenium virginicum 

Schoepfia arenaria 

Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis 

Cirsium loncholepis 

Plagiobothrys hirtus 

Eriodictyon capitatum 

Catesbaea melanocarpa 

Isodendrion pyrifolium 

Schiedea adamantis 

Schiedea nuttallii 

Schedea kauaiensis 

Schiedea hookeri 

Sanicula purpurea 

Cyanea (=Rollandia) crispa 

Phyllostegia parviflora 

Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum 

Astragalus desereticus 

Viola helenae 

Pediocactus winkleri 

Phlox hirsuta 

Penstemon penlandii 

Galium califomicum ssp. sierrae 

Campanula robinsiae 

Schiedea helleri 

Schiedea kaalae 

Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina 

Thlaspi califomicum 

Trichilia triacantha 

Lesquerella thamnophila 

Schiedea lydgatei 

Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. 

kincaidii) 

Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens 

Schiedea membranacea 

Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Schiedea sarmentosa (ncn) 

Lupine, Nipomo Mesa 

Tarplant, Gaviota 

Yellowhead, Desert 

Rock-cress, Shale Barren 

Reed-mustard, Barneby 

Sand-verbena, Large-fruited 

Bladderpod, Kodachrome 

Bladderpod, Lyrate 

Rush-pea, Slender 

Roseroot, Leedy's 

Rosemary, Short-leaved 

Rosemary, Etonia 

Rosemary, Cumberland 

Sandlace 

Rock-cress, Small 

Sandwort, Bear Valley 

Rock-cress, McDonald's 

Rock-cress, Large (=Braunls) 

Ridge-cress (=Pepper-cress), Barneby 

Bladderpod, Missouri 

Rhododendron, Chapman 

Remya, Maui 

Remya montgomeryi (ncn) 

Remya kauaiensis (ncn) 

Reed-mustard, Shrubby 

A'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) 

Rosemary, Apalachicola 

Bird's-beak, Pennell's 

Abutilon eremitopetalum (ncn) 

Silene lanceolata (ncn) 

Snowbells, Texas 

Viola oahuensis (ncn) 

Snakeroot 

Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) 

Achyranthes mutica (ncn) 

Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata (ncn) 

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin 

Sandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi) 

Bird's-beak, Palmate-bracted 

Rattleweed, Hairy 

Bird's-beak, salt marsh 

Skullcap, Large-flowered 

Skullcap, Florida 

Birds-in-a-nest, White 

Bittercress, Small-anthered 

Bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs 

Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense) 

Sanicula mariversa (ncn) 

Schiedea sarmentosa 

Lupinus nipomensis 

Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa 

Yermo xanthocephalus 

Arabis serotina 

Schoenocrambe barnebyi 

Abronia macrocarpa 

Lesquerella tumulosa 

Lesquerella lyrata 

Hofhannseggia tenella 

Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi 

Conradina brevifolia 

Conradina etonia 

Conradina verticillata 

Polygonella myriophylla 

Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata Fernald 

Arenaria ursina 

Arabis mcdonaldiana 

Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. ampla Rollins 

Lepidium barnebyanum 

Lesquerella filiformis 

Rhododendron chapmanii 

Remya mauiensis 

Remya montgomeryi 

Remya kauaiensis 

Schoenocrambe suffrutescens 

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense 

Conradina glabra 

Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris 

Abutilon eremitopetalum 

Silene lanceolata 

Styrax texanus 

Viola oahuensis 

Eryngium cuneifolium 

Abutilon sandwicense 

Achyranthes mutica 

Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata 

Pseudobahia peirsonii 

Santalum fi-eycinetianum var. lanaiense 

Cordylanthus palmatus 

Baptisia arachnifera 

Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus 

Scutellaria montana 

Scutellaria floridana 

Macbridea alba 

Cardamine micranthera 

Lesquerella congesta 

Argyroxiphium kauense 

Sanicula mariversa 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Sandwort, Marsh 

Sandwort, Cumberland 

Birch, Virginia Round-leaf 

Pinkroot, Gentian 

Reed-mustard, Clay 

Buckwheat, Cushenbwy 

Buckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill) 

Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) 

Plum, Scrub 

Buckwheat, Scrub 

Pitcher-plant, Mountain Sweet 

Pitcher-plant, Green 

Pitcher-plant, Alabama Canebrake 

Polygala, Tiny 

Buckwheat, Southern Mountain Wild 

Pondbeny 

Buckwheat, Steamboat 

Pilo (Hedyotis mannii) 

Phyllostegia wawrana (ncn) 

Phyllostegia warshaueri (ncn) 

Phyllostegia wairneae (ncn) 

Phyllostegia velutina (ncn) 

Phyllostegia mollis (ncn) 

Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) 

Phyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn) 

Phyllostegia hirsuta (ncn) 

Pitaya, Davis' Green 

Bonamia menziesii (ncn) 

Bladderpod, San Bernardino Mountains 

Bladderpod, Spring Creek 

Pussypaws, Mariposa 

Bladderpod, White 

Blazing Star, Ash Meadows 

Blazing Star, Heller's 

Blazing Star, Scrub 

Blue-star, Kearney's 

Bluecurls, Hidden Lake 

Polygala, Lewton's 

Pua'ala (Brighamia rockii) 

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn) 

Mahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) 

Prickly-ash, St. Thomas 

Clover, Leafy Prairie 

Bonamia, Florida 

Potato-bean, Price's 

Poppy-mallow, Texas 

Poppy, Sacramento Prickly 

Popolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum sandwicense) 

Boxwood, Vahl's 

Arenaria paludicola 

Arenaria cumberlandensis 

Betula uber 

Spigelia gentianoides 

Schoenocrambe argillacea 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum 

Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. prostraturn) 

Portulaca sclerocarpa , 

Prunus geniculata 

Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium 

Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii 

Sarracenia oreophila 

Sarracenia rubra alabamensis 

Polygala smallii 

Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum 

Lindera melissifolia 

Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae 

Hedyotis mannii 

Phyllostegia wawrana 

Phyllostegia warshaueri 

Phyllostegia waimeae 

Phyllostegia velutina 

Phyllostegia mollis 

Phyllostegia mannii 

Phyllostegia kaalaensis 

Phyllostegia hirsuta 

Echinocereus viridifloms var. davisii 

Bonamia menziesii 

Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina 

Lesquerella perforata 

Calyptridium pulchellum 

Lesquerella pallida 

Mentzelia leucophylla 

Liatris helleri 

Liatris ohlingerae 

Amsonia kearneyana 

Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum 

Polygala lewtonii 

Brighamia rockii 

Spermolepis hawaiiensis 

Alectryon macrococcus 

Zanthoxylum thomasianum 

Dalea foliosa 

Bonamia grandiflora 

Apios priceana 

Callirhoe scabriuscula 

Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta 

Solanum sandwicense 

Buxus vahlii 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Broom, San Clemente Island 

Bluet, Roan Mountain 

A'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. 

tomentosum) 

Erubia 

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum 

Tetramolopium filiforme (ncn) 

Tetramolopium capillare (ncn) 

Ternstroemia subsessilis (ncn) 

Tarplant, Otay 

Sunray, Ash Meadows 

Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) 

Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly 

Thistle, Chorro creek Bog 

'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) 

'Anunu (Sicyos alba) 

'Awikiwiki (Canavalia molokaiensis) 

'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) 

'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) 

Dwarf-flax, Marin 

Stonecrop, Lake County 

Stickyseed, Baker's 

Sunflower, Schweinitz's 

Townsendia, Last Chance 

Silene perlmanii (ncn) 

Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) 

'Aiea (Nothocestnun breviflorum) 

'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) 

Tuctoria, Green's 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. 

kaenana) 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) 

Tetramolopium remyi (ncn) 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) 

Sumac, Michaux's 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii) 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. 

skottsbe 

'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) 

Thornmint, San Mateo 

Thornmint, San Diego 

Thistle, Sacramento Mountains 

Thistle, Pitcher's 

Thistle, Fountain 

'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) 

Spineflower, Sonoma 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 

mauiensis) 

Stenogyne kanehoana (ncn) 

Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae 

Hedyotis purpurea var. montana 

Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum 

Solanum drymophilum 

Tetrarnolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum 

Tetramolopium filiforme 

Tetramolopium capillare 

Ternstroemia subsessilis 

Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens 

Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata 

Tetramolopium rockii 

Eriophyllum latilobum 

Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense 

Lepidium arbuscula 

Sicyos alba 

Canavalia molokaiensis 

Centaurium sebaeoides 

Hedyotis cookiana 

Hesperolinon congestum 

Parvisedum leiocarpum 

Blennosperma bakeri 

Helianthus schweinitzii 

Townsendia aprica 

Silene perlmanii 

Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum 

Nothocestrum breviflorum 

Nothocestmm peltatum 

Tuctoria greenei 

Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana 

Chamaesyce deppeana 

Tetramolopium remyi 

Chamaesyce kuwaleana 

Rhus michauxii 

Chamaesyce rockii 

Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. kalaeloana 

Euphorbia haeleeleana 

Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii 

Acanthomintha ilicifolia 

Cirsium vinaceum 

Cirsium pitcheri 

Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale 

Chamaesyce herbstii 

Chorizanthe valida 

Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis 

Stenogyne kanehoana 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 
Spurge, Telephus 

Spurge, Hoover's 

Spurge, Garber's 

Spurge, Deltoid 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) 

'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. 

brevipes) 

Spiraea, Virginia 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana) 

Spineflower, Slender-horned 

Spineflower, Scotts Valley 

Spineflower, Robust 

Spineflower, Orcutt's 

Spineflower, Monterey 

Spineflower, Howell's 

Spineflower, Ben Lomond 

'Olulu (Brighamia insignis) 

'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) 

'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia lindseyana) 

'Oha (Delissea subcordata) 

'Oha (Delissea rivularis) 

Evening-primrose, San Benito 

Evening-primrose, Eureka Valley 

Evening-primrose, Antioch Dunes 

'Oha (Delissea undulata) 

Eugenia Woodburyana 

Stenogyne angustifolia (ncn) 

'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) 

Stenogyne bifida (ncn) 

Stenogyne campanulata (ncn) 

Shiner, Beautiful 

Shiner, Cahaba 

Shiner, Blue 

Cui-ui 

Silverside, Waccamaw 

Chub, Yaqui 

Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled 

Dace, Blackside 

Dace, Clover Valley Speckled 

Chub, Spotfin 

Chub, Hutton Tui 

Chub, Owens Tui 

Chub, Oregon 

Shiner, Palezone 

Shiner, Pecos Bluntnose 

Chub, Virgin River 

Dace, Desert 

Euphorbia telephioides 

Chamaesyce hooveri 

Chamaesyce garberi 

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea 

Clermontia pyrularia 

Sesbania tomentosa 

Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes 

Spiraea virginiana 

Clermontia peleana 

Dodecahema leptoceras 

Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii 

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta 

Chorizanthe orcuttiana 

Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens 

Chorizanthe howellii 

Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana 

Brighamia insignis 

Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa 

Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis 

Clermontia lindseyana 

Delissea subcordata 

Delissea rivularis 

Camissonia benitensis 

Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis 

Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii 

Delissea undulata 

Eugenia woodburyana 

Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia 

Clermontia drepanomorpha 

Stenogyne bifida 

Stenogyne campanulata 

Cyprinella formosa 

Notropis cahabae 

Cyprinella caerulea 

Chasmistes cujus 

Menidia extensa 

Gila purpurea 

Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis 

Phoxinus cumberlandensis 

Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus 

Erimonax monachus 

Gila bicolor ssp. 

Gila bicolor snyderi 

Oregonichthys crameri 

Notropis albizonatus 

Notropis simus pecosensis 

Gila seminuda (=robusta) 

Eremichthys acros 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Dicot 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 
Shiner, Arkansas River 

Shiner, Cape Fear 

Chub, Slender 

Chub, Sonora 

Chub, Mohave Tui 

Chub, Humpback 

Chub, Chihuahua 

Chub, Borax Lake 

Chub, Bonytail 

Catfish, Yaqui 

Cavefish, Alabama 

Cavefish, Ozark 

Chub, Pahranagat Roundtail 

Sculpin, Pygmy 

Springfish, Railroad Valley 

Dace, Foskett Speckled 

Chub, Gila 

Madtom, Smoky 

Spikedace 

Spinedace, Big Spring 

Spinedace, Little Colorado 

Logperch, Roanoke 

Springfish, Hiko White River 

Salmon, Coho 

Springfish, White River 

Squawfish, Colorado 

Steelhead, (California Central Valley 

population) 

Steelhead, (Central California Coast 

population) 

Steelhead, (Lower Columbia River 

population) 

Steelhead, (Northern California population) 

Spinedace, White River 

Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa 

Madtom, Neosho 

Madtom, Pygmy 

Madtom, Scioto 

Madtom, Yellowfin 

Minnow, Loach 

Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery 

Smelt, Delta 

Steelhead, Puget Sound 

Salmon, Sockeye 

Pupfish, Desert 

Pupfish, Devils Hole 

Pupfish, Leon Springs 

Pupfish, Owens 

Pupfish, Warm Springs 

Sturgeon, North American green 

Notropis girardi 

Notropis mekistocholas 

Erimystax cahni 

Gila ditaenia 

Gila bicolor mohavensis 

Gila cypha 

Gila nigrescens 

Gila boraxobius 

Gila elegans 

Ictalurus pricei 

Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni 

Amblyopsis rosae 

Gila robusta jordani 

Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus) 

Crenichthys nevadae 

Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 

Gila intermedia 

Noturus baileyi 

Meda fulgida 

Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis 

Lepidomeda vittata 

Percina rex 

Crenichthys baileyi grandis 

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch 

Crenichthys baileyi baileyi 

Ptychocheilus lucius 

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss 

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss 

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss 

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss 

Lepidomeda albivallis 

Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes 

Noturus placidus 

Noturus stanauli 

Noturus trautmani 

Noturus flavipinnis 

Tiaroga cobitis 

Hybognathus amarus 

Hypomesus transpacificus 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka 

Cyprinodon macularius 

Cyprinodon diabolis 

Cyprinodon bovinus 

Cyprinodon radiosus 

Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis 

Acipenser medirostris 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Goby, Tidewater 

Darter, Okaloosa 

Darter, Niangua 

Darter, Etowah 

Darter, Maryland 

Darter, Boulder 

Darter, Amber 

Darter, Leopard 

Darter, Goldline 

Dace, Independence Valley Speckled 

Darter, Fountain 

Dace, Kendall Warm Springs 

Logperch, Conasauga 

Dace, Moapa 

Gambusia, San Marcos 

Gambusia, Pecos 

Darter, Bayou 

Gambusia, Clear Creek 

Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle 

Rhadine infernalis (ncn) 

Rhadine exilis (ncn) 

Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Beetle, Delta Green Ground 

Fly, Delhi Sands Flower-loving 

Beetle, Salt Creek Tiger 

Skipper, Laguna Mountain 

Skipper, Pawnee Montane 

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald 

Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger 

Beetle, Helotes Mold 

Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling Water 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid 

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr 

Beetle, American Burying 

Butterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's 

euphydryas) 

Beetle, Puritan Tiger 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Beetle, Mount Hermon June 

Moth, Blackburn's Sphinx 

Butterfly, Lotis Blue 

Butterfly, Fender's Blue 

Naucorid, Ash Meadows 

Beetle, Tooth Cave Ground 

Beetle, Kretschmarr Cave Mold 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Eucyclogobius newberryi 

Etheostoma okaloosae 

Etheostoma nianguae 

Etheostoma etowahae 

Etheostoma sellare 

Etheostoma wapiti 

Percina antesella 

Percina pantherina 

Percina aurolineata 

Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus 

Etheostoma fonticola 

Rhinichthys osculus thermalis 

Percina jenkinsi 

Moapa coriacea 

Gambusia georgei 

Gambusia nobilis 

Etheostoma rubrum 

Gambusia heterochir 

Heterelmis comalensis 

Rhadine infernalis 

Rhadine exilis 

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus 

Drosophila musaphilia 

Elaphrus viridis 

Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis 

Cicindela nevadica lincolniana 

Pyrgus ruralis lagunae 

Hesperia leonardus montana 

Somatochlora hineana 

Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis 

Batrisodes venyivi 

Brychius hungerfordi 

Drosophila neoclavisetae 

Stygoparnus comalensis 

Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii 

Nicrophorus americanus 

Euphydryas editha bayensis 

Cicindela puritana 

Drosophila ochrobasis 

Polyphylla barbata 

Manduca blackburni 

Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis 

Icaricia icarioides fenderi 

Ambrysus amargosus 

Rhadine persephone 

Texamaurops reddelli 

Drosophila tarphytrichia 

Drosophila substenoptera 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Fish 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Beetle, Coffin Cave Mold 

Butterfly, Uncompahgre Fritillary 

Moth, Kern Primrose Sphinx 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Grasshopper, Zayante Band-winged 

Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot 

Butterfly, Callippe Silverspot 

Butterfly, El Segundo Blue 

Butterfly, Kamer Blue 

Butterfly, Lange's Metalmark 

Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing 

Butterfly, Mission Blue 

Beetle, Ohlone Tiger 

Butterfly, Myrtle's Silverspot 

Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot 

Butterfly, Palos Verdes Blue 

Butterfly, Quino Checkerspot 

Butterfly, Saint Francis' Satyr 

Butterfly, San Bruno Elfin 

Butterfly, Schaus Swallowtail 

Butterfly, Smith's Blue 

Skipper, Carson Wandering 

Squirrel, Virginia Northern Flying 

Woodrat, Riparian 

Squirrel, Mount Graham Red 

Woodrat, Key Largo 

Wolf, Red 

Wolf, Gray 

Vole, Hualapai Mexican 

Vole, Florida Salt Marsh 

Vole, Amargosa 

Caribou, Woodland 

Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate 

Rabbit, Pygmy 

Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn 

Fox, San Joaquin Kit 

Fox, San Miguel Island 

Rabbit, Riparian Brush 

Fox, Santa Rosa Island 

Fox, Santa Cruz Island 

Deer, Columbian White-tailed 

Deer, Key 

Puma (=Cougar), Eastern 

Dugong 

Batrisodes texanus 

Boloria acrocnema 

Euproserpinus euterpe 

Drosophila differens 

Drosophila mulli 

Drosophila obatai 

Drosophila hemipeza 

Drosophila montgomeryi 

Drosophila aglaia 

Trimerotropis infantilis 

Speyeria zerene hippolyta 

Speyeria callippe callippe 

Euphilotes battoides allyni 

Lycaeides melissa samuelis 

Apodemia mormo langei 

Drosophila heteroneura 

Icaricia icarioides missionensis 

Cicindela ohlone 

Speyeria zerene myrtleae 

Speyeria zerene behrensii 

Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis 

Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti) 

Neonympha mitchellii fiancisci 

Callophrys mossii bayensis 

Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus 

Euphilotes enoptes smithi 

Pseudocopaeodes emus obscurus 

Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus 

Neotoma fuscipes riparia 

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis 

Neotoma floridana smalli 

Canis rufus 

Canis lupus 

Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis 

Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli 

Microtus californicus scirpensis 

Rangifer tarandus caribou 

Sorex omatus relictus 

Brachylagus idahoensis 

Ovis canadensis 

Vulpes macrotis mutica 

Urocyon littoralis littoralis 

Sylvilagus bachrnani riparius 

Urocyon littoralis santarosae 

Urocyon littoralis santacruzae 

Odocoileus virginianus leucurus 

Odocoileus virginianus clavium 

Puma (=Felis) concolor couguar 

Dugong dugon 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Insect 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 
Ferret, Black-footed 

Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh 

Bat, Gray 

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox 

Bear, Louisiana Black 

Rice Rat (=Silver Rice Rat) 

Bat, Virginia Big-eared 

Bat, Ozark Big-eared 

Bat, Mexican Long-nosed 

Bat, Mariana Fruit (=Mariana Flying Fox) 

Bat, Little Mariana Fruit 

Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long-nosed 

Panther, Florida 

Lynx, Canada 

Bat, Hawaiian Hoary 

Sheep, Sierra Nevada Bighorn 

Ocelot 

Mouse, Southeastern Beach 

Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest 

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach 

Mouse, Pacific Pocket 

Mouse, Key Largo Cotton 

Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach 

Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach 

Mouse, Alabama Beach 

Kangaroo Rat, San Bemardino Merriam's 

Bat, Indiana 

Jaguarundi, Gulf Coast 

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying 

Mouse, St. Andrew Beach 

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping 

Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground 

Fox, Santa Catalina Island 

Bear, Grizzly 

Jaguar 

Kangaroo Rat, Fresno 

Kangaroo Rat, Giant 

Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay 

Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' 

Kangaroo Rat, Tipton 

Mountain Beaver, Point Arena 

Prairie Dog, Utah 

Pronghorn, Sonoran 

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan 

Beargrass, Britton's 

Arrowhead, Bunched 

Sedge, Golden 

Seagrass, Johnson's 

Amole, Purple 

Mustela nigripes 

Sylvilagus palustris hefneri 

Myotis grisescens 

Sciurus niger cinereus 

Ursus americanus luteolus 

Oryzomys palustris natator 

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus 

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingens 

Leptonycteris nivalis 

Pteropus mariannus mariannus 

Pteropus tokudae 

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae 

Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi 

Lynx canadensis 

Lasiurus cinereus semotus 

Ovis canadensis californiana 

Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris 

Reithrodontomys raviventris 

Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis 

Perognathus longimembris pacificus 

Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola 

Peromyscus polionotus allophrys 

Peromyscus polionotus phasma 

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates 

Dipodomys merriarni parvus 

Myotis sodalis 

Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitli 

Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus 

Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis 

Zapus hudsonius preblei 

Spermophilus brunneus brunneus 

Urocyon littoralis catalinae 

Ursus arctos horribilis 

Panthera onca 

Dipodomys nitratoides exilis 

Dipodomys ingens 

Dipodomys heermanni morroensis 

Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus) 

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides 

Aplodontia rufa nigra 

Cynomys parvidens 

Antilocapra americana sonoriensis 

Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca 

Nolina brittoniana 

Sagittaria fasciculata 

Carex lutea 

Halophila johnsonii 

Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Mammal 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 
Lo'ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri) 

Fritillary, Gentner's 

Grass, Eureka Dune 

Beaked-rush, Knieskern's 

Sedge, Navajo 

Beauty, Harper's 

Sedge, White 

Mariscus pennatiforrnis (ncn) 

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed 

Grass, California Orcutt 

Lily, Minnesota Trout 

Brodiaea, Chinese Camp 

Brodiaea, Thread-leaved 

Pondweed, Little Aguja Creek 

Pogonia, Small Whorled 

Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) 

Platanthera holochila (ncn) 

Piperia, Yadon's 

Pink, Swamp 

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) 

Pelos del Diablo 

Lepanthes eltorensis (ncn) 

Manaca, palma de 

Lau'ehu (Panicum niihauense) 

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Onion, Munz's 

Lily, Pitkin Marsh 

Lily, Tiburon Mariposa 

Mariscus fauriei (ncn) 

Lily, Western 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia remota) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia munroi) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia kaalae) 

Lo'ulu (Pritchardia affinis) 

Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei 

var.carteri) 

Iris, Dwarf Lake 

Water-plantain, Kral's 

Wahane (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii) 

Alopecurus, Sonoma 

Trillium, Relict 

Trillium, Persistent 

Cranichis Ricartii 

Gahnia Lanaiensis (ncn) 

Bluegrass, Hawaiian 

Grass, Colusa 

Grass, Fosberg's Love 

Pritchardia schattaueri 

Fritillaria gentneri 

S wallenia alexandrae 

Rhynchospora knieskernii 

Carex specuicola 

Harperocallis flava 

Carex albida 

Mariscus pennatiformis 

Platanthera praeclara 

Orcuttia californica 

Erythronium propullans 

Brodiaea pallida 

Brodiaea filifolia 

Potamogeton clystocarpus 

Isotia medeoloides 

Poa siphonoglossa 

Platanthera holochila 

Piperia yadonii 

Helonias bullata 

Scirpus ancistrochaetus 

Aristida portoricensis 

Lepanthes eltoroensis 

Calyptronoma rivalis 

Panicum niihauense 

Platanthera leucophaea 

Allium munzii 

Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense 

Calochortus tiburonensis 

Mariscus fauriei 

Lilium occidentale 

Pritchardia viscosa 

Pritchardia remota 

Pritchardia napaliensis 

Pritchardia munroi 

Pritchardia kaalae 

Pritchardia affinis 

Panicum fauriei var. carteri 

Iris lacusbis 

Sagittaria secundifolia 

Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii 

Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis 

Trillium reliquum 

Trillium persistens 

Cranichis ricartii 

Gahnia lanaiensis 

Poa sandvicensis 

Neostapfia colusana 

Eragrostis fosbergii 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 
Grass, Solano 

Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed 

Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) 

Hilo Ischaemum (Ischaemum byrone) 

Wild-rice, Texas 

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt 

Irisette, White 

Amole, Cammatta Canyon 

Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrirnonioides) 

Ladies1-tresses, Canelo Hills 

Ladiesr-tresses, Navasota 

Aristida chaseae (ncn) 

Ladiesf-tresses, Ute 

Bluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) 

Bluegrass, Napa 

Bluegrass, San Bernardino 

Hala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) 

Snake, Concho Water 

Lizard, St. Croix Ground 

Snake, Eastern Indigo 

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh 

Skink, Sand 

Skink, Blue-tailed Mole 

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge-nosed 

Boa, Mona 

Snake, Giant Garter 

Boa, Virgin Islands Tree 

Snake, San Francisco Garter 

Lizard, Island Night 

Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed 

Lizard, Blunt-nosed Leopard 

Iguana, Mona Ground 

Gecko, Monito 

Crocodile, American 

Boa, Puerto Rican 

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley 

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) 

Whipsnake (=Striped Racer), Alameda 

Turtle, Yellow-blotched Map 

Turtle, Ringed Sawback 

Turtle, Plymouth Red-bellied 

Sea turtle, olive ridley 

Snake, Lake Erie Water 

Sea turtle, leatherback 

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water 

Sea turtle, hawksbill 

Sea turtle, green 

Turtle, Flattened Musk 

Turtle, Alabama Red-bellied 

Tuctoria mucronata 

Xyris tennesseensis 

Cyperus trachysanthos 

Ischaemum byrone 

Zizania texana 

Orcuttia inaequalis 

Sisyrinchiurn dichotomum 

Chlorogalum purpureum var. reducturn 

Cenchrus agrimonioides 

Spiranthes delitescens 

Spiranthes parksii 

Aristida chaseae 

Spiranthes diluvialis 

Poa mannii 

Poa napensis 

Poa atropurpurea 

Pleomele hawaiiensis 

Nerodia paucimaculata 

Ameiva polops 

Drymarchon corais couperi 

Nerodia clarkii taeniata 

Neoseps reynoldsi 

Eumeces egregius lividus 

Crotalus willardi obscurus 

Epicrates monensis monensis 

Tharnnophis gigas 

Epicrates monensis granti 

Tharnnophis sirtalis tetrataenia 

Xantusia riversiana 

Uma inornata 

Gambelia silus 

Cyclura stejnegeri 

Sphaerodactylus micropithecus 

Crocodylus acutus 

Epicrates inornatus 

Lepidochelys kempii 

Clemmys muhlenbergii 

Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus 

Graptemys flavimaculata 

Graptemys oculifera 

Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi 

Lepidochelys olivacea 

Nerodia sipedon insularum 

Dermochelys coriacea 

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta 

Eretmochelys imbricata 

Chelonia mydas 

Sternotherus depressus 

Pseudemys alabamensis 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Monocot 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 
Tortoise, Gopher 

Tortoise, Desert 

Anole, Culebra Island Giant 

Sea turtle, loggerhead 

Gopherus polyphemus 

Gopherus agassizii 

Anolis roosevelti 

Caretta caretta 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 

Reptile 
APPENDIX H. Submitted Environmental Fate Studies for Etofenprox. 

Table H. Submitted Environmental Fate Studies for Etofenprox, their Review 

Classific 

MRID 

46779702 

46779724 

46779703 

46779725 

46779726 

46779725 

47132841 

46779728 

ations, and Classi 

Study Type 

Hydrolysis 

Hydrolysis 

Aqueous Photolysis 

Aqueous ~hotolysis 

1 Soil Photolysis 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 

Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 

ication Just 

Review 

Classification 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Unacceptable 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

fications. 

Classification Justifications 

The measured concentrations of total [14~]recoveries 

were variable (standard deviations up to 18.7%) and 

declined over time, averaging 64.0-8 1.2% of the applied 

at study termination. Also, the study was conducted for 

5 days (at 50°C). 

The definitive experiments were conducted at 35°C and 

45°C in buffer solutions containing 10% acetonitrile as a 

cosolvent. Sterility was not confiied. Limits of 

detection were not reported. Single test vessels were 

collected in the 35°C experiment. The test substance 

was 2-(4-ethoxypheny1)-2-methylpropyl3- 

phenoxybenzoate (alpha-CO), a transformation product 

of etofenprox. 

Material balances in the irradiated solutions ranged from 

60.5-103.0% of the applied. Single replicates of the dark 

controls were collected, with material balances that 

declined steadily from 109.6% to 40.4% of the applied. 

The concentration of the cosolvent (acetonitrile) in 

solution was 1.8% by volume. The quantum yield 

calculations could not be verified. 

The test solution was not homogeneous, resulting in a 

widely variable material balance (ranging from 105.42% 

to 297.36% of the applied) and termination of the 

experiment after only 2 days of continuous irradiation. 

The test solution contained ca. 11% acetonitrile by 

volume and sterility was not confirmed. ' The intensity of artificial light £ram 290-800 nm was not 

compared to that of natural summer sunlight at 40°N 

latitude. Natural-sunlight-intemity estimations yielded 

, uncertain environmental vhototransformation half-lives. 

It was not established that the foreign test soils used in 

this study were comparable to soils that would be found 

at intended use sites in the United States. Adequate 

comparison of the test soils with domestic soils would 

upgrade this study to an acceptable classification. 

The study was terminated after only 121 days, at which 

time 57.8-65.6% of the applied [14~]etofenprox was 

undegraded and individual levels of the major (4'-OH) 

and minor @P, m-PB-acid, alpha-CO) transformation 

products appeared to still be increasing. Anaerobicity in 

the water layer was uncertain. The test application rate 

(160 pg/L) was ca. 7x the water solubility limit of the 

test substance (22.5 PEL). 
Classification Justifications 

Material balances were incomplete, with up to 16-17% 

of the applied not accounted for. Test application rates 

(330-340 pg/L) were 15x the water solubility limit of the 

test substance (22.5 pg/L). Test sediments were foreign 

and USDA soil texture and FA0 taxonomic 

classifications were not provided for comparison with 

domestic sediments. Adequate comparison of the test 

sediments with domestic sediments would upgrade this 

study to an acceptable classification. 

The test application rate (350 pg/L) was ca. 16x the water 

solubility limit of the test substance (22.5 pg/L). The 

test sediment was foreign and USDA soil texture and 

FA0 taxonomic classifications were not provided for 

comparison with domestic sediments. Adequate 

comparison of the test sediment with domestic sediments 

would upgrade this study to an acceptable classification. 

The study was conducted using only two test 

concentrations and three soil types. The test 

concentrations exceeded the test substance's water 

solubility limit by 16-fold. The test solution contained 

10% acetone by volume. It could not be determined if 

the foreign test soils were comparable to soils found in 

typical use areas in the United States. 

No significant deviations from good scientific practices 

or OPP guidelines were noted. 

The storage stability of etofenprox and its a-CO and 4'- 

OH transformation products in the sediment samples was 

not adequately determined because the stability study 

was not conducted for a duration equal to or greater than 

the maximum storage interval used in this study for the 

sediment test samples. Submission of a storage stability 

study of adequate duration would upgrade this study to 

an acceptable classification. 

No significant deviations from good scientific practices 

were noted. However, detection limits and some 

degradates were not identified. 

No significant deviations from good scientific practices 

were noted. 

Acceptable for etofenprox and two of its metabolites. 

-- 

Review 

Classification 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Unacceptable 

Acceptable 

Supplemental 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

(in review) 

MRID 

46779704 

47132842 

47132843 

46779729 

47132844 

47132846 

47132809 

47 132827 

46779616 

47 132845 

467796 16 

47132845 

Study Type 

Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 

Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 

Batch Equilibrium 

Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation 

Aquatic Field 

Dissipation 

Fish 

Bioconcentration 

Storage Stability 

Environmental 

Chemistry Method 

for Soil 

Environmental 

Chemistry Method 

for Water 
APPENDIX I. Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Etofenprox. 

Table I. Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Etofenprox, their Review Classifications, 

7 Guideline 

ification Justifications. 

MRID Study Title Issues Study 

Classification 

404497-25 MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Avian Single-Dose Oral i Acceptable 

LD50 on the Mallard Duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

None 

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Acute Dietary Toxicity 

Test with the Northern Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus virginianus) 

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Acute Dietary Toxicity 

Test with the Mallard Duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Reproductive Toxicity 

Test with the Northern Bobwhite Quail 

(Colinus virginiamus) 

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Reproductive Toxicity 

Test with the Mallard Duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

Etofenprox Technical: Acute Toxicity Study to 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 

Flow-through System over 96 Hours 

Etofenprox Technical: Acute Toxicity Study to 

Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) in a 

Flow-through System over 96 Hours 

Alpha-CO Metabolite of Etofenprox: Acute 

Toxicity to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) in a Flow-through System over 96 

Hours 

None Acceptable 

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Fish Early Life Stage 

1 

Toxicity to Zebrafish (Brachydanio rerio) in a 

Flow-through System over 40 Days 

High analytical 

variability in meanmeasured concentrations; 

reported NOAEC (based 

on mortality) is one order 

of magnitude higher than 

the reported LCs0 value 

for rainbow trout 

Supplemental 

- 

SAN 8 11 I Technical (Etofenprox): Acute 

Toxicity to Water Fleas (Daphnia magna) 

Under Static Conditions 

-- 

Test substance was 

unstable and exhibited 

high variability in 

recovery of measured tes 

concentrations 

None 

Supplemental 

471328-02 Alpha-CO Metabolite of Etofenprox: Acute 

-1 

Toxicity Study to Water Fleas (Daphnia 

magna) Under Static Conditions 

Acceptable I 
Issues 

No negative control 

tested; insufficient 

verification of 

concentrations and 

stability of etofenprox 

Exposure concentrations 

not measured in 

overlying water ,pore 

water, or sediment; 

spiked overlying water 

Exposure concentrations 

not verified for all test 

concentrations; sediment 

not included in the test 

system 

Significant difference in 

development rate 

between the solvent and 

negative control; 

concentrations of 

etofenprox not measured 

in overlying water, pore 

water, or sediment 

None 

None 

None 

Duration of exposure was 

less than 96 hours 

None 

None 

No negative control 

None 

Study Title 

Etofenprox Technical: Chronic Toxicity to 

Water Fleas (Daphnia magna) Under StaticRenewal Conditions over 2 1 Days 

Etofenprox Technical: Toxicity to Midge 

Larvae (Chironomus riparius) over 10-Days 

Using Spiked Water in a Static Sytem 

4'-OH Metabolite of Etofenprox: Acute 

Toxicity to Midge Larvae (Chironomus 

ripavius) over 48 Hours Using Spiked Water in 

a Static System 

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Effects on the 

Development of Sediment-Dwelling Midge 

Larvae (Chironomus riparius) in a Static 

Water-Sediment System over 25 Days 

Etofenprox Technical: Acute Toxicity to 

Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) 

over 96 Hours in a Flow-through System 

Etofenprox Technical: Acute Toxicity to 

Saltwater Mysid (Americanmysis bahia) over 

96 Hours in a Flow-through System 

Etofenprox Technial: 96 Hour Shell Deposition 

Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica) in a Flow-through System 

Etofenprox Technical: Acute Toxicity to 

Freshwater Algae (Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapita) over 72 Hours in a Static System 

Etofenprox Technical: 7-Day Static-Renewal 

Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

Alpha-CO Metabolite of Etofenprox: Acute 

Toxicity to Freshwater Algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella subcapita) over 96 Hours 

in a Static System 

Etofenprox Technical: Acute Contact Toxicity 

Test with the Honey Bee (Apis mellifra) over 

72 Hours 

RF2056 OL: Foliage Residue Toxicity Study 

with the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) over 24 

Hours 

Guideline 

850.1300 

(72-4) 

850.1735 

None 

None 

850.1075 

(72-3) 

850.1035 

(72-3) 

850.1025 

(72-3@)) 

850.5400 

850.4400 

(122-2) 

850.5400 

850.3020 

(141-1) 

850.3030 

(141-2) 

Study 

Classification 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Invalid 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Supplemental 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Supplemental 

Acceptable 

MRID 

47 149 1-0 1 

47 1328-10 

47 1328- 1 1 

47 1328- 12 

471328-06 

47 1328-04 

471328-03 

471328-21 

47 1328-22 

467797-07 

47 1328- 14 

473260-01 
Issues 

None 

None 

Non-guideline study 

Non-guideline study 

Non-guideline study 

Non-guideline study 

Non-guideline study 

Study Title 

MTI-500 30% EC (Etofenprox): Acute 

Toxicity to Terrestrial Vascular Plants: 

Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor 

MTI-500 30% EC (Etofenprox): Acute 

Toxicity to Terrestrial Vascular Plants: 

Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor 

Trebon 30 EC: Acute Toxicity to Green 

Lacewing (Ch ysoperia carnea) 

Trebon 30 EC: Acute Toxicity to Predatory 

Bug (Orius laevigatus) 

MTI-500 30% EC: Acute Toxicity to 

Predaceous Mite (Typhlodromuspyri) 

Trebon 30 EC: Acute Toxicity to Predaceous 

Mite (Typhlodromus pyri) 

MTI-500 30% EC: Acute Toxicity to Parasitoid 

Wasp (Aphidius rhopalosiphi) 

Guideline 

850.4100 

850.4150 

850.4100 

850.4150 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Study 

Classification 

Seedling 

Emergence: 

Supplemental; 

Vegetative 

Vigor: 

Acceptable 

Seedling 

Emergence: 

Supplemental; 

Vegetative 

Vigor: 

Acceptable 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

Supplemental 

MRID 

467797-06 

471328-20 

47 1328-1 5 

471328-16 

471328-17 

471328-18 

471328-19