## 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 

# illlll11111IIIIIIIIIIIII 11111

Il1Il11111 2080695

## 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 PesticideUsage 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. ConceptualModel


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


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


# .......................................................................................................................12 2.6. AnalysisPlan


## ..........................................................................................................................................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-AquaticPlants 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 EstuarineMarineFish


## .......................................................................................45



## ....................................................................... 3.3.1.4. Toxicity to EstuarineMarineInvertebrates 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


## ..................................................................................................................................... 544.1. 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. TerrestrialPlants 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 atRisk 70



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



## ............................................ 5.2.2. Listed SpeciesOccurrence Associated with New EtofenproxUses 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


# . ProvisionallyModified Tier I Rice Model Equations 99 APPENDIX D

# . ChemicalNames. 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 Studiesfor 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 syntheticpyrethroid ether currently registered for use in the U.S. Similarto most pyrethroids, etofenprox is a neurotoxin for insects, mainly acting on the neuronal axon. Etofenprox is currently registered on 20 labels for a variety ofresidential 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 similarto 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 freshwaterorganisms. 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 organismsin 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 federallylisted threatedendangered (listed) freshwater and estuarinelmarine invertebratesis approximately 77% and loo%, respectively, should exposureto 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 invertebratesare also exceeded based on these use patterns. The use characterizationsuggests that there couldbe circumstances where vector control may involve direct applicationto aquatic areas "when necessary"; in these situations, risk to aquatic organismsmay behigher than those evaluated with the estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) considered in this assessment. Given the predicted risk to aquaticinvertebrates,rice growers should not use etofenprox ifplanning to raise crayfish and/or shrimp in rice paddy fields.

Estimate's ofpotential 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-definitivetoxicity 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 exposureto etofenprox from use on rice and to terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on etofenprox use for vector control are consideredto be low; however, risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed new use of etofenprox on rice cannot be precluded.

Potential "may affect" determinationsto federally-listedendangered 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 mosquitocidefor 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 speciesthat 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, syntheticpyrethroid ether that is expected to display little mobility in soil and to rapidly partition to sediment in aquatic environments. The compound is expectedto bioconcentrate in organisms and may bioaccumulatein food chains. Its major routes of Proposed Application of Listed Taxon Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants - monocots Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants 

### - dicots
Terrestrial invertebrates Birds Terrestrialphase amphibians Reptiles Mammals Aquatic vascular plants Freshwater fish Aquatic phase amphibians Freshwater crustaceans Mollusks Marinelestuarinefish Marinelestuarine invertebrates Potential indirect effects 

## 'direct effects on insects direct effects on terrestrial dicotplants 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 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

### degradation are aerobic biodegradation and aqueous photolysis. The compound degraded with half-lives of 1to 

### 4 weeks in aerobic soil, 4 to 8 weeks in aerobicwater bodies, and 6 months in anaerobic water bodies. Therefore, in aerobic environments, etofenprox is not expectedto persist, which is supportedby 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-toxicto 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 degradateis not toxic to freshwater fish and invertebrates at its limit of water solubility. Based on a lack of comparabletoxicity 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 availabletoxicity data are not sufficientto characterizeits toxicityto benthic invertebrates because the sedimentwas not spiked and only nominal concentrationsof 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 (Brachydaniorerio), reproductive effects to waterfleas (Daphnia magna) and decreased growth in midges (Chironomus riparius). Etofenprox also appears to be non-toxicto aquatic and terrestrial plants. In addition, no chronic reproductive, growth, or survival effectshave been observed in mammals orbirds at the highest concentrationstested.

1.5. 

### Uncertainties and Data Gaps

A suite of environmentalfate data was recently submittedto support the proposed uses of etofenprox. Whilethese data provide a much clearer descriptionofthe environmentalfate properties of etofenproxthan was previously available, deficienciesin 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 causedby residues adsorbingto 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-foldand the test solution contained 10% 

### cosolvent by volume. Therefore, the data could not be used for this assessment, and the soil mobility of etofenproxwas estimated with the EpiSUITE model. This estimate of soil mobility has a largeuncertainty. An acceptablebatch equilibrium study would substantially reduce uncertainty in the environmental fate and exposure characteristicsof etofenprox and in risk conclusionsin 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, chronictoxicity of dissolved

### residues of etofenproxto freshwater fish and invertebratesand estuarinelmarineinvertebrates, and seedling emergence terrestrial plant toxicity data tested at the maximum applicationrate for rice.

The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency's requirements for acute andlor chronic sediment toxicitytesting with technical grade active ingredients have recently been codified in part 158 of Title 40 in the U.S. Code ofFederal Regulations (USEPA, 2006a; FR 72(207):60933-60988; October 26,2007) for the registration of conventional pesticideproducts. The conditional requirements for these data are triggeredbased 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 10days in eitherthe aerobic soil or aquaticmetabolism studies, and if any of the following conditions exist:

The soilpartition coefficient (&) 

### is 1.50. The log ICOW 

### is 

### 2 3. The 

### Gc is

# > 1,000.

Chronic data are required ifthe EEC in sediment is B0.1 ofthe acute LC50~EC50 values, the halflife of the pesticide in the sediment is

# > 10days in either the aerobic soil or aquatic metabolism studies, andif any ofthe 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 utilitybecause overlying water, not sediment, was spiked, and only nominal exposure concentrationswere 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 ofmeasured concentrationsin sediment represents a major uncertaintyin the actual bioavailabiltyofthe 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 toxicityto the parent. An acute static freshwater invertebrate toxicity studywith the 4'-OH degradatewould provide informationon the comparable sensitivity of fi-eshwater invertebratesto 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 ofmeasuredlverified concentrations for all treatment levels. In the submitted early life stage toxicity test to zebrafish, the reported NOAEC (based on mortality)is one order ofmagnitude higher than the reported acute LCs0value 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 shouldbe noted that there are uncertainties associated with using the ACR for freshwater invertebrates to estimate chronic effectsto 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 freshwaterinvertebrate toxicitytest, 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 proximityto estuarinelrnarine environmentsat up to 25 applications per year for vector control;therefore, there is likelihood for chronic exposureto 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 exposureto 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 applicationrate 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-definitiveNOAEC value for lettuce seedling emergence and the lack of testing at the highest proposed application rate for rice.



## 2. Problem Formulation
The purpose ofproblem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmentalfate 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 syntheticpyrethroid ether insecticide,was first registered in 2002 for a variety of residential non-food uses, includingpet 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 18emergencyuse exemptions have been granted for use of etofenprox on rice in Louisiana and Texas (USEPA, 2006b, 2007a and b). In addition, Wellmark Internationalis 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 ofthe voltage-gated ~a' membrane channels, which effectivelycauses a depolarizing block ofthe
neuron. Etofenprox is currentlyregistered on 20 labels for a variety ofresidential non-food uses, includingpet 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 structurallysimilar to the parent compound. PENA is not expected to exhibit the parent compound's mode of actionbecause 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 of4'-OH on aquatic organisms
are not available. In the absence of data, 4'-OH is assumed to have similartoxicityto the parent. Therefore, the residues of concern for aquatic organismsin this assessment include etofenprox parent and 4'-OH.

2.2.2. 

### Overview of Pesticide Usage



### Outside of residentialuse, etofenprox has been used sporadicallyin Louisiana and Texasunder Section 18 

### emergencyexemptions. Estimates ofthe total current usage of etofenprox are unavailable.2.3. Receptors
2.3.1. Aquatic and TerrestrialEffects



### 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 assessmentuses a surrogate species approachin its evaluation of etofenprox. Toxicologicaldata generated from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representativeof 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 areused to evaluate potential direct effects of etofenproxto 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 ofpesticides to these non-target taxonomic groups. Based on a preliminary review ofthe ecological effects data, etofenprox is very highly toxic to freshwater fish, aquatic-phase amphibians and invertebrates,estuarinelmarineinvertebrates, and honeybees, and is practially non-toxic to birds, terrestrial-phaseamphibians, reptiles and mammals under acute exposure conditions. Etofenprox is not toxic to estuarinelmarinefish 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 ofwater 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 availabletoxicity data are not sufficientto characterizeits toxicityto benthic invertebrates because the study sedimentwas not spiked and only nominal concentrationsof 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 

### mortalityto 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 concentrationstested.2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at 

### Risk Table 2.1. Taxonomic Groups and Test SpeciesEvaluated 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 siteitself, 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 ofrice paddy water following a specified holding period, aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk for the proposed new etofenproxrice use also include rice paddy water and discharged rice paddy water (tail water). Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) Bobwhite quail (Colinusvirginianus) Laboratoryrat (Rattusnowegicus) Honey bee (ApismellifeaL.) Bluegill sunfish (Lepomismacrochirus) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss)



### 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. Theproposed label for RF2056 

### OL 

### restricts application over bodies ofwater (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 facilitatemovement 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 exposureto aquatic ecosystems. Freshwater invertebrates Water flea (Daphnia magna) Estuarinelmarinefish Estuarinelmarineinvertebrates
Terrestrial plantsJ
Aquatic plants and algae Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodonvariegatus) Mysid (Americamysis bahia) Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Monocots - corn (Zea mays) Dicots - soybean (Glycinema) Duckweed (Lemna gibba) Freshwater (Pseudokirchneriella subcapita) Birds represent surrogatesforterrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 2 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

Four species of two families ofmonocots, of which one is corn; six speciesof at least four dicot families, of which one is soybeans.

### 2.4. Assessment Endpoints 

### Assessment endpoints representthe 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,estuarinelmarinefish and invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, and aquaticplants 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 apesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors inbiologically significant concentrations. 

### An exposurepathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment fkom a sourceto 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 conceptualmodel is intended to provide a written description and visual representation of the predicted relationshipsbetween etofenprox, potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for the assessmentendpoint. The conceptual model consists oftwo 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, andpotential indirect effects to trophic food webs, the proposed
new uses ofetofenprox 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 exposurepathways and effects ofthe proposed new uses of etofenprox onrice 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 exposurethat 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 applicationto loamy sand in a terrestrial field dissipation study, leaching may occur under certainunspecified conditions and contribute uncertaintyto 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 isbriefly characterized in Section 4.2.3.

Rice cultivationrelies on the use ofpaddies that undergo a series of flooding and draining periods for optimal growth and yield. Given the cultivationpractices associated with rice, pesticides are fkequently applied directlyto rice paddy water. As depicted in Figure 2.1, etofenprox is applied as aerial granules directlyto flooded rice fields; therefore, direct deposition of granules into rice paddy water and inadvertent applicationto 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 fieldstreated with etofenproxis uncertain. Theproposed label for use on rice (Trebon 3G) 

### stipulates a 

### 2 1 

### -day holdingperiod after applicationfor the paddy-water. Therefore, it is assumed that aquatic animal species are exposed only to discharged rice paddy water (tail water) and any associated sedimentthat 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. Aquaticplants maybe exposed via direct uptake and adsorption. In addition, etofenprox has a strongpotential for adsorption to sediment and bioaccumulation in the lipids of aquatic organisms; therefore, exposureto benthic organisms from sediment (pore water), ingestion ofresiduesby invertebratesand fish, and to piscivorous mammals and birds via consumption of aquatic invertebratesand fish fi-omtreated 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 exposedto granules that are inadvertentlyapplied 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 

# + Direct contact1 Exposure 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 exposureofnon-target animals and plants to etofenprox from ground/aerial sprayto residential, industrial, commercial, urban, recreational, woodland, and other areas including golf courses to control adult mosquitos, non-bitingmidges, 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 exposureto piscivorous mammals and birds via consumption of contaminated aquatic speciesin 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. Simliarto 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 drifi.Stressor

Source/ Transport Pathways

Source/ Exposure Media

Exposure Route

Receptors

Attribute Changes Etofenprox (RF2056 OL) appliedas 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 Directcontact' Directcontact1 Uptake/ Gill1 Food Web Exposure Root Uptake Root Uptake Adsorption Integument (Bioaccumulation)

Birds, Mammals, Reptiles,Terrestrial PhaseAmphibians Wetlandl Riparian Plants 

# 6

IndividualAnimals 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 Etofenproxfor Mosquito Vector Control.


### 2.6. Analysis Plan

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

2.6.1.1. Measures ofAquatic Exposure Aquatic organisms are exposedto dissolved or sediment-boundresidues of etofenproxvia the followingpathways: 1) contactin watqbodies that receivereleased paddy water from flooded etofenprox-treated rice paddies; 2) contact in water bodies that receive spray drift and/orrunoff 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 simplebiodegradation processes (photolysiswas not modeled,
as rice paddy water may be turbid). This modification allows for estimation of screening-level peak and annual mean estimates of untreated surfacewater concentrations followinguse 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 occurin 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 ofpesticides 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 sedimentphase. The model does not account for pesticide degradation, mass transfer rates between the aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, dilution, or other dissipationprocesses. The Tier 

### I Rice Model was calibrated to generate estimates that are consistent with or conservative for dissolved concentrationsmeasured within rice paddies and in discharged paddy water. The model was not evaluated or calibrated for concentrationsmeasured in sediment and does not account for residuesbound to suspended sediment. Guidance for using the Tier I Rice Model maybe found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2008b). Consistent with previously conducted emergency exemption (Section 18) 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 stabilityto biodegradation, apply to the modified model. The equations used in the provisionallymodified 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 expectedto generate conservativeEECs that exceed peak measured concentrationsofpesticides in water bodies downstream of rice paddiesby less than one order ofmagnitude to multiple orders of magnitude. Also, EECs are expected tobe more conservative downstream ofrice paddies in California and inland areas ofthe Southeastern U.S., where dilution is expected to occur. In contrast, tidal influences in surfacewaters of the coastal areas ofthe SoutheasternU.S. may effectively reduce dilution of etofenprox residues from discharged paddy water, lengtheningthe period of chronic etofenprox exposurein waterways influencedby rice paddies.

### 2.6.1.1.2. Use for Vector Control



### The AGDISP model was used to estimatepeak 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 spraymaterial, droplet spectrum,nozzle array, aircraft design, and environmental features at and around the application site. Deposition estimates from AGDISP were used to assess aquatic exposurein the standardpond 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-mphwind, AGDISP estimates peak deposition from applications at the labeled altitudes of 100-300feet occurring 1160-2250 feet from the most downwind flight line. Therefore, co-exposuremay 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 ofthe 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 exposurein 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 pesticidemovement 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 ofthe 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 applicationto rice; 2) drinkingwater from flooded etofenprox-treated rice paddy fields; 3) 

### consumptionof contaminated aquatic speciesin 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 ofpesticide per unit is calculated using the T-REX model aerrestrialBesidue mposuremodel; version 1.3.1 ;

### 07/07/2007). For sprayvector 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 floodedrice paddy fields via water consumption arebased on body weightspecific consumptionrates (USEPA, 1993; 1998a). Estimated exposuresof etofenproxto terrestrial insects are qualitatively evaluated.

### In 

### order to estimate potential concentrationsof etofenprox residues in aquatic organisms, a bioaccumulationmodel is used. This bioaccumulation model is based upon work by Arnot and Gobas (2004), who parameterized it based on PCBs and a number ofhydrophobic organic pesticides (e.g., lindane, DDT) in the Great Lakes. The model relies upon a chemical's Kow

### to estimate uptake and elimination constantsthrough 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 exposuresto piscivorous animals. A description ofthe model, includingits 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 ofpesticides in runoff and in spray driftbased upon solubility, application rate, and minimum incorporation depth to calculateEECs. Terrestrial and semi-aquaticplant 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 ofregistrant-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 thriveunder 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 searchedin January 2008 in order to provide more ecological effects data for etofenprox; however, all available data in ECOTOX provided endpointsthat were less sensitive than those studies submittedby the registrants (ECOTOX, 2008).

The acute measures of effectused in this screening-level assessment are the LD50(Lethal Dose), LCso(Lethal Concentration)or ECso(EffectsConcentration). These are measures of acute toxicitywhich result in 50% of the respective effect in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No ObservedAdverse Effects Concentration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level). Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarinelmarinefish and invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals, bees, and other terrestrial invertebrates. The endpointsused 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 etofenproxto non-target organisms. Themethods used to assess the risk are consistent with those outlined in the document "Overview ofthe EcologicalRisk Assessment Process in the Office of PesticidePrograms" (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 quaiVMallardduck chronic reproduction NOAEC: >10 10 mgkg feed
Laboratoryrat 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-derivedNOAEC 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) AssessmentEndpoint

~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 GrowthRisks 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 (vectorcontr01)~
Peak EEC from paddy tail water (rice14 Peak EEC (vectorcontr01)~ 2 1 -day average EEC from rice paddy tail water4 2 1 -dayEEC (vector contr01)~

Estimates of runoff and spray drift to non-target areas

Maximum applicationrate

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 arebased on the modeling described in Sections2.6.1 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 chronicNOAEC 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 chronicNOAEC and LOAEC (no study available);ACR-derived NOAEC of 0.004 pg a.i.1L assumed Monocot seedling emergenceECzsand NOAEC:

>0.151 and0.151 lbs a.i./A Dicot seedling emergenceECzS 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-hourECS0 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 AssessmentEndpoint

Estuarinelmarine fish

Estuarinelmarine invertebrates

Terrestrialplants6

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 toxicityvalues. The resulting RQs are then comparedto 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 effectsto 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 affectedby 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-dayEECMOAEC (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 affectedby 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-AquaticPlants Non-Listed

Listed Plant

1LCs0or EC50. 2 Based on upper bound Kenaga values (for foliar exposure), LD5o1sqft (for granular exposure), and concentration of etofenprox (uglkg) in aquatic food items (for food chain exposureto 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 currentlyregistered on 20 end-use-product labels to control flying and crawling insects in residential settings and is proposed for control of adult water weevils inrice 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 ofthe 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 controluse 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 exposurein the environment.

The maximum annual application rate for vector control is 0.175 lbs a.i./A. The maximum annual applicationrate 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 100to 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. EnvironmentalFate and Transport Characterization Use Pattern

Rice Vector control



### A suite of environmentalfate 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 adsorbingto glass. Also, the submitted batch equilibrium study (MRID 46779729) is unacceptable because the test concentrations exceeded the water solubility limit of etofenproxby 16-fold and the test solution contained 10% cosolventby 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 SingleApp. 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 ofthe 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, syntheticpyrethroid 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 1to 4 

### weeks in aerobic soil, 4 to 8 

### weeks in aerobic water bodies, and Table 3.2. General Chemical Propertiesand Environmental Fate Parameters of Etofenprox. Parameter Value Reference Selected PhysicaYChemicalParameters Molecular mass Vapor pressure (25°C) Water solubility (20°C) Octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) 376.47 glmol 6.10 x torr 0.0225mg/L 8 x lo6 MRID 40237701 MRID 4744 1101 MRID 4744 1102 MRID 47441 103 Persistence Hydrolysis half-life pH 4 (50°C) PH 7 PH 9 Aqueous photolysishalf-life; Residues of concern half-life Soil photolysis half-life; Residues of concern half-life Aerobic soil metabolism half-life; Residues of concernhalf-life (soil texture)

Aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life; Residues of concern half-life

Anaerobic aquatic metabolismhalf-life; Residues of concernhalf-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) 8.35d; 9.52 d (loam) 13.8d; 14.7d (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 195d; 317 d MRID 46779702

MRID 46779703

MRID 46779726

MRID 46779727 MRID 47 132841

MRID 46779704 MRID 47132842 MRID 47132843

MRID 46779728
Mobility Organic carbon partitioning coefficient(Koc) Fish bioconcentration factor 1.93 x lo5L/kgoc 4822-4846X (whole fish) 1363-1702X (edible tissue) 5724-7767X (viscera) (EpiSUITEv3.20) MRID 47132809

Field Dissipation Terrestrial field dissipationhalf-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, 15.7d (sediment) MRID 47 132844

MRID 47132846

### 6 months in anaerobic water bodies. Therefore, in aerobic environments, etofenproxis not expected to persist, which is supported by dissipation half-lives of 5 to 16days in terrestrial and aquaticfield studies.

3.2.1.1. 

### Transport and Mobility Acceptable batch equilibrium data on etofenprox have not been submitted. However, in general, pyrethroid compounds display littlemobility 

### in soil, with a poor correlation between partitioning to soil and soil organic matter (Jones, 1993). Publicly availablebatch equilibrium data on the soil sorption of etofenproxin 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 ofthese 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 serumbottles 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 EpiSUITEmodel (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). EpiSuitepredicted 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 likelyto be ionized at pH 5-9, those containing fluorine, those with 1,2,4-triazolegroups and aromatic mines, organometallics,and those with diverse functional groups in close proximityto each other (Eckel, 2006). As etofenprox does not share these qualities,the 

### bc estimate from EpiSUITE is likely to be within
an order ofmagnitude of an experimental value.
However, etofenprox leached below 15 cm in two ofthree 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 andlorthat the soil mobility of etofenproxis poorly explainedby affinity to organic carbon and better explained by other mechanisms, such 

### as affinity to flatparticle 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 sensitiveto soil mobility parameter values. 

### An acceptablebatch equilibrium studywould substantially reduce these large uncertainties.

As a non-polar syntheticpyrethroid, 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 expectedtobioconcentrate. This was observed in fish, in 

### which bioconcentrationwas 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 sedimentsto which etofenprox is adsorbed. However, etofenprox was detected

### in the 30- to 45-cm depth of soil two days after applicationto loamy sand in Wayne County, New York, which indicates that leaching ofresidues may occurunder certain unidentified conditions. Etofenprox in leachate is expected to persist in anaerobic soil compartments.
3.2.1.2. Degradation 

### Etofenprox biodegrades in 1to 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 isphotolyzed in water (half-life of 8.4 days) under ideal light conditions, but is relatively stableto photolysis on soil (half-life of 340 days). However, characterizationof the aqueousphotolysis 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 concernis expected to be no more or less toxic than the parent. Residue of concern half-lives were similarto 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 aerobicmetabolism 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 1.7days (California), quickly partitioningto 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



### Chemicalnames, structures, and maximum reported amounts of etofenprox's degradates are listed in Appendix D. 

### The major degradatesof etofenprox include:

the biodegradationproduct 

### 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 14to 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, similarto the partitioning of etofenprox parent. Photolysis of etofenproxproduced alpha-CO, which was 63.7% of recovered residues and increasing at the final samplinginterval after 15days of continuous irradiation. Alpha-CO is
more soluble in water than etofenprox parent, especiallyin acidic environments [range of 0.0425-0.0435 mg/L (pH 7-9) to 0.100 mg/L (pH 4)] (Inveresk Project No. 800471). 

### 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 increasingin 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% ofrecovered residues and increasing at the final sampling interval after 15days of irradiation. PENA appearsto 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 degradatein the aerobicbiodegradation studies of etofenprox, in which it was detected at up to 45.6% ofthe applied. Carbon dioxidewas not detected as a photolytic degradate.



### The minor degradates of etofenprox include:
3-phenoxybenzoicacid (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 degradatemPBAcid, the sister cleavageproduct of PENA, was not formed in detectable amounts until the final sampling interval ofthe photolysis study of etofenprox. This suggests that mPBAcid may be rapidly degraded to an unradiolabeled product, such as benzyl ether.

3.2.2. Measures ofAquatic 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 coefficientinput reflectsthe 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% confidencebound on the mean of fourresidue-of-concern half-lives. The anaerobic aquatic metabolism half-life input is the single available residue-of-concernhalf-life multiplied by three to account for the uncertainty associated with a singledata point.

Peak and mean exposure estimates fiom the provisionallymodified Tier I Rice Model are presented in Table 

### 3.4. These estimates represent residue-of-concern exposurein paddy tail water followingthe labeled 21-day holdingperiod. The modified model degrades dissolved and sediment-bound residues using aerobic aquaticmetabolism kinetics and anaerobic aquatic metabolism kinetics, respectively. This results in little degradation of etofenprox over time (i.e., 

### similarpeak and mean EECs) because the compoundreadily partitions to the sediment and is characterizedby slow anaerobicmetabolism. Therefore, residue-of-concernEECs based on entirely aerobic paddy sediment are also listed in Table 

### 3.4 for characterization. Furthermore, in order to characterizethe uncertaintyin the estimated soil mobility of etofenprox, residue-ofconcern EECs based on a Koc 

### value one order ofmagnitude 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 etofenproxparent 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 [valuefor characterization]
0.270 (0.303)

1.93x lo5 L/kgoc

57.1

950 Source Proposed label
EpiSUITE v3.20

MRID 46779704 MRID 47132842 MRID 47132843

MRID 46779728Aqueous Concentrationvs Time, 21 Days After EtofenproxUse on Rice. Table 3.4. Aquatic Exposure Estimates from Use of Etofenprox on Rice at 0.270 lbs a.i./A (valuesin 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-ConcernEECs of Etofenprox Following 

### Use on Rice and 

### a 21-day Holding Period.

Peak and mean exposure estimates for the residues of concern are approximately 1ppb in paddy water and tail water released 2 1 days after application. If all degradation in the water column and sediment is aerobic, 60-daymean 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 similarmagnitude, 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 17observed, dissolved concentrationsof 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 conservativefor water bodies Koc

1.93 x lo5 1.93x lo5 1.93 x lo5 1.93 x lo5 [1.93x lo4] [1.93 x lo4] Peak Exposure

(PgW 1.20 1.18 [1.20] [0.932] [l1.61 [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 ofrice paddies, as model estimates exceeded peak measured concentrationsof pesticides in water bodies well downstream ofrice paddies by less than one order ofmagnitude to multiple orders ofmagnitude due to chemical, environmental, and study-specific factors. Therefore, the model may underestimatedissolved concentrations of etofenprox near where water bodies receive rice paddy tail water, but is expected to be conservativefor water bodies fbrther downstream.

The Tier I Rice Model was not calibrated for estimating compound concentrationsin suspended
or settled sediment. Because etofenprox readily partitionsto sediment, the compound is expected to be found downstream ofrice 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 provisionallymodified to produce exposure estimates of etofenprox in 

### sediment, despite the lack of calibrationfor this function. Peak residue-of-concern EECs in sediment were 2.32 mg/kg on the day of application and 1.80mglkg (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 quantitativelyin 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 characterizedby a DV0.5 of47.8 pm and a relative span of 1.62. This distribution complies with the label instructions to "ensure that the droplet [volumemedian diameters (VMD)] are less than 60 microns with greater than 90% of the droplets less than 100microns." 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. Spraymaterial inputs reflect the submitted product chemistry data and informationfiom the proposed label, such as the active ingredient fraction, maximum application rate, and mass per gallon ofproduct (used to calculate the sprayvolume 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 relativehumidity 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 Propellerrpm 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 Propellerradius Planform area Engines Engine vertical Engine forward Wing vertical Vortex decay rate IGE Vortex decayrate OGE Aircraft drag coefficient Propeller eficiency Default (USDA, 2003) Default (USDA, 2003) Default (USDA, 2003) Default (USDA, ?003) Default (USDA, 2003) Default (USDA, 2003)

pp

pp

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

120mph

100 ft

20 60 ft 0 ft 112 swath Spray Material App. methodAircraft Applicationmethod Applicationmethod Swath Swath Advanced Settings

Spray material Sprayvolume 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 drinkingwater exposuremodeling conducted for the resmethrin and permethrin REDS(USEPA, 2006c; 2007c), application efficiency and spray drift input values for the PRNEXAMSmodel were estimated with application efficiency and downwind area-average deposition estimates from AGDISP. Application efficiencyis listed in the "Numerical Values" window under "View" in the toolbar. Downwind area-averageestimates are calculated in the "Deposition Assessment" window under "Toolbox" in the toolbar. The "Initial Average Deposition" value calculatedwith a downwind water body width of 208.7 

### ft is dividedby 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 Sideslopeangle 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 facelcanopy

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 farmpond (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 applicatorthat arbitrarily maintainsthis horizontal buffer in an effort to keep from directly treating water bodies. Application efficiencywas estimated, in this case, by the average deposition estimate from 0-ft to 2004downwind 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 ofthe application area (i.e., 

### the width ofthe standard farm pond beyond the 200-ft buffer). In 

### order to calculatethis 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 applicationarea, 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-mphwind and ground applicationin both a 4-mph wind and a 10-mph wind are also provided. Spray drift in a 10-mphwind 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 applicationwere not used for risk estimation because AGDISP has not been extensivelyvalidated for ground applications and the exposure estimates in downwind water bodies are similarto those based on spray drift from aerial application (USEPA, 2008b).

A wind speed of 10mph 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 speedsless 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 applicationdate (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 degradationresidue-of-concern half-life were used to represent biodegradationhalf-life inputs. Table 3.7. PRZM and EXAMS Input Parameters Describing the Application and Scenario Inputs Used to Model the Vector ControlUse of Etofenprox.



### Residue-of-concernEECs, modeled with PRZM and EXAMS and assuming the standardpond is downwind of vector control applicationsof 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 ofmagnitude less than the predicted value are also listed for aerial applicationin 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 SoilMetabolism 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

1.93x 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-concernhalf-life. Represents 3 times a singleresidue-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 1101 MRID 47441 102 MRID 47441 101
MRID 4744 1102
EpiSUITE v3.20
MRID 46779727 MRID 47 132841 MRID 46779704

MRlD I 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 similarwhether the water body was modeled adjacentto the application
area or 200-ft downwind. Also, using the EpiSUITE-estimated Koc, 

### peak and mean 1 -in-1O

### year-EECs were all within an order ofmagnitude (range of 0.17 - 

### 0.43 pg/L) with the exception of aerial applicationsin a 10-mphwind (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 increaseby approximately 3-fold.
Peak, 21-day mean, and 60-daymean 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-exposurebetween vector control use and use on rice is not quantitativelyassessed, 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 ofpesticide active ingredients. These exposures are considered as surrogates for terrestrial-phaseamphibians 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 exposureuse 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 drinkingwater 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 inadvertentlyapplied to non-target areas during aerial application of etofenprox to rice by ingestingmaterial 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 couldbe exposed to a concentration that could adversely affect its survival. Further description ofthe 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 estimatethe 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 applicationrate 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 ofthe 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. Ingestionof Drinking Water Application of etofenprox granules to flooded rice paddies may result in exposure ofmammals, 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 exposureto 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 drinkingwater intake values for different sized birds and mammals, based on allometric equations for drinkingwater ingestion.

For piscivorous mammals and birds. X=possibleroute of exposure New Etofenprox Use Rice

X X X Vector Control

X X3.2.3.1.3. Ingestion of Aquatic Biota Table 3.11. Drinking Water Intake Exposure for Birds and Mammals.



### As discussed previously, a bioaccumulation model developedby Arnot and Gobas (2004) is used to characterize the exposure ofpiscivorousmammals 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 ofbioaccumulation. The use of this model in this screening-level assessment is intended for qualitative characterizationofpotential risks and not quantitative risk assessment. Further description ofthe bioaccumulation model is provided in Appendix A. Taxa

Birds

Mammals



### Four pesticide-specific inputs are required to estimate etofenprox residue concentrationsin aquatic organism tissues: 1) log 

### Kow, 2) Koc, 3) aqueous concentration of etofenprox residues, and 4) sediment pore water concentrationsof etofenprox residues. The Koc is based on the upper bound value of 1.93E+05 Llkgoc (EpiSuitev. 3.20), although the impact of using the lower bound 

### Koc on estimated residue concentrations is qualitativelyaddressed in the risk description. Etofenprox concentrationsin treated rice paddy tail water arebased on the Tier I 

### rice model. Vector controluse exposures arebased on deposition estimatesfi-omthe AGDISP model (to estimate exposures from drifiingresidues followingULV application) coupled with the Florida turf scenario from the PRZMIEXAMS model. The 60-dayEECs are used because the model assumesthat the aquatic environment is at steady state, and short-term (peak) estimates of exposure are not appropriate. For the purposes ofthis assessment, it is conservatively assumed that the aqueous and sediment pore water concentrationsof etofenprox
are similar. A summary of etofenprox-specific inputs used to estimate residue concentrationsin aquatic organisms,based on the proposed new uses on rice and vector control is provided in Table 3.12. 

### Additional model inputparamaters related to aquatic organisms (includingbody 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 [bodyweight (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 bioaccumulationmodel, estimated concentrations of etofenprox residues in tissue of organisms in the different trophic levels following applicationof etofenprox on rice and for vector control range from 1 

## o3to 1 

## o6 pglkg (Table 3.13) 

### with increasing residue concentrations fi-omlower 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 ofthe measured maximum uptake and minimum elimination rate constants from the BCF studywith bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochivus) (K1= 

### 742 

### and 

### K2 = 

### 0.13) 

### results in fish concentrationswell below predicted concentrationsfor invertebratesand one to three orders ofmagnitude less than predicted concentrationsin fishthat are based on model-derivedrate constants (Table 3.13). 

### In addition, the model conservatively assumes no metabolism of etofenproxby aquatic organisms;however the bluegill sunfish BCF study reports that sunfish depurate etofenprox with half-lives of 9-16 days. Therefore, the model over-estimatesfish 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 offsetby rapid depuration. Table 3.12. Bioaccumulation Model Input Values for Etofenprox. Parameter Pesticide Name Low hw Kow Koc (estimated)

Use patterns

Concentrationin 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 Calculatedby spreadsheet EpiSuitev. 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+05L/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 applicationsfor 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 ofbirds (20, 100, and 1000g) and three weight classes ofmammals (15,35, and 1000g) are considered. Differencesin 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 etofenproxin 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 ofWillis and McDowell(1987). 

### An example output fi-omthe T-REX model is provided in Appendix E.

Table 3.14. Input Parametersfor Deriving TerrestrialEECs for Etofenprox Use on Vector Control Using T-REX. Parameter Description
Etofenprox Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) Foliar DissipationHalf-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
0.053.2.3.2. Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants


### Exposure ofnaturally-occurring terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is typically estimatedusing OPP's TerrPlant (v1.2.2) model and is assumed to encompass areas outside the immediateuse site. The TerrPlant model is used to daiveEECs 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 ofpesticide 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 ofpesticide 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 applicationrate, solubility factor and default assumptionsof 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 applicationof 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 estimatepotential 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-aquaticvegetation may be present. Given that 1 acre-ft of water = 

### 43,560 ft3 (or 1,233,482 

### L), the EEC for loadingto semi-aquatic areas isbased on the following equation:

Table 3.16. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants Near Etofenprox Use Areas.



### 1,233,482 LIA x [concentrationof etofenprox in paddy water of 1.2 pg a.i./L] = 

### 1,480,178 pg a.i./A 

### x [I kg/109yg] = 

### 0.00148 kg a.i.lA x [2.2 lbll kg] = 

### 0.003 lbs ai1A. Crop

Vector Control



### The EEC for loadingto terrestrial plants is conservatively assumed to be equal to the maximum applicationrate 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 shouldbe noted that many of the ecotoxicity studiesused 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 formallyreviewed by the Agency. Appendix 

### I lists these studies, their review classifications, and associated deficiencies. In addition, the ECOTOXicologydatabase (ECOTOX) was searched in order to provide more ecological effects data. The available open literature data for etofenprox indicate lesser sensitivityto 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 degradatesis provided in Section 3.3.1 

### and 3.3.2, 

### respectively. In addition, the results of a May 2008 review ofthe 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 furtherin Sections 3.3.1.1 

### through 3.3.1.5. 

### It should be noted that recoveries of etofenproxin the submitted aquatic toxicity studieswere generally low, given the compound's low solubility in water and its propensity to sorbto glass surfaces. Although cosolvents were used to increase the solubilityof etofenprox in aqueous solutions and Teflon tubing was utilized in a number of studiesto decrease sorptionto glass, there is uncertainty associated with reported test concentrations where low recoveryis 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 solubilityin 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 toxicityto the parent.

Table 3.17. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Etofenprox Technical.

Species

Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchusmykiss

Sheepshead Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus

Waterflea Daphnia magna Midge Chironomusriparius

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 ofregistration 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-eshwaterfish 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-eshwaterfish 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 (Oncorhynchusmykiss) (Table 3.18). Based on the results ofthis limit test, no mortality or sublethal effects were observed at the highest meanmeasured test of concentrationof48.8 pglL 

### (recoverywas 79% ofthe 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 ofthis study, it appears that alpha-CO does not cause acute mortalityto freshwaterfish at its limit ofwater 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 (Oncorhynchusmykiss) Etofenprox technical (Flow-through) Bluegill sunfish (Lepomisrnacrochirus) Etofenprox technical (Flow-through) Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) alpha-CO degradate (Flow-through) 72-hrECS0= >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-relatedeffect on time to hatch, percent hatch, or terminal growth was observed; however, post-hatch survival was significantlyreduced by approximately49% at the highest test concentration of 52.1 pg/L. Test concentrationsabove the limit of solubility for etofenprox were achievedby 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 ofmagnitude 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 sensitivityto the toxic effects of etofenprox. Given that the zebrafishNOAEC 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 ECsoof 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 shouldbe noted that there is uncertainty associated with applying 

### an ACR derived for freshwater invertebratesto 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 ECsovalue for Daphnia exposureto the TGAI is 0.8 pg/L, classifyingetofenprox as very highly toxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposurebasis. 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 availablefor 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 (Brachydaniorerio) (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 (variabilityin measured test concentrations; measured concentrationsnot

provided for all treatment levels)

### 850.101 0 guidelines, would provide information on the comparable sensitivityof 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 submittedto evaluatethe 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 offspringper adult was reduced by 30% as compared to the solvent control at test concentrationsof 0.25 yg/L; 

### the corresponding NOAEC is 0.17 yg/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 etofenproxto sorb to glass and/or precipitate out of solutionin 

### a static-renewal study, given the dissipation ofthe cosolvent. Therefore, a chronic full life cycle toxicity test with the waterflea, accordingto 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 InvertebrateAcute 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 adsorptionto sediment. Therefore, two static studies,which are summarized in Table 

### 3.22, havebeen submittedby the registrantto assess potential exposure of sediment-dwelling fieshwaterinvertebrate midge to etofenprox and its degradate, 4'-OH. However, both studies are of limited utilitybecause overlying water, not sediment, was spiked, and only nominal exposure concentrationswere 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 (variabilityin 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 representativeof the initial peak of concentrationsinpore water. However, given the rapid partitioning of etofenprox to sediment in aquatic systems, it is unlikely that nominal exposure concentrationsin 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 10days of static exposure as compared to the control at a concentration of 20.9 yg/L (LOAEC), with a corresponding NOAEC value of 3.8 

### yglL. The test system for this studyincluded artificial sediment and spiked overlyingwater; however, only nominal concentrationsof the water were provided and no measurements of etofenproxin pore water or sediment were reported. The treated sedimentlwatersystemswere 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 studyunder static conditions with the degradate, 4'-OH, 

### an LC50 value of 50.2 yg/L (solubility of 4'-OH = 

### 2 17yg/L) was reported for C. 

### riparius. However, this statictest 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 studywith C. 

### riparius for the TGAI per OPPTS 850.1735 guidelines would reduce the uncertainty associated with the potential exposure of sedimentbound etofenproxto 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 etofenproxin sediment of 7 

### to 25 days.

Table 3.22. Toxicity of Sediment-DwellingFreshwater 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-hrLCso = 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; statictest

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 EstuarineIMarineFish

One estuarinelrnarinefish acute toxicity study with the TGAI was required to evaluate the toxicity of etofenproxto fish in support ofregistration 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 slightlybelow 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 solubilityin 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 EstuarineIMarineInvertebrates Test Species (Flow-throughlstatic)

SheepsheadMinnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) (Flow-through)



### Estuarinelmarineinvertebrate acute toxicity data for etofenprox are summarized in 

### Table 3.24. 

### The 96-hr LC50value for mysid shrimp (Americamysisbahia) exposureto the TGAI is 0.0188 yg/L, classifying etofenprox as very highly toxic to estuarinelmarine invertebrates. In a 96-hr flow-through shell deposition study with estuarinelmarinemollusks, 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 similarto that observed in the solvent control (20%). Mean shell depositionin the negative and solvent controls was reported as 5.4
rnm and 4.3 mm, respectively; at test concentrationsof 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 comparisonwith the etofenprox treatment groups. Based on a comparison of the pooled data with treatment levels, no significant reduction in shell depositionwas observed at any of the test concentrations. Time-weighted average concentrationsyielded recoveries of 53-68% of nominal; however, the test material appeared to be stable with 96-hour recoveries ranging from 89-109% of 0-hourmeasured concentrations. Similarto 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 solubilityin saltwater. Therefore, etofenprox technical is not acutely toxic to estuarinelrnarine mollusks at its limit of solubilityin 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 invertebratesarenot available. Therefore a chronic NOAEC for estuarinelrnarine invertebrateswas 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 0.17 =

### 4.7), an estimated NOAEC value of 0.004 pg/L 

### (mysid LCSo of 0.01 88 pg/L 

### 14.7) 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 etofenproxin aqueous solutions. Given that etofenproxmay be applied within proximity to estuarinelrnarine environments at up to 25 

### applications per year for vector control, there is likelihood for chronic exposureto estuarinelmarine invertebrates. In addition, the available aquatic toxicity data indicates etofenprox is very highly toxic to estuarinelrnarineinvertebrateson an acute exposure basis. Submittal of a mysid full life cycletest would reduce uncertainties associated with the potential for risk to estuarinelrnarine invertebratesassociated 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 aquaticplant toxicity studieswere submitted for non-vascular and vascular plants using the TGAI. In addition, a Tier I studywas also submitted for non-vascular plants with the etofenprox degradate, alpha-CO. The results ofthese 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 solubilityin water. 96-hour LC/ECSO (95% C.I.) (Measuredl Nominal)/ Slope

= 0.0188 (0.0144-0.0249) pg/L (Measured) Slope =NA Shell depositionEC50

= >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) FreshwaterAlgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapita (Etofenprox technical; Static; 72 hours Duckweed Lemnp gibba (Etofenprox technical; Static-renewal;7 days) FreshwaterAlgae Pseudokirchneriella subcapita (alpha-CO; Static; 96 hours

A 

### summary ofthe 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 Mherin Sections 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.3. The data indicate that etofenprox is practically non-toxicto birds and mammals on an acute exposure basis. The available data for terrestrial plants, which are provided in Section 3.3.2.4, indicatethat 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)

LaboratoryRat (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 exposureis 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 exposurebasis. In addition, no treatmentrelated clinical signs of toxicity or effects on body weight or feed consumptionwere 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 LCsovalues for both avian species are greater than the highest treatment level of4,890 mglkg-diet; therefore, etofenprox is classified as practically non-toxic to avian species on a subacute dietary exposure basis. No treatment-related sublethal effectsrelated 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 (Anasplatyrhynchos)



### Two avian reproduction tests using the TGAI were submitted to establish the chronictoxicity 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 concentrationstested. The chronic avian NOAEC values for bobwhite quail and mallard duck are 1,O17 and 1,010mg/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 (Anasplatyrhynchos) 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

Acceptable3.3.2.2. 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 etofenproxto mammals. Results of these tests are presented in Table 3.30 

### below. The acute mammalian oral 

### LD50 values exceed 5,000mgkgbody weight; therefore, etofenprox is classified as practically non-toxicto mammalian species on an acute oral exposure basis. Test Species

Northern bobwhite quail (Colinusvirginianus) Mallard duck (Anusplatyrhynchos)



### A 2-generationrat (Rattus nowegicus)reproduction study using the TGAI was submittedto establish the toxicity of etofenproxto 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 100ppm diet. Histopathological effects in the liver included centrilobularhepatocyte 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 quantitativelylink 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 ofpregnancy, 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 ofbees is required, and a 72-hr acute contact toxicity studyusing the TGAI was submitted to establish the toxicity of etofenprox to honeybees (Apis

### mellifera). Based on the results of this study, significant effects on mortality ofbees were observed at all treatment levels, ranging from 0.005 to 0.5 yg a.i./bee. The corresponding LDsois 0.0145 yg a.i./bee; therefore, etofenproxis categorized as highly toxic to honeybees on an acute contact toxicitybasis. Given the reported acute honeybee LDsO value for the TGAI, an additional honey bee toxicity study ofresidues on foliage was required for the typical end-useproduct (TEP). A foliage residue toxicity test with the honeybee 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 applicationrate 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 ofthe acute contact and foliage residue toxicity studies with honeybees are summarizedin Table 3.32. Effect

Increased liver weight in offspring

No effect on reproductive parameters NOAELI
LOAEL

NOAEC =lo0ppm (5 mglkglday)
LOAEC = 700 ppm (35 mglkglday)
NOAEC =4,900 ppm (245 mglkglday)
LOAEC = 4,900ppm (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 Trebonm30 EC and MTI--~OO 30% EC, which are synonyms for similar 

### emulsifiable concentrate formulationsof etofenprox. These studies were submitted as part of a European Union (EU) requirement for non-target arthropod toxicity testing. Both products contain approximately30% of TGAI etofenprox. Tests were conducted on the green lacewing (Chrysoperla carnea), predatory heteropteran

### bug (Orius laevigatus), and the predaceous mite (Typhlodrornuspyri) via exposureto TrebonM30 EC-treated dwarf bean leaves. Studies were also conducted with 

### MTI~~-~OO 30% EC on the predaceous mite and the parasitoid wasp (Aphidiusrholaposiphi);these arthropods were exposed to 

### MTI~-~OO 30% EC via treated glass ofthe treatment units. All studies are classified as supplementalbecause they are nonguideline tests.

Table 3.32. Honeybee Acute Toxicity.



### Based on the results of non-target arthropod studies ofvarious 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 LCsovalues 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 (Apismellvera)

Etofenprox Technical % a.i.

99.6 Exposure

Route

Acute contact



## --
Acceptable Source

471328-14 72-hrLDsO = 0.0145 &bee

(95% CI = 0.0076 - 0.0278 ~g/bee) Slope = 0.914

RTZs =Residue threshold causing effectto 25% of the test population. Study Classification

Supplemental (no negative control)



## -- Honeybee (Apismellifera)

RF2056 OL -20 Foliage residue RT2, = > 0.007 lb aiiA1 NA 473260-013.3.2.4. 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 (Aphidius rholaposiphi) MT~~-~OO 30% EC



### Terrestrial plant vegetative vigor and seedling emergence toxicitytests 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 etofenproxto 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 

### arebased on mean-measured concentrations. The Tier I test concentrationof 0.176 lbs a.i./A is roughly equivalent to the maximum allowable annual applicationrate for the proposed 

### ULV spray use of etofenprox for vector control. It shouldbe 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 speciesis greater than the highest treatment concentration tested, i.e., 

### ECz5>0.148lb 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 11 %, 

### 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-dayLC50 = 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

471328- 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 correspondingNOAEC 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 ofthe 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 applicationrate 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 terrestrialplants following application of etofenproxto 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 determineif 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 modificationto allow for biodegradation) and a combination ofthe AGDISP and PRZMIEXAMS model, respectively. Based on the residues of concern, peak EECs areused to represent acute exposure to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plants, and the highest 21 -day and 60-day average EECs represent chronic exposureto 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 exposureto 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 arebased 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 invertebratesthat may be exposed to treated rice paddy tail water as well as surfacewater 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 freshwaterfish and invertebrates based on the proposed new uses of etofenprox. The acute risk to non-listed species LOC (RQ20.5) for freshwater invertebratesis 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 invertebratesbased on the new vector controluse.

### 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 concentrationsin overlying water are not expected to provide a realisticmeasure of exposure to benthic invertebrates. Therefore, risks to benthic invertebrates arepresumed. The potential for adverse effects to benthic invertebrates,based on the proposed new etofenproxuses for rice and vector control, is discussed further as part ofthe risk descriptionin Section 

### 4.2.1.1. Table 4.1. Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates Exposed to Etofenprox in Rice Paddy TailWater 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 approximately21 to 63. No data are availableto calculate RQs for chronic exposuresto estuarinelmarine invertebrates;therefore, a NOAEC value of 0.004 

### yg/L 

### was estimatedbased on the ACR for freshwater invertebrates. Based on the estimatedNOAEC 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 speciesLOC (0.05) and the acute restricteduse LOC (0.1). 2 RQ 

## >the acute non-listed speciesLOC (0.5).

RQ 2 the chronic risk LOC (1.0). Application Rate lbs a.i./A (#app 1interval 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).

RQ2 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

0.27 (25/3) 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 effectsto duckweed and freshwater algae at respective concentrationsof 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 drinkingwater fiom treated rice paddy fields (rice), consumption of contaminated aquatic species in which etofenprox may have bioaccumulated (rice and vector control), and consumptionof 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/dosestested. 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 ofthe risk descriptionin 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 invertebrateson an acute contactbasis. 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./beewith a correspondingLDsovalue 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 exposureto 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 exposureto the RF2056 OL formulation on foliage appearto be low. Additional characterizationofthe potential risks of etofenprox to terrestrial invertebrates, including consideration of non-guideline laboratory studiesto non-target arthropods, is provided as part of the risk descriptionin 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 EC25values are non-definitive endpoints. Out of the ten species tested in both the seedling emergence and the vegetativevigor 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 EC25if the higher applicationrate for rice had been tested.

Based on the lack of definitive endpoints and submitted Tier 

### I testing with applicationrates that
are less than the maximum etofenprox application rate for rice, it is not possible to derive RQs for terrestrial and semi-aquaticplants. Further discussion ofthe 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 descriptionin 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 cannotbe precluded. Therefore, the risk hypothesis [...the proposed etofenprox uses have thepotential to reduce survival, reproduction, and/orgrowth in terrestrial and aquatic organisms]is supported. These results arebased 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+05L/kgoc (EpiSuitev3.20). 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 EpiSuitevalue. In order to characterize the uncertainty associated with the estimated Koc, potential aquatic exposures and resulting risk conclusions are evaluatedby considering a Koc that is an order ofmagnitude 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/availablein 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 applicationto 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 chronicrisk to freshwater fishbased 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 acuterisk LOCs are exceeded for freshwater invertebrates based on etofenprox use on rice and for vector control. These conclusions are based on an assumed EpiSuitebc value of 1.93E+05 Lkgoc; however, as previously discussed, this value maybe 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 ofmagnitude 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 characterizationof 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 1.18 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 chronicRQs = 

### 0.35 and 1.17, respectively) would alsobe exceeded.

Peak EECs for etofenproxwould have to be reduced from maximum estimated rice paddy tail water modeling concentrationsof 1.18pg/L (based on an upper bound Koc) to 

### < 0.12 pg/L (approximately 10-fold lower for freshwater fish) and c0.04 pg/L (approximately30-fold lower for fi-eshwaterinvertebrates)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 applicationrate 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 associatedwith the chronic NOAEC value of 0.57 yg/L for freshwater fish because it is based on a cross-taxaACR 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 chronicNOAEC of 23 pglL in the zebrafish early life stage studyis approximately 14times 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 yg/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 chronicNOAEC of 0.57 yg/L exceeds chronic concern levelsbased on predicted 60-dayEECs 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 invertebrateACR (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 offspringper adult was reduced by 30% at test concentrationsof 0.25 yg/L (correspondingNOAEC = 

### 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 degradationto 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 etofenproxin rice paddy tail water and surfacewater bodies following applicationof etofenprox for mosquito adulticide vector control may result in reproductive effectsto freshwater invertebrates, and chronic risk is predicted for this taxa.

Based on the refined characterizationof 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 concentrationsin rice paddy tail water, and risks are also predicted for these invertebrates.

Risk to Sediment-Dwelling Benthic Invertebrates

The potential for etofenprox exposureto sediment-dwellingbenthic invertebratesis likely to be pronounced because etofenproxis 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 concentrationsin overlyingwater 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 10days of exposure to etofenprox at a nominal concentrationin overlying water of 20.9 pg/L (corresponding NOAEC of 3.8 pg/L), 

### exposureto etofenprox in spiked overlying water is intended to be representativeof 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 utilitybecause the test systems did not include sediment and only nominal concentrationsin overlying water were provided. The 48-hour C. 

### riparius LCsovalue 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 sensitivitybetween Cladocera (D. magna) and Chironomidae (C. 

### riparius). An acute staticfreshwater 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 toxicityto parent etofenprox. The 4'-OH degradate displays partitioning and high affinityto sediment in aquatic systems similarto 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 invertebratesbased 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 etofenproxto 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 suitablerange finding tests) with etofenprox TGAI per OPPTS 850.1735 guidelineswould reduce the uncertainties associated with the potential exposure of sediment-bound etofenprox to sediment-dwellingfreshwater 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 suggestthat Hyalella azteca may be approximately two orders ofmagnitude more sensitive to pyrethroids than Daphnia magna, which was the speciestested for etofenprox (personal communication with Patti Tenbrook [USEPA, Region 91,2008). Summary of Risks to Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates

In summary,the refined characterizationof 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 eliminatepotential 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 eliminatepotential 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. EstuarineIMarineFish and Invertebrates



### Acute risks are not predicted for estuarinelrnarine fish and mollusks because the available toxicity data show no adverse effectsto 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 10would 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 chronicRQs of

### 49.6 and 207, respectively, well above the chronic risk LOC for estuarinelmarineinvertebrates.

Peak EECs for etofenprox would have to be reduced frommaximum estimated rice paddy tail water modeling concentrationsof 1.18pg/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 estuarinelmarineinvertebrates. 

### 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-eshwaterinvertebrates. The sameACR 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 effectsratio 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 invertebratesis 0.006 pg/L, well within the range ofpredicted 21 -day etofenprox concentrations(0.27 pg/L based on vector control EEC with an upper bound Koc to 1 1.2pg/L based on rice paddy tail water EEC with a lower bound Koc) in rice paddy tail water and surfacewater 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 estuarinelrnarineinvertebratesnot including mollusks. Based on the highly toxic acute nature of etofenprox to estuarinelrnarine invertebrates and the potential for chronic exposuregiven 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 effectsto duckweed and freshwater algae
occur at respective concentrationsof 26 and 19 pg/L, above the range ofpredicted peak EECs for etofenprox (0.40 pg/L based on vector control EEC with an upper bound 

### Koc to 11.3pg/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, inadvertenttreatment 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 LDS0is 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 availablefor 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 concentrationin 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 ofthe >20.76 mg a.i. "no effect" dose with the estimated EEC of 2.81 mg a.i.lft2indicatesthat the risk ofmortality 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 MammalianLD5(, Values Resulting from Ingestion of Granular Etofenprox in Non-targetAreas from Use on Rice.



### Application of etofenprox granules to flooded rice paddies may result in exposure ofmammals, waterfowl, and wading birds via consumption of treated rice paddy water. Estimates of exposure to etofenproxthrough water consumption arebased on body-weight specific drinking water consumption rates (USEPA 1993, 1998a). For ingestion of drinkingwater, the estimated dose is compared to weight-adjusted avian and mammalian LDsovalues; however, as previously discussed, definitive LDS0 values are not available forbirds 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 ofthe dose at which no adverse effects occurred, are well above the predicted dose from drinking water exposure. In 

### addition,it shouldbe 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 drinkingwater 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 1.15Mineau 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 standardrat weight: Adj. LDS0 = study LDSO x [350 g 1BW (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 11.6 

### pgIL, assuming the lower bound 

### Koc value, the dose levels would stillbe less than the respective doses at which no adverse effects occurred. Therefore,the risk of acute mortality to birds and mammals via ingestion of drinkingwater from etofenprox-treatedrice 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-treatedRice 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) = [StudyLD50 (>2000 mg a.i./kg)]x [BW (g) I (1580 g)IA(1.15-1); MammalianAdj. LDso (mg a.i.1kg BW) = [Study LD50 (>5000 mg a.i.lkg)] x [(350g) 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 maybe 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 ofpesticide 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 (Haliaeetusleucocephalus). Available dose-basedtoxicity values are adjusted for the weights ofthe 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-basedEECs areprovided for both model predicted EECs and those derivedby consideringmeasured 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 approximatelyone 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 calculationsused to derive dose- and dietary-based EECs and toxicityvalues is provided in Appendix A. Drinking Water

1ntake1(Lld)

1. Avian Drinking Water Intake (Lld) = 0.059 x podyWeight (kg)IA0.67; Mammalian Drinking Water Intake 0.099 

## I >3846



### As previously discussed, the available dose- and dietary-based toxicity values are consideredto 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 indicatingthat etofenproxis 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 ofthe 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 112mglkg-bwld. Therefore, EECs based on measured rate constants for fish are well below the "no effect" values for each of the selected surrogatemammalian and avian piscivorous species. Although potential enlargement ofthe liver followingprolonged exposuremay occur similar to what was observed in the 2-generation rat reproduction study, no measureable quantitative effectsto 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 effectsto piscivorous birds and mammals would occur at the predicted levels of exposure. No additional data on the toxicityof etofenprox to birds and mammals were located in the open literature, and
no ecological incidents associated with avian and mammalian exposureto 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-definitivetoxicity 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 showsthat the model-predicted value of 6922 is approximately 1.4times higher than the measured bluegill BCF value of4846. It appears that the variability in modelpredicted and measured BCF values may be due to the percentage of lipid in the bluegill study (approximately4%) versus the model-assumed lipid percentage value of 6%. Therefore, the bioaccumulationmodel provides a reasonable approximation (within a factor of 1.5 considering the variability in lipid percentage) of the potential forbioconcentrationin 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 etofenproxin fish is offsetby rapid depuration, the risk associated with consumption of aquatic species exposedto 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 assumingmodel-calculated uptake and elimination rate constants for fish provided in Appendix A. 2 EECs assumingmeasured 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 toxicityvalue.



### 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 exposuresto 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). Similarto 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-basedEECs are compared to weight-adjusted dose-based and dietary toxicityvalues to determineifpredicted 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 etofenproxresidues 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 exposureto 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 effectsto honey bees at the highest allowable application rate for vector control of 0.007 lb a.i/A, toxicity data for honey bees indicatethat etofenproxTGAI 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 invertebratesand 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 characterizationofpotential 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 (<0.151 lbs a.i./A) and the other plant species (0.148 to 0.165 lbs a.i./A), the risk ofphytotoxicity 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-definitiveNOAEC value for lettuce, the actualNOAEC value would have to be 143times lower to result in an exceedance ofthe 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 100g 1000 g Acute

1.60 -25.66 0.91 - 14.63 0.41 - 6.55 Mammals DoseBased Chronic

15g 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 >538 >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 ofwater 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-aquaticplant 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 emergencetest, the actualNOAEC for lettuce would have to be approximately 50 times lower to result in an exceedance of the listed species LOC for semi-aquaticplants. 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-aquaticplants based on the proposed use of etofenprox on rice
are are considered low..

In addition to the uncertainty associated with the non-definitiveNOAEC value for lettuce, it is not possible to characterize risks to terrestrial plants based on the proposed etofenproxuse on rice because the predicted EEC of 0.27 lbs a.i./A is approximately two times higher than the single concentrationtested 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 850.41OO), 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-definitiveNOAEC value for lettuce seedling emergence and the lack oftesting at the highest application rate for rice.

In summary, based on the EECs and available toxicity data, the risk ofphytotoxicity 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 consideredto 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 terrestrialplants 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 fulfillEuropean Union data requirements and recently submittedto the Agency in June, 2008, are briefly summarized to characterize etofenprox's hazard to and biodegradability in activated sludgeused 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 (<I5%) on activated sludge at the tested concentrations (MRID 47438703). A provisional activated sludgebiodegradation study indicated that activated sludge does not readily biodegrade etofenproxin a closed bottle (up to 17%biodegradationin 28 days; MRID

### 47438701). The study also indicates that etofenprox is non-toxicto microorganisms, as sodium acetate was biodegraded over 56 days in the presense of etofenprox. However, etofenprox alone
was biodegraded or dissipated 14%in 15days, but only 3% 

### more in the following23 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 microorganismsthat metabolize sodium acetate. A provisional activated sludgebiodegradation 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 theseprovisional data, use of etofenprox is not expected to pose a hazard to the operation of wastewatertreatment facilitiesthat employ activated sludge under aerobic conditions. However, there is a potential for hazard to facilitiesthat treat wastewater under anoxic conditions. Furthermore, due to the lack of biodegradation in closed systems, biosolids collected fiom facilities operatingunder anoxic conditionsmay 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 ffeshwaterorganisms, ifthey areproposing an "action" that may affect listed species or their designated criticalhabitat. Each federal agency is required under the Act to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destructionor 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 appreciablythe 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 facilitatecompliance with the requirements of the Endangered SpeciesAct (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 ofboth the survival and recovery of a listed speciesin the wild by reducingthe reproduction, numbers,
or distribution of any listed species (USEPA, 2004). After the Agency's screening level risk assessmentis 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, furtherbiological 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 consultationpackage, as required by the Endangered SpeciesAct.

### The federal action addressed herein is the proposed registration of two new uses for etofenprox
on rice and for mosquito adulticidevector control. It is expected that the new vector control use of etofenprox could occur nationwide;however, accordingto 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 includingFlorida, Illinois, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

5.1. Action Area



### For listed species assessmentpurposes, 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 conservativelyassumes that listed specieswithin 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 sitesthat
are used to establish initial co-location of specieswith 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 belongingto that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effectsupon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additionalinformation on the biology of listed species,the locations of these species, and the locations ofuse 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 informationwould impact the action area for a particular listed organism and potentially include areas of exposurethat are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site. Assessment endpoints, exposurepathways, the conceptual models addressingproposed 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 endpointsused 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 SpeciesAct requiring federal agenciesto ensure that any action they authorize does not appreciably reduce the likelihood ofboth the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distributionof 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 assessmentto identify direct and indirect effectsto 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 ofthe potential probability of individual effects for exposures that may occur at the established endangered species LOC. Data on exposure and effects collectedunder field and laboratory conditions are evaluatedto make determinations on the predictive utility ofthe direct effect screeningassessment findings to listed species. Additionally, the results of the screen for indirect effectsto 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 dicotplants direct effects on freshwater fish direct effects on freshwater invertebrates direct effects on estuarinelmarineinvertebrates 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 individuallisted 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 speciesispresented 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 sensitivityto 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 studyused 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 ofthe slope and an assumptionof a probit doseresponse relationship. 

### In additionto a single effects probability estimatebased on the mean, upper and lower estimates ofthe 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. 

### Ifno dose response informationis 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 ChanceModel Version 1 

### .l)developedby the U.S. 

### EPA, OPP, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22,2004). The model allows for such calculationsby entering the mean slope estimate (and the 95% 

### confidencebounds 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

SlopeNA =4.5 (2
-9)

No mortality observed Mortality SlopeNA =4.5 (2 -9) 1in 4.18E+08 (1 in216to 1 in 1.75E+31) 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 invertebratesto 1in 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 increaseto approximately3% 

### 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-locationis to determine whether sites ofpesticideuse 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 identifythose areas, crop uses, and listed species that warrant Mer attention. The LOCATES databaseuses 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 ofresolution. 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 speciesthat may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed vector controluse is provided in Appendix G. 

### Appendix G 

### also provides a species listingby State for those listed speciesthat may potentiallybe impactedby 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 isprovided 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 additionpiscivorous mammals and birds may be indirectly affectedbased on direct effectsto freshwater fish and invertebrates and estuarinelmarine invertebrates. However, LOCATES does not currently differentiate between different feeding guilds ofmammals and birds andlor identify those plant species that require terrestrial insects for pollination. Therefore, the number ofpotentially affected listed mammals, birds, dicots, and monocots may be overestimated and include speciesthat are not likely to be indirectly affected because they do not rely on terrestrial invertebrates or aquatic food items andlorrequire 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 potentiallybe 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 etofenproxmay be used. California has the highest number (76) of listed species that may cooccur with proposed etofknproxuse on rice, followed by Florida (21) and Mississippi, Texas, and Louisisana (17).

### 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 ofthe 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 EtofenproxUse Areas for Rice. State 

# 3

6. References

Arnot, J.A. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2004. 

### A food web bioaccumulation model for organic chemicalsin aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,23 (10): 2343-2355.
Beyer, W. N., 

### E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Surveyof soil ingestionby wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management 58: 

### 375-382.
Eckel, W. 2006. Evaluation ofEPI 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 Organizationof the United Nations (FAO). 2000. FA0Pesticide 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 Toxicologyand Chemistry 

### 13 (9): 13 83-1 391.
Hoerger, 

### F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlationofrepresentative data as a basis for estimation oftheir 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. (1993). Chemical properties of the pyrethroid insecticideto 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 ProtectionAgency, Officeof 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 ofAgricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department ofEnvironmental Toxicology. Undated. United States Departementof 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. ComparitiveAnalysis of Acute Risk from GranularPesticides. Office of 

### Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. 

### March, 1992.

### USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPN600lR- 131187a, 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-scaleEstimation of Pesticide Concentrationsin Flowing Water and Reservoirs for ToleranceReassessment. 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 SelectingInput Parameters in Modelingthe 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 memorandumto 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 ProtectionAgency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, EnvironmentalFate and Effects Division, Washington, DC. EFED Memorandum. March 16,2006.

USEPA. 2006c. Reregistration EligibilityDecision for Resmethrin. EPA 738-R-06-003. U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Jun., 2006. 102p.
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 18for 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 ofPesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, DC. EFED Memorandum. January 3 1,2007.

USEPA. 2007b. Etofenprox: Section 18for 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 EligibilityDecision (RED) for Permethrin: Revised December 2007. EPA 738-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 Concentrationsin 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 ExposureAssessment. 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 studyperformed and submittedby Zoecon Industries, Zoecon Corp., Dallas, TX. 46 p.MRID 46779702. Van der Gaauw, A. 2001. 14c-~tofen~rox: Hydrolysis at Three DifferentpH 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 StudyNumber: 755526. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerlandand submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 120p.

MRID 46779704. Lewis, C. 2001. (14c)-~~1-500: Degradation and Retentionin Water-sediment Systems. Lab. Report ID: CLE 71916-D2142. Unpublished study performed by Covance Laboratories Ltd., Harrogate, U.K and submittedby Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Amended, 2002. 154p.

MRID 47132809. Van Dijk, A. 2002. Bioconcentration: Flow-through Fish Test with MTI-500 (Trebon) in Bluegill Sunfish. RCC StudyNumber: 762254. Unpublished study performed by RCC Ltd, Itingen, Switzerland; sponsored by Mitsui Chemicals Inc.,Tokyo, Japan. 136p.

MRID 46779726. Mamouni, A. 2002. Photolysis of 14c-~~1-500 on Soil Surface under Laboratory Conditions. Lab. StudyNumber: 800616. Unpublished studyperformed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland and submitted by Mitsui ChemicalsInc., 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 submittedby Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 160p.

MRID 46779728. Volkl, S. 2002. 14c-~tofen~rox: Anaerobic Soil Degradation and Metabolism. Lab. Report ID: 729022. Unpublished studyperformed by RCC Umweltchemie Ag., Itingen, Switzerland and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 122p. MRID 46779729. Volkel,W. 1999. AdsorptionlDesorption of MTI-500 (Etofenprox) on Three Soils. Lab. Report ID: 663 175. Unpublished studyperformed by RCC Umweltchemie Ag., Itingen, Switzerland and submittedby Mitsui ChemicalsInc., Tokyo, Japan. 32 p. MRID 47132841. Volkl, S. 2007. Amendment to MRID No. 46779727 14c-~tofen~rox: Degradation and Metabolism in Four Soils Incubatedunder Aerobic Conditions. RCC StudyNo.: 728987. Unpublished study performedby RCC Ltd, Itingen, Switzerland and submittedby 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. Amendmentprepared by Covance LaboratoriesLtd., North Yorkshire, England; sponsored and submittedby 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.; submittedby Mitsui Chemicals Inc., Tokyo, Japan. 106p.
MRID 47132844. Hummel, R. 2006. TerrestrialField Dissipation of Residues following Application of Etofenprox to Bare Soil. LandisProtocolNo.: 43421A025; Wildlife ProtocolNo.: 236C-133. Unpublished study performedby Landis International, Inc., Valdosta, GA (studymanagement); Research For Hire, Porterville, CA, AG ResearchAssociates, Sycamore, GA, ACDS Research, Inc., North Rose, NY (field phases); Wildlife International,Ltd., Easton, MD (analyticalphase); and submitted by Mitsui Chemicals,Inc., Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 201 p.

MRID 47132846. Hummel, R. 2006. Aquatic Field Dissipation of Residuesfollowing Application of Etofenproxto Water. Landis ProtocolNo.: 43421A026. Unpublished studyperformed by Landis International, Inc.,Valdosta, GA (studymanagement); Research For Hire, Porterville, CA; Shofher Farm Research,Newport, AR (field phases); WildlifeInternational, Ltd., Easton, MD (analytical phase); and submittedby Mitsui Chemicals,Inc., Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 200 p.

MRID 47 195616. 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 submittedby Wellmark International, Schaumburg,IL. Jun. 12,2007. 43 p. MRID 47441 101. Tognucci,A. 2000. Determination of the vapour pressure of etofenprox. RCC StudyNo. 751803. Unpublished studyperformed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland; sponsoredby Mitsui Chemicals, Inc., Tokyo, Japan. Sep. 8,2000. 20 p.

MRID 47441102. Kunz, C. 2000. Determination ofthe water solubility of 14c-etofenproxat threepH values. RCC Study No. 7555 15. Unpublished studyperformed 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 ReportNo. 692763. Unpublished studyperformed 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; sponsoredby 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 Biodegradationof 14c-~tofen~rox in an Adapted Modified Sturm Test. Study Number: C.DNL.62.002. Unpublished studyperformed 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 StudyNumber: 841615. Unpublished studyperformed by RCC Ltd., Itingen, Switzerland; sponsored by Spiess-Urania ChemicalsGMBH, Hamburg, Germany. Jun. 11,2002. 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 MallardDuck: LaboratoryProject ID MTC 77C/84793. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centreplc. 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 1p.
MRID: 40449728. Surprenant, D. (1987) StaticAcute Toxicityof SAN 811 I Technical to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Revised Final Report: Report #87-9-2492: Study #10828.0687.6108.103. Unpublished study prepared by SpringbornLife Sciences,Inc. 32 p.MRID: 40449729. Surprenant, D. (1987) Static Acute Toxicity of SAN 811 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 811 I (Ethofen- prox) Technicalto Rainbow Trout (Salrno gairdneri): Report #87- 9-2492: Study#10828.0687.6108.103. Unpublished study prepared by SpringbornLife Sciences, Inc. 33 p.
MRID: 40715802. Surprenant, D. (1988) StaticAcute Toxicity of SAN 8 11I (Ethofen- prox) Technicalto Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Report #87- 1 1-2550: Study#10828.0687.6108.100. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 34 p.

MRID: 43621301. Machado, M. (1995) Etofenprox Technical--Acute Toxicityto Rainbow Trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab ProjectNumber: 94-12-5625: 13538.0994.6 102.108. Unpublished studyprepared by Springborn Laboratories, Inc. 72 p. MRID: 4362 1302. Machado, M. (1995) Etofenprox Technical--Acute Toxicityto Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab ProjectNumber: 95-1-5653: 13538.0994.6101.105. Unpublished studyprepared by Springborn Labs., Inc. 71 p.

MRID: 40449730. Surprenant,D. (1987) StaticAcute Toxicity of SAN 811 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 Studyto Determine the Median Lethal Rate of Trebon 30 EC to the PredatoryBug Orius laevigatus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae). Project Number: HMAi447, ER/03/HMA447,500/8/56. Unpublished report prepared by Ecotox Limited. 59 p.
MRID: 47 132817. 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 Typhodromuspyrl Scheuten(Acari: Phytoseiidae). ProjectNumber: 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 Studyto 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 StichtingDuurzame. 30 p.

MRID: 47132802. Batscher,R. (2002) Acute Toxicity of Alpha-CO to Daphnia magna in a 48-Hour Immobilization Test. ProjectNumber: 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. ProjectNumber: 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-HourFlow-Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysisbahia): Final Report. Project Number: 500/8178,236A/107. Unpublished studyprepared 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. ProjectNumber: 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-ThroughAcute Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report. Project Number: 236N108. Unpublished studyprepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 59 p.

MRID: 47149101. Groeneveld, A.; Berends, A.; van der Laan, J.; et al. (1993) The Chronic Toxicity of [Carbon141-Etofenproxto Daphnia magna. ProjectNumber: C/DNL/51/007,56835/32/93,500/8/18. Unpublished study prepared by SolvayDuphar B.V. 32 p. MRID: 47132808. Peither, A. (2005) Toxic Effects ofMTI-500 (Etofenprox)to Zebra Fish (Brachydaniorerio) in
an Early-Life Stage ToxicityTest. 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 HuntingdonLife 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. ProjectNumber: 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 StichtingDuurzame. 30 p.
MRID: 47326001. Sindermann, A.; Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (2007) RF2056 OL: A Foliage Residue Toxicity Study with the Honeybee: Final Report. ProjectNumber: 6361101,3235. Unpublished study prepared by WellmarkInternational. 34 p.

MRID: 46779706. Buche, C. (2004)Terrestrial (Non-Target)Plant Test with MTI-500 30%EC: Seedling Emergence and SeedlingGrowth & 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 SeedlingGrowth & 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. ProjectNumber: 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. ProjectNumber: 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 FreshwaterAlgae Pseudokirchneriellasubcapitata: Final Report. Project Number: 50018152, 104510001430, 104510001250. Unpublished studyprepared 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. ProjectNumber: 236A1110, 23610330061LEM710ECD10PPTS1100P1618. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International,Ltd. 68 p.

MRID: 47132810. Memmert, U. (2002) Effects ofMTI-500 on Larvae of Chironomusriparius in a 10-Day Toxicity Test. Project Number: 500/8/21,803777. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 61p.
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 ofMTI-500 on the Development of Sediment-Dwelling Larvae of Chironomus riparius in a Water- Sediment System. ProjectNumber: 50018122, 803608, 803610. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65 p.

### APPENDIX A. BioaccumulationModel Assumptions
Model description and parameterization

The bioaccumulation model used 

### in this assessmentrelies 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 ofthe aquatic food chain (phytoplankton). Concentrations of etofenprox residues are then calculated for zooplankton, including consideration that the diet ofzooplankton includesphytoplankton, which contain etofenprox residues. Tissueresidues are then calculated for the next 5 

### trophic levelsbased 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.

associatedparameters and assumptions. 

### k, *(m, *@*ern* +mp *Cmp)+kD *Z(e 

### *CD,) Eq.A.1 C, = 

### k, +k, +k, +k,

Parameters: Symbol Definition CB pesticide concentrationin the organism calculatedk~
W

m, -

Table A.2. Equation A.2, derivationof 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 ofresporatory ventilation involving overlying water

fraction ofrespiratory ventilation that involvespore-water of sediment

Symbol
XToC &w

cf, user defined 

### & fraction of the overlying water concentrationof 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 organismsto the extent that it is in equilibrium with water; however, some fraction of it is always available. 2. This equation assumes that equilibriumexistsbetween the pesticide concentrationin 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 concentrationsofpesticide in organisms (increased CB values). 4. The sum ofparticulate 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 concentrationof the pesticide that is freely dissolved and can be absorbed via membrane diffusion Assumptions: 1. The pesticide is distributed homogenously throughout the organism, accountingfor 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 equationis based on a steady state assumption that involvesno 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 metabolizedwithin aquatic organisms (kM = 0). 7. For plants, kEis considered insignificant. 8. To calculate CBR, it is assumed that kDis equal to 0. d- %

%

Value user defined user defined

calculated Units kg/L

none

noneTable 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 associatedwith the derivation of pesticide clearance through the respiratory system (kl) and associatedparameters 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

concentrationof the chemical in sediment ( wei ht of sediment) dry g

Symbol

A

B
COX Ew Gv

kl Kow normalized (for OC content) pesticide concentration in sediment

freely dissolved pesticide concentrationin pore water organic carbon partition coefficient percent organic carbon in sediment

Definition constant related to the resistance to pesticide uptake through the aqueous phase ofplant constant related to the resistance to pesticide uptake through the organic phase of plant concentration of dissolved oxygen pesticide uptake efficiencyby 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~ 10-5(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 Jileterfeeders) : 

### GD =

### 0.022

## *

# wi8'* exp(0.06

## * T)

For Jliterfeeders : 

### 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 ofthe 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 GDapplies 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 coefficientsof chemicals, composition of diet, digestibility of diet (and more). Based on several different observations, it is assumed that this value canbe 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 (exceptJileterfeeders) : GD = 0.022 

## *

# wiS5 * exp(0.06

## * T)

For Jliterfeeders : 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 eliminationof the pesticide through excretion of contaminated feces partition coefficient ofthe pesticidebetween 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 contentsin the gut

NLOM (Non Lipid Organic Matter) fraction of animals, NLOC (Non Lipid Organic Carbon) ofplants 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 constantexpressing the sorption capacity of NLOM to that of octanol

dietary assimilation rate of lipids calculated for animals: calculated forplants: 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 concentrationsof 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. Parametersused to define the biotic components of the model aquatic food web
are identified in Tables A.9 

### and A.lO. 

### Parameters are selected accordingto hot and Gobas (2004). 

### Abiotic characteristics are identified in EquationsA.l-A.8 and are defined in Table A.lO. 

### Parameter values were selected to provide representative estimates ofparameters that were considered conservative. EN

E w Assumptions: 1. GFis 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. Sincehydrophobic chemicals are not likely to be stored in the water of organism tissue, this route is not



### , considered significant to bioaccumulation. dietary assimilation rate ofNLOM
dietary assimilationrate 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 ofNAWQA 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 estimatedby 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 assumingthe diet ofriver 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 weightldayby assuming the diet ofmallard duck includes food of 80% 

### water by weight (USEPA, 1993). characteristicsof 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 = 1.20x10-~. Lower TOC results in higher CB values. Therefore, 25th percentile ofNAWQA 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 ofNAWQA 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 ofmean and percentiles. Default = 14.3. The influence ofthe water temperature on CBis dependant upon log Kow. For low log Kow chemicals (e.g. 5), increasing temperature results in an increase in CB values. For high log Kowchemicals (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 Kowchemicals (e.g. 5), increasing suspended solids results in a decrease in CBvalues. For high log Kowchemicals (eg. 7), higher concentration of suspended solidsresults in lower CB values. Therefore, the mean ofNAWQA 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 ofNAWQA 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) ofthe 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 ofthe amount ofpesticide 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, greatblue 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 calculatedby multiplying the percent of each prey item (% 

### prey) by the pesticide tissue residue concentration for that prey item (CBprey). The sum ofthe pesticide residues ingested through food is converted into units ofmg pesticidelkg food. This value is then multiplied by the food intake (in units ofkglkg-bw day) for a resulting value in units of mg pesticidekg-bw day. The pesticide intake through drinkingwater is calculated by multiplying the concentrationof the pesticide in water (CWTO, which is in units ofma) by the water intake (DW, units ofLld) and dividingby the bodyweight. This results in units of mg pesticidekg-bw day. The sum of pesticide intakethrough diet and through drinkingwater is the dose-based EEC.



### Cmo *DW Eq.A. 

### 15 Dose -

### based EEC = 

### (% 

## ,,, * CBprey 

## )*FI 

## + BW

The dietary-basedEEC is calculated by Equation

### A.16. 

### Pesticide intake through food is calculatedby multiplying the percent of each prey item (% 

### prey) by the pesticide tissue residue concentration for that prey item (CBprey). The sum ofthe pesticide residues ingested through food is converted into units ofmg pesticidekg food. This value is then multipliedby the food intake (in units ofkg foodkg-bw day) and animal body weight (kg-bw) for a resulting value in units of mg pesticidelday. Thepesticide intake through drinkingwater is calculatedby multiplying the bioavailable concentrationofthe pesticide in water (CWTO) (which is in units ofmglL) by the water intake (DW, units of Lld). This results in units ofmg pesticidelday. The sum ofpesticide intakethrough diet and through drinkingwater 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 ofthe animal for which the risks are being assessed (e.g. mink, bald eagle, etc.). These adjustments are made accordingto the equationsbelow (USEPA 2006), where: AT = 

### adjusted toxicity value; 

### LDsoor 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 scalingfactor (default value of 1.15 used) (Equations A.17 and A.18).
Eq.A.1'7 AT=(LD,oTNOAEL)[~~ (mammals)

AW (x-1) EqA. AT = 

### LD 

# (,) (birds )



### Available dose- and dietary-based toxicity values for etofenprox are non-definitive and consideredto 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) areprovided for comparative purposes.

### APPENDIX B. AGDISP Input Data and Sample

## PRZM and EXAMS Input/Output Data.

AGDISPInputData

Table 

### B.1. AGDISP Input Parameter Values for Etofenprox Aerial Applications. Parameter Value 

# I GUI Section 

# 1Reference

Application method Aircraftname Aircraft type Wing semispan Aircraft weight Propellerrpm 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 ArrayApplication 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 120mph

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 Spraymaterial Sprayvolume 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 Spraymaterial 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 computationaltime Maximum downwind distance Features Meteorology

Advanced settings
Meteorology Advance settings Transport Surface Surface Meteorology

Meteorology

Advanced settings Atm. stability Surfacelcanop y

SurfaceISurfacedetails 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 andEXAMS Sample Input/Output Data for AerialApplication 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 modifiedWedday, 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 16129 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 0.08331 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 0.21420.39774 0.29633 0.27373 0.26536 0.25838 0.21815 Average of yearly averages: 0.192352333333333 Inputs generatedby 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 ApplicationRate: 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 Interval4 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.
Setto 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.

Setto 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.

Setto 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.

Setto 0 or delete line for single app.
Setto 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. ProvisionallyModified 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-levelconcentration 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 degradationrate 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: TierI 

### 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 = 

### 1300kgim3 Example calculation:

Equation 2: 

### ProvisionalModifledRice 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 percentilerate constant = 

### 0.0007 1 /d

### Example calculation:
C, 

### (21 d) = 

### 1.20 yg/L x exp {-(21d) x [(0.10 m x 0.0121 lld) 

### + (0.01 m x 0.509 x 0.0007 l/d) 

## + (0.01 m x 1300kgim3

### x 0.01 x 1.93 x lo5

### Lkgx 0.0007 lld 1 

### 1000)lI [0.10 m 

## + 0.01 m 

### x (0.509 

## + 1300kgim3x 0.01 x 1.93 x lo5

### LkgI lOOO)])

= 

### 1.18 

### u.dL (vpb)



### Equation 3: 

### Provisional Sediment Concentration Equation.

where: Csed = 

### sedimentconcentration [mglkg soil]
Example calculation:



### CSd = 

### [lo5 x 0.303 kg a.i./ha] 1 

### [(0.01 m 

### x 1300kg/m3)

### + (lo3x (0.10 m 

### + (0.01 m x 0.509)) 1 

### (0.01 x 1.93x 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 {-(21d) 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)]/ [0.10m 

### + 0.01 m x (0.509 

## + 1300 kg/m3

### x 0.01 

### x 1.93x lo5L/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-phenoxybenzylether 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) Terrestrialfield 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 uncertainhalf-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, 16xmax. app. rate) t112=4.8 d (sandyloam; California) tllz= 13.6d (loamy sand; Georgia) tl12= 13.4d (loamy sand; New York) *LOQ = 0.7% tlIz = 1.7 d (water; California) t1,2 = 15.7d (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 Y ,Ox$ 

# H3c-cbe

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)

Soilphotolysis (835.2410) Aerobic soil metabolism (835.4100) Anaerobic aquatic metabolism (835.4400) Terrestrialfield dissipation (835.6100)

Aquatic field dissipation (835.6200) Soilphotolysis (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 = 12-45d

None
(sandyloam; 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 = 58.7-61.9dStudy Type (OPPTS guideline)

Terrestrial field dissipation (835.6 100)

Aquatic field dissipation (835.6200) Soilphotolysis (835.2410) Aerobic soil metabolism (835.4100) Anaerobic aquatic metabolism (835.4400)

Soilphotolysis (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 "2 

### ,olc2 OH 

# H3c-cb9H27

C"3 

### - (3"' Comments

(sandyloam; 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- methylpropionicacid 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)

Aqueousphotolysis (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 Soilphotolysis

. (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- andDietary-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, SubacuteAvian 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 dietaryrisk 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

NCTable 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 MammalianDose-BasedRisk 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 SmallInsects 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 ProposedNew 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 SquareFoot 

# 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 1,2and 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 

### ofListed Species. 

# Species Listing by 

# State with Use Criteria

No species were excluded Minimum of 1Acre. 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 (Potamiluscapax) Rock-pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) (Arkansia wheeleri) Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) (Geocarpon minimum) Harperella (Ptilimniumnodosum) Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) Bat, Gray (Myotis grisescens) 

### California ( 76)species: Frog, California Red-legged (Rana aurora draytonii) Salamander, CaliforniaTiger (Ambystoma californiense) Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) Owl, Northern Spotted (Strixoccidentaliscaurina) 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 (Lepiduruspackardi) Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin (Pseudobahiapeirsonii) Bird's-beak, Palmate-bracted (Cordylanthus palmatus) Bird's-beak, Soft (Cordylanthusmollis ssp. mollis) Checker-mallow, Keck's (Sidalcea keckii) Clover, Fleshy Owl's (Casfillejacampestris 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 (Amsinckiagrandiflora) Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's (Pseudobahiabahiifolia) Goldfields, Burke's (Lasthenia burkei) Goldfields, Contra Costa (Lasthenia wnjugens) Grass, Hairy Orcutt (Orcuffiapilosa) 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 (Navarretialeucocephala ssp. pauciflora (=N. Navarretia, Many-flowered (Navarretialeucocephala ssp. plieantha) Pussypaws, Mariposa (Calyptridium pulchellum) Rock-cress, McDonald's (Arabismcdonaldiana) Spineflower, Howell's (Chorizanthehowellii) 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, HuttonTui (Gila bicolorssp.) Goby, Tidewater (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Salmon, Chinook (California Coastal Run) (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) Salmon, Chinook (CentralValley 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 CaliforniaCoast 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

6/25/20082:19:46 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 (Acipensermedirostris) Sucker, Lost River (Deltistesluxatus) Sucker, Modoc (Catostomus microps) Sucker, Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkihenshawi) Trout, Little Kern Golden (Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) Trout, Paiute Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris) Beetle, Delta Green Ground (Elaphrus viridis) Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn (Desmocerus californicusdimorphus) Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot (Speyeria zerene behrensii) Butterfly, Lotis Blue (Lycaeidesargyrognomon lotis) Skipper, Carson Wandering (Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus) Fox, San Joaquin Kit (Vulpesmacrotis mutica) Kangaroo Rat, Fresno (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) Kangaroo Rat, Giant (Dipodomys ingens) Mountain Beaver, Point Arena (Aplodontiarufa 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 Freshwaterlnsect 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 11

### California ( 76)species: Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest (Reithrodontomys raviventris) Rabbit, Riparian Brush (Sylvilagusbachmani riparius) Woodrat, Riparian (Neotoma fuscipes riparia) Grass, Colusa (Neostapfiacolusana) Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt (Orcuttia inaequalis) Grass, Solano (Tuctoriamucronata) Lizard, Blunt-nosed Leopard (Gambelia silus) Sea turtle, olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) Snake, Giant Garter (Thamnophisgigas) 

### Florida ( 21) species: Salamander, Flatwoods (Ambystoma cingulatum) Caracara, Audubon's Crested (Polyborus plancus audubonii) Kite, Everglade Snail (Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeus) Plover, Piping (Charadrius melodus) Scrub-Jay, Florida (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) Stork, Wood (Mycteriaamericana) Woodpecker, Red-cockaded (Picoides borealis) Mussel, Oval Pigtoe (Pleurobemapyrifome) Gourd, Okeechobee (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis) Jacquemontia, Beach (Jacquemontia reclinata) Pawpaw, Four-petal (Asimina tetramera)
6/25/2008 2:19:46PM 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) concolorcoryi) Seagrass, Johnson's (Halophilajohnsonii) 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 TerrestrialTaxa 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 TerrestrialTaxa 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 (Schwalbeaamericana) 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 (Pelecanusoccidenfalis) 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 TerrestrialTaxa 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 oxyrinchusdesotoi) 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
6/25/20082:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3

### Missouri ( 15)species: Darter, Niangua (Etheostoma nianguae) Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) Beetle, American Burying (Nicrophorusamericanus) Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlorahineana) 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 (Percihapantherina) Beetle, American Burying (Nicrophorus americanus) Bat, lndiana (Myotis sodalis) Bat, Ozark Big-eared (Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingens) 

### Oregon ( 13)species: Owl, Northern Spotted (Strixoccidentalis caurina) Checker-mallow, Nelson's (Sidalceanelsoniana) 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 FreshwaterInsect 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 FreshwaterInsect 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 2:19:46PM 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 icarioidesfenderi) 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 cupidoattwateri) 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 FreshwaterInsect No Terrestrial Mammal Yes TerrestrialTaxa 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

6/25/20082:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 10of 11

### Texas ( 17) species: Woodpecker, Red-cockaded (Picoides borealis) Dawn-flower,Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed) (Hymenoxys texana) Phlox, Texas Trailing (Phloxnivalis ssp. texensis) Beetle, American Burying (Nicrophorus americanus) Bear, Louisiana Black (Ursus americanus luteolus) Sea turtle, green (Cheloniamydas) Sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelyskempii) Sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) 

### Wisconsin ( 3) species: Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) Butterfly, Karner Blue (Lycaeidesmelissa 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

6125120082:19:46 PM Ver. 2.10.3 Page 11 of 11

# G.2. 

# Species Listing for Vector Control

Common Name Frog, CaliforniaRed-legged Salamander, Santa Cruz Long-toed Salamander, Shenandoah Salamander, Sonora Tiger Salamander, Texas Blind Frog, Dusky Gopher (MississippiDPS) 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 (Hemignathusprocerus) Shearwater,Newell's Townsend's 'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathusmunroi) 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 Ambystomatigrinum 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 Plethodonnettingi Cicurinavenii Gopheruspolyphemus Cicurina vespera Microhexura montivaga Cicurina madla Cicurinabaronia Texella cokendolpheri Neoleptoneta myopica Texella reyesi Texella reddelli Neoleptoneta microps Tartarocreagris texana Loxops coccineus coccineus Loxops coccineus ochraceus Hemignathusprocerus Puffinus auricularis newelli Hemignathus munroi Pipilo crissalis eremophilus Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis Pelecanus occidentalis Pseudonestor xanthophrys Haliaeetus leucocephalus Charadrius melodus Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeus 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 BirdThrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) Thrush, Molokai (Oloma'o) Thrush, Large Kauai Sparrow, San Clemente Sage Tern, Roseate Crane, Mississippi Sandhill Tern, Interior (population) Least Tern, CaliforniaLeast 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 ClementeLoggerhead 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 (=Alaekeo keo) Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) Rail, California Clapper Creeper, Hawaii Prairie-chicken,Attwater's Greater Myadestes palmeri Myadestes lanaiensisrutha Myadestes myadestinus Amphispiza belli clementeae Sternadougallii dougallii Grus canadensis pulla Sterna antillarum Sterna antillanunbrowni Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi Psittirostra psittacea Amazona vittata Rukia longirostra Pterodroma cahow Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Buteo solitarius Buteo platypterus brunnescens Accipiter striatusvenator Palmeria dolei Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis Aphelocoma coerulescens Picoides borealis Vireo atricapilla Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi Vireo bellii pusillus Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus Halcyon cinnarnomina cinnamomina Vermivorabachrnanii Columba inornata wetmorei Acrocephalus farniliariskingi Dendroica kirtlandii Dendroica chrysoparia Acrocephalus luscinia Polioptila californica californica Campephilus principalis Paroreomyza flammea Telespyza cantans Gallinula chloropusguami 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 BirdRail, 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 ChimneyCave Shrimp, Kentucky Cave Crayfish, Nashville Amphipod, Hay's Spring Rallus longirostrislevipes Anas laysanensis Colinus virginianus ridgwayi Anas wyvilliana Hemignathus lucidus Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus Rallus longirostrisyurnanensis Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus Corvushawaiiensis Loxioides bailleui Polysticta stelleri Mycteria americana Himantopus mexicanus knudseni ApIonispelzelni 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 Corvuskubaryi 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 Syncarispacifica Branchinecta conservatio Branchinecta longiantenna Streptocephalus woottoni Branchinecta sandiegonensis Branchinecta lynchi Lepiduruspackardi Palaemonetes cummingi Palaemonias ganteri Orconectes shoupi Stygobromushayi 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 CrustaceanAmphipod, Kauai Cave Abalone, White Crayfish, Cave (Cambarusaculabrum) Amphipod,Peck's Cave Crayfish, Cave (Cambaruszophonastes) Crayfish, Shasta Amphipod,Noel's Cactus,Pima Pineapple Four-o'clock,Macfarlane's Flannelbush, Pine Hill Mitracarpus Polycladus Mitracarpus Maxwelliae Mint, Scrub Mint, SanDiego 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 Cordiabellonis (ncn) Meadowfoam, Sebastopol Milk-vetch, Clara Hunt's Milk-vetch,Braunton's Milk-vetch,Ash Meadows Milk-vetch,Applegate's Mehamehame (Flueggeaneowawraea) Spelaeorchestia koloana Haliotis sorenseni Cambarus aculabrum Stygobromus (=Stygonectes)pecki Cambarus zophonastes Pacifastacus fortis Gammarus desperatus Coryphantha scheerivar. robustispina Mirabilismacfarlanei 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 Coryphanthaminima Asclepias welshii Asclepias meadii Galactia smallii Pogogyne nudiuscula Echinocereus fendlerivar. 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 Echinomastusmariposensis Calystegia stebbinsii Amsinckia grandiflora Fremontodendron mexicanum Aconitum noveboracense Cordiabellonis 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 DicotFringe 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 Astragalustricarinatus Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Astragalus albens Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica Echinocactus horizonthaloniusvar. nicholii Cyrtandra cyaneoides Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii Arctostaphylos pallida Arctostaphylos morroensis Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Thalictrumcooleyi Manihot walkerae Stahliamonosperma Echinacea tennesseensis Eremalche kernensis Iliamna corei Coryphantharobbinsorum Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax Echinacea laevigata Astragalus lentiginosusvar. coachellae Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii Astragalus tener var. titi Astragalus osterhoutii Astragalushumillimus Astragalus jaegerianus Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi Astragalus montii Astragalus lentiginosusvar. piscinensis Erigeron rhizomatus Frankeniajohnstonii Castilleja grisea Banara vanderbiltii Cyanea superba Cornutia obovata Styrax portoricensis Ternstroemia luquillensis Senecio layneae Eryngium aristulatumvar. 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 DicotJohnii) 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 Lespedezaleptostachya 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 kauaiensisvar. wahiawaensis Gardenia brighamii Myrcia paganii Pinguiculaionantha Eutrema penlandii Lipochaeta fauriei Dubautia latifolia Munroidendronracemosum Pediocactusbradyi Coryphantha ramillosa Echinocereus chisoensisvar. chisoensis Schiedea apokremnos Pilosocereusrobinii Thelypodium stenopetalum Delissea rhytidosperma Opuntiatreleasei 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 DicotNehe (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, SlenderOrcutt 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 Lipochaetakamolensis Sidalcea nelsoniana Lipochaeta waimeaensis Aeschynomene virginica Coryphantha sneediivar. sneedii Colubrina oppositifolia Cyrtandra limahuliensis Cyrtandramunroi Cyrtandra polyantha Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis

Labordia lydgatei Cyrtandra giffardii Cyrtandra subumbellata Cyrtandra dentata Streptanthusniger 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 Pleodendronmacranthum Phyllostegiaracemosa Hedyotis coriacea Harrisia portoricensis Astragalus bibullatus Senecio fianciscanus Grindeliakino-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 DicotGrass, 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) Hedyotisparvula (ncn) Harperella Harebells,Avon Park HaplostachysHaplostachya (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 Hexastylisnaniflora Serianthes nelsonii Cyanea longiflora Cyanea mannii Cyanea mceldowneyi Jacquemontia reclinata Cyanea pinnatifida Hedyotis parvula Ptilimniumnodosum 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 Crescentiaportoricensis Hibiscus clayi Hesperomannia lydgatei Hesperomannia arbuscula Hesperomannia arborescens Hedyotis st.-johnii Ivesia kingii var. eremica Hypericum cumulicola Oxytropis campestrisvar. 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 DicotCeanothus, 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 (Kokiakauaiensis) 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, TobuschFishhook Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's Clover,Monterey Clarkia, Springville Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago princeps) Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantagohawaiensis) 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 (Nototrichiumhumile) 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 Kokiakauaiensis Goetzea elegans Geocarponminimum Cyanea remyi Hibiscus brackenridgei Lysimachiamaxima Lysimachia lydgatei Trifolium amoenum Lysimachia filifolia Trifolium stoloniferum Silenepolypetala Purshia (=cowania) subintegra Calyptranthes thomasiana Lyonia truncata var. proctorii Geranium arboreum Lupinus aridorum Lupinus tidestromii Pedicularis furbishiae Ancistrocactus tobuschii Sclerocactusglaucus Pseudobahiabahiifolia 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 Myrsinejuddii 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 DicotGourd, 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) Schiedeahaleakalensis(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 Solidagohoughtonii Solidago shortii Solidago albopilosa Lastheniaburkei 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

Centauriumnamophilum Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora Schiedea spergulinavar. 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 Melicopemunroi Sibara filifolia Lithophragmamaximum Cercocarpustraskiae Sidalcea keckii Hedyotis schlechtendahlianavar. 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 DicotNeraudia 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, DudleyBluffs 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 Lipochaetavenosa Acaena exigua Kokia cookei Tetramolopiumarenarium Hibiscadelphus distans Trematolobelia singularis Hibiscadelphus giffardianus Cyanea undulata Cyaneatruncata 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 capitatumvar. angustatum Erysimurn teretifolium Cereus eriophorusvar. 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 fasciculatusvar. 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 DicotWatercress, 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 Osmoxylonmariannense (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, DecurrentFalse 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 (Melicopeballoui) Alani (Melicope haupuensis) Alani (Melicopeknudsenii) Alani (Melicopelydgatei) Alani (Melicopemucronulata) 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 Berberispinnata ssp. insularis Helianthemurngreenei Arabis hofhannii Ziziphus celata Xylosma crenatum Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii Eriastnun densifolium ssp. sanctorum Polygonella basiramia Stephanomeriamalheurensis Clitoriafiagrans Eriogonum gypsophilum Castilleja mollis Chrysopsis floridana Amaranthus pumilus Osmoxylon mariannense Nesogenes rotensis Gopheruspolyphemus Silene spaldingii Ambrosiapumila 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 Amphianthuspusillus 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 DicotAlsinidendron 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 (Isodendrionpyrifolium) Schiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea adamantis) Schiedeanuttallii (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) ButterflyPlant, Colorado Alsinidendron obovatum Alsinidendrontrinerve Alsinidendron viscosum Astragalusholmgreniorurn Astragalus ampullarioides Arctomecon humilis Melicope quadrangularis Suaeda califomica Berberis nevinii Holocarphamacradenia Thelypodium howellii spectabilis Helianthus paradoxus Schiedea verticillata Heleniumvirginicum Schoepfiaarenaria Cordylanthusmollis ssp. mollis Cirsium loncholepis Plagiobothryshirtus Eriodictyon capitatum Catesbaeamelanocarpa Isodendrion pyrifolium Schiedea adamantis

Schiedea nuttallii Schedea kauaiensis Schiedea hookeri Sanicula purpurea Cyanea (=Rollandia)crispa Phyllostegia parviflora Cirsium hydrophilumvar. hydrophilum Astragalus desereticus Viola helenae Pediocactus winkleri Phlox hirsuta Penstemon penlandii Galium califomicum ssp. sierrae Campanula robinsiae Schiedea helleri Schiedea kaalae Schiedea spergulinavar. spergulina Thlaspi califomicum Trichilia triacantha Lesquerellathamnophila Schiedea lydgatei Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Schiedeamembranacea 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 DicotSchiedea sarmentosa (ncn) Lupine, Nipomo Mesa Tarplant, Gaviota Yellowhead, Desert Rock-cress, ShaleBarren 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, DudleyBluffs Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense) Sanicula mariversa (ncn) Schiedea sarmentosa Lupinus nipomensis Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa Yermo xanthocephalus Arabis serotina Schoenocrambebarnebyi Abronia macrocarpa Lesquerellatumulosa Lesquerella lyrata Hofhannseggia tenella Sedumintegrifolium ssp. leedyi Conradina brevifolia Conradina etonia Conradina verticillata Polygonella myriophylla Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata Fernald Arenariaursina 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 Styraxtexanus Viola oahuensis Eryngium cuneifolium Abutilon sandwicense Achyranthes mutica Achyranthes splendensvar. rotundata Pseudobahia peirsonii Santalumfi-eycinetianum var. lanaiense Cordylanthuspalmatus Baptisia arachnifera Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus Scutellariamontana Scutellaria floridana Macbridea alba Cardamine micranthera Lesquerella congesta Argyroxiphium kauense Saniculamariversa Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot DicotSandwort, 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, SouthernMountain 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, SanBernardino 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 (Brighamiarockii) 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 longifoliumvar. gnaphalifolium Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Sarracenia oreophila Sarracenia rubra alabamensis Polygala smallii Eriogonumkennedyi var. austromontanum Lindera melissifolia Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae Hedyotis mannii Phyllostegiawawrana Phyllostegia warshaueri Phyllostegiawaimeae Phyllostegia velutina Phyllostegiamollis Phyllostegia mannii Phyllostegia kaalaensis Phyllostegia hirsuta Echinocereusviridiflomsvar. davisii Bonamia menziesii Lesquerellakingii 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 DicotBroom, 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 Tetramolopiumrockii (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 Sileneperlmanii (ncn) Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) 'Aiea (Nothocestnunbreviflorum) '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 Hedyotispurpurea var. montana Zanthoxylum dipetalumvar. tomentosum Solanum drymophilum Tetrarnolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum Tetramolopium filiforme Tetramolopium capillare Ternstroemia subsessilis Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata Tetramolopiumrockii Eriophyllum latilobum Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Lepidium arbuscula Sicyos alba Canavalia molokaiensis Centaurium sebaeoides Hedyotis cookiana Hesperolinoncongestum Parvisedumleiocarpum Blennosperma bakeri Helianthus schweinitzii Townsendia aprica Silene perlmanii Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum Nothocestrum breviflorum Nothocestmmpeltatum 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 Cirsiumvinaceum Cirsium pitcheri Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Chamaesyce herbstii Chorizanthevalida Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis Stenogynekanehoana Dicot Dicot Dicot

Dicot Dicot

Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot

Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot

Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot

DicotSpurge, Telephus Spurge, Hoover's Spurge, Garber's Spurge, Deltoid 'Oha Wai (Clermontiapyrularia) 'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) 'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes) Spiraea,Virginia 'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana) Spineflower, Slender-horned Spineflower, ScottsValley 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 Clermontiapeleana Dodecahema leptoceras Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Chorizanthe orcuttiana Chorizanthepungens var. pungens Chorizanthe howellii Chorizanthepungens var. hartwegiana Brighamia insignis Tetraplasandragymnocarpa 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 angustifoliavar. angustifolia Clermontia drepanomorpha Stenogyne bifida Stenogyne campanulata Cyprinella formosa Notropis cahabae Cyprinella caerulea Chasmistes cujus Menidia extensa Gilapurpurea 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) Eremichthysacros Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot Dicot

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 FishShiner, 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 ColumbiaRiver population) Steelhead, (Northern Californiapopulation) 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 robustajordani Cottuspaulus (=pygmaeus) Crenichthys nevadae Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Gila intermedia Noturus baileyi Meda fulgida Lepidomeda mollispinispratensis Lepidomeda vittata Percina rex Crenichthys baileyi grandis Oncorhynchus (=Salmo)kisutch Crenichthysbaileyi 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 Oncorhynchusmykiss Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka Cyprinodon macularius Cyprinodon diabolis Cyprinodonbovinus Cyprinodonradiosus 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 FishGoby, 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 SandsFlower-loving Beetle, Salt Creek Tiger Skipper, Laguna Mountain Skipper, Pawnee Montane Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle, HelotesMold Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling Water Fly, Hawaiianpicture-wing Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Beetle, American Burying Butterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's euphydryas) Beetle, Puritan Tiger Fly, Hawaiianpicture-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, Hawaiianpicture-wing Fly, Hawaiianpicture-wing Eucyclogobius newberryi Etheostoma okaloosae Etheostomanianguae Etheostoma etowahae Etheostoma sellare Etheostoma wapiti Percina antesella Percinapantherina Percina aurolineata Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus Etheostoma fonticola Rhinichthys osculus thermalis Percinajenkinsi Moapa coriacea Gambusia georgei Gambusia nobilis Etheostomarubrum Gambusia heterochir Heterelmis comalensis Rhadine infernalis Rhadine exilis Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Drosophila musaphilia Elaphrusviridis Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Cicindela nevadica lincolniana Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Hesperia leonardusmontana Somatochlora hineana Cicindeladorsalis dorsalis Batrisodes venyivi Brychius hungerfordi Drosophila neoclavisetae Stygoparnus comalensis Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Nicrophorus americanus Euphydryaseditha bayensis

Cicindelapuritana Drosophilaochrobasis Polyphylla barbata Manducablackburni Lycaeides argyrognomonlotis Icaricia icarioides fenderi Ambrysus amargosus Rhadine persephone Texamaurops reddelli Drosophilatarphytrichia 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 InsectBeetle, 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, Hawaiianpicture-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, SanBruno Elfin Butterfly, Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly, Smith's Blue Skipper, Carson Wandering Squirrel, Virginia Northern Flying Woodrat, Riparian Squirrel,Mount GrahamRed 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, SanMiguel Island Rabbit, Riparian Brush Fox, SantaRosa Island Fox, Santa Cruz Island Deer, Columbian White-tailed Deer, Key Puma (=Cougar), Eastern Dugong Batrisodestexanus 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 Apodemiamormo langei Drosophila heteroneura Icaricia icarioidesmissionensis Cicindela ohlone Speyeria zerene myrtleae Speyeriazerene behrensii Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti) Neonymphamitchellii fiancisci Callophrys mossii bayensis Heraclides aristodemusponceanus 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 Sylvilagusbachrnani riparius Urocyon littoralis santarosae Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Odocoileus virginianus clavium Puma (=Felis) concolorcouguar 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 MammalFerret, Black-footed Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh Bat, Gray Squirrel,Delmarva PeninsulaFox Bear, LouisianaBlack Rice Rat (=Silver Rice Rat) Bat, Virginia Big-eared Bat, Ozark Big-eared Bat, Mexican Long-nosed Bat, Mariana Fruit (=MarianaFlying Fox) Bat, Little Mariana Fruit Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long-nosed Panther, Florida Lynx, Canada Bat, Hawaiian Hoary Sheep, SierraNevada 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 PrairieDog, Utah Pronghorn, Sonoran Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Beargrass, Britton's Arrowhead,Bunched Sedge, Golden Seagrass, Johnson's Amole, Purple Mustela nigripes Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Myotis grisescens Sciurusniger cinereus Ursus americanus luteolus Oryzomyspalustris natator Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendiivirginianus Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendiiingens Leptonycteris nivalis Pteropus mariannus mariannus Pteropus tokudae Leptonycteris curasoaeyerbabuenae Puma (=Felis)concolor coryi Lynx canadensis Lasiurus cinereus semotus Ovis canadensis californiana Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Peromyscuspolionotusniveiventris Reithrodontomys raviventris Peromyscuspolionotus trissyllepsis Perognathus longimembrispacificus Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola Peromyscuspolionotus 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 littoraliscatalinae Ursus arctos horribilis Panthera onca Dipodomysnitratoides exilis Dipodomys ingens Dipodomys heermannimorroensis Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus) Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Aplodontia rufa nigra Cynomysparvidens Antilocapra americana sonoriensis Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca Nolina brittoniana Sagittaria fasciculata Carex lutea Halophilajohnsonii 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 MonocotLo'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 PrairieFringed 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 PrairieFringed Onion, Munz's Lily, Pitkin Marsh Lily, Tiburon Mariposa Mariscus fauriei (ncn) Lily, Western Lo'ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) Lo'ulu (Pritchardiaremota) Lo'ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) Lo'ulu (Pritchardiamunroi) 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 Rhynchosporaknieskernii Carex specuicola Harperocallisflava Carex albida Mariscus pennatiformis Platanthera praeclara Orcuttia californica Erythroniumpropullans Brodiaeapallida Brodiaea filifolia Potamogeton clystocarpus Isotia medeoloides Poa siphonoglossa Platanthera holochila Piperiayadonii Helonias bullata Scirpus ancistrochaetus Aristida portoricensis Lepanthes eltoroensis Calyptronomarivalis Panicum niihauense Platanthera leucophaea Allium munzii Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Calochortus tiburonensis Mariscus fauriei Lilium occidentale Pritchardiaviscosa Pritchardiaremota Pritchardianapaliensis Pritchardiamunroi Pritchardiakaalae Pritchardia affinis Panicum fauriei var. carteri

Iris lacusbis Sagittariasecundifolia Pritchardiaaylmer-robinsonii Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Trilliumreliquum Trillium persistens Cranichis ricartii Gahnia lanaiensis Poa sandvicensis Neostapfia colusana Eragrostisfosbergii 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 MonocotGrass, Solano Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) Hilo Ischaemum (Ischaemumbyrone) Wild-rice, Texas Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Irisette, White Amole, Cammatta Canyon Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrirnonioides) Ladies1-tresses, CaneloHills Ladiesr-tresses, Navasota Aristida chaseae (ncn) Ladiesf-tresses, Ute Bluegrass,Mann's (Poa mannii) Bluegrass, Napa Bluegrass, San Bernardino Hala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) Snake, ConchoWater Lizard, St. Croix Ground Snake, Eastern Indigo Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh Skink, Sand Skink, Blue-tailed Mole Rattlesnake, New MexicanRidge-nosed Boa, Mona Snake, Giant Garter Boa, Virgin Islands Tree Snake, San Francisco Garter Lizard, Island Night Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard, Blunt-nosedLeopard Iguana, Mona Ground Gecko, Monito Crocodile, American Boa, Puerto Rican Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Turtle, Bog (Northernpopulation) Whipsnake (=Striped Racer),Alameda Turtle, Yellow-blotched Map Turtle, Ringed Sawback Turtle, PlymouthRed-bellied Sea turtle, oliveridley Snake, Lake Erie Water Sea turtle, leatherback Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Sea turtle, hawksbill Sea turtle, green Turtle, FlattenedMusk Turtle, Alabama Red-bellied Tuctoria mucronata Xyris tennesseensis Cyperus trachysanthos Ischaemum byrone Zizania texana Orcuttia inaequalis Sisyrinchiurndichotomum Chlorogalumpurpureum var. reducturn Cenchrus agrimonioides Spiranthes delitescens Spiranthesparksii Aristida chaseae Spiranthes diluvialis Poa mannii Poa napensis Poa atropurpurea Pleomele hawaiiensis Nerodia paucimaculata Ameiva polops Drymarchon corais couperi Nerodia clarkiitaeniata Neoseps reynoldsi Eumeces egregius lividus Crotalus willardi obscurus Epicratesmonensis monensis Tharnnophisgigas Epicratesmonensis granti Tharnnophis sirtalistetrataenia Xantusia riversiana Uma inornata Gambelia silus Cyclura stejnegeri Sphaerodactylus micropithecus Crocodylus acutus Epicratesinornatus Lepidochelys kempii Clemmys muhlenbergii Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Graptemys flavimaculata Graptemys oculifera Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi Lepidochelys olivacea Nerodia sipedoninsularum 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 ReptileTortoise, Gopher Tortoise,Desert Anole, Culebra Island Giant Sea turtle, loggerhead Gopheruspolyphemus Gopherus agassizii Anolis roosevelti Caretta caretta Reptile Reptile Reptile Reptile

### APPENDIX H. 

### SubmittedEnvironmental 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

AnaerobicAquatic 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. Sterilitywas not confiied. Limits of detection were not reported. Singletest 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. Materialbalances 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 steadilyfrom 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 (rangingfrom 105.42% to 297.36% ofthe applied) and termination of the experiment after only 2 days of continuousirradiation. The test solutioncontained ca. 11% acetonitrileby volume and sterilitywas 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 estimationsyielded



### , uncertain environmental vhototransformation half-lives. It was not established that the foreigntest 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 studywas 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 stillbe increasing. Anaerobicityin 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

Materialbalances were incomplete, with up to 16-17% of the appliednot accounted for. Test application rates (330-340 pg/L) were 15xthe water solubility limit of the test substance (22.5 pg/L). Test sediments were foreign and USDA soil texture and FA0taxonomic classifications were not provided for comparison with domestic sediments. Adequate comparison of the test sediments with domestic sedimentswould upgrade this study to an acceptable classification. The test application rate (350 pg/L) was ca. 16xthe water solubilitylimit of the test substance (22.5 pg/L). The test sediment was foreign and USDA soil texture and FA0 taxonomic classificationswere 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 solubilitylimit 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 areasin the United States. No significant deviationsfrom good scientific practices
or OPP guidelines were noted. The storage stability of etofenproxand 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 intervalused in this study for the sediment test samples. Submission of a storage stability study of adequate durationwould upgrade this study to
an acceptable classification. No significant deviationsfrom good scientific practices
were noted. However, detection limits and some degradateswere 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 ChemistryMethod for Water

### APPENDIX I. Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Etofenprox.

Table 

### I. Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Etofenprox, their Review Classifications,

Guideline 

# 7 ification Justifications.

MRID Study Title Issues Study Classification

Acceptable 

# i

404497-25 MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Avian Single-Dose Oral LD50on 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 (Colinusvirginiamus) MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Reproductive Toxicity Test with the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhynchos) EtofenproxTechnical: Acute Toxicity Studyto Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchusmykiss) in a Flow-through System over 96 Hours EtofenproxTechnical: Acute Toxicity Studyto Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) in a Flow-through System over 96 Hours Alpha-CO Metabolite of Etofenprox: Acute Toxicityto Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a Flow-through System over 96 Hours None Acceptable 

# 1

MTI-500 (Etofenprox): Fish Early Life Stage Toxicityto Zebrafish (Brachydaniorerio) in a Flow-through System over 40 Days High analytical variability in meanmeasured concentrations; reportedNOAEC (based on mortality) is one order of magnitude higher than the reported LCs0value for rainbow trout Supplemental

- SAN 8 11 I Technical (Etofenprox): Acute Toxicityto Water Fleas (Daphniamagna) Under Static Conditions -- Test substance was unstable and exhibited

high variability in recoveryofmeasured tes concentrations None Supplemental 

# -1

471328-02 Alpha-CO Metabolite ofEtofenprox: Acute Toxicity Study to Water Fleas (Daphnia magna) Under Static Conditions Acceptable 

# IIssues

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 differencein 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

EtofenproxTechnical: Chronic Toxicityto Water Fleas (Daphnia magna) Under StaticRenewal Conditions over 2 1 Days

EtofenproxTechnical: Toxicity to Midge Larvae (Chironomusriparius) 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 SpikedWater 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 Toxicityto Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) over 96 Hours in a Flow-through System EtofenproxTechnical: Acute Toxicity to Saltwater Mysid (Americanmysisbahia) over 96 Hours in a Flow-through System EtofenproxTechnial: 96 Hour ShellDeposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) in a Flow-through System Etofenprox Technical: Acute Toxicityto FreshwaterAlgae (Pseudokirchneriella subcapita) over 72 Hours in a Static System EtofenproxTechnical: 7-Day Static-Renewal Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba) Alpha-CO Metabolite ofEtofenprox: Acute Toxicityto FreshwaterAlgae (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 1491-01

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

473260-01Issues

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 Toxicityto TerrestrialVascular Plants: SeedlingEmergence and Vegetative Vigor

MTI-500 30% EC (Etofenprox): Acute Toxicity to TerrestrialVascular Plants: Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor

Trebon 30 EC: Acute Toxicity to Green Lacewing (Chysoperia carnea) Trebon 30 EC: Acute Toxicityto Predatory Bug (Orius laevigatus) MTI-500 30%EC: Acute Toxicityto Predaceous Mite (Typhlodromuspyri) Trebon 30 EC: Acute Toxicityto Predaceous Mite (Typhlodromus pyri) MTI-500 30% EC: Acute Toxicityto 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