### UNITED STATES ENVffiONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460



### PC Code: 128879

DP Barcode: 393186

June 4, 2013



### MEMORANDUM

Subject:



### To:

From:

Through: Registration Review- Ecological Risk Assessment and Effects Determination

of Triflumizole

Steven Snyderman, Chemical Review Manager

Avivah Jakob, Risk Manager

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division

Office ofPesticide Programs (7508P)

Edward Odenkirchen, Acting Brrurch Chief 1

# ~ Sujatha Sankula, Lead Biologist

## 1\**~** /':;;?:.

.... 

# ==--

Environmental Risk Branch 1

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Office of Pesticide Programs (7507P)

Attached is the ecological risk assessment and effects determination for the registration

review of the fungicide triflumizole.

Attachment: As stated.

# REGISTRATION REVIEW

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND EFFECTS

DETERMINATION

Triflumizole

CAS Number: 68694-11-1

USEP A PC CODE 128879



# 1

June 4, 2013

### PREPARED BY:

Stephen P. Wente, Biologist Christopher M. Koper, Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch 1

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

PEER REVIEW TEAM:

William P. Eckel, Senior Scientist

, Environmental Risk Branch 6 Greg Orrick , Environmental Scientist, Environmental Risk Branch 2 Mary Clock

- Rust , Biologist , Environmental Risk Branch 4 Tanja Crk, Biologist, Environmental Risk Branch 3

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

THROUGH:

Edward Odenkirchen

, Acting Branch Chief Sujatha Sankula, Lead Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch 1

Environmental Fate and Effects Division Office of Pesticide ProgramsExecutive Summary

iii 

## Executive Summary

Triflumizole is a fungicide that is currently registered for application to a number of food and

non

- food crops to control fungal pathogens. Registered application methods for triflumizole

are broadcast, foliar spray, root dip, soil drench, chemigation, and seed piece treatment.



## E.1 Nature of Stressor

Triflumizole acts as a systemic fungicide . It interferes with ergosterol biosynthesis by

inhibiting demethylation of steroids , which appears to inhibit mycelial growth ( Markoglou

and Ziogas 2002 )

. (Mycelium is the vegetati ve part of a fungus.) It is used to control

Gymnosporangium and Venturia spp. in pome fruit, powdery Erysiphaceae in fruit and

vegetables, and Fusarium

, Fulvia , and Monilia spp. in other applications. It is also used as a

seed treatment against Helminthosp orium

, Tilletia , and Ustilago spp. in cereals (Roberts and

Hutson 1999) . O ne current registered product is formulated as a 50% active ingredient (a.i.),

water

- dispersible granule (WDG) which is registered for use on apples, grapes, and pears.

Other regist ered products are formulated as 50% a.i. wettable powders (WP) or 42% a.i.

emulsifiable concentrates ( E C).



## E.2 Potential Risk

Terrestrial exposure is based on direct spray application on food items including short grass,

seeds, and broadleaf plants and ins ects resulting from applications of triflumizole at the

maximum label rates. Exposure to aquatic organisms is the result of runoff and spray drift

from labeled applications, and is functionally

, the amount of compound in the water that

would directly contact organisms. The magnitude of exposure estimates is largely dependent

on the biology of the receptor ( e.g. , food consumption rate), the use patterns, and

environmental fate and transport characteristics of the pesticide.

E.2.1 Chemical Properties

Tri flumizole is not likely to be persistent under most environmental conditions and, except

for soils in a sand textural class with low organic materi al, unlikely to be very mobile. The

half

- lives derived for aquatic photolysis, soil photolysis and aerobic s oil metabolism for total

residues correspond to 12.7 days, 8 days and 44 days, respectively. The relatively high Koc

values in non

- sand soils and the moderate adsorption characteristics in sandy soils with

organic carbon content greater than one percent su ggest that triflumizole has low potential to

reach groundwater. The Koc values for the degradate, FD

- 1

- 1 suggest that it is more mobileExecutive Summary

iv 

### than the parent compound. Triflumizole will reach surface water in both the dissolved form

and sorbed onto soils and org anic material for several weeks following application.

E.2.2 Ecological Risk Conclusions

The Agency assessed potential risk to a number of ta xa including the following taxa :

• Birds (Avian) (which are also used to represent reptiles and land

- phase amphibians )

• Mammals

• Fish (freshwater and estuarine

- marine; freshwater fish are also used to represent aquatic

- phase amphibians)

• Aquatic invertebrates (freshwater and estuarine

- marine)

• Terrestrial invertebrates

• Terrestrial plants and aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants

A direct [adverse] effect to an organism is considered to be that which occurs from direct

toxicity resulting from exposure to triflumizole. An indirect [adverse] effect to an organism,

on the other hand, is considered to be an adverse negative m odification to a resource used by

another organism, such as loss of prey or habitat, which is caused by the use of triflumizole.

The level of concern (LOC) from acute exposure is different for listed (endangered and/or

threatened; LOC = 0.1) and non

- listed (LOC = 0.5) terrestrial animals; and for listed (LOC =

0.05) and non

- listed (LOC = 0.5) aquatic organisms. For chronic exposure, the LOC is the

same for listed and non

- listed animals and is 1.0. The LOC is also 1.0 for both listed and

non

- listed plants (aquatic or terrestrial). As the LOCs are different for listed and non

- listed

species, evaluation of potential risk from direct exposure to triflumizole for non

- listed and

listed spec ies are summarized separately.

Registered uses of triflumizole are expected to cause direct adverse effects in terrestrial

environments to mammals, birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians, and in aquatic

environments

, freshwater fish and estuarine/marine invertebrates (Table E.1 and E.2).Executive Summary

v 

### Table E.1. Potential Risks to Nonlisted and Listed Species Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects from the Proposed Application of Triflumizole 1

Taxonomic Group Effects Endpoint 2 Direct Effects 2 Indirect Effects Due to Direct Effect to: 3 Non

- listed Listed

Aquatic vascular plants Measures of biomass: Vascular plant

– EC 50 ( Lemna spp.)

Non

- vascular plant

– EC 50 ( Navicula pelliculosa ) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC Terrestrial plants

Aquatic non

- vascular plants No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC Currently no listed non

- vascular plants

Terrestrial plants Measures of biomass and seedling emergence: Vegetative Vigor EC 25 and NOAEC (ryegrass 4 ) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC Terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and/or mammals if obligate/dependant relationship exists; terrestrial plants

Freshwater Vertebrates Acute: Mortality

- LC 50 (rainbow trout) No; RQs<LOC M A; RQs>LOC 5 Terrestrial invertebrates if obligate/dependant relationship exists; terrestrial plants Chronic: NOEC ( Pimephales promelas ) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC

Estuarine/Marine

Vertebrates Acute: Mortality

- LC 50 (sheepshead) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC Terrestrial plants; terrestrial invertebrates, birds and/or mammals if obligate/dependant relationship exists Chronic: NOEC (sheepshead) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC

Freshwater invertebrates Acute: Mortality

- EC 50 (D.magna) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC Terrestrial plants Chronic: Growth and Reproduction

- D.

magna life

- cycle No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC

Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates Acute: EC 50 ( Mysid shrimp ) No; RQs<LOC M A; RQs>LOC 5 Terrestrial plants

Chronic: NOAEC ( Mysid shrimp ) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC

Mammals Acute : Oral LD 50 (Wistar

- SLC rat) No; RQs<LOC M A; RQs>LOC 6 Terrestrial invertebrates, birds, reptiles, land

phase amphibians if obligate/dependant relationship exists; terrestrial plants Chronic : Growth, survival, and reproduction

- Multi

- gen rat study Dietary

- based

– No;

Dose

- based

– Yes

All RQs>LOC Dietary

- based

– M A 7 ; Dose

- based

– M A

- All RQs>LOC

Birds Acute: Oral LD 50 (Bobwhite quail)

Acute: Dietary LC 50 (bobwhite & mallard) Dose

- based

– No

RQs < LOC; Dietary

- based

- No

RQs < LOC Dietary

- based

– M A 7 ; Dose

- based

– M A 8 Terrestrial invertebrates or mammals if obligate/dependant relation ship exists; terrestrial plantsExecutive Summary

vi Taxonomic Group Effects Endpoint 2 Direct Effects 2 Indirect Effects Due to Direct Effect to: 3 Non

- listed Listed

Chronic : Growth, Survival, and Reproduction (bobwhite & mallard) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC

Herpatofauna Acute: Oral LD 50 (Bobwhite quail)

Acute: Dietary LC 50 (bobwhite & mallard) Dose

- based

- No

RQs < LOC; Dietary

- based

- No

RQs < LOC Dietary

- based

– M A 7 ; Dose

- based

– M A 9 Terrestrial invertebrates or mammals if obligate/dependant relationship exists; terrestrial plants Chronic : Growth, Survival, and Reproduction (bobwhite & mallard) No; RQs<LOC NE; RQs<LOC

Terrestrial invertebrates Acute: Contact LD 50 (honeybee) No NE Terrestrial plants

1 Although this preliminary assessment has, on a coarse biological geographical data set basis, identified potential concerns for effects on individuals of a listed species within the taxonomic group, it is possible that additional information and further analysis will lead to species

- specific determinations of no effect, may effect not likely to adversely affect, or may effect likely to adversely affect. Sections of the document describing additional information sou rces, coupled with considerations of uncertainties, are likely to figure prominently in species

- specific determinations.

2 Abbrevi ations: NE = No effect; M A = may affect.

3 Direct effects to species may result in indirect effects to other species by changing availability of prey, habitat, and othe r factors important to survival and reproduction.

4 A 23% reduction in tier 1 ryegrass emergence measure was identified in a submitted study with no corresponding tier 2 ryegrass study. To estimate an EC 05 value for ryegrass , the 23% reduction at 4.02 lbs/A treatment level and a ratio of EC 25 to NOAEL from plant data from another related fun gicide was used to

estimate an EC 05 for triflumizole The most conservative ratio of EC 25 to NOAEL is for propiconazol at for which the r atio of EC 25 to NOAEL is 2.99. A pplying

this value to the 4.02 lb/acre EC 25 estimate yields a listed species estimated e ffects threshold (EC 05 ) of 1.34 lb/acre for triflumizole

. 5 Only for ornamental and pineapple uses.

6 Only for apples and pears, cherries, and ornamental uses.

7 Only exceed for ornamentals under conservative assumptions. NE for other uses.

8 Only exceed for a pples and p ears
, cherries, c ucurbits

, hops, and ornamental uses under conservative assumptions. NE for other uses.

9 Only exceed for cherries and ornamental uses under conservative assumptions. NE for other uses.



### Table E.2. Potential Direct Effects to Listed and Non

- listed Terrestrial Taxa from Exposure to Triflumizole 1

Triflumizole

Use Listed Terrestrial Species Non

- listed Terrestrial Species
Application

Details Birds 2 Mammals

Plants Inverts Birds 2 Mammals

Plants Inverts Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Grapes N N N Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval Apples and

Pears 3 Y (S ) N Y (S,M ) Y (S,M,L) N N Y (S ) N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d intervalExecutive Summary

vii Triflumizole

Use Listed Terrestrial Species Non

- listed Terrestrial Species
Application

Details Birds 2 Mammals

Plants Inverts Birds 2 Mammals

Plants Inverts Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Cherries Y (S,M ) N Y (S,M ) Y (S,M,L) N N Y (S,M ) N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval

Cucurbits Y (S ) N N Y (S,M,L) N N Y (S ) N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d interval

Hazelnuts N N N Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval

Strawberries N N N Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval

Leafy Greens N N N Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval

Hops Y (S) N N Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval

Papaya N N N Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval

Ornamentals Y (S,M ) N Y (S,M,L) Y (S,M,L) N N N N N Y (S,M,L) N N 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval

1 Y= Potential direct effects; N = Potential direct effects not expected; N/A = not available (incomplete exposure pathway, thu s it was not analyzed); S, M or L indicate which size class is potentially affected; S = small bird (20 g) or mammal (15 g); M = m edium bird (100 g) or mammal (35 g); L = large bird (1000 g) or mammal (1000 g). For mammals, chronic size classes are for dose

- based exposure only. Dietary

- based acute and chronic exposure for birds and mammals is not evaluated using body weights. RQ v alues were determined for these specific weights only, therefore, it is expected that potential direct effects may exist betw een two size classes in which the lower size class exceeded the LOC but the next size class did not. Therefore, for example, if sm all birds (20 g) exceeded the LOC but medium birds (100 g) did not, then potential direct effects may exist for all birds less than 100 g at any life stage unt il it can be shown otherwise.

2 Birds are surrogates for terrestrial reptiles and land

- phase amph ibia ns.

3 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Table E. 3 . Potential Direct Effects to Listed and Non

- listed Aquatic Taxa from Exposure to Triflumizole 1

Triflumizole

Use Listed Aquatic Species Non

- listed Aquatic Species

Comments Freshwater Estuarine/Marine

Plants Freshwater Estuarine/Marine

Plants Fish Inverts Fish Inverts Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

A C A C A C A C Vascular Non

- Vas. A C A C A C A C Vascular Non

- Vas. Grapes N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NExecutive Summary

viii Triflumizole

Use Listed Aquatic Species Non

- listed Aquatic Species

Comments Freshwater Estuarine/Marine

Plants Freshwater Estuarine/Marine

Plants Fish Inverts Fish Inverts Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

A C A C A C A C Vascular Non

- Vas. A C A C A C A C Vascular Non

- Vas. 

### Apples and

Pears 2 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Cherries N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Cucurbits N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Hazelnuts (Filberts) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Strawberries N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Brassica Leafy

Greens Head, Stem

Brassicas Leafy Greens N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Hops N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Papayas N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ornamentals (landscape

grown ornamental trees, shrubs

and non

bearing apples, pears, and grapes) Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N FL nursery scenario only

Ornamentals (all) Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N FL nursery scenario only

Ornamentals (container

grown) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Ornamentals (bed

- grown) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Pineapples Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N GENEEC

1 Y= Potential direct effects under conservative assumptions; N = Potential direct effects not expected

2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.List of Tables

ix 

## E.3 Major Uncertainties

Certain data and/or information were not available to the Agency as it conducted the

preliminary ris k assessment for triflumizole. As such, certain assumptions/conclusions were

made based on the information/data that was available. This may have resulted in a potential

conservative approach to evaluating risk for some taxa. The Agency has identified thr ee major pieces of information it believes may help best resolve uncertainties.

The first concerns the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in aquatic

environments produced for the risk assessment. Because there was no aerobic aquatic

metabolism s tud y submitted by the registrant, the half

- life of this degradation pathway was

conservatively estimated as twice the 90 th 

### percentile confidence limit of the aerobic soil

metabolism half

- life. These studies were not requested in the registration review pro blem

formulation because aquatic risks had not been identified in previous risk assessments.

However, aquatic risks were identified in this assessment with a maximum aquatic risk

quotient (RQ) of 0.08, which only slightly exceeds the Agency’s level of conc ern of 0.05.

Potentially, submitting this study would allow less conservative EECs to be used in risk

assessment, which would likely alleviate aquatic listed species concerns.

The second major uncertainty involves the presence of a tier I ryegrass seedling emergence study that shows a statistically significant 23% reduction in biomass at the only concentration

tested without a corresponding tier II ryegrass seedling emergence study to identify an

estimate of the concentration where limited effects occur (EC 05). Conducting such a tier II

study would likely eliminate concerns for listed and non

- listed plant species.

The final major uncertainty involves the avian data against which avian and herpatofauna

risk is assessed. The avian acute dose and dietary studies produced non

- definitive endpoints

with the highest concentrations tested being insufficient to preclude risks at the EECs

predicted for some triflumizole uses. Re

- testing at higher concentrations would likely

alleviate avian listed species concerns

.



## E.4 Effect Area Distance Analysis

In order to determine terrestrial habitats of concern due to triflumizole exposures through

spray drift, it is necessary to estimate the distance that spray applications can drift from the

treated area and still be present at concentrations that exceed lev els of concern. An analysis

of spray drift distances was completed using the model AgDRIFT (Table E.3). As the

triflumizole application rate and/or frequency of use increases, so did the fraction of applied

residue expected to deposit off

- field and as a result, the more terrestrial birds and mammals,List of Tables

x 

### of larger size classes, are expected to be potentially exposed to triflumizole on acute and

chronic bases. Using AgDrift, a spray drift distance over which the LOC is exceeded was

estimated to be approximate ly 80 feet for chronic exposure to mammals from aerial

application of triflumizole on ornamentals; a distance of 100 feet was added to each AgDrift

calculation to account for the resolution uncertainty in the NLCD (national land class

designation) demarcat ion ( e.g ., AgDrift distance equals 850 feet, overall effect distance was

950 feet). For ground application for the same ornamental use, the spray drift distance is

approximately 360 feet (Table E.3).

Table E.3. Effect Distances Using AgDrift (excludes 10 0 feet addition for NLCD uncertainty)

Triflumizole Use Areial

or Ground Aerial Application Effect Distance (feet)*

Acute Bird Acute Herp Acute

Mammal Chronic Mammal Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 125 Apples and Pears 1

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval A 5 NA 0 >1000

G 5 NA 0 235

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval A 35 0 0 >1000

G 10 5 0 320

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d

interval A 0 NA NA >1000

G 0 NA NA 125

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 125

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/ 14

- d

interval A 0 NA NA >1000

G 0 NA NA 125 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 85 Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval A 0 NA NA >1000

G 0 NA NA 125 Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 125

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d

interval A 80 0 15 >1000

G 15 5 5 360

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.List of Tables

xi 

## Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction ...............................................................................1 Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment. ..................................................................19 Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

. ..............................................................38 Chapter 4 Risk Characterization

... ...... ............................. ............................. 53 Chapter 5 Uncertainties

.............................................................. .............. 78 Chapter 6 References

............................................................................... 82

Appendix A Chemical Name and Structure of Triflumizole and its Degradates of Potential

Concern

........................................................ ..................... ....................... 84 Appendix B MARC Memorandum

– D280869

. ..................................................8 6 Appendix C Representative PRZM/EXAM Output

– FL Nursery Scenario representing Landscape

- Grown Ornamentals (Aerial Application)

..... ......................................... 91 Appendix D Foliar Dissapation Half

- life Data (Used in T

- REX Modeling)

. ................. 93 Appendix E Risk Quotients for Taxa and Risk Categories that Did Not Exceed LOCs for any Scenario

............. .................................................................................. 98 Appendix F MRID Bibliography

............................................ ... .................... 107 Appendix G The Risk Quotient (RQ) Method and LOCs

..... ............ .............. ........ 11 4 Appendix H TerrPlant O utput

............... ................................. .................... .. 116 Appendix I T

- Rex Output

............... .................................... .............. ...... . .. 117 Appendix J Listed Species Analysis

.. ...................................... ..................... .. 121 Appendix K ECOTOX Open Literature That Passed Initial Screen

. .................. ... ..... 152



## List of Figures

Figure 1 2002 Estimated annual agricultural use for Triflumizole (Source: USGS).

.............. 7 Figure 2 Ecological Conceptual Model for Triflumizole from Ground and Aerial Foliar Application to Terrestrial Environments

................................ ................................ ......... 14 Figure 3. Ecological Conceptual Model for Impacts of Triflumizole Applications on Aquatic

Environments

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15



## List of Tables

Table 1. Current Registrations of Triflumizole

................................ ................................ ........ 4 Table 2. Current Registered Uses of Triflumizole

................................ ................................ ... 4 Table 3. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Triflumizole (prepared Dec. 19, 2007)

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6

Table 4. PRZM/E XAMS Input Parameters for Triflumizole

................................ ................ 21

Table 5. GENEEC Input Parameters for Triflumizole for Pineapple Use

............................. 25

Table 6. Triflumizole Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) 1 

### for Surface Water based on selected Crop Scenarios

................................ ................................ .................... 26List of Tables

xii 

### Table 7. Calculation of foliar dissapation half

- life for use as input to T

- REX and T

- HERPS

model.

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 30

Table 8. Scenarios Used for T

- REX and T

- HERPS Modeling for Foliar Application for Some of the Registered Crops 1



### ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 Table 9. Input Parameters for TREX Modeling for Some of the Scenarios

.......................... 31

Table 10. Avian Dose

- Based Triflumizole Upper Bound EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

................................ ................................ ............... 32

Table 11. Mammalian Dose

- Based Triflumizole Upper Bound EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

................................ ................................ ............... 33 Table 12. Herpatofauna Dose

- Based Triflumizole Upper Bound EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

................................ ................................ ............... 34 Table 13 Avian, Mammalian, and Herpatofauna Dietary

- Based Triflumizole EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

................................ ................................ 35 Table 14. Equations for Calculating EECs to Off

- Site Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Areas 36 Table 15 Input Parameters for TerrPlant v1.2.2 Used for Modeling Runoff and Spray Drift Loading to Off

- Field Terrestrial And Semi

- Aquatic Areas Adjacent to a Treated Field 37 Table 16. Estimated Triflumizole Loading to Off

- Site Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Areas Adjacent to a Treated Field for Applications to Maximum Food and Non

- food Crops

. 37

Table 17. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected to Evaluate Risk to Birds

and Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 39

Table 18. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected To Evaluate Risk to Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians 1



### ................................ ................................ ............................ 44

Table 19. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected To Evaluate Risk to Aquatic

Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 47

Table 20. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected to Evaluate Risk to Aquatic

and Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49 Table 21. Upper bound acute dose

- based RQ values for birds for foliar application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label rates

................ 53 Table 22 Upper bound acute dietary

- based RQ values for birds for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of regist ered label rates

................ 55 Table 23. Upper bound acute dose

- based RQ values for herpatofauna for application of

triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label rates

................ 56 Table 24 Upper bound acute dietary

- based RQ values for herpatofauna for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label rates

................ 58 Table 25. Upper bound acute dose

- ba sed RQ values for mammals for application of selected

triflumizole uses

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 59 Table 26. Upper bound chronic dose

- based RQ values for mammals for application of

triflumizole on food and non

- food crops

................................ ................................ ......... 60 Table 27 Mammalian Dietary

- Based Triflumizole RQ Values for M ultiple Application Rates for Various Crops

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 62 Table 28 RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to triflumizole through spray drift based on the seedling emergence study

................................ ......................... 64 Table 29. Acute RQ values for freshwater fish and estuarine

- marine invertebrates based on acute exposure concentrations in receiving water. Only scenarios indicating risk are presented. (All scenarios evaluated are presented in Appendix Table E

- 2.)

................... 64 Table 30 Probit Slope a nd Odds of Mortality for an Individual at the LOC

......................... 65List of Tables

xiii 

### Table 31. Comparison of the highest calculated dietary EEC from application o f triflumizole to the highest tested concentration with no effect for the sub

- acute avian dietary toxicity study.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 6 7

Table 32. Comparison of the highest calculated dietary EEC from application of triflumizole to the highest tested concentration with no effect for the sub

- acute avian dietary toxicity study.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 67 Table 33. Comparison of selected small and large insect EECs from foliar application of triflumizole to the extrapolated acute contact honeybee concentration

.......................... 69 Table 34 Summary of Indirect and Direct Effects to Listed Species and Preliminary Effects

Determination for Triflumizole Uses

................................ ................................ .............. 71 Table 35. Effect Distances Using AgDrift (excludes 100 feet addition due to NLCD uncertainty)

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 74 Table 36. Species Potentially Affected both Directly and Indirectly

................................ .. 121 Table 37. Species Potentially Affected Directly Only

................................ ......................... 148List of Abbreviated Terms

xiv 

## List of Abbreviated Terms and Symbols

@ symbol for “at”

# symbol for “number”

% symbol for “percent”

> symbol for “greater than”

< symbol for “less than”

μg/kg symbol for “micrograms per kilogram”

μg/L symbol for “micrograms per liter”

μCi Microcurie

oC symbol for “degrees Celsius”

a.i. active ingredient

Acc# accession number

Al 3+ 

### Aluminum ion

BEAD Biological and Economical Analysis Division

Bw body weight

CA California

CAL DPR California Pesticide Use Report

CI confidence interval

CL confidence limit

DP# Data Package

EC Emulsifiable concentrate

EC 05 

### 5% effect concentration

EC 25 

### 25% effect concentration

EC 50 

### 50% (or median) effect concentration

ECOTOX EPA managed database

EEC estimated environmental concentration

EFED Environmental Fate and Effects Division

e.g

. Latin exempli gratia (“for example”)

et al. Latin et alii (“and others”)

etc. Latin et cetera (“and the rest” or “and so forth”)

FESTF FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force

FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FL Florida

FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

Ft FeetList of Abbreviated Terms

xv 

### G Gram

GENEEC Generic Estimated Exposure Concentration model

H 3 

### PO 3 

### phosphorous acid

IC 05 

### 5% inhibition concentration

IC 50 

### 50% (or median) inhibition concentration

ID Idaho

i.e

. Latin for id est (“that is”)

IMS Information Management System

Kg kilogram(s)

Km kilometer(s)

K
oc 

### symbol for the organic carbon partitioning coefficient

LAA likely to adversely affect

Lbs Pounds

lb a.i./acre pound(s) of active ingredient per acre

LC 50 

### 50% (or median) lethal concentration

LD 50 

### 50% (or median) lethal dose

LOAEC lowest observable adverse effect concentration

LOAEL lowest observable adverse effect level

LOC level of concern

LOD level of detection

LOEC lowest observable effect concentration

K
ow 

### symbol for the octanol water partitioning coefficient

LOQ level of quantitation

LUIS label use information system

M meter(s)

MA may affect

MATC maximum acceptable toxicant concentration

m 2 

### /day square meters per days

Mg milligram(s)

mg/kg milligrams per kilogram (equivalent to ppm, except in the case of discussing dose such as mg/kg

- bw)

mg/L milligrams per liter (equivalent to ppm)

MJD Multi

- Jurisdictional Database (located in NatureServe)

Mi mile( s)

MM May Modify Primary Constituent Element

MM/NSF May Modify Primary Constituent Element/No ShapefileList of Abbreviated Terms

xvi 

### mmHg millimeter of mercury

MRID master record identification number

MW molecular weight

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

NE no effect

NLAA not likely to adversely affect

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAEC no observable adverse effect concentration

NOAEL no observable adverse effect level

NOEC no observable effect concentration

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

OR Oregon

pH symbol for the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in an aqueous solution, dimensionless

pKa symbol for the negative logarithm of the acid dissociation constant, dimensionless

PO 3 3

- 

### Phosphite ion

Ppb parts per billion (equivalent to μg/L or μg/kg)

Ppm parts per million (equivalent to mg/L or mg/kg)

SLUA Screening level usage analysis

Sq Square

T 1/2 

### Half

- life (for time)

UCL upper confidence limit

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WA Washington

WDG water

- dispersible granule

WP wettable powder

Wt WeightChapter 1 Introduction

1 

# Chapter 1 Introduction

Purpose of Assessment

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential risk to populations of federally

endangered and threatened (listed) species and the potential risk to species that are not

federally endangered or threatened (non

- listed) species from exposure to triflumi zole from its

registered uses. This risk assessment incorporates the latest effects data, modeling, and risk

methodologies that may not have been available at the time triflumizole reg istration actions

occurred. Risks from direct and indirect effects are derived and evaluated in accordance with

the risk assessment methodology described in the Agency’s Ov erview Document (USEPA,

2004). These risk findings are then used as part of an “effe cts dete rmination” for listed

species. The Agency will reach one of the following three conclusions regarding the potential

for the registered triflumizole use on food and non

- food crops to affect federally listed

species:

• “No effect”;

• “May affect, but no t likely to adversely affect”; or

• “May affect, and likely to adversely affect”.

If the results of the risk assessment show no indirect effects and the levels of concern (LOC)

are not exceeded for direct effects for a given listed species taxonomic groupin g ( e.g ., freshwater fish, small herbivorous mammal), a “no effect” (NE) determination is made,

based on triflumizole’s use within the action area for “species” w ith the given taxonomic

group. If, however, there is a potential for indirect effects and/or ex posure exceeds the listed

species LOC values for direct effects for a given group, the Agency concludes a preliminary

“may affect” (MA) “species” within the taxonomic group. The Agency then considers

additional lines of evidence such as the geographical n ature of the exposure, as well as more

in

- depth evaluations of the toxicological and ecological requirements to determine a rationale

for a “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) or “likely to adversely affect” (LAA)

determination.

Similarly the Agency wi ll reach one of the following conclusions regarding the potential for

triflumizole uses to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat:

• “No effect”;Chapter 1 Introduction

2 

### • “ May Modify Primary Constituent Elements”

The Agency uses the risk assessment analy sis for direct effects to categories of biological

resource requirements to draw conclusions about effects to principle constituent elements of

critical habitat. The Agency is limited in a practical sense, to those principle constituent

elements of critic al habitat that are of a biological nature. If the results of the risk assessment

show that no LOC is exceeded for all taxonomic groups

, a “no effect” (NE) determination for

habitat modification is made. If a LOC is exceeded for one or more taxonomic gro upings

, the Agency then considers additional lines of evidence such as the type and degree of effect

on the taxonomic groupings, expected resultant effects on biologically mediated

environmental processes ( e.g ., increased sedimentation from loss of vegetation) as compared

to baseline environmental conditions, co

- occurrence of the action area with critical habitat,

the type of principle constituent elements associated with critical habitat for listed species in

a taxonomic grouping to determine a rati onale for a “may modify primary constituent

elements”.



## Problem Formulation

The problem formulation for this assessment and effects determination was provided in the

EFED Problem Formulation for Triflumizole Registration Review document of March 22,

2007. All submitted data and other information for triflumizole is listed the MRID

bibliography in Appendix F

.

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticides

distributed or sold in the United States generally must be regist ered by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). To determine whether a pesticide can be

registered, the U.S. EPA evaluates its safety to non

- target species based on a wide range of

environmental and health effects studies. In 1996, FIFRA was amended by the Food Quality

Protection Act (FQPA), and EPA was mandated to implement a new program for the

periodic review of pesticides, i.e ., registration review 1 

### . The registration review program is

intended to ensure that, as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices

change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable

adverse effects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, public policy, and

pesticide use practic es will occur over time. Through the new registration review program,

the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as change occurs, products

in the marketplace can be used safely.

1 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/Chapter 1 Introduction

3 

### 1.0.1 Previous Risk Assessments

Triflumizole was first registered in 1989 and as a result was not subject to review under the

reregistration process recently completed under FIFRA and FQPA as of August 3, 2006 for

chemicals registered prior to 1984. Consequently, a Reregistration Eligibi lity Decision

(RED) was not issued. The risk assessments available in the docket, and which serve as the

basis for this problem formulation, include the following:

• February 07, 2006 Section 3 assessment for newl y proposed uses on Filberts

(D3 12295)

• March 0 3, 2002 Tier I Estimated Drinking Water Assessment for Triflum izole

including Degradates (D28 1356)

• May 21, 2001 Section 3 assessment for newly proposed uses on Cherries,

Strawberries, Cucurbits, and Ornamentals (D242426).

Risks, as identified in these asse ssments, are:

1. For mammals: Chronic risk to mammals, based on a 1 lb a.i./A per season use (filbert) (RQ of 0.34 to 53). Acute and chronic risks exist for 2

- 3 lb a.i./A per season

uses (grapes and cherries); the RQs ranged from <0.01 to 0.21 for acute risk and from

1 to 150 for chronic risk.

2. For freshwater fish: Endangered Species LOCs are exceeded on an acute basis.

3. For birds, since acute endpoints could not be established, triflumizole was

characterized as practically non toxic to birds, and acute risk to birds was not

assumed. However, if the no n

- definitive values of LD 50 

### =25 10 ppm and LC 50 

### = 5620

ppm were used in the modeling, acute risk LOC exceedences exist for birds with

cherr ies uses (RQs of <0.01 to 0.33).

1.0.2 Stressor Source and Distribution

M ECHANISM OF 

### A CTION



### Triflumizole ([1

- [I

- ((4

- chloro

- 2(trifluoromethyl) phenyl)imino)

- 2

- propoxyethyl]

- 1H

Imidazole]; CAS 68694

- 1 1

- 1) is an imidazole that is effective in inhibiting ergosterol

biosynthesis in fungi. Many fungi must synthesize ergosterol which is a com pound needed

for the stabilization of membranes that make up cell walls.Chapter 1 Introduction

4 

### O VERVIEW OF 

### P ESTICIDE 

### U SAGE



### Triflumizole use sites include: apple, cherry, christmas tree plantations, conifers (seed orchard), cucumber, filbert (hazelnut), gherkin, go urds, grapes, melons, (musk melons and

water melons) , ornamental and/or shade trees, ornamental herbaceous plants, ornamental nonflowering plants, ornamental woody shrubs and vines, pear, pineapple, pumpkin, squash (summer and winter), and strawberry ( Table 1 )

.

Table 1 . Current Registrations of Triflumizole

Product 

### Name EPA Registration

Number (latest label date) Active Ingredients

(% w/w) Crops

Procure 50W 400

- 431 (4/26/2004) Triflumizole

50% Apple, Cherry, Cucumber, Gherkin, Gourds, Grapes, Melons (Musk and Water), Pear, Pineapple, Pumpkin, Squash (Summer and Winter), and Strawberry

Terraguard 50W 400

- 433 (4/27/2006) Triflumizole

50% Christmas Tree Plantations, Conifers (Seed Orchard), Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Ornamental Herbaceous Plants, Ornamental Nonflowering Plants, and Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines

Procure 50 WDG 400

- 489 (12/4/2001) Triflumizole

50% Apple, Grapes, and Pear

Terraguard (WP) 400

- 502 (2/20/2004) Triflumizole

50% Apple, Grapes, Ornamental and/or Shade Trees, Ornamental Woody Shrubs and Vines, and Pear

Procure 480SC 400

- 518 (9/26/2006) Triflumizole

42.14% Apple, Cherry, Cucumber, Filbert (Hazelnut), Gherkin, Gourds, Grapes, Melons (Musk and Water), Pear, Pineapple,

Pumpkin, Squash (Summer and Winter), and Strawberry

Terraguard SC 400

- 521 (8/2/2005) Triflumizole

42.7% Christmas Tree Plantations

, Conifers (Seed Orchard)

, Ornamental And/Or Shade Trees

, Ornamental Herbaceous

Plants

, Ornamental Nonflowering Plants , and Ornamental Woody Shrubs And Vines W or WP refers to “wettable powder”; WDG refers to “water dispersible granules”; SC refers to “suspended

concentrate”.



### The label

- specified application characteristics of the currently registered triflumizole uses are

presented in Table 2

.

Table 2 . Current Registered Uses of Triflumizole

Crop Applicatio

n rate (lbs a.i./A) Number of Applications Seas onal Application

Rate (lbs a.i./A) Application

Interval

(days) Application Method Reg #

Apple 1 0.125 to 0.5 NS (Assumed to be 4) 2 7 Aircraft, Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume

ground sprayer, Sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 489, 400

- 502,

400

- 518

Cherry 0.5 NS (Assumed to be 6) 3 7 Aircraft, Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Christmas

Tree

Plantations 0.0625 to 1 NS to 4 NS NS to 14 Drencher, Hand held spray wand, High volume ground

sprayer, Microtube, Mist sprayer, Sprinkler irrigation 400

- 433, 400

- 521Chapter 1 Introduction

5 Crop Applicatio

n rate (lbs a.i./A) Number of Applications Seas onal Application

Rate (lbs a.i./A) Application

Interval

(days) Application Method Reg #

Conifers (Seed Orchard) 0.0625 to 1 NS to 4 NS NS to 14 Drencher, Hand held spray wand, High volume ground

sprayer, Microtube, Mist sprayer, Sprinkler irrigation 400

- 433, 400

- 521

Cucumber 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 5) 1.25 7 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Filbert (Hazelnut) 0.1875 NS (Assumed to be 5+) 1 10 Aircraft, Ground 400

- 518

Gherkin 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 5) 1.25 7 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Gourds 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 5) 1.25 7 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Grapes 0.125 to

0.25 NS 1 7 to 14 Ground, Sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 489, 400

- 502,

400

- 518

Melons 0.25 NS 1.25 7 High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground sprayer 400

- 431

Melons (Musk and Water) 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 5) 1.25 7 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Ornamental

And/Or

Shade

Trees 0.0625 to 1 NS to 4 NS to 3 NS to 14 Drencher, Hand held spray wand, High volume ground

sprayer, Microtube, Mist sprayer, Sprayer, Sprinkler irrigation 400

- 433, 400

- 502, 400

- 521

Ornamental

Herbaceous

Plants 0.0625 to 1 NS to 4 NS NS to 14 Drencher, , Hand held spray wand, High volume ground

sprayer, Microtube, Mist sprayer, Sprinkler irrigation 400

- 433, 400

- 521

Ornamental

Nonfloweri ng Plants 0.0625 to 1 NS to 4 NS NS to 14 Drencher, , Hand held spray wand, High volume ground

sprayer, Microtube, Mist sprayer, Sprinkler irrigation 400

- 433, 400

- 521

Ornamental Woody

Shrubs And

Vines 0.0625 to 1 NS to 4 NS to 3 NS to 14 Drencher, Hand held spray wand, High volume ground

sprayer, Microtube, Mist sprayer, Sprayer, Sprinkler irrigation 400

- 433, 400

- 502, 400

- 521

Pear 1 0.125 to 0.5 NS 2 7 Aircraft, Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume

ground sprayer, Sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 489, 400

- 502,

400

- 518

Pineapple 2.0 Assumed to

be 1 NA NA Dipper 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Pumpkin 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 5) 1.25 7 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518Chapter 1 Introduction

6 Crop Applicatio

n rate (lbs a.i./A) Number of Applications Seas onal Application

Rate (lbs a.i./A) Application

Interval

(days) Application Method Reg # Squash (Summer and Winter) 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 4) 1.25 7 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

Strawberry 0.25 NS (Assumed to be 4) 1 14 Ground, High volume ground sprayer, Low volume ground

sprayer 400

- 431, 400

- 518

NS=not specified on label

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### A major source of uncertainty in this assessment was due to label language which did not specify

the m aximum number of applications for some uses ( Table 2 ) and application rates that could not

be converted into lbs a.i./acre. (These problems occurred almos t exclusively on the TerraGuard

labels. This affected assumptions regarding exposure pathways and the magnitude and spatial

extent of residues off the treated site.

An average of ~83,000 pounds of triflumizole is applied in the United States each year. The

majority is applied to apples (30,000 lbs), cherries (10,000 lbs), grapes (20,000 lbs), and pears

(10,000 lbs) ( Table 3 )

.

Table 3

. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Triflumizole (prepared Dec. 19,

2007 )

Crop lbs a.i. Percent Crop Ttd. Avg. Max. Apples 30,000 20 35 Cantaloupes 2,000 10 15

Cherries 10,000 15 20

Cucumbers <500 <1 <2.5
Cucumbers, Pickles 1,000 5 5 Grapes 20,000 5 10 Hazelnuts (Filberts) 1,000 15 40 Honeydew 1,000 15 25

Pears 10,000 40 55 Pumpkins 1,000 5 10 Squash <500 <1 <2.5

Strawberries 4,000 15 25

Watermelons 2,000 5 5

All numbers rounded.

‘<500’ = Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient ‘<2.5’ = Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated ‘<1’ = Less than 1 percent of crop treated

SLUA Data sources include:

USDA

- NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National A gricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research NCFAP 97 (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy),Chapter 1 Introduction

7 NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America Foundation California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.



### Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the spatial distribution of triflumizole use acros s the

United States in terms of pounds of triflumizole applied per square mile of agricultural land in

each county. The map was downloaded from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Water

Quality Asse ssment Program (NAWQA) website. The tabulated data i ncluded in this figure is

older, but similar in magnitude to the SLUA estimates presented above.

Figure 1 2002 Estimated annual agricultural use for Triflumizole (Source: USGS 2 

### )

.

1.0.3 Environmental Fate and Transport

S UMMARY OF 

### E NVIRONMENTAL 

### F ATE



### Triflumizole and its degradates containing the 4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl aniline moiety

were considered in this assessment. During the Health Effects Division’s Metabolism

Assessment and Review Committee (MARC) meeting (D280869

– Appen dix C ), the MARC

2 http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=02&map=m2025Chapter 1 Introduction

8 

### committee did not exclude the possible toxicological concern for the metabolites containing

the 4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl aniline moiety. The half

- lives for anaerobic aquatic

metabolism, aerobic soil metabolism, hydrolysis and photolysis were calculated collectively

for the parent and these degradates of concern. The estimated environmental concentrations

represent the degradates containing the 4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl aniline moiety namely,

FD

- 1

- 1, FM

- 6

- 1, FA

- 1

- 1, FM

- 5

- 1, FM

- 3

- 1, FD

- 2

- 1, and FM

- 8

- 1 along with the parent

compound. For chemical names, structures, and total toxic residue (TTR) half

- life

calculations, refer to Appendix A

.

Triflumizole is not likely to be persistent under most environmental conditions and, except

for soils in a sand textural class with low organic material, unlikely to be very mobile.

Triflumizole degradates may be more persistent than the parent based on the longer half

- lives

for the combined residue. The half

- lives derived for aquatic photolysis, soil p hotolysis,

aerobic soil metabolism, and aerobic aquatic metabolism for total residues correspond to 12.7

days, 8 days, 44 days, and 142 days respectively. The relatively high K OC 

### values in non

- sand

soils and the moderate adsorption characteristics in sand y soils with organic carbon content

greater than one percent suggest that triflumizole has low potential to reach groundwater in

most soils. However, triflumizole may present leaching potential in vulnerable soils. The

K OC 

### values for the degradate, FD

- 1

- 1, suggest that it is more mo bile than the parent

compound.

Surface water contamination is the result of runoff and spray drift from labeled applications,

and the magnitude is largely dependent on the use patterns and environmental fate and

transport char acteristics of the pesticide.



## Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

1.0.4 Active Ingredient

The major pathways of triflumizole degradation appear to be hydrolysis under acidic and

alkaline conditions (t 1/2 

### of 8.9 days at pH 5.0; t 1/2 

### of 3.9 days at pH 9.0), photolysis (t 1/2 

### of 2

- 3 days), anaerobic aquatic metabolism (t 1/2 

### of 7.7 days in a total water

- sediment system), and

to lesser extent aerobic soil metabolism (t 1/2 

### of 18 days). Triflumizole is not likely to be

persistent under most environment al conditions. It is unlikely to be very mobile (K OC 

### range 1286 to 4114) except for soils in a sand textural class (K OC 

### = 289) with low organic material.

Based on the laboratory and field study findings it has potential to reach groundwater underChapter 1 Introduction

9 

### vulnera ble soil conditions (sandy soils).

Triflumizole is converted to several degradates containing the 4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

aniline moiety during hydrolysis, photolysis as well as during aerobic soil metabolism and

anaerobic aquatic metabolism.

Triflu mizole photolyzed relatively rapidly under simulated sunlight conditions in water

buffered to pH 7 (aqueous photolysis) but slightly longer in a soil photolysis study in a sandy

loam soil (t 1/2 

### of 16.5 days). Triflumizole hydrolyzed in buffered water with calculated half

lives of 8.9, 64.6 and 3.9 days at pH 5, 7 and 9, respectively. The major degradate of

hydrolysis was found to be FD

- 1

- 1. No photolysis and hydrolysis data are available for

triflumizole degradates.

In a laboratory aerobic soil metabolis m study, triflumizole degraded with a half

- life of 18

days. The major soil metabolite was identified as FA

- 1

- 1 with minor metabolites comprising

of FD

- 1

- 1 and FM

- 6

- 1. In an anaerobic aquatic metabolism study triflumizole degraded with

half

- life of 7.7 da ys in a pond water

- sandy loam sediment system to FA

- 1

- 1 and M

- 1

, while

the majority of FA

- 1

- 1 appears to volatilize. No soil metabolism and aquatic metabolism

data are available for triflumizole degradates.

Laboratory soil mobility studies (batch equil ibrium and column leaching) indicate that

triflumizole has slightly mobile to relatively immobile characteristics depending upon the

type of soil and organic matter content. The reported Freundlich K D 

### values for sand, sandy

loam, silt loam, and clay soils were 1.5, 7.6

- 63.3, 25.4, and 79.4, respectively. The

corresponding K OC 

### values for sand, sandy loam, silt loam, and clay soils were 289, 1286

- 1993, 4113, and 2812, respectively. The low K D 

### of 1.5 in the sandy soil (organic matter

content <1%) suggests t hat triflumizole is mobile under those conditions. The batch

equilibrium studies on triflumizole degradate FD

- 1

- 1 suggests that it is more mobile than the

parent compound (K OC 

### : 33.6

- 961.2 for the FD

- 1

- 1). However, field studies conducted on

sand and sand y loam soils indicated that triflumizole and its metabolites did not leach in soil

depths below 12 inches.

Laboratory findings for triflumizole are in agreement with field dissipation studies with

regard to soil metabolism half

- life (18 days) and abiotic degradation rates at similar

environmental conditions (pH and photoperiod) in the laboratory. In a series of cropped andChapter 1 Introduction

10 

### non

- cropped terrestrial field dissipation studies, triflumizole dissipated with half

- lives of less

than 8 days following soil and foli ar applications at 0.5 lb ai/acre. No triflumizole or

degradates were found below the 6

- to 12

- inch soil layer. The major degradate found in all

studies was FM

- 6

- 1 at 0.21 ppm. FA

- 1

- 1 and FD

- 1

- 1 were identified at <0.02

- 0.08 ppm.

These studies indicate that triflumizole rapidly dissipated under field conditions similar to

normal product use.

In other two bare ground terrestrial field dissipation studies (California and North Carolina),

triflumizole and triflumizole degradates, FA

- 1

- 1, FD

- 1

- 1, and FM

- 6

- 1 were studied, and

results were reported as FA

- 1

- 1 total residues. Trifumizole was applied 8 times at 7

- day

intervals at a rate of 0.25 lbs. a.i./acre. Total residue half

- lives (expressed as FA

- 1

- 1

equivalents) were estimated to be 102 days in the Calif ornia study and 133 days in the North

Carolina study. Triflumizole residues were not seen below the 6

- to 12

- inch soil layer and

only at very low concentrations, equal to or slightly above the level of detection (LOD) or

0.01 ppm. Pan evaporation data we re not supplied. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that

leaching below the 6

- to 12

- inch soil layer is unlikely because the site water balance may not

have been conducive to promote leaching. The analytical method selected did not permit the

determi nation of individual species, parent and each degradate. However, these data and the

data from the previous terrestrial field dissipation studies might suggest that triflumizole

dissipates rather quickly, but triflumizole degradates may be more persistent based on the

longer half

- lives for the combined residue studies.

Triflumizole does not ap pear to bioaccumulate in fish. BCFs for edible, nonedible, and whole

fish were 107x, 75 8x, and 393x, respectively. By day 14 of depura t ion, 70%, 93% and 90%

of the 14C

- residues present on exposure day 28 in the edible tissue, non

- edible tissue and

whole fish, respectively, had been eliminated. The h alf

- life of the 14 

### C

- residues present in the

tissues of bluegill at termination of exposure occurred within the first 3 d ays of depuration.

1.0.5 B. Total Residues

As mentioned, the total toxic residue (TTR) approach was utilized in this assessment since

the HED’s MARC committee has not excluded the possible toxicological concern for the

metabolites containing the 4

- chloro

- 2

- trif luoromethyl aniline moiety. Therefore, the half

lives for anaerobic aquatic metabolism, aerobic soil metabolism, hydrolysis and photolysis

were calculated collectively for the parent and the degradates of concern which are the

metabolites containing the 4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl aniline moiety. The half

- lives derived

for aquatic photolysis, soil photolysis, aerobic soil metabolism, and anaerobic aquaticChapter 1 Introduction

11 

### metabolism for total residues (parent and its degradates) correspond to 12.7 days, 8 days, 44

days, an d 142 days (in a total water

- sediment system), respectively. These data suggest that

triflumizole and triflumizole degradates are moderately persistent in the environment. The

total residue levels during hydrolysis at all pH conditions are very stable (h alf

- life of several

months to years). However, in the environment the microbial degradation pathways might

have a greater influence than the abiotic pathways and therefore, the total residues appear

moderately stable in the environment.

The registrant s ubmitted a mobility study for one of triflumizole degradates, FD

- 1

- 1. The

degradate K OC 

### values suggest that it is more mobile than the parent compound. The Freundlich

K D 

### and K OC 

### values for FD

- 1

- 1 range from 0.178

- 13.8 and 33.6

- 961.2, respectively. The K oc input parameter utilized in PRZM/EXAM and GENEEC modeling was the average Koc value

based on all parent and degradate (F D

- 1

- 1) data values. A recently submitted anaerobic aquatic

metabolism study suggests that FA

- 1

- 1 may dissipate though volatilization . In this study,

organic volatiles as extracted from the PUF plugs were mainly made up of FA

- 1

- 1; i.e. 50.6% of

the applied at study termination (365 days after application).

In this assessment, in modeling aquatic EECs, the modeling input parameters we re calculated for

a total residues (triflumizole and its degradates). Detailed information on how the individual

modeling input parameters were derived can be obtained from the TTR calculations in Appendix

A

.

1.0.6 Receptors

The aquatic receptors likely to be exposed to triflumizole include fish, invertebrates, aquatic

stages of amphibians and plants living in waterways adjacent to or downstream from treated

areas.

Terrestrial receptors likely to be exposed to triflumizole include birds, mammals, reptiles,

terr estrial stages of amphibians, insects, and other invertebrates that may occur in treated fields

and terrestrial plants and animals adjacent to, or down slope from treated areas.

The registrant submitted studies are summarized in Appendix F.

Open literature studies from the ECOTOX database were reviewed for inclusion into the risk

assessment. All acceptable papers (with a short explanation of why they were not used) and

papers that were not acceptable are listed in Appendix K

. However, none of the open literature

papers on triflumizole provided useable information for this risk assessment.Chapter 1 Introduction

12 

### The triflumizole effects data and the values used in the risk assessment and effects determination

are summarized in Chapter 3

.

I NCIDENT 

### D ATABASE 

### R EVIEW



### A review (May 2 nd 

### , 2012) of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1),

which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide P rograms, and the Avian Monitoring

Information System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, identified

no ecological incidents associated with the use of triflumizole.

D ATA 

### G APS 

### I DENTIFIED IN THE 

### P ROBLEM 

### F ORMULATION



### Below is the preliminary identification of data gaps for the fate and ecological assessment as

identified in the Registration Review Problem Formulation for triflumizole (USEPA 2007):

• 

## Chronic estuarine/marine fish study: a registrant

- submitted study was determined

inva lid due to the statistically

- different values from solvent.

• 

## Marine diatom study: a submitted study classified as supplemental because the initial cell density was greater than required. This taxon (marine diatom) represented the most sensitive species for non

- vascular plants.

• 

## Anaerobic aquatic metabolism study: At the time of the problem formulation this study had not been submitted. The results of the submitted study (MRID 47136403) have been incorporated into this assessment.

• 

## Aerobic aquatic metabolism study: study not submitted.

• 

## Foliar dissipation residue data: The registrant provided a greenhouse foliar dissipation study (MRID 48244601). The measured foliar dissipation half

- life was 25 days. The results of this study are discussed in Chapter 2 and Appe ndix D

.

E COSYSTEMS 

### P OTENTIALLY AT 

### R ISK



### The ecosystems that could be potentially at risk due to the use of triflumizole include terrestrial

and aquatic (lakes, ponds, streams) habitats in proximity to triflumizole use areas. These habitats

may be at risk f rom drift and/or runoff of triflumizole from use areas. The estuarine/marine

ecosystems are likely at less risk since they are typically further from agricultural areas and are

characterized by large volumes of water. However, in some areas adjacent to est uarine/marine

environments where agriculture dominates the landscape, risks to estuarine/marine ecosystems

cannot be excluded.

Organisms of concern include birds, mammals, reptiles, fish, and terrestrial and aquatic

invertebrates, plants, and amphibians. T he assessment endpoints are intended to reflect

population sustainability and community structure within ecosystems and hence relate back toChapter 1 Introduction

13 

### ecosystems at risk. If risks are expected for given species/taxa based on the screening

- level

assessment, then risk s might be expected to translate to higher levels of biological organization.

Identifying specific ecosystems at risk in a screening

- level assessment is beyond the scope of the

effort.

1.0.7 Conceptual Model

The conceptual model used to depict the potential ecological risk associated with triflumizole is

generic and assumes that as a fungicide, triflumizole can affect terrestrial and aquatic organisms

if environmental concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a resul t of the proposed label uses.

D iagram s of the conceptual model s are presented for terrestrial ( Figure 2 ) and aquatic (Figure 3)

environments . All of the use scenarios for triflumizole except pineapple involve spray

applications of the pesticide to foliage such as; ground, aerial, high and low vol ume ground

sprayers, hand held wand, mist spr ayer and sprinkler irrigation. Pineapple is only treated as

“pineapple sections” using a dipper, which are subsequently planted in the ground. In addition to

foliar applications, t riflumizole may also be applied through soil applications to ornamental trees

and other ornamental plants by soil drench or microtubes. Although not evident from the

diagram, triflumizole degradation prior to runoff is explicitly considered. Runoff includes

transport of triflumizole and its degradates in a dissolved state as well as triflumizole and its

degradates adsorbed to eroded sediment.

Because there are multiple spray applications of the pesticide to foliage for several labeled use

patterns, degradation on the foliage between appl ications is considered in the terrestrial

assessments. For aquatic assessments, the microbial degradation on foliage is assumed stable, but

wash

- off of the foliage will be considered using the default wash

- off coefficient assumption of

0.5 cm - 1 

### . Spray drif t will be directly considered in the aquatic assessments as a route of loading

to the pond, with higher levels of spray drift for aerial applications than ground spray

applications.

For terrestrial assessments, spray drift is not directly considered. Howev er, since the evaluation

of risk is done for on

- field foliage, non

- target foliage receiving spray drift should reduce

pesticide loading and the assessment based on the on

- field residues which would represent an

upper bound estimate. A variety of food types (i.e., short grass, long grass, broadleaf plants, etc.)

will be assessed regardless of the type represented by the target crop, as a variety of food types

will exist on and off the treated field.

In the aquatic environment, once triflumizole reaches a wat er body, the pesticide is partitioned

between the water column, suspended sediment, and bed sediment at a ratio based on the

pesticides’ physical/chemical properties. Degradations by abiotic hydrolysis, photolysis, andChapter 1 Introduction

14 

### microbial mediated metabolism are tak en into account. The route of exposure is uptake of

triflumizole and its degradates dissolved in the water column through the gills and integument.

For birds and mammals, only the dietary route of exposure is considered. Uncertainties may

include the lack of information on the exposure from soil ingestion as well as exposure from

other pathways such as inhalation and dermal routes.

Figure 2 Ecological Conceptual Model for Triflumizole from Ground and Aerial Foliar Application to Terrestrial Environments Stressor

Source

Attribute Change Triflumizole applied to use site

Direct application Spray drift

Terrestrial

vertebrates Terrestrial

inverts

Individual organisms

Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in prey and food
Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover Community change

Modification of PCEs related

to habitat Terrestrial plants grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds (trees, shrubs) Runoff

Terrestrial

Vertebrates 

### Exposure Media & Receptors Soil

Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Dermal uptake/Ingestion Atmospheric
transport

Root uptake/contact

Wet/dry deposition

Ingestion Leaching to

Groundwater Irrigation

waterChapter 1 Introduction

15 

### Figure 3

. Ecological Conceptual Model for Impacts of Triflumizole Application s on Aquatic Environments

Risk Hypothesis

Nontarget terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants are at risk of direct and indirect effects

resulting from labeled uses of triflumizole.

1.0.8 Analysis Plan

In Registration Review, pesticide ecological risk assessments will follow the Agency’s

Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment and will be in compliance with the paper titled

“O verview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (US EPA, 2004).

The focus of an ecological risk assessment is on both the toxic effects of a pesticide to non

target organisms and the potential routes of the pesticide’s exposure to non

- target organisms.

In addition to addressing a pesticide’s toxic effects and potential routes of exposure, an ** Route of exposure includes only ingestion of fish and aquatic invertebrates 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Triflumizole applied to use site

Spray drift

Aquatic animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates
**Piscivorous mammals

and birds

Individual organisms

Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in algae and

vascular plants Reduction in prey

Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover Community change

Modification of PCEs related to

habitat Surface water/

Sediment Runoff

Aquatic Animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates 

### Exposure

Media

Uptake/gills or integument

Ingestion Ingestion Atmospheric
transport

Wet/dry deposition Soil Leaching to

Groundwater

Uptake/gills or integument

Aquatic Plants

Non

- vascular

Vascular Uptake/cell, roots, leaves Riparian plants

terrestrial

exposure pathways see Figure 2Chapter 1 Introduction

16 

### ecological risk assessment addresses the uncertainties associated with a pesticide’s risk to

non

- target organisms.

M EASURES TO 

### E VALUATE THE 

### R ISK 

### H YPOTHESIS AND 

### C ONCEPTUAL 

### M ODEL



### Measures of exposure for triflumizole that will be used in this assessment are obtained from

modeling efforts only, since national

- scale monitoring data for triflumizole were not identified.

Exposure models used for this assessment include the suite of standard exposure models

commonly used in pesticide risk assessments (EPA, 2004). Generally, aquatic exposure estimates

are generated from EFED models and i ncorporate maximum proposed use rates and empirically

derived fate properties. Aquatic exposure will be estimated using the PRZM / EXAMS and

GENEEC model s and will consist of aquatic EECs derived using a water body that is vulnerable

and representative of st atic ponds and first order waterways.

Measures of exposure for terrestrial mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians similarly

incorporate maximum use rates but rely less on fate properties. Instead, terrestrial exposure estimates are derived directly from empirically determined observations of pesticide residues on

various terrestrial food items. For numerous applications for a given use, the exposure model

incorporates a first

- order decay rate dependent on the soil half

- life of the chemical. The currently

used terres trial exposure model is TREX v. 1.3.1.

Exposure to terrestrial plants will be estimated using the TerrPlant (v1.2.2) model that assumes

triflumizole drifts or moves with runoff to adjacent areas.

M EASURES OF 

### E FFECT



### Data identified in Chapter 3 are used as measures of effect for direct and indirect effects to

non

- target organisms. Data were obtained from registrant submitted studi es or from

literature studies identified by ECOTOX. The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) was

searched in order to provide more ecological effects data and in an attempt to bridge existing

data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life,

terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the USEPA,

Office of Research and Development, and the National Health and Environmental Effects

Research Laboratory's Mid

- Continent Ecology Division.

The acu te measures of effect used for animals in this screening level assessment are the

LD 50 

### , LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### . LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD 50 

### is the amount of a material,

given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. LC stands

for “Lethal Concentration”

, and LC 50 

### is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to

kill 50% of the test organisms. EC stands for “Effective Concentration”

, and the EC 50 

### is theChapter 1 Introduction

17 

### concentration of a chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the test

organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non

- listed animals are

the NOAEL/NOAEC and NOEC. NOAEL stands for “No Observed

- Adverse

- Effect

- Level”

and refers to the highest tested dose of a subs tance that has been reported to have no harmful

(adverse) effects on test organisms. The NOAEC ( i.e. , “No

- Observed

- Adverse

- Effect

Concentration”) is the highest test concentration at which none of the observed effects were

statistically different from the control. The NOEC is the No

- Observed

- Effects

Concentration. For non

- listed plants, only acute exposures are assessed ( i.e. , EC 25 

### for

terrestrial plants and EC 50 

### for aquatic plants).

I

NTEGRATION OF 

### E XPOSURE AND 

### E FFECTS



### Risk characterization is the inte gration of exposure and ecological effects characterization to

determine the potential ecological risk from agricultural and non

- agricultural uses of

triflumizole, and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to non

- target organisms in

aquatic and ter restrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order

to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non

- target species. For the assessment

of triflumizole risks, the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare exposu re and

measured toxicity values. EECs are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values. The

resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (US EPA, 2004)

(see Appendix E ).

There is no established acute listed or non

- listed LO C for terrestrial invertebrates. The LOCs

currently in use for birds, mammals and aquatic species are based on 1975 regulations for the

enforcement of FIFRA (40 CFR Part 154: 49005; 49007; 49016). There is a need for the

Agency to establish a screening

- l evel LOC for listed terrestrial invertebrate species to

facilitate completion of risk assessments for federally listed species. An acute listed

terrestrial invertebrate LOC will allow risk assessors to determine if there is potential adverse

risk to terre strial invertebrates from pesticide use. Also, using current methodology, a LOC

is required to determine the distance needed off

- field before the exposure falls below a level

expected to cause adverse effects. I f potential adverse risk is determined for terrestrial

invertebrates there is currently no process by which to determine the potential effect area of

concern w ithout a LOC, As an interim measure the Agency has adopted the aquatic

invertebrate acute listed LOC value of 0.05 for terrestrial inverteb rates.

The acute LOC for listed aquatic animals was set at 0.05, which is lower than the terrestrial

vertebrate acute LOC for listed species of 0.1 ( i.e ., safety factor of 10). The aquatic LOC for

listed species was set lower than the terrestrial vertebra te listed species LOC, in part, because

aquatic species in a typical farm pond do not have the same ability to avoid exposure as birdsChapter 1 Introduction

18 

### or mammals; therefore, an added measure of protection was included. This same logic has

been extended to terrestrial inv ertebrates on an agricultural field, where organisms may not

be able to travel far or fast enough to avoid exposure. In this respect, an interim acute listed

species LOC of 0.05 for terrestrial invertebrates is consistent with the existing listed species

acute LOCs.

A NALYSIS OF 

### C O



### - OCCURANCE OF 

### F EDERALLY 

### L ISTED 

### S PECIES WITH 

### T RIFLUMIZOLE

EFECT 

### A REA



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

Agency will evaluate risks to Federally

- listed threatened and/or endangered (listed) species

from registered uses of triflumizole. This assessment will be conducted i n accordance with

the Overview Document (US EPA, 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the Services’

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (U.S. FWS/NMFS, 1998).

The spray drift model AgDRIFT was used to assess exposures of terrestrial animals and

plants to triflumizole deposited on terrestrial habitats by spray drift. In addition to the effect

area from the spray drift analysis, the downstream extent of tr iflumizole that exceeds the

LOC for the effects determination is also considered.

In the case of a nationwide risk assessment conducted under Registration Review, the action

area will encompass the entire U.S. and its territories. The purpose of defining the action

area as the entire U.S. and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration

encompasses all areas where the pesticide may be used now and in the future that are subject

to U.S. laws, including the potential for off

- site tran sport via spray drift and downstream

dilution. Additionally, the concept of a nationwide action area takes into account the

potential for direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat based

on ecological effect measures as sociated with reduction in survival, growth, and

reproduction, as well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in the effects literature.

It is important to note that the nationwide action area does not imply that direct and/or

indirect effects a nd critical habitat modification are expected to

, or are likely to

, occur over the full extent of the action area, but rather to identify all listed species and critical habitat

that may potentially be affected by the action. The Agency will use more rigo rous analysis

including consideration of available land cover data, toxicity data, and exposure information

to determine areas where individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be

affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced surv ival, growth, or reproduction.Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

19 

# Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

Aquatic Exposure Assessment

2.0.1 Models

Since there was no monitoring data available for triflumizole, the aquatic exposure

assessment was based solely on the surface water models, specifically, GENEEC and

PRZM/EXAMS. These models are used to estimate acute (annual instantaneous peak) and

chronic (21 and 60 day weighted average annual peaks) estimated environmental

concentrations (EECs) for aquatic invertebrate s and fish, respectively. For commodities

where standard scenarios were available, the Tier II PRZM/EXAM model was utilized.

Pineapple was modeled using the Tier I GENEEC model since a standard scenario was not

available for Tier II modeling.

Briefly, t he GENEEC (GENeric Estimated Environmental Concentration) model is a tier one

computer program that uses the soil/water partition coefficient and degradation kinetic data

to estimate runoff from a ten hectare field into a one hectare by two meter deep “ sta ndard ”

pond. This first tier is designed as a coarse screen and estimates conservative pesticide

concentrations in surface water from a few basic chemical parameters and pesticide label use

and application information. Tier 1 is used to screen chemicals to determine which ones

potentially pose sufficient risk to warrant higher level modeling. When risk concerns are

identified using a tier I exposure model, exposure is then estimated using a tier II model.

GENEEC is a program to calculate acute as well as l onger

- term EEC values. It considers

reduction in dissolved pesticide concentration due to adsorption of pesticide to soil or

sediment, incorporation, degradation in soil before washoff to a water body, direct deposition

of spray drift into the water body, and degradation of the pesticide within the water body. It

is designed to mimic a PRZM/EXAMS simulation.

The Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2, May 12, 2005) and Exposure Analysis

Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, April 25, 2005) are simulation mo dels coupled with

the input PE5.pl shell (PE5, PE Version 5.0, November 15, 2006). PRZM is used to simulate

pesticide transport as a result of runoff and erosion from a 10

- ha agricultural field

- scale

watershed and EXAMS considers the environmental fate an d transport of pesticides and

predicts EECs in an adjacent small water body (10,000

- m 2 

### pond, 2 m deep with no outlet),

with the assumption that 100% of the field

- scale watershed is subject to the pesticide use

being simulated . The model is designed to estimate pesticide concentrations found in water

at the edge of the treated field. As such, it provides high

- end values of the pesticide

concentrations that might be found in ecologically sensitive environments following pestic ideChapter 2 Exposure Assessment

20 

### application. The linked PRZM

- EXAMS modeling system considers multi

- year simulations

addressing runoff and spray drift from multiple applications. The location of the field

- scale

watershed and associated pond is specific to the crop being simulated us ing site

- specific

information on the soils, weather, cropping, and management factors associated with the

scenario. The crop/location scenario is intended to represent a high

- end exposure site on

which the crop is normally grown. Based on historical rain fall patterns, the small water body

receives multiple runoff events during the years simulated. Additional information on these

models in addition to the user’s manuals can be downloaded from the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models web

- page (USEPA, 2012).

Currently approved triflumizole application rates range from 0.1875 lb ai/acre (hazelnuts

filberts) to 1 lb ai/acre (ornamentals) for a single application with a seasonal maximum label

rate of 3.0 lb ai/acre (cherries and ornamental s). For more information, Table 4 and Table 5

list the assessed rates along with input parameter information for PRZM/EXAMS and

GENEEC, respectively. The EEC values are listed in Table 6

. An example modeling output

is provided in Appendix C

.Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

21 

### Table 4

. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters for Triflumizole

Input Parameter: Value: Comment: Source:

Scenario(s): Grapes : CA Grapes NY Grapes

Apples, Pears : NC Apples OR Apples PA Apples

CA Fruit

Cherries : MI Cherries

Cucurbits : FL Cucumber

Hazelnuts (Filberts) : CA Almonds

GA Pecans

Strawberries : FL Strawberries

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ) : CA Lettuce

Hops : OR Hops

Papaya : CA Citrus

Ornamentals, Trees, Shrubs : CA Nursery FL Nursery MI Nursery NJ Nursery OR Nursery

TN Nursery R epresentative scenarios for

each use EFED ScenariosChapter 2 Exposure Assessment

22 Input Parameter: Value: Comment: Source:

Maximum Single Application Rate lbs a.i./acre (kg a.i./ha) Grapes : 0.25 (0.281)

Apples, Pears : 0.50 (0.562)

Cherries : 0.50 (0.562)

Cucurbits : 0.25 (0.281)

Hazelnuts (Filberts) : 0.1875 (0.211)

Strawberries : 0.25 (0.281)

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ) : 0.25 (0.281)

Hops : 0.375 (0.421)

Papaya : 0.3125 (0.351)

Ornamentals : 1.0 (1.12) landscape

- grown 2.0 (2.25) all ornamentals 0.3 (0.338) container

- grown (13.6 l bs. total) 0.4 (0.449) bed

- grown (18.15 lbs. total) R egistered rates Procure ® and Terraguard ®

Formulation labels

Applications per Year Grapes: 4

Apples, Pears: 4

Cherries: 6

Cucurbits: 5

Hazelnuts (Filberts): 5.3 (6)

Strawberries: 8

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ): 2.25 (3)

Hops: 3

Papaya: 2.4 (3)

Ornamentals:

3

- landscape

- grown 1

- all ornamentals

1

- container

- grown 1

- bed

- grown Label directions. Label specifies # of applications per season. If there are multiple growing seasons per year, yearly # of applications may be higher. Procure ® and Terraguard ®

Formulation labelsChapter 2 Exposure Assessment

23 Input Parameter: Value: Comment: Source:

Application Interval (days) Grapes: 14

Apples, Pears: 7, 10, 10

Cherries: 7

Cucurbits: 7

Hazelnuts (Filberts): 10

Strawberries: 14

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ): 14

Hops: 14

Papaya: 14

Ornamentals (landscape

- grown): 7 L abel directions Procure ® and Terraguard ®

Formulation labels

Date of Initial Application (scenario: day

- month) Grapes : CA Grapes: 13

- 07 NY Grapes: 27

- 08

Apples, Pears : NC Apples: 14

- 09 OR Apples: 20

- 09 PA Apples: 04

- 09

CA Fruit: 21

- 06

Cherries : MI Cherries: 15

- 06

Cucurbits : FL Cucumber: 05

- 11

Hazelnuts (Filberts) : CA Almonds: 07

- 07

GA Pecans: 25

- 07

Strawberries : FL Strawberries: 03

- 01

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ) : CA Lettuce: 31

- 03

Hops : OR Hops: 28

- 07

Papaya : CA Citrus: 19

- 11

Ornamentals, Trees, Shrubs : CA Nursery: 15

- 04 FL Nursery: 15

- 04 MI Nursery: 15

- 04 NJ Nursery: 15

- 04

OR Nursery: 15

- 04 TN Nursery: 15

- 04 For all crops except ornamentals, the date of initial application was

calculated from the Pre

Harvest Interval (PHI). For ornamentals, an arbitrary date of April 15 was selected to cover the growing season

since label directions state apply as needed. Crop Scenarios and labelsChapter 2 Exposure Assessment

24 Input Parameter: Value: Comment: Source:

Application Method Grapes : Foliar: ground

Apples, Pears : Foliar: aerial and ground

Cherries : Foliar: aerial and ground

Cucurbits : Foliar: aerial and ground

Hazelnuts (Filberts) : Foliar: aerial and ground

Strawberries : Foliar: aerial and ground

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ) : Foliar: aerial and ground

Hops : Foliar: aerial and ground

Papaya : Foliar: aerial and ground

Ornamentals : Foliar

- landscape

- grown Foliar

- all ornamentals

Soil Drench

- container

- grown Soil Drernch

- bed

- grown L abel directions Procure ® and Terraguard ®

Formulation labels

CAM Input 2 (foliar) L inear foliar based on crop

canopy US EPA, 2005

IPSCND Input Grapes: 3

Apples, Pears: 3

Cherries: 3

Cucurbits: 3

Hazelnuts (Filberts): 3

Strawberries: 3

Leafy Greens (including Brassica ): 1

Hops: 2

Papaya: 3

Ornamentals: 3 Remaining pesticide on foliage is (1) converted to surface application to the top soil layer, (2) completely removed after harvest, (3) is

retained as surface residue and continues to decay. US EPA, 2005

Spray Drift Fraction 0.05 (aerial) 0.01 (ground) -- Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009)

Application Efficiency 0.95 (aerial) 0.99 (ground) -- Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009)

Molecular Mass (g/mol) 345.75

-- Product ChemistryChapter 2 Exposure Assessment

25 Input Parameter: Value: Comment: Source:

Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr) 1.43 x 10
- 6

-- MRID 40494402

Henry’s Law Constant (atm

- m 3 /mol) 5.2 x 10

- 8

-- Calculated from water solubility, vapor pressure and molecular weight

Solubility in Water (mg/L) 12.5 pH 5.9 MRID 40494401

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K OC ) (L/kg OC ) 1229 1 Average Koc value for parent and its degradate FD

1

- 1 MRID 40824601 and

40824602.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Half

- life (days) 44.2 2 R epresents the 90 th
percentile confidence bound

on the mean half

- life of 5

values MRID 00149861

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half

- life (days) 88.4 A ssumed twice the aerobic

soil metabolism value because the compound is stable to hydrolysis and no aerobic aquatic metabolism

data are available Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009)

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half

- life (days) 426 (142 x 3) S ince only one half

- life was available the input value was

assumed to be three times the single half

- life value derived from the parent and degradates (FA

- 1

- 1, FD

- 1

- 1

and M

- 1) MRID 47136403 Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2 009)

Hydrolysis Half

- lives (days) 2767 3 Average value for parent and its degradates MRID 40494404

Aqueous Photolysis

Half

- life (days) 12.7 P arameter calculated for parent and degradates MRID 40494405

NA = Not Applicable

1 = The average K

oc obtained from a total of ten values; five values (2812, 289, 4114, 1286, 1993) for the parent and five values (247, 33.6, 961, 122, 435) of its degradate FD

- 1

- 1.

2 = Following the Total Toxic Residue (TTR) approach, this value represents the 90 th percent ile confidence bound on the mean

half

- life of 5 values (44.3, 39.1, 17.3, 49, and 26.3) from the parent and degradates.

3 = The average value obtained from four combined half

- lives available for the parent and degradates (5443, 2436, 680, 2520 days)



### Table 5

. GENEEC Input Parameters for Triflumizole for Pineapple Use

Parameter: Input Value: Data Source/Rationale: 1

Application Rate (lbs a.i./acre) 2.0 EPA Reg. No. 400

- 431 EPA Reg. No. 400

- 518

Maximum Number of Applications/Year 1 EPA Reg. No. 400

- 431 EPA Reg. No. 400

- 518

Application Interval (days) NA EPA Reg. No. 400

- 431 EPA Reg. No. 400

- 518 Percent Crop Area (as decimal) 0.87 National Default Value

Koc 1229 2 Average Koc value for parent and its degradate FD

- 1

- 1 (MRID 40824601 and 40824602)

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half

- life (days) 44.2 3 R epresents the 90th percentile confidence bound on the

mean half

- life of 5 values (MRID 00149861)Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

26 

### Parameter: Input Value: Data Source/Rationale: 1

Is the pesticide wetted

- in? No Chemical not known to be activated by water Method of Application D 4 Granular Application

Incorporation Depth (inches) 0

1 Bracketed incorporation depth due to lack of data.

Solubility (ppm) 12.5 MRID 40494401 Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

- life (days) 88.4 A ssumed twice the aerobic soil metabolism value

Photolysis Half

- life (days) 12.7 Parameter calculated for parent and degradates (MRID 40494405)

1 = Input Parameters were selected in accordance with the Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters (Version II)

dated February 28, 2002

2 = T he average Koc obtained from a total of ten values; five values (2812, 289, 4114, 1286, 1993) for the parent and five values (247, 33.6, 961, 122, 435) of its degradate FD

- 1

- 1.

3 = Following the Total Toxic Residue (TTR) ap proach, this value represents the 90th percentile confidence bound

on the mean half

- life of 5 values (44.3, 39.1, 17.3, 49, and 26.3) from the parent and degradates.

4 Granular method of applicatio n was selected to eliminate drift (Drift = 0.0% and App. E fficiency = 100%). NA = Not Applicable



### Table 6

. Triflumizole Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) 1 

### for Surface Water based on selected Crop Scenarios

Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L )

Procure ® and Terraguard ® Formulations

Surface Water

Grapes CA Grapes July 13

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 1.81 1.42 1.22

NY Grapes August 27

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 7.49 6.87 6.39



### Apples

Pears 3 NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10 , 10, 14 days) 27.58 24.50 21.06

NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 25.05 22.05 18.85

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 13.42 12.60 11.37

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 10.12 9.35 8.37

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 16.23 14.96 14.43

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 13.36 12.78 12.33

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 6.62 5.46 4.48

CA Fruit G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre 5.43 4.00 3.07Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

27 Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L )

(June 21

– foliar) (7, 10, 10 days)

Cherries MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) A 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 26.29 22.91 20.37

MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) G 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 20.47 10.89 6.67

Cucurbits FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) A 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 15.34 13.17 10.10

FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) G 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 14.61 12.47 9.38

Hazelnuts (Filberts) CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 6.30 5.42 4.54

CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 5.62 4.72 3.88

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 10.53 8.96 7.41

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 9.57 8.16 6.91

Strawberries FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) A 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 16.81 15.32 13.54

FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) G 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 15.13 13.51 11.81

Brassica Leafy

Greens Head, Stem Brassicas Leafy Greens CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) A 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.35 3.82 3.31

CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) G 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.02 3.43 2.86

Hops OR Hops July 28

- foliar A 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 6.20 5.63 5.07

OR Hops July 28

- foliar G 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.51 3.94 3.54

Papayas FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar A 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 5.73 4.92 4.01

FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar G 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 5.00 4.27 3.44

Ornamentals (landscape grown ornamental trees,

shrubs and non

bearing apples, pears, and grapes) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 15.72 13.89 11.90

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.42 11.24 9.17

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 44.35 39.76 32.56

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 41.01 36.53 30.17

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 19.94 18.33 16.33

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.36 12.20 10.93

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 25.13 22.23 19.30

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 20.59 17.75 15.02Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

28 Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L )

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 11.86 10.42 9.44

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 4.80 4.36 4.05

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 28.55 23.25 19.76

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 22.97 18.67 15.85

Ornamentals (all) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 12.68 10.94 8.45

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 10.65 8.81 7.02

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 37.39 31.28 24.13

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 35.12 29.54 22.84

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 13.52 12.45 11.41

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 9.47 8.60 7.57

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 17.75 15.30 12.77

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 14.10 11.69 9.87

OR Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 8.86 7.78 6.65

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 3.55 3.04 2.77

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 18.93 16.06 13.47

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 14.97 12.44 10.72

Ornamentals (container

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.49 1.23 0.97

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 5.18 4.36 3.37

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.27 1.15 1.00

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.98 1.63 1.38

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 0.33 0.30 0.29

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 2.10 1.74 1.50

Ornamentals (bed

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.98 1.63 1.29

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 6.90 5.81 4.49

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.69 1.53 1.34

NJ Nursery S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.63 2.17 1.83Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

29 Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L )

April 15

- soil drench
OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 0.44 0.40 0.38

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.80 2.32 2.00

Pineapples

GENEEC

-- 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 34.15 31.56 27.27

1 Bold numbers denote maximum EEC values. No PCA adjustment factor was utilized.

2 A = aerial application, G = ground application, S = soil drench

3 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



## Terrestrial Exposure

The Agency used the Terrestrial Residue Exposure ( 

## T

- REX ) model (v1.4.1, USEPA, Oct. 9,

2008) and Terrestrial Herpetofaunal Exposure Residue Program Simulation ( T

- HERPS ) (v.

1.0, May 15

, 2007) to estimate the terrestrial animal exposure values resulting from possible

dietary ingestion of triflumizole residues on vegetative matter and insects present on non

food and food crops from exposure to triflumizole. In all screening

- level assessments, the

organisms are assumed to consume 100% of their diet as one food type. Th ese model s

inco rporate the Kenaga nomograph, a s modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on

a large set of actual field residue data. The upper limit values from the nomograph

represented the 95th percentile of residue values from actual field measurements (Ho erger &

Kenaga, 1972). T

- REX wa s employed to estimate (1) EECs for different food items for birds

and mammals, (2) dose/diet based risk to birds as well as dose based risk to mammals, and

(3) EECs for small and large insects to estimate risk to terrestrial invertebrates from direct

cont act. The short grass EECs were used to evaluate risk from acute oral exposure for

terrestrial invertebrates. T

- HERPS was employed to estimate dose/diet based risk to

herpetofauna. TerrPlant (v1.2.2) was used to estimate exposure and risk to terrestrial a nd

semi

- aquatic plants.

2.0.2 Foliar Dissipation Half

- life

The registrant submitted a Greenhouse Foliar Degradation Study for triflumizole (MRID

48244601) that provided both parent alone and parent plus degradate values for alfalfa

foliage, clover foliage, dwarf fescue (a short grass), green bean foliage, l ettuce, ryegrass (a

short grass), soybean leaves, strawberry foliage, tomato foliage, wheat foliage (a tall grass).

(Foliage not designated as short or tall grass in the last sentence is designated “broadleaf

plant foliage”.) A review of this data was conducted in an effort to determine an appropriateChapter 2 Exposure Assessment

30 

### foliar dissipation half

- life for input into the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models. Graphs of the

fitted degradation curves (actually lines in the graphs due to a log

- transformation of the y

axis) are presented in Appendix D

.

The calculated degradation half

- lives and 90 th 

### percentile conf idence limits (calculated

according to EFED input parameter guidance) are presented in Table 7 for individual crops

as well as summarized by forage category (broadleaf plant foliage, short grass and tall grass

as well as overall foliage values. Residue con centrations were measured at 8 time points over

32 days for all of the crops except lettuce, which was only measured at 7 time points over 16

days. Data from lettuce was excluded from the summary calculations because of the ‘parent

and metabolite’ degradat ion rate was faster than the parent alone degradation rate. Other

issues with the lettuce data set was the shorter duration of test measurements and the low

coefficient of determination ( R 2 

### ) values (Appendix D ). ‘Parent and metabolite’ data was not

provide d in this study for strawberry foliage.

Table 7 . Calculation of foliar dissapation half

- life for use as input to T

- REX and T

HERPS model.

Forage Material Sample Type Measured Half

- life Number of Half

- life

Estimates in Foliar Dissapation Input 90 th Percentile Foliar Dissapation Half

- life (T

- Rex Input) 2

Broad leaf plants Alfalfa foliage Triflumizole alone 13.08 1 39.23

With metabolite 38.51 1 115.52 Clover foliage Triflumizole alone 12.38 1 37.13

With metabolite 22.36 1 67.08 Green bean foliage Triflumizole alone 9.763 1 29.29

With metabolite 14.15 1 42.44

Lettuce Triflumizole alone 10.19 1 30.58

With metabolite 7.45 1 22.36 Soybean leaves Triflumizole alone 7.97 1 23.90

With metabolite 25.67 1 77.02 Strawberry foliage Triflumizole alone 5.68 1 17.04

With metabolite No data Tomato Foliage Triflumizole alone 10.83 1 32.49

With metabolite 16.12 1 48.36 All broad leaf plant

data 1 Triflumizole alone 10.80 5 12.16

With metabolite 23.36 5 29.74

S hort grass

Dwarf Fescue Triflumizole alone 10.05 1 30.14

With metabolite 21.00 1 63.01 Ryegrass Triflumizole alone 10.83 1 32.49

With metabolite 16.50 1 49.51 All short grass data Triflumizole alone 10.44 2 11.18

With metabolite 18.75 2 23.00

T

all grass Wheat foliage Triflumizole alone 11.36 1 34.09

With metabolite 12.38 1 37.13Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

31 Forage Material Sample Type Measured Half

- life Number of Half

- life

Estimates in Foliar Dissapation Input 90 th Percentile Foliar Dissapation Half

- life (T

- Rex Input) 2

All forage material

data Triflumizole alone 10.78 8 11.57

With metabolite 20.84 8 24.99

1 Excludes l ettuce and strawberry data.



### The measured ‘triflumizole alone’ foliar dissipation half

- lives varied from 8 to 13 days, while

the measured ‘triflumizole with metabolites’ foliar dissipation half

- lives varied from 12.5 to

38.5 days (excluding lettuce and strawberry data). These foliar dissipation half

- li v e s are

similar in dura tion to label

- specified f oliar re

- application interval s, which vary between 7 and

14 days for almost all uses ( re

- application interval s are not specified on labels for some uses).

Based on these lines of evidence and assuming organisms in or near the site of application

would be exposed to residues on foliage from both the crop as well as any weeds in the field

or bordering areas in the spray drift zone, EFED chose to use the 90 th 

### percentile estimate of

the overall ‘parent and metabolite’ half

- life (25 days ) as the input for T

- REX and T

- HERPS

modeling.

The scenarios modeled using T

- REX (v1.4.1) and T

- HERPS (v.1) are listed in Table 8

.

Table 8 . Scenarios Used for T

- REX and T

- HERPS Modeling for Foliar Application for Some of the Registered Crops 1

Crop Application Rate (lb a.i./A) No. Applications Application

Method Minimum Application Interval (Days) Reg # (Example) Grapes 0.25 4 Ground 14 400

- 431 Apples and Pears 2 0.5 4 Aerial 10 400

- 431

Cherries 0.5 6 Aerial 7 400

- 518

Cucurbits 0.25 5 Aerial 7 400

- 431

Hazelnuts 0.1875 6 Aerial 10 400

- 431

Strawberries 0.25 4 Aerial 14 400

- 431 Leafy Greens 0.25 3 Aerial 14 400

- 518 Hops 0.375 3 Aerial 14 400

- 518 Papaya 0.3125 3 Aerial 14 400

- 518

Ornamentals 1 3 Aerial 7 400

- 431

1 This table presents only a few of the T

- REX scenarios that were modeled.

2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### The input parameters for these selected scenarios for T

- REX and T

- HERPS are listed in

Table 9.

Table 9 . Input Parameters for TREX Modeling for Some of the Scenarios

Input Parameters Crop Source (Other labels have same or lower app. rates) Application Rate (lb a.i./A) Grapes 0.25 400

- 431 Apples and Pears 0.5 400

- 431Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

32 Input Parameters Crop Source (Other labels have same or lower app. rates)

Cherries 0.5 400

- 518

Cucurbits 0.25 400

- 431

Hazelnuts 0.1875 400

- 431

Strawberries 0.25 400

- 431 Leafy Greens 0.25 400

- 518 Hops 0.375 400

- 518 Papaya 0.3125 400

- 518

Ornamentals 1 400

- 431

Foliar Half

- life 25 days See discussion above and in Appendix D

Number of Applications (Interval between Applications, days) Grapes 4 (14) 400

- 431 Apples and Pears 4 (10) 400

- 431

Cherries 6 (7) 400

- 518

Cucurbits 5 (7) 400

- 431

Hazelnuts 6 (10) 400

- 431

Strawberries 4 (14 ) 400

- 431 Leafy Greens 3 (14) 400

- 518 Hops 3 (14) 400

- 518 Papaya 3 (14) 400

- 518

Ornamentals 3 ( 7 ) 400

- 431

Avian LD 50 > 2510 mg/kg

- bw (Bobwhite quail) MRID 00149871

Avian L C 50 >5620 mg/kg

- diet (Mallard duck)) MRID 00149874

Avian NOAEC 1000 mg/kg

- diet ( Bobwhite quail ) MRID 00149873

Mammal LD 50 1057 mg/kg

- bw ( male Wistar

- SLC r at) MRID 00144463

Mammal NOAEL <1.5 mg/kg

- bw ( Rat ) MRID 00162176 Mammal NOAEC < 30 mg/kg diet (Rat)



### Table 10 contains the EECs for various food items for different size classes of birds.

Table 10 . Avian Dose

- Based Triflumizole Upper Bound EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) 1 Avian Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/pods/ seeds/ lg

insects Granivore

Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 20 167.45 76.75 94.19 10.47 2.33

100 95.49 43.77 53.71 5.97 1.33

1000 42.75 19.59 24.05 2.67 0.59 Apples and Pears 2

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d

interval 20 378.23 173.35 212.75 23.64 5.25

100 215.68 98.85 121.32 13.48 3

1000 96.56 44.26 54.32 6.04 1.34

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 20 532.94 244.27 299.78 33.31 7.4

100 303.91 139.29 170.95 18.99 4.22

1000 136.06 62.36 76.54 8.5 1.89

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @

5

- apps /7

- d interval 20 240.58 110.27 135.33 15.04 3.34

100 137.19 62.88 77.17 8.57 1.91

1000 61.42 28.15 34.55 3.84 0.85Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

33 Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) 1 Avian Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/pods/ seeds/ lg

insects Granivore

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 20 171.55 78.63 96.5 10.72 2.38

100 97.83 44.84 55.03 6.11 1.36

1000 43.8 20.07 24.64 2.74 0.61

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A

@ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 20 202.9 92.99 114.13 12.68 2.82

100 115.7 53.03 65.08 7.23 1.61

1000 51.8 23.74 29.14 3.24 0.72 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval 20 146.13 66.97 82.2 9.13 2.03

100 83.33 38.19 46.87 5.21 1.16

1000 37.31 17.1 20.98 2.33 0.52

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 20 219.19 100.46 123.29 13.7 3.04

100 124.99 57.29 70.31 7.81 1.74

1000 55.96 25.65 31.48 3.5 0.78

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 20 182.66 83.72 102.74 11.42 2.54

100 104.16 47.74 58.59 6.51 1.45

1000 46.63 21.37 26.23 2.91 0.65

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 20 683.86 313.43 384.67 42.74 9.5

100 389.96 178.73 219.36 24.37 5.42

1000 174.59 80.02 98.21 10.91 2.42

1 Adjusted LD 50 values (mg/kg

- bw): 15 g

– 2323.11; 35 g

– 1879.64; 1000 g

– 813.00; LD 50 values calculated using Day 0 average body weights as these body weights represented body weight of animal at time of exposure (animals gavage on Day 0 and amount of material receive d adjusted for each animal using individual body weight).

2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Table 11 contains similar EECs for mammalian food items for different size classes of

mammals.

Table 11 . Mammalian Dose

- Based Triflumizole Upper Bound EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) 1,2 Mammalian Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/

sm insects Fruits/pods/ seeds/ lg

insects Granivore

Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 15 140.18 64.25 78.85 8.76 1.95

35 96.88 44.40 54.50 6.06 1.35

1000 22.46 10.30 12.64 1.40 0.31 Apples and Pears 3

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d

interval 15 316.63 145.12 178.10 19.79 4.40

35 218.83 100.30 123.09 13.68 3.04

1000 50.74 23.25 28.54 3.17 0.70

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 15 446.15 204.49 250.96 27.88 6.20

35 308.35 141.33 173.45 19.27 4.28

1000 71.49 32.77 40.21 4.47 0.99

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A

@ 5

- apps /7

- d interval 15 201.40 92.31 113.29 12.59 2.80

35 139.19 63.80 78.30 8.70 1.93

1000 32.27 14.79 18.15 2.02 0.45

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb 15 143.62 65.82 80.78 8.98 1.99Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

34 Application Rate (crop) Size Class (g) 1,2 Mammalian Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/

sm insects Fruits/pods/ seeds/ lg

insects Granivore a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval 35 99.26 45.49 55.83 6.20 1.38

1000 23.01 10.55 12.94 1.44 0.32

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 4 apps / 14

- d

interval 15 169.85 77.85 95.54 10.62 2.36

35 117.39 53.80 66.03 7.34 1.63

1000 27.22 12.47 15.31 1.70 0.38 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval 15 122.33 56.07 68.81 7.65 1.70

35 84.54 38.75 47.56 5.28 1.17

1000 19.60 8.98 11.03 1.23 0.27

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 15 183.49 84.10 103.21 11.47 2.55

35 126.82 58.12 71.33 7.93 1.76

1000 29.40 13.48 16.54 1.84 0.41

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 15 152.91 70.08 86.01 9.56 2.12

35 105.68 48.44 59.45 6.61 1.47

1000 24.50 11.23 13.78 1.53 0.34

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 15 572.49 262.39 322.02 35.78 7.95

35 395.67 181.35 222.56 24.73 5.50

1000 91.74 42.05 51.60 5.73 1.27

1 Adjusted LD 50 values (mg/kg

- bw): 15 g

– 2323.11; 35 g

– 1879.64; 1000 g

– 813.00; LD 50 values calculated using Day 0 average body weights as these body weights represented body weight of animal at time of exposure (animals gavage on Day 0 and amount of material received adjusted for each animal using individual body weight).

2 Adjusted NOAEL values (mg/kg

- bw): 15 g

– 3.30; 35 g

– 2.67; 1000 g

– 1.15

3 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Table 12 provides similar EECs for hepatofauna food items for different size classes of

h erpatofauna.

Table 12

. Herpatofauna Dose

- Based Triflumizole Upper Bound EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

Application Rate (crop) Size

Class

(g) Herpatofauna Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds /lg insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals Small

Insectivore

Mammals Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians Grapes

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 1.4 5.71 2.62 3.21 0.36 N/A N/A N/A

37 5.61 2.57 3.16 0.35 91.65 5.73 0.11

238 3.68 1.69 2.07 0.23 14.25 0.89 0.07 Apples and Pears 1

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 1.4 12.90 5.91 7.26 0.81 N/A N/A N/A

37 12.68 5.81 7.13 0.79 207.00 12.94 0.25

238 8.31 3.81 4.67 0.52 32.18 2.01 0.16

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 1.4 18.18 8.33 10.23 1.14 N/A N/A N/A

37 17.87 8.19 10.05 1.12 291.68 18.23 0.35

238 11.71 5.37 6.59 0.73 45.35 2.83 0.23

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- 1.4 8.21 3.76 4.62 0.51 N/A N/A N/A

37 8.07 3.70 4.54 0.50 131.67 8.23 0.16Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

35 Application Rate (crop) Size

Class

(g) Herpatofauna Dose

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- bw) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds /lg insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals Small

Insectivore

Mammals Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians

d interval 238 5.29 2.42 2.97 0.33 20.47 1.28 0.10

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/

10

- d interval 1.4 5.85 2.68 3.29 0.37 N/A N/A N/A

37 5.75 2.64 3.24 0.36 93.89 5.87 0.11

238 3.77 1.73 2.12 0.24 14.60 0.91 0.07

Strawberries

– 0.25

lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/

14

- d interval 1.4 6.92 3.17 3.89 0.43 N/A N/A N/A

37 6.80 3.12 3.83 0.43 111.05 6.94 0.13

238 4.46 2.04 2.51 0.28 17.26 1.08 0.09 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 1.4 4.98 2.28 2.80 0.31 N/A N/A N/A

37 4.90 2.25 2.76 0.31 79.97 5.00 0.10

238 3.21 1.47 1.81 0.20 12.43 0.78 0.06
Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/

14

- d interval 1.4 7.48 3.43 4.21 0.47 N/A N/A N/A

37 7.35 3.37 4.13 0.46 119.96 7.50 0.14

238 4.82 2.21 2.71 0.30 18.65 1.17 0.09
Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/

14

- d interval 1.4 6.23 2.86 3.50 0.39 N/A N/A N/A

37 6.12 2.81 3.44 0.38 99.97 6.25 0.12

238 4.01 1.84 2.26 0.25 15.54 0.97 0.08

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 1.4 23.33 10.69 13.12 1.46 N/A N/A N/A

37 22.93 10.51 12.90 1.43 374.28 23.39 0.45

238 15.03 6.89 8.45 0.94 58.19 3.64 0.29

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Table 1 3 provides dietary

- based EECs for hepatofauna food items.

Table 13 Avian, Mammalian, and Herpatofauna Dietary

- Based Triflumizole EEC Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- diet) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/pod s/seeds/ lg

insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals 1 Small

Insectivore

Mammals 1 Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians 1

Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 147.03 67.39 82.70 9.19 96.88 6.06 2.87

Apples and Pears 2

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 332.10 152.21 186.81 20.76 218.83 13.68 6.48

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 467.95 214.48 263.22 29.25 308.35 19.27 9.14

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @

5

- apps /7

- d interval 211.24 96.82 118.82 13.20 139.19 8.70 4.12

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 150.63 69.04 84.73 9.41 99.26 6.20 2.94

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A

@ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 178.15 81.65 100.21 11.13 117.39 7.34 3.48

Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 128.30 58.81 72.17 8.02 84.54 5.28 2.51Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

36 Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based EECs (mg/kg

- diet) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/pod s/seeds/ lg

insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals 1 Small

Insectivore

Mammals 1 Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians 1

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 192.46 88.21 108.26 12.03 126.82 7.93 3.76

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 160.38 73.51 90.21 10.02 105.68 6.61 3.13

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 600.45 275.21 337.76 37.53 395.67 24.73 11.72

1 Only used in herpatofauna risk estimation.

2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### S PRAY



### - D RIFT



### Because triflumizole is applied as a ground spray or as an aerial application to most crops,

there is the potential for residues on dietary items to occur off the treated field due to spray

drift, and in this case, the potential exists for all these dietary items to be present. Therefore,

the on

- field estimates of exposure are also used to screen for residue levels that potentially

pose a problem off a treated field due to spray drift. It is recognized that the uncertainty in

exposure level estimate d by the mode ls used in this assessment increases with distance from

the treated field.

2.0.3 Off

- Field Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plant Triflumizole

Exposure Levels

R UNOFF AND 

### S PRAY 

### D RIFT 

### L OADING



### The equations used in TerrPlant v1.2.2 to model loading EECs to non

- targ et plants in

terrestrial and semi

- aquatic areas are shown in Table 14 . Runoff is assumed to move to a one

acre parcel from one acre of treated area fo r the dry upland model and from 10 acres of

treated area for the low

- lying semi

- aquatic model.

Table 14 . Equations for Calculating EECs to Off

- Site Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic

Areas

Loading Equation for Calculating EECs

Runoff to dry areas ( A/I )* R

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas ( A/I )* R *10 Spray drift A * D Total for dry areas (( A/I )* R )+( A * D )

Total for semi

- aquatic areas (( A/I )* R *10)+( A * D )
A= application rate (lb a.i./A) ; I = incorporation (in inches) ; R = runoff fraction; D = drift fraction

.Chapter 2 Exposure Assessment

37 

### Input values for TerrPlant v1.2.2 modeling are listed in Table 15

.

Table 15 Input Parameters for TerrPlant v1.2.2 Used for Modeling Runoff and Spray Drift Loading to Off

- Field Terrestrial And Semi

- Aquatic Areas Adjacent to a Treated

Field

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units Basis Application Rate A 1 lbs a.i./A Registered label maximum application range Incorporation depth I 1 inch Default value when there is not explicit incorporation on the label

Runoff Fraction R 0.02 dimensionless Model guidance value when solubility of pesticide is between 10 and 100 mg/L (triflumizole solublity in water = 12.5 mg/L)

Drift Fraction D 0.05 dimensionless Model guidance values for aerial spray applications



### The maximum e stimated triflumizole exposure levels for non

- target plants in terrestrial and

semi

- aquatic areas in areas adjacent to a treated field are provided in Table 16 . Exposure
levels were estimated by calculating triflumizole soil loading on a lb a.i./Acre basis from

runoff and spray drift and by calculating foliar residues on a lb a.i./Acre basis from spray

drift using TerrPlan t v1.2.2. This model uses estimates of pesticides in runoff and in spray

drift to calculate EECs. EECs are based upon solubility, application rate

, an d minimum

incorporation depth.

Table 16 . Estimated Triflumizole Loading to Off

- Site Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Areas Adjacent to a Treated Field for Applications to Maximum Food and Non

- food Crops

Application Rate (group) Dry (lb a.i./A) Semi

- Aquatic (lb a.i./A) Spray Drift (lb a.i./A)

1 lb a.i./A (Ornamental) .07 0.25 0.05

.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

38 

# Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

A summary list of all available registrant submitted eco toxicity data for triflumizole is

provided in Appendix F

. Similar toxicity information is not available for degradates of

concern. It is assumed in this analysis that degradates of concern are equal in toxic ity to the

parent triflumizole.

There were no open literature studies on the effects of triflumizole that were used

qualitatively in this assessment. There were other open literature studies and articles

referencing triflumizole but these were not included in this assessment because toxicity

results were less sensitive than registrant submitted data, or the informa tion was not

appropriate for inclusion for a variety of reasons including the venue provided insufficient

scientific information to evaluate and validate findings ( e.g ., abstract, review), the article was

not pertinent to toxicity and effects ( e.g. , analyt ical methods). Triflumizole results that were

found in the open literature and passed the initial screen but which were not used in the

assessment and the reasons for their exclusion are provided in Appendix K

.

A summary of the registrant submitted triflu mizole toxicity data and open literature toxicity

and effects studies are described in this Chapter.



## 3.0 Terrestrial Vertebrate Toxicology

Information is available on acute oral

- and sub

- acute dietary

- based effects of triflumizole to

birds, and there are two avian reproduction studies using triflumizole. All the registrant

submitted avian studies for triflumizole were conducted with technical grade active

ingredient. There is a complete data set for mammalian acute oral effects and a three

generation rat s tudy with technical grade triflumizole. No information i s available for the

effects of triflumizole to reptiles or to the terrestrial

- phase of amphibians. Effects and effect

levels in birds will be used as a surrogate for reptiles and the terrestrial

- pha se of amphibians

in this assessment. Toxicological endpoints selected for the terrestrial animal assessment can

be found in Table 1 7

.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

39 

### Table 17

. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected to Evaluate Risk to Birds and Mammals

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measuremen t Endpoint Value & Source

Species TGAI (%)/

TEP Toxicological Endpoint & Effect(s) Source &

Classification

Survival and reproduction of birds, reptiles

, and

terrestrial

- phase amphibians Mortality:

A cute oral

avian LD 50 Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) TGAI (97.6

- 98.3) 14

- day LD 50 > 2510 mg/kg

- bw (nominal)

14

- day NOEC = 398 mg/kg

- bw (nominal) (based on signs of toxicity including ruffled appearance, reduced reaction to external stimuli, loss of coordination, lower limb weakness, lethargy, prostrate posture, loss of righting reflex at ≥ 631 mg/kg

- bw and weight loss at ≥ 1590 mg/kg

- bw )

10% mortality at 2510 mg/kg

- bw dosage MRID 00149871

Wi ldlife International Ltd., 1984 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Mortality:

Sub

- acute
avian LC 50 Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) TGAI (97.6

- 98.3) 8

- day LC 50 > 5620 mg/kg

- diet (nominal)

8

- day NOEC = 562 mg/kg

- diet (nominal; lowest concentration) (based on weight loss at all test concentrations)

R educed feed consumptions at ≥ 3160 mg/kg

- diet MRID 00149874

Wildlife International Ltd., 1984 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) TGAI (97.6

- 98.3) 8

- day NOEC = 1000 mg/kg

- diet (nominal) (based on compound

- related weight loss and reduced feed consumption at ≥ 1780 mg/kg

- diet)

W eight loss and reduced feed consumption at all test

concentrations

30 and 70% mortality at 562 and 1000 mg/kg

- diet, respectively, from aggression and toe

- picking MRID 00149873

Wildlife International Ltd., 1984 (Unpublished) Supplemental (due to 30 and 70% mortality at the 562 and 1000 mg/kg

- diet concentrations, respectively)Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

40 Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measuremen t Endpoint Value & Source

Species TGAI (%)/

TEP Toxicological Endpoint & Effect(s) Source &

Classification

Reproduction:

chronic reproduction

NOAEC Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) TGAI (97) 21

- week NOEC = 1000 mg/kg

- diet (nominal; highest test concentration)

M ortality in controls and all test concentrations, possibly

due to excoriation

D eviations in temperature, humidity and lighting for the adults and in temperature, humidity, and biased selection of eggs for incubation for the F1 generation MRIDs 4075 2010 & 42551701 Fletcher, 1988 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos) TGAI (97) 21

- week NOEC = 1000 mg/kg

- diet (nominal; highest test concentration)

D ecreased number of infertile eggs at all test

concentrations

D eviations in temperature, humidity and lighting for the adults and in temperature, humidity, and biased selection of eggs for incubation for the F1 MRIDs 40752009 &

42551701 Fletcher, 1988 (Un published) Acceptable

Survival and reproduction

of mammals Mortality:

acute oral

LD 50 Wistar

- SLC rat TGAI (98.7) 14

- day LD 50 (95% C.I.) = 1057 (863

- 1297) mg/kg

- bw (males)

Sublethal effects: ataxia after treat ment in all rats; hypotonia, ventral positioning, u rinary incontinence, decreased body temperature, decreased respiration and heart rates, lacrimation, and ptosis at ≥ 593/592 mg/kg

bw (m/f) prior to death; weight gain in surviving mice MRID 00144463

Nishibe et al ., 1983 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Reproduction:

chronic reproduction

NOAEC Rat TGAI (NS) NOAEC < 30 mg/kg

- diet (lowest concentration tested) NOAEL < 1.5 mg/kg

- bw (based on increased gestation lengths at all tested concentrations) MRID 00162176

Life Science Research, 1986 (unpublished) AcceptableChapter 3 Effects Characterization

4 1 

### 3.0.1 Effects on Birds

An avian acute oral study indicates that triflumizole is practically non

- toxic to bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) (MRID 00149871). The LD 50 

### for this study was > 2510 mg/kg. Ten

percent morality was reported at 2510 mg/kg. The NOEC was 398 mg/kg based on signs of

toxicity including ruffled appearance, reduced reaction to external stimuli, loss of

coordination, lower limb weakness, lethargy, prostrate posture, los s of righting reflex at ≥
631 mg/kg and weight loss at ≥ 1590 mg/kg. This study is classified as acceptable and will

be used in the risk assessment

.

An avian dietary study indicate s that triflumizole is practically non

- toxic to mallard duck s ( Anas

platyrh ynchos ) (MRID 00149874). The LC 50 

### for this study was > 5620 mg/kg

- diet. There was

no mortality, abnormal behavior or overt signs of toxicity at any concentration tested or in the

controls. The NOEC was 562 mg/kg

- diet, the lowest concentration tested, ba sed on weight loss
at all test concentrations. Reduced feed consumption was reported at ≥ 3160 mg/kg

- diet. This

study is classified as acceptable and will be used in the risk assessment

.

An other avian dietary study indicate s that triflumizole is also pra ctically non

- toxic to

bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) (MRID 00149873). The LC 50 

### for this study was >

5620 mg/kg

- diet. Mortalities of 30 and 70% were reported at 562 and 1000 mg/kg

- diet,

respectively, potentially due to aggression and toe

- picking. T he NOEC was 1000 mg/kg

- diet

based on compound

- related weight loss and reduced feed consumption at ≥ 1780 mg/kg

- diet,

although weight loss and reduced feed consumption were noted at all test concentrations.

This study will be used in this risk assessment a nd is classified as supplemental based on

mortality occurring at lower test concentrations

.

Two avian reproduction toxicity studies were submitted for triflumizole using the mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) (MRIDs 40752009 & 42551701) and the bobwhite quail ( Colinus

virginianus ) (MRIDs 40752010 & 42551701). These studies did not show any treatment

- related

effects. The NOEC for these studies was 100 0 mg/kg

- diet, the highest concentration tested.

A lthough there were several deviations from g uideline re commendations in both studies, these

deviations did not affect the reproduction of the quail or ducks. Both studies are classified as

acceptable and will be u sed in the risk assessment

.

3.0.2 Effects on Mammals

Wild mammal testing is required on a case

- by

- case basis only and is dependent on the results of

lower

- tier laboratory mammalian studies, intended use patterns, and pertinent environmental fateChapter 3 Effects Characterization

42 

### characteristics. In most cases, rat or mouse toxicity values obtained f r om the Agency's Health

Effects Division (HED) are used as surrogates for wild mammal toxicity testing.

Several acute oral studies have been submitted for rodents. The study yielding the most sensitive

acute endpoint used the common laboratory rat ( Rattus rattus ) (MRID 00144463). In this study,

the acute toxicity of triflumizole differed between male and female rats with males showing

greater sensitivity. The LD 50 

### ’s were 1057 and 1780 mg/kg

- bw for males and females,

respectively. Besides mortality, effects included ataxia after treatment in all r ats; hypotonia and

ventral positioning, urinary incontinence, hypotonia, decreased body temperature, decreased
respiration and heart rates, lacrimation, and ptosis at ≥ 593/592 (males/femaled) mg/kg prior to

death; and weight gain in surviving rats

. For t he assessment, the lower male

- specific value of

1057 mg/kg

- bw will be used. This study i s classified as acceptable.

A three

- generation reproductive / developmental study with rats was selected for evaluating risk

to mammals from chronic exposure to triflumiz ole (MRID 00162176). The NOAEC for this

study was 30 ppm

, and the NOAEL was 1.5 mg/kg

- bw. This m ulti

- generation stud y with the rat

showed offspring systemic effects at doses below those at which parental systemic effects were

noted. Offspring effects inclu ded decreased pup weights, survival indices and litter sizes in both

F 3 

### litters, reduced litter size in the F 1a 

### litter, increased total

- litter mortality in the F 3a 

### litter, and

developmental effects in the F 1b 

### and F 2b 

### progeny. Parental systemic effects included decreased

body weight and overall body weight gain, increased relative liver weights, and increased

mortality in females associated with severe parturition difficulties. Reproductive toxicity

manifested as increased gesta tion length was increased at all dose levels. Increased gestation

length along with increased vaginal bleeding and dystocias seen at higher doses may be a result

of endocrine effects on the reproductive system. C omparison of offspring toxicity to

reproduc tive toxicity is more appropriate to evaluate susceptibility because the increased

gestation length in the dams is a true parental effect that occurs at a lower dose than the parental

systemic toxicity endpoint and may affect the dam or the offspring ; ther e is no increased

susceptibility following pre/post natal exposure to rats. The NOAEL value of this study w ill be

used in the mammalian risk assessment.

Triflumizole has low acute toxicity to mammals via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes. It

is a mi ld eye irritant and dermal sensitizer , but is not a dermal irritant

.

Oral rat developmental studies showed an increased qualitative susceptibility of the fetus to

triflumizole in utero. Decreased numbers of viable fetuses, increased dead or resorbed

fetuse s, increased numbers of late resorptions, decreased fetal body weight and increased

incidences of cervical ribs was seen in the fetuses at the same doses at which maternal toxicChapter 3 Effects Characterization

43 

### effects were noted. In addition, increased incidences of 14 th 

### rudimentary ribs were observed

at the next highest dose. Maternal toxic effects in the rat were decreased body weight gain

and decreased food consumption, increased placental weight, and increased maternal spleen

and liver weights (MRID 4548001 ).

No increased susceptibili ty of the fetus was noted in utero in the rabbit developmental study.

Fetal effects included increased fetal and litter incidences of lumbar ribs and decreased

placental weights, which was also included as a maternal toxic effect. Maternal toxic effects

in the rabbit included decreased body weight gain, decreased food consumption and

decreased placental weights (MRID 00156546).



## 3.1 Terrestrial Invertebrate Toxicology

An acute contact study indicates that triflumizole (97.6

- 98.3% TGAI) is practically non

- toxic

to honeybees ( Apis mellifera ) (MRID 00149875). The LD 50 

### for this 48

- hr study was > 160

μg/bee. This study i s classified as acceptable and will be used in the risk assessment

.

The toxicity of a formulation consisting of Procure 50 WS (triflumizole) and A cetamiprid

(NI

- 25) was evaluated in a foliage residue test with the honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) (MRID

45346901). The NOEC for this study was > 0.15 lb a.i./A triflumizole + 0.15 lb a.i./A

Acetamiprid, the only concentration tested.



## Aquatic Vertebrate (Fish ) Toxicology

Information is available on the acute and chronic toxicity of triflumizole to fish. All but one

of the registrant

- submitted fish studies for triflumizole were conducted with TGAI ; an early

life stage study with fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) was conducted with the

formulation Procure (MRID 4068301). No information is available for the effects of

triflumizole to the aquatic

- phase of amphibians. Effects and effect levels in fish will be used

as a surrogate for the aquatic

- phase of am phibians in this assessment. Toxicological

endpoints selected for the aquatic vertebrate assessment can be found in Table 1 8

.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

44 

### Table 18

. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected To Evaluate Risk to Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibian s 1

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selecte d Measurement Endpoint Value & Source

Species TGAI (%)/

TEP Toxicological Endpoint and Effect(s) Source & Classification

Survival and development/ reproduction of

freshwater fish Mortality:

A cute 96

- h r LC 50 Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) TGAI (98.2) 96

- hr LC 50 = 580 μ g a.i. /L

96

- hr NOEC = 100 μ g a.i. /L (based on loss of equilibrium, dark discoloration, fish on the bottom of the test chamber, and/or quiescence at ≥ 200 μ g/L) MRID 000156552 Analytical Biochemistry Laboratories, Inc., 1985 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Growth and

d evelopment:

E arly

- life stage (chronic)

NOAEC Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) TEP

Procure (99.1) 35

- day NOEC = 33 μ g a.i. /L

35

- day LOEC = 67 μ g a.i. /L

35

- day MATC = 33

- 67 μ g a.i. /L (based on reduced larval weight) MRID 40638301 Suprenant, 1988 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Survival and development/ reproduction of

estuarine / marine

fish Mortality:

A cute 96

- h r LC 50 Sheepshead

minnow ( Cyprinodan variegatus ) TGAI (99.2) 96

- hr LC 50 = 1400 μ g a.i./L (LC 50 is imprecise because no partial mortality was observed

at < 1700 μ g a.i./L, the highest test concentration)

96

- hr NOAEC = 160 μ g a.i./L

96

- hr LOAEC = 310 μ g a.i./L (based on sublethal effects including fish surfacing for an unusually long period/floating on surface; loss of equilibrium; laying on bottom with little motion other than gill movement) MRID 46302601

Palmer et al. , 2002 (Unpublished) Supplemental (due to imprecise LC 50 because no partial mortality

was observed at

concentrations below 1.7 mg a.i./L, the highest test concentration)

Growth and

d evelopment:

E arly

- life stage (chronic)

NOAEC Sheepshead

minnow ( Cyprinod o n variegatus ) TGAI (99.2) 34

- day NOEC = 120 μ g a.i./L

34

- day LOEC = 280 μ g a.i./L (based on reduced wet and dry weights)

Sublethal effects: reduced wet and dry weights at ≥ 280 μ g a.i./L; reduced hatch success, reduced time to hatch, weakness, erratic swimming, lethargy, small size, lying on the bottom of the chamber, and/or slight loss of equilibrium
at ≥ 550 μ g a.i./L; reduced post

- hatch (larval) survival at

1000 μ g a.i./L MRID 46302605 Palmer et al., 2004 (Unpublished) Supplemental (due to lack of reporting of

TOC and hardness to determine binding capacity

of triflumizole to OC and the inability to determine NOEC for terminal length)

1 Fish are surrogates for aquatic

- phase amphibiansChapter 3 Effects Characterization

45 

### 3.1.1 Effects on Freshwater Fish

Data on the acute toxicity of TGAI triflumizole to freshwater fish is available from two

studies (MRIDs 00146868 and 00156552). Collectively, these studies indicate that

triflumizole is moderately to highly toxic to freshwater fish. A supplemental study with carp
( Cyrpinus carpio ) had a LD 50 

### = 890 μg a.i./L (MRID 00146868). Loss of equilibrium was
reported at some concentrations ≥ 740 μg a.i./L. A study with rainbow trout yielded the most

sensitive acute endpoint (MRID 00156552). The LC 50 

### for this study was 580 μg a.i. /L. The

NOEC was 100 μg a.i. /L based on loss of equilibrium, dark discoloration, fish on the bottom

of the test chamber, and / or quiescence at ≥ 200 μg a.i. /L. This study is classified as

acceptable and will be used in the risk assessment

.

Data on the chronic toxicity of triflumizole to freshwater fish is available from an early

- life

stage test with fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) (MRID 40638301). This study was

conducted with the formulation Procure and yielded a NOEC of 33 μg a.i. /L based on

reduced larval weight. This study is classified as acceptable and will be used in the risk

assessment.

Triflumizole appears to accumulate in fish according to a registrant

- submitted

bioaccumulation study (MRID 00149866 ). During the 28

- day accumulation phase,

equilibrium was obtained between fish and water concentrations in approximately 3 days.

BCFs for edible, nonedible, and whole fish were 107x, 758x, and 393x, respectively. By day

14 of depuration, 70%, 93% and 90% of the 14 

### C

- residues present on exposure day 28 in the

edible tissue, nonedible tissue, and whole fish, respectively, had been eliminated. Half

- life of

the 14 

### C

- residues present in the t issues of bluegill at termination of exposure occurred within

the first 3 days of depuration.

Residues in edible tissue only from fish exposed to triflumizole in MRID 00149866 are reported in MRID 40018512. The extraction procedures used in this study were only able to

extract 67.6% of the radioactive residues in the samples. Solvent extractable residues

consisted of FD

- 4

- l/FD

- 6

- l, FM

- 8

- l, FD

- 2

- l, FA

- l

- l, EM

- 5

- l, an unknown, and low levels of

parent material. Non

- edible tissues were not tested.

3.1.2 Effects on E stuarine / Marine Fish

Data on the acute toxicity of TGAI triflumizole to estuarine/marine fish is available from a

study with sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) (MRID 46302601). The LC 50 

### for

this study was 1400 μg a.i./L indicating that triflumizole is moderately toxic to sheepshead

minnows. There is uncertainty associated with this endpoint because no partial mortality wasChapter 3 Effects Characterization

46 

### observed at < 1700 μg a.i./L, the highest test concentration. The NOAEC was 160 μg a.i./L

based on sublethal effects including fish surfacing for an unusually long period/floating on

surface; loss of equilibrium; and laying on the bottom with little motion other that gill

movement. This study will be used in the risk assessment and is classified as supplemental

due to the imprec ise LC 50



### .

Data on the chronic toxicity of TGAI triflumizole to estuarine/marine fish is available from

an early

- life stage test with sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) (MRID 46302605).

The NOEC for this study was 120 μg a.i./L based on wet and dry weight. Hatch success and
time to hatch were affected at ≥ 550 μg a.i./L, and post

- hatch survival was affected at ≥ 1000

μg a.i./L. Weakness, erratic swimming, lethargy, small size, laying on the bottom of the test

chamber, and/or slight loss of equilibr ium were also reported at ≥ 550 μg a.i./L. This study

will be used in the risk assessment and is classified as supplemental due to the lack of

reporting Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and hardness to determine the binding capacity of

triflumizole to OC and th e inability to determine the a NOEC for terminal length.



## 3.2 Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicology

Information is available on the acute and chronic toxicity of triflumizole to aquatic

invertebrates. All of the registrant

- submitted aquatic invertebrate studies fo r triflumizole

were conducted with TGAI. Toxicological endpoints selected for the aquatic vertebrate

assessment can be found in Table 1 9

.

3.2.1 Effects on Freshwater Invertebrates

Data on the acute toxicity of TGAI triflumizole to freshwater invertebrates is av ailable from

a study with Daphnia carinata (MRID 00149870). The EC 50 

### for this study was 1390 μg

a.i./L indicating that triflumizole is moderately toxic to d aphnia. The NOEC was 320 μg

a.i./L based on mortality and inhibited swimming. This study is class ified as acceptable and

will be used in the risk assessment.

Data on the chronic toxicity of TGAI triflumizole to freshwater invertebrates is available

from a study with D. carinata (MRID 43603604). The NOEC for this study was 67 μg a.i./L

based on reduce d terminal length. Additional effects reported in this study include a reduced
number of young per reproductive day at ≥ 260 μ g a.i./L and reduced weight at 520 μg a.i./L.

Mortalities of 10, 5, 0, 15, 45, and 100% were associated with the negative contro l and 67,

140, 260, 520, and 1000 μg a.i./L treatment groups, respectively. Despite the reported

mortality, t his study is classified as acceptable and will be used in the risk assessment

.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

47 

### Table 19

. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected To Evaluate Risk to Aquatic Invertebrates

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value & Source

Species TGAI (%)/

TEP Toxicological Endpoint & Effect(s) Source & Classification

Survival and reproduction of

freshwater

invertebrates Mortality:

Acute 48

- hr

EC 50 Water flea ( Daphnia

carinata ) TGAI (98.7) 48

- hr EC 50 = 1390 μ g a.i./L

48

- hr NOEC = 320 μ g a.i./L (based on mortality and inhibited swimming at ≥

560 μ g/L) MRID 00149870 Nisso institute for Life Science, 1983 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Reproduction: life cycle (chronic)

NOAEC Water flea ( Daphnia

carinata ) TGAI (99.2) 21

- day NOEC = 67 μ g a.i./L (based on reduced terminal length)

Sublethal effects: reduced terminal length at ≥ 140

μ g a.i./L; reduced number of young per reproductive day at ≥ 260 μ g a.i./L; reduced dry weight at 520 μ g a.i./L

Mortality: 10, 15, 5, 0, 15, 45, and 100% for negative control, solvent control, 67, 140, 260, 520,

and 1000 μ g a.i./L, respectively MRID 46302604

Palmer et al. , 2004 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Survival and reproduction of

estuarine

- marine

invertebrates Mortality:

Acute 48

- hr

LC/EC 50 Mysid shrimp ( Americamysis

bahia ) TGAI (99.2) 96

- hr LC 50 = 600 μ g a.i./L

96

- hr NOAEC = 120 μ g a.i./L (based on mortality and sublethal effects)

Sublethal effects: lethargy and erratic swimming in surviving mysids at ≥ 200 μ g a.i./L MRID 46302602

Palmer et al. , 2003 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Reproduction: life cycle (chronic)

NOAEC Mysid shrimp ( Mysidopsis bahia ) TGAI (99.2) 29

- day NOEC = 87 μ g a.i./L (based on delays in maturation)

Mortality: reduced survival prior to pairing at ≥ 320

μ g a.i,/L MRID 46302606 Blankinship et al. , 2004 (Unpublished) Supplemental (due to survival following pairing and terminal growth parameters not being reported in terms of sex)Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

48 

### 3.2.2 Effects on Estuarine/ Marine Invertebrates

Data on the acute toxicity of TGAI triflumizole to estuarine/marine invertebrates is available

from two studies (MRIDs 46302602 and 46302602). Both of these studies indicate that

triflumizole is highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates. An acceptab le study with

Easter oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) has a EC 50 

### of 720 μg a.i./L and a NOAEC of 560 μg

a.i./L based on reduction in shell growth (MRID 46302603). A study with mysid shrimp

( Americamysis bahia ) had a more sensitive EC 50 

### of 600 μg a.i./L (MRID 46302602). The

mysid NOAEC was 120 μg a.i./L based on mortality and sublethal effects including lethargy

and erratic swimming in surviving mysids. This latter study is classified as acceptable and

will be used in the risk assessme nt.

Data on the chronic toxicity of TGAI triflumizole on estuarine/marine invertebrates is

available from a study with mysid shrimp ( Mysidopsis bahia ) (MRID 46302606). The

NOEC for this study was 87 μg a.i./L based on delays in maturation. Reduced surviv al prior
to pairing at ≥ 200 μg a.i./L was also reported. This study will be used in the risk assessment

and is classified as supplemental due to parameters, including survival following pairing and

terminal growth parameters, not being reported on a sex

- specific basis.



## 3.3 Plant Toxicology

Based on triflumizole’s intended use on a wide range of plants, it is reasonable to conclude

that triflumizole’s effect on plants is, in general, much less than its effect to fungii that it is

used to control. Triflumizole is used as a foliage, flower, nut spray, and soil drench to control

fungus and blights on apples, cherries, Christmas trees, conifer seed, filberts, cucurbits,

grapes, ornamental woody and herba ceous plants (flowering or non

- flowering), pear,

pineapple and strawberries. Triflumizole is from a class of fungicides referred to as an

imidazole that is effective in inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis in fungi. ( Many fungi must

synthesize ergosterol which is a compound needed for the stabilization of membranes that

make up susceptible fungi’s cell walls. )

Information is available on the toxicity of triflumizole to aquatic and terrestrial plants. All of

the aquatic plant studies were conducted with TGAI triflumizole; the terrestrial plant studies

were conducted with the TEP Terraguard 50W. Toxicological endpoints selected the aquatic

and terrestrial plant assessment can be found in Table 20.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

49 

### Table 20

. Summary of Measurement Endpoint Values Selected to Evaluate Risk to Aquatic and Terrestrial Plants

Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selecte d Measurement Endpoint Value & Source

Species TGAI (%)/

TEP Toxicological Endpoint & Effect(s) Source & Classification

Survival and

biomass of aquatic vascular

and non

- vascular plants Growth of non

- vascular species: E C 50 for non

- listed species and its associated

NOAEC/EC 05 for listed species Freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) TGAI (99.2) 96

- hr EC 50 = 140 μ g a.i./L

96

- hr EC 05 = 420 μ g a.i./L

96

- hr NOEC < 0.032 mg a.i./L (based on biomass; cell density and growth rate also affected) MRID 46302609 Desjardins et al. , 2004 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Growth of vascular species:

EC 50 for non

- listed species

and its associated

NOAEC /EC 05 for listed species Freshwater duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) TGAI (99.2) 7

- day EC 50 = 720 μ g a.i./L

7

- day EC 05 = 820 μ g a.i./L

7

- day NOEC < 32 μ g a.i./L (based on frond number; biomass and growth rate also affected) MRID 46302611 Desjardins et al. , 2004 (Unpublished) Acceptable

Survival and

biomass of terrestrial plants V egetative vigor : EC 25 for

non

- listed species and its

associated NOAEC /EC 05 for listed species Monocot Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ) TEP Terraguard

50W (50.5) 21

- day EC 25 > 4.02 lb a.i./A

21

- day NOEC = 4.02 lb a.i./A (no endpoint most sensitive) MRID 46302612

Porch et al. , 2004 (Unpublished) Supplemental (due to no NOEC for ryegrass) Dicot Bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) Cabbage ( Brassica oleracea ) Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) Radish ( Raphanus sativus ) Soybean ( Glycine max ) Tomato ( Lycopersicon

esculentum ) 21

- day EC 25 > 4.02 lb a.i./A

21

- day NOEC/EC 05 = 4.02 lb a.i./A (no endpoint most sensitive)

Seedling emergence : EC 25 for non

- listed species and

its associated

NOAEC /EC 05 for listed species Monocot Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne ) Wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) Onion ( Allium cepa ) Corn ( Zea mays ) TEP Terraguard

50W (50.5) 21

- day EC 25 > 4.02 lb a.i./A

21

- day NOEC/EC 05 < 4.02 lb a.i./A (based on 23% biomass reduction) MRID 46302612

Porch et al. , 2004 (Unpublished) AcceptableChapter 3 Effects Characterization

50 Assessment Endpoint Measurement Endpoint Selecte d Measurement Endpoint Value & Source

Species TGAI (%)/

TEP Toxicological Endpoint & Effect(s) Source & Classification

Dicot Bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris ) Cabbage ( Brassica oleracea ) Lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) Soybean ( Glycine max ) Tomato ( Lycopersicon

esculentum ) TEP Terraguard

50W (50.5) 21

- day EC 25 > 4.02 lb a.i./A

21

- day NOEC/EC 05 = 4.02 lb a.i./AChapter 3 Effects Characterization

51 

### 3.3.1 Effects to Terrestrial Plants

Tier I and tier II plant studies were submitted in support of the registration of triflumizole

. Tier I studies are aimed at quickly evaluating the phytotoxicity of a compound at , or higher

than, the maximum single foliar application r ate which, for triflumizole, is 1.0 lbs a.i./A. Tier

II plant studies are triggered when effects from the tier I studies exceed 25% of the control.

Although the tier I seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies did not exceed 25% of

the control, the r egistrant still submitted tier II studies for seedling emergence and vegetative

vigor. There were no seedling emergence or vegetative vigor exceedences in either tier I or

tier II studies even at an application rate of 4.02 l bs a.i./acre triflumizole per y ear, though

, ryegrass had a 23% reduction in biomass with no observed NOEC in the tier I seedling

emergence study

.

3.3.2 Effects to Aquatic Plants

In a 96

- hour acute toxicity study, cultures of the green alga ( Selenastrum capricornutum )

, were exposed to triflumi zole at nominal concentrations. The 96

- hour EC 05 

### was reported to be
380 μg/ L based on all endpoints, which includes cell density and biomass. The 96

- hour EC 50 

### value based on biomass, the most sensitive endpoint was 630 μg/ L . This study fulfills

guideline r equirements for an acute toxicity study with green alga, ( Selenastrum

capricornutum ) [ Guideline 123

- 2 ; Tier II] and is classified as acceptable (MRID 46302607).

In a 96

- hour acute toxicity study, cultures of freshwater alga ( Anabaena flos

- aquae ) were

exposed to triflumizole at nominal concentrations. The analysis detected significant

reductions in cell density, growth rate, and biomass. The 96

- hour NOAEC was 1600 μg/ L
based on all endpoints. The 96

- hour EC 50 

### value based on biomass, the most sensitive

e ndpoint, was 3000 μg/ L . The study is scientifically sound and satisfies the guideline

requirements for a tier II aquatic nonvascular plant study with the freshwater alga ( Anabaena

flos

- aquae ). Consequently, the study is classified as acceptable (MRID 46302 608).

In a 96

- hour acute toxicity study, cultures of a marine diatom ( Skeletonema costatum ) were

exposed to triflumizole at nominal concentrations. The growth rate was the most sensitive

endpoint with an EC 50 

### of 480 μg/ L . All endpoints were significantly r educed at all treatment
levels, so the NOAEC was <0.083 μg/ L ; the EC 05 

### for growth rate was 180 μg/ L . Since the

initial cell density of 77,000 cells/m L was greater than recommended (10,000 cells/m L ), the

study does not fulfill guideline requirements for a tier II aquatic nonvascular plant study with

a marine diatom ( Skeletonema costatum ). Consequently, the study is classified as

supplemental (MRID 46302609).Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

52 

### In a 7

- day tier I I acute toxicity study of freshwater aquatic vascular plants (Duckweed,

Lemna gibba ) exposed to triflumizole at nominal concentrations under static renewal

conditions, frond number was the most sensitive endpoint with an EC 50 

### of 720 μg/ L . The

corresponding NOAEC for this effect was 75 μg/L . This study is scientifically sound and

acceptab le and satisfies the guidelines for an aquatic vascular plant study with Lemna gibba

(MRID 46302611).

A tier II aquatic plant toxicity test of a freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa), indicated that

biomass is the most sensitive endpoint to triflumizole at the concentrations tested. The estimated

120

- hour EC 50 

### was 140 μg/L based on biomass effects. The corresponding EC 05 

### for this effect
was 42 μg/ L . This study is classified as acceptable (MRID 46302609)Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

53 

# Chapter 4 Results: Risk Characterization

Risk Estima tion

As described in the Triflumizole Work Plan, estimates of exposure and ecotoxicity of

triflumizole are integrated using standard risk quotient (RQ) models to evaluate the potential for

adverse ecological effects to mammalian, avian, and other non

- targe t species. RQ results for

non

- target terrestrial and aquatic animals and plants are described in this section. RQ results in

this case represent expected direct effects to organisms ( i.e

. , effects due to direct toxicity to

triflumizole exposure) in contr ast to indirect effects to an organism resulting from a modification

of a resource such as loss of their prey or habitat.

4.0.1 Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Vertebrates

D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### B IRDS



### For avian species, acute dose

- based RQ values based on in gestion of triflumizole residues on

dietary food items resulting from ground or aerial spray applications are considered for several

crop scenarios that span the range of labeled application rates , number of applications, and re

application intervals for all triflumizole uses. Standard practice for avian species is to calculate

both a dose

- based and a dietary

- based acute RQ. The dose

- based acute RQ values are calculated

using the acute toxicity based on a single, oral dose ( e.g ., capsule or gavage) exposur e

.

For birds, the acute oral study was non

- definitive with only 10% mortality at the highest dose

tested (2510 mg/kg

- bw, nominal). Using the highest dose tested as a lower bound estimate of the

LC 50 

### in T

- REX , acute dose

- based RQ values would not exceed the acute non

- listed species LOC

f

or all uses which indicates that effects to non

- listed species are not expected

. However using the

highest dose tested as a lower bound estimate of the LC 50 

### , several scenarios produce RQs

exceeding the listed species LOC ( Tab le 21 ) . Therefore there is some uncertainty regarding the

effect of triflumizole on listed avian species.

Table 21 . Upper bound acute dose

- based RQ values for birds for foliar application of triflumizole on selected crops which cov er the span of registered label rates

Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 20 g bird 100 g bird 1000 g bird

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

Grapes

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.09 0.04 0.01

Tall Grass 0.04 0.02 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.05 0.02 0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Apples and Herbivores/InsectivoresChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

54 Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 20 g bird 100 g bird 1000 g bird

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

Pears 2

– 0.5 lb

a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d

interval Short Grass 0.21 0.09 0.03

Tall Grass 0.10 0.04 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.12 0.05 0.02
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seed <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps

/7

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.29 0.13 0.04

Tall Grass 0.14 0.06 0.02
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.17 0.07 0.02
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.02 0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cucurbits

– 0.25

lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.13 0.06 0.02

Tall Grass 0.06 0.03 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.07 0.03 0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.09 0.04 0.01

Tall Grass 0.04 0.02 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.05 0.02 0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 8 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.09 0.04 0.01

Tall Grass 0.04 0.02 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.05 0.02 0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.08 0.04 0.01

Tall Grass 0.04 0.02 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.05 0.02 0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 < 0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/

14

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.12 0.05 0.02

Tall Grass 0.06 0.02 0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.07 0.03 0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Papaya

– 0.3125

lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.04 0.02 0.01

Tall Grass 0.02 0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.02 0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

55 Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 20 g bird 100 g bird 1000 g bird

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Ornamentals

- 1

lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.38 0.17 0.05

Tall Grass 0.17 0.08 0.02
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.21 0.10 0.03
Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.02 0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Bolded RQ values exce ed the acute listed LOC of 0.1

1 Acute RQ = (upper bound dose

- based EEC, mg/kg

- bw) / (LD 50 ; mg/kg

- bw). The upper bound EECs for a given body weight

and LD 50 values adjusted for the given body weight are in Table 10

. 2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### T he dietary

- based RQ values are based on exposure to the test material which has been mixed

into the feed. RQ results represent risks based on upper

- bound residue estimates assuming that

100% of the daily dietary requirement of the a ni mal is at this exposure level. However again, the

acute dietary study was non

- definitive with no mortality at the highest dose tested (5620 mg/kg

diet, nominal). Using the highest dose tested as a lower bound estimate of the LC 50 

### in T

- REX

, only one scena rio (ornamental applications at 1 lb a.i./A for 3 app lication s with 7

- d interval s)

exceeds the listed species LOC of 0.1 for acute dietary based

- based risk ( Table 22 ). No scenarios

exceed the non

- listed species LOC of 0.5 for acute dietary

- based risk.

Tabl e 22 Upper bound acute dietary

- based RQ values for birds for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label rates

Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based RQ s ( unitless ) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds/ lg

insects Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Apples and Pears 1

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d interval 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### For all uses, chronic d ietary

- based RQ values do not exceed the chronic listed or non

- listed

LOC of 1 for bird species

. (RQs presented in Appendix Table E

- 1.)Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

56 

### D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### R EPTILES AND 

### ( LAND



### - PHASE 

### ) A MPHIBIANS



### Direct effects to reptiles and (land

- phase) amphibians were assessed using the avian toxicology

endpoints in the T

- HERPS Model, which accounts for differences in avian and herpatofauna

biology. For all uses, acute dose

- based RQ values do not exceed the acute non

- listed LOC of 0.5

for herpatofauna (Table 2 3 )

. O nly two uses (applications to c herries at 0.5 lb a.i./A with 6

app lications and a 7

- d interval and ornamentals at 1 lb a.i./A with 3 app lications and a 7

- d

interval ) exceed the listed herpatofauna LOC of 0.1. Again, this analysis is based on a non

definiti ve avian acute oral study (only 10% mortality at the highest dose tested). Therefore there

is some uncertainty regarding the effect of triflumizole on listed herpatofauna species.

Table 23 . Upper bound acute dose

- based RQ values for herpatofauna for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label rates

Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 1.4 g Herp 37 g Herp 238 g Herp

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

Grapes

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d

interval Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.04 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Apples and

Pears 2

– 0.5 lb

a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d

interval Short Grass 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.08 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A 0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps

/7

- d interval Short Grass 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.12 0.02

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A 0.01 <0.01

Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Cucurbits

– 0.25

lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d interval Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.05 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

57 Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 1.4 g Herp 37 g Herp 238 g Herp

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

@ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.04 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 8 apps/ 14

- d

interval Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.04 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01

Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.03 <0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/

14

- d interval Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.05 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Papaya

– 0.3125

lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Short Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.04 0.01

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A <0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Ornamentals

- 1

lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval Short Grass 0.01 0.01 0.01

Tall Grass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.01 0.01 <0.01
Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Small Herbivore Mammals N/A 0.15 0.02

Small Insectivore Mammals N/A 0.01 <0.01
Small Terrestrial Phase Amphibian N/A <0.01 <0.01

Bolded RQ values exceed the acute listed LOC of 0.1; bolded and underlined RQ values exceed the acute non

- listed LOC of 0.5

1 Acute RQ = (upper bound dose

- based EEC, mg/kg

- bw) / (LD 50 ; mg/kg

- bw). The upper bound EECs for a given body weight

and LD 50 values adjusted for the given body weight are in Table 10

. 2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

58 

### Again, the acute dietary study was non

- definitive with no mortality at the highest dose tested

(5 620 mg/kg

- diet, nominal). Using the highest dose tested as a lower bound estimate of the

LC 50 

### in T

- HERPS

, only one use (applications to ornamentals at 1 lb a.i./A with 3

app lications and 7

- d interval ) exceeded the acute listed

- species effect LOC of 0.1 ( Ta ble 2 4 ).

No scenarios exceed the non

- listed species LOC of 0.5 for acute dietary

- based risk.

Table 24 Upper bound acute dietary

- based RQ values for herpatofauna for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label rates

Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based RQ s ( unitless ) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds/

lg insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals Small

Insectivore

Mammals Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Apples and Pears 1

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @

5

- apps /7

- d interval 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A

@ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.07 <0.01 <0.01

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Similar to the avian chronic RQs, none of the uses result in risk quotients that exceed the chronic

herpatofauna dietary LOC of 1. (RQs presented in Appendix Table E

- 5 .)

D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### M AMMALS



### For mammalia n species, acute dose

- based RQ values are listed for several crop scenarios in

Table 2 5

. Acute dose

- based RQ values were calculated based on the acute oral toxicity study

using technical grade triflumizole with Wistar

- SLC rats (MRID 00144463 ) and dose

- based EECs

calculated from estimated triflumizole residues on dietary items ( Table 11 ).Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

59 

### Table 25 . Upper bound acu te dose

- based RQ values for mammals for application of

selected triflumizole uses

Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.06 0.05 0.03

Tall Grass 0.03 0.02 0.01

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.03 0.03 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Apples and Pears 2

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.14 0.12 0.06

Tall Grass 0.06 0.05 0.03

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.08 0.07 0.04

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.19 0.16 0.09

Tall Grass 0.09 0.08 0.04

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.11 0.09 0.05

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 0.01 0.01

Granivore

— Seeds < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.09 0.07 0.04

Tall Grass 0.04 0.03 0.02

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.05 0.04 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/

10

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.06 0.05 0.03

Tall Grass 0.03 0.02 0.01

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.03 0.03 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 8 apps/

14

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.07 0.06 0.03

Tall Grass 0.03 0.03 0.02

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.04 0.04 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Leafy Greens

– 0.25 Herbivores/InsectivoresChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

60 Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals

Acute 1 Acute 1 Acute 1

Short Grass 0.05 0.04 0.02

Tall Grass 0.02 0.02 0.01

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.03 0.03 0.01

Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.08 0.07 0.04

Tall Grass 0.04 0.03 0.02

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.04 0.04 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.07 0.06 0.03

Tall Grass 0.03 0.03 0.01

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.04 0.03 0.02

Fruits/pods/lg insects <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 0.25 0.21 0.11

Tall Grass 0.11 0.10 0.05

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 0.14 0.12 0.06

Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.02 0.01 0.01

Granivore

— Seeds <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Bolded RQ values exce ed the acute listed LOC of 0.1

1 Acute RQ = (upper bound dose

- based EEC, mg/kg

- bw) / (LD 50 ; mg/kg

- bw). The upper bound EECs for a given body
weight and LD 50 values adjusted for the given body weight are in Table 11

. 2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Chronic dose

- based RQ values for both listed and non

- listed species are provided in Table 2 6 . A

chronic three generation rat reproduction/developmental study ( MRID 0016 2176) in which

triflumizole was mixed into the rat diet was used to calculate both the dietary

- and dosed

- based

chronic risk to mammals ( Table 1 1 ). All scenarios evaluated resulted in chronic dose

- based risks

to mammals.

Table 26

. Upper bound chronic dose

- based RQ values for mammals for application of

triflumizole on food and non

- food crops

Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals

Chronic 1 Chronic 1 Chronic 1

Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 42.52 36.32 19.47

Tall Grass 19.49 16.65 8.92

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 23.92 20.43 10.95

Fruits/pods/lg insects 2.66 2.27 1.22

Granivore

— Seeds 0.59 0.50 0.27Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

61 Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals

Chronic 1 Chronic 1 Chronic 1

Apples and Pears 2

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 96.04 82.04 43.98

Tall Grass 44.02 37.60 20.16

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 54.02 46.15 24.74

Fruits/pods/lg insects 6.00 5.13 2.75

Granivore

— Seeds 1.33 1.14 0.61

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 135.33 115.60 61.97

Tall Grass 62.03 52.98 28.40

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 76.12 65.02 34.86

Fruits/pods/lg insects 8.46 7.22 3.87

Granivore

— Seeds 1.88 1.61 0.86

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb

a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 61.09 52.18 27.97

Tall Grass 28.00 23.92 12.82

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 34.36 29.35 15.73

Fruits/pods/lg insects 3.82 3.26 1.75

Granivore

— Seeds 0.85 0.72 0.39

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 43.56 37.21 19.95

Tall Grass 19.97 17.06 9.14

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 24.50 20.93 11.22

Fruits/pods/lg insects 2.72 2.33 1.25

Granivore

— Seeds 0.61 0.52 0.28

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 8 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 42.52 36.32 19.47

Tall Grass 19.49 16.65 8.92

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 23.92 20.43 10.95

Fruits/pods/lg insects 2.66 2.27 1.22

Granivore

— Seeds 0.59 0.50 0.27

Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 37.11 31.70 16.99

Tall Grass 17.01 14.53 7.79
Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 20.87 17.83 9.56
Fruits/pods/lg insects 2.32 1.98 1.06

Granivore

— Seeds 0.52 0.44 0.24

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 55.66 47.54 25.48

Tall Grass 25.51 21.79 11.68

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 31.31 26.74 14.34

Fruits/pods/lg insects 3.48 2.97 1.59

Granivore

— Seeds 0.77 0.66 0.35

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb

a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 46.38 39.62 21.24

Tall Grass 21.26 18.16 9.73

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 26.09 22.29 11.95

Fruits/pods/lg insects 2.90 2.48 1.33Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

62 Application Rate (Crop) Functional Feeding Group Dietary Item 15 g mammals 35 g mammals 1000 g mammals

Chronic 1 Chronic 1 Chronic 1

Granivore

— Seeds 0.64 0.55 0.29

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d

interval Herbivores/Insectivores

Short Grass 173.65 148.33 79.51

Tall Grass 79.59 67.99 36.44

Broadleaf plants/ sm insects 97.68 83.44 44.73

Fruits/pods/lg insects 10.85 9.27 4.97

Granivore

— Seeds 2.41 2.06 1.10

Bolded RQ values exceed the chronic LOC of 1

1 Chronic RQ = (upper bound dose

- based EEC, mg/kg

- bw) / (NOAEL; mg/kg

- bw). The upper bound EECs for a given body weight and NOAEL adjusted values adjusted for the given body weight are in Table 11

. 2 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Chronic dietary

- based RQ values for both listed and non

- listed species are provided in Table

2 7

. All scenarios evaluated resulted in LOC exceedances which could represent chronic

dietary

- based risks to mammals.

Table 27 Mammalian Dietary

- Based Triflumizole RQ Values for Multiple Application Rates for Various Crops

Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based RQ s ( unitless ) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/pods/s eeds/ lg

insects Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 4.90 2.25 2.76 0.31 Apples and Pears 1

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 11.07 5.07 6.23 0.69

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 15.60 7.15 8.77 0.97

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d interval 7.04 3.23 3.96 0.44

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 5.02 2.30 2.82 0.31

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 4.90 2.25 2.76 0.31 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 4.28 1.96 2.41 0.27 Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 6.42 2.94 3.61 0.40 Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 5.35 2.45 3.01 0.33

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 20.02 9.17 11.26 1.25
Bolded RQ values exceed the chronic LOC of 1

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### 4.0.2 Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

Due to a non

- definitive LD 50 

### value (>160 μg/bee) for the contact honeybee studies, RQ values

could not be calculated for acute contact of terrestrial insects with spray. However, risk to

insects was evaluated by comparing insect residue EECs on small and large insects (generated as

dietary

- based EECs for birds and mammals using T

- REX) to the non

- definitive honeybee contact

value. These comparisons are de scribed in the Risk Description sec tion.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

63 

### 4.0.3 Direct Effects to Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plants

The data set for plant effects for triflumizole includes an endpoint for seedling emergence in

ry e grass ( Lolium perenne ) that showed a statistically significant (p<0.05) difference from

control at 4.02 lbs/acre. This effect involved a 23% reduction in emergence that will be

conservatively considered synonymous with an EC 25 

### for the effect. However the data do no t

allow for the establishment of a NOAEL or EC 05 

### value for listed species dir ect effect

evaluation. No other monocot data are available for an equally sensitive plant for th is

pesticide. Consequently, an approach to extrapolate a value for the listed species effect

threshold was used. First, the Agency attempted to determine ry e grass EC 25 

### t o

EC 05 

### /NOAEL ratios for similar SBI Class 1 demethylation inhibiting imidazole fungicides

which include the chemicals imazalil, oxpoconazole, pefurazoate

, and prochloraz according

to the Fubngicide Resistance Action Committee FRAC Code List

( www.frac.info/frac/publication/anhang/FRAC_Code_List_2007_web.pdf ). Th at search for

ryegrass seedling emergence data in Agency holdings and in ECOTOX yielded no

informati on. The Agency then expanded the search to include other SBI Class 1

demethylation inhibiting fungicides in the triazole chemical group. Of the 26 individual

chemicals in this group, a search for ryegrass effects data revealed a paried EC 25 

### and

NOAEL end point for only two chemicals propiconazol (EC 25 

### = 0.5 lb/acre, and NOAEL =

0 .167 lb/acre) and metconazole ( EC 25 

### = 0.78 lb/acre, and NOAEL 0.3 lb/acre). The most

conservative ratio of EC 25 

### to NOAEL is for propiconazol for which the ratio of EC 25 

### to

NOAEL i s 2.99. A pplying this value to the 4.02 lb/acre EC 25 

### estimate yields a listed species

estimated effects threshold of 1.34 lb/acre.

R UNOFF 

### A ND 

### S PRAY DRIFT 

### L OADING



### Table 28 conta ins the spray drift RQ values estimated by the TerrPlant Model for listed and n on

listed dicot plants based on the vegetative vigor toxicity for treated fields from the highest

application rate, 1 lb a.i./A (ornamentals, aerial). No specie s in either the Tier I or the Tier I I test
experienced inhibition greater than 25%. Ryegr ass biomass was the only species and endpoint

that exhibited a statistically significant reduction fr om control

. The no effect level for dicots was

determined to be the limit concentration (4.02 lb a.i./A), and RQ values for listed plants for spray

drift were calculated. Since the ryegrass biomass endpoint was reduced relative to the control at

the only concentration tested

, a NOEC could not be established for monocots and risk could not

be determined for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to Triflum izole through runoff.

The RQ values for listed and non

- listed plants did not exceed the LOC of 1 for spray drift for

dicots. The spray drift only RQ value for listed monocots also did not exceed the LOC.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

64 

### Dry and semi

- aquatic areas use toxicity data from s eedling emergence studies to calculate RQ

values. Vegetative vigor toxicity data are used to determine RQ values from spray drift only.

The model TerrPlant assumes a 5% and 1% drift fraction for aerial and ground application,

respectively.

Table 28 RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to triflumizole through spray drift based on the seedling emergence study

Application Method and Plant Taxon Listed Status EEC Spray Drift

(lb a.i./A) Toxicity Value

EC 25 – non

- l isted

NOAEC

– listed

lb a.i./A 3 Spray Drift RQ

Aerial Spray, ornamental, 1 lb a.i./acre

Monocot Non

- listed 1 0.05 >4.02 <0.1

Monocot Listed 2 0.05 1.34 0.04

Di cot Non

- listed 1 0.05 >4.02 <0.1

Di cot Listed 2 0.05 >4.02 <0.1

1 Dicot and monocot non

- listed RQ = (EEC, lb a.i./acre) ÷ (EC 25 , lb a.i./acre)

2 Dicot and monocot listed RQ = (EEC, lb a.i./acre) ÷ (NOAEC, lb a.i./acre)



### 4.0.4 Direct Effects to Freshwater and Estuarine

- Marine Fish (Amphibians)

and Invertebrates

Fish and aquatic invertebrate acute and chronic RQ values are calculated using

PRZM/EXAMS aquatic EECs and selected acute and chronic fish and aquatic invertebrate

toxicity values . None of the RQs exceeded the acute non

- listed LOC of 0.5. The listed LOC

of 0.05 was only exceeded for some of the scenarios for freshwater fish and estuarine/marine

invertebrates. Only those taxa and scenarios that exceeded the acute listed

- species LOC are

presented in Table 2 9

. The full set of f ish and aquatic invertebrate taxa are presented in

Appendix Table E

- 2

.

Table 29

. Acute RQ values for freshwater fish and estuarine

- marine invertebrates based on acute exposure concentrations in receiving water . Only scenarios indicating risk are presented. (A ll scenarios evaluated are presented in Appendix Table E

- 2 .)

Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Acute

Freshwater

Fish RQs Acute

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs

Ornamentals (landscape grown ornamental trees,

shrubs and non

bearing apples, pears, and grapes) FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb

a.i./acre (7 days) 44.35 0.08 0.07

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb

a.i./acre (7 days) 41.01 0.07 0.07

Ornamentals (all) FL Nursery A 1 app @ 2.0 lb 37.39 0.06 0.06Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

65 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Acute

Freshwater

Fish RQs Acute

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs April 15

- foliar a.i./acre
FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb

a.i./acre 35.12 0.06 0.06

Pineapples GENEEC

-- 1 app @ 2.0 lb

a.i./acre 34.15 0.06 0.06



### There were no chronic LOC exceedances for any registered triflumizole use for fish or

aquatic freshwater invertebrates (Appendix Table E

- 3).

4.0.5 Direct Effects to Aquatic Plants

L isted and non

- listed aquatic plant (n on

- vascular and vascular ) RQ values are calculated

using aquatic EECs derived as described in the exposure analysis using PRZM/EXAMS and

selected aquatic plant toxicity values . There were no non

- listed or listed LOC exceedances

for non

- vascular and vascular aquatic plants (Appendix Table E

- 4 ).

4.0.6 P robit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values

As part of the risk estimation, the probability of mortality associated with the listed acute

LOC values is estimated along with the probability of acute mortality occurring if exposure

at the EEC actually occurs. The probability of mortality calculations are based on the probit

slope dose

- response relationship. The probability of mortality for an exposed individual are

calculated using an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model

Version 1.1) developed by the Agency (June 22, 2004).

The odds of mortality for an individual at the endangered species LOC for terrestrial and

aquatic animals based on the slopes discussed in the previous paragraph are provided in

Table 30

. Because slopes were not available for these studies, the default slope of 4.5 (95%

confidence limits of 2 and 9) was used.

Table 30 Probit Slope and Odds of Mortality for an Individual at the LOC

Listed Species Birds and Herpatofauna Mammals Fish Aquatic

Invertebrates

LOC 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.05

Slope 4.5* 4.5* 4.5* 4.5*

Slope 95% CL 2, 9* 2, 9* 2, 9* 2, 9*

Odds of individual

effect 1 in 294,000 1 in 294,000 <1 in 10 8 <1 in 10 8Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

66 Listed Species Birds and Herpatofauna Mammals Fish Aquatic

Invertebrates

95% CL 1 in 44, <1 in 10 18 1 in 44, <1 in 10 18 1 in 216; <1 in 10 31 1 in 216; <1 in 10 31

*Assumes the default slope of 4.5 and confidence limits of 2 and 9

.



### Risk quotient values for comparison were chosen based on the results of the risk assessment
(Table 3 1 )

.

Table 31

. Odds of mortality for an individual bird, mammal, fish, or aquatic invertebrate at selected acute risk quotient values for paclobutrazol

Taxa (scenario) RQ Slope
(default) 95% Confidence
Interval (default) Odds
(1 in...) 95% Confidence
Interval (odds)
RQs based on Definitive Endpoints

Mammal ( Apples and pears 1 ) 0.1 4 4.5 2, 9 16,400 22.8

– 1.31 x 10 1 4

Mammal ( Cherries ) 0. 19 4.5 2, 9 1,710 13.4

– 2.35 x 10 1 0

Mammal ( Ornamentals ) 0. 25 4.5 2, 9 297 8.75

– 3.33 x 10 7

Freshwater fish
(Ornamentals ) 0. 08 4.5 2, 9 2.51 x 10 6 70.8

– 3.64 x 10 22

Freshwater fish (Ornamentals
or Pineapple ) 0.0 6 4.5 2, 9 5.22 x 10 7 138

– 5.04 x 10 27

Estuarine/marine

invertebrates (Ornamentals or
Pineapple ) 0.0 7 4.5 2, 9 9.88 x 10 6 95.7

– 7.58 x 10 24

RQs based on Non

- definitive Endpoints

Dose

- based Bird
(Ornamentals) <0.38 4.5 2, 9 >34.1 4.99

– 1290

Dietary

- based Bird and
Herpatofauna (Ornamentals) <0.11 4.5 2, 9 >125,000 36.2

– 3.19 x 10 17

Dose

- based Herpatofauna
(Ornamentals) <0.15 4.5 2, 9 >9,560 20.1

– 1.65 x 10 13

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



## Risk Description

The following risk description explains the overall direct effect conclusions regarding the

potential ecological risk from the various uses of triflumizole. The risk conclusions take into

consideration all lines of evidence, such as the risk estimates (RQ results) along with

information on the odds of mortality for the acute RQ values, and where risks could not be

quantified by use of an RQ due to non

- definitive endpoints ( i.e ., limit tests) a comparison of

these results to EECs; information such as monitoring data, field studies, and incident data

that may provide additional insights into the likelihood of exposure; and other factors that

modify the likelihood of exposure suc h as timing of application, overlap of area affected andChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

67 

### the degree of effect with the presence/absence of taxa, species sensitivity distribution, and

presence/absence of dietary items.

D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### T ERRESTRIAL 

### B IRDS 

### , R EPTILES 

### , AND 

### A MPHIBIANS



### Acute Ri sk

Definitive acute avian dose

- based and dietary

- based risk quotients could not be calculated to
evaluate the risks to birds because only non

- definitive acute toxicity data were available.

Therefore, the non

- definitive toxicity values are directly compare d to the highest dose

- based

EEC ( Table 3 2 ). N one of the dose

- based EECs were larger than the non

- definitive toxicity

value

. This indicates the potential for acute risk is low for acute dose

- based e xposure of listed

and non

- listed birds for all registered uses . The probit slope response analysis indicated a 1 in
>34.1 chance of mortality with exposure to this triflumizole use. Because risk to reptiles and

land

- phase amphibians from triflumizole is based on the same endpoints, but lower EECs
(produced by T

- H ERPS), risks to herpatofauna are considered to be even less likely

.

Table 32 . Comparison of the highest calculated dietary EEC from application of triflumizole to the highest tested concentration with no effect for the sub

- acute a vian dietary toxicity study.

Application Rate (Crop) Dietary Item EEC (mg/kg

- diet) 1 >2510 mg a.i./kg

- bw
1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps / 7

- d

interval (ornamentals) Short Grass 683.86 EEC <2510

1 Dietary

- based residue levels for applications from Table 10

.



### Similarly, the non

- definitive dietary

- based avian toxicity values were directly compared to
the highest EECs (Table 3 3 ). In all cases, n one of the dietary EECs were larger than the non

definitive toxicity value . The probit slope response analysis indicated a 1 in 294,000 chance
of mortality with exposure to triflumizole. Again, because risk to reptiles and land

- phase
amphibians from triflumizole is based on the same endpoints, but lower EECs (produced by

T

- HERPS), risks to herpatofauna are consider ed to be even less likely

.

Table 33 . Comparison of the highest calculated dietary EEC from application of triflumizole to the highest tested concentration with no effect for the sub

- acute avian dietary toxicity study.

Application R ate (Crop) Dietary Item EEC (mg/kg

- diet) 1 >5620 mg a.i./kg

- bw
1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps / 7

- d

interval (ornamentals) Short Grass 683.86 EEC < 5620

1 Dietary

- based residue levels for applications from Table 10

.



### In summary, the potential for acute risk is considered to be low for acute dose

- based and

dietary

- based exposure of non

- listed birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians from

triflumizole for all registered uses. Because the highest concentrations tested in the avian

tests were not high enough to preclude any risk to listed avian species, there is someChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

68 

### potential for risk to listed avian species. Therefore a risk call of may effect (MA) is

appropriate for birds and herpatofauna. To better refine this risk estimate , the registrant

may wish to re

- test with a slightly higher concentration range. This call applies only to the

apples and pears, cherries, curcubits, hops, and ornamental uses.

Chronic Exposure

Chronic RQs did not exceed the Agency’s chronic level of concern fo r any scenario.

Therefore, a listed species risk call of no effect (NE) is appropriate for birds, reptiles,

and land

- phase amphibians.

D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### T ERRESTRIAL 

### M AMMALS



### Acute Risk

There were no acute non

- listed LOC exceedance for mammals. However, there were acute

non

- listed LOC exceedance for mammals for three triflumizole uses starting with small

mammals consuming, on a dose

- basis, short grasses from registered triflumizole use at an application rate of 0.5 lb a.i./A or greater for apples and pears, cherries, and ornamentals. As

the triflumizole application rate increases, the acute non

- listed LOC is exceeded for other

larger size classes as well as additional dietary items (tall g rasses and broadleaf plants) for

some size classes (RQs 0.10

- 0.25). Therefore, acute dose

- based adverse risk could occur

to mammals from triflumizole applications indicating that a may affect ( M A) listed

species effect call is appropriate. However, this ca ll applies only to the apples and pears,
cherries, and ornamental uses.

Chronic Exposure

Effects to listed and non

- listed species are expected form chronic exposure to mammals from

all triflumizole uses. Therefore

, a may affect ( M A) listed species effect c all is

appropriate.

D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### T ERRESTRIAL 

### I NVERTEBRATES



### There is no defined LOC for non

- listed terrestrial insects; the interim listed terrest rial

invertebrate LOC is 0.05. Currently, there is no established threshold for adverse risk to

terrestria l invertebrates. As such, the level of direct impact to terrestrial invertebrates

necessary to indirectly affect other taxa that rely on terrestrial invertebrates as a food source

has not been established on a national level, and the use of the interim LOC of 0.05 will

apply to all terrestrial invertebrates in general without the demarcation of non

- listed and

listed.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

69 

### The available acute contact honeybee study (MRID 00149875) resulted in non

- definitive

LD 50 

### value, therefore, RQ values were not calculated. The acute contact LD 50 

### study was

conducted with technical grade triflumizole, and the LD 50 

### value from this study was >160 μg

a.i./bee. There was 1% mortality in the control, 0% mortality in the solvent co ntrol, 0%
mortality in the 10 μg a.i./bee treatment, 1% mortality in the 20 μg a.i./bee treatment, 0%
mortality in the 40 μg a.i./bee treatment, 2% mortality in the 80 μg a.i./bee treatment, and 6%
mortality in the 160 μg a.i./bee treatment (highest concen tration tested) at study completion

(48 hours). Because these test results are reported in μg a.i./bee, these values were converted

to a mg/kg

- bee, based on the weight of one bee (0.128 g). The extrapolated acute contact

LD 50 

### value for terrestrial inverte brates is 1250 mg/kg. 3 

### This extrapolated value (1250 mg

a.i./kg

- bee) was compared to the small and large insect predicted EECs. Comparisons for

selected triflumizole uses are presented in ( Table 3 4 ). The highest predicted EECs

(ornamentals) are lower tha n this extrapolated acute contact toxicity value. Therefore, a no

effect (N E ) listed species call is appropriate.

Table 34 . Comparison of selected small and large insect EECs from foliar application

of triflumizole to the extrapolated acute contact honeybee concentration

Application Rate (Crop) Dietary Item EEC (mg/kg

- diet) 1 Extrapolated Acute Contact

Value 1250 (mg a.i./kg) 1

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval Small insects 322.02 EEC < 1250

Large insects 35.78 EEC < 1250

1 Bold values are where the predicted EEC for small or large insect exceed the extrapolated acute contact value



### D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### T ERRESTRIAL 

### P LANTS



### Adverse risk to non

- target plants from ru noff and spray drift exposure is not expected. Tier I

seedling emergence data did show a 23 % reduction in biomass for ryegrass at an application

rate (4.02 lbs a.i./acre) that is much higher than any existing label rate. No tier II study was

available for triflumizole on ryegrass. However, an analogou s chemical with paired tier I and

tier II data provided a conservatively estimated ratio between the EC 25 

### and EC 05 

### of 2.99.

Assuming the 23% reduction in biomass at 4.02 lbs a.i./acre represents the EC 25 

### , application

of the EC 25 

### to EC 05 

### ratio to the EC 25 

### p roduces and estimate of the EC 05 

### of approximately

1.34 lbs a.i./acre. This value is higher than the highest foliar application rate (ornamentals) of

1 lbs a.i./acre. Therefore no e ffect (NE) to non

- target terrestrial plants is anticipated

3 

### ppm 1250
g g

128

. 0

160 50 50

sec 

### = = = μ

bee honey bee

honey

t in l terrestria 

### BW LD LD ed ExtrapolatChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

70 

### within the applic ation area. Because application rates due to spray and runoff in non

target areas are expected to be less than the application rate to the area of intended

application, effects are not expected to non

- target plants in the non

- target areas.

D IRECT 

### E FFECTS TO 

### F ISH 

### , A QUATIC 

### I NVERTEBRATES AND 

### P LANTS



### Acute Exposure

There were no acute non

- listed LOC exceedance for freshwater or estuarine/marine fish or

aquatic invertebrates . However, there were acute listed LOC exceedance for freshwater fish

and estuarine/marin e invertebrates (Table 22) for ornamentals and pineapples (RQs ranged

from 0.06 to 0.08)

. These RQs produce an individual chance of effects of 1 in 2.51 x 10 6 

### to 1

in 5.22 x 10 7 

### . However, the RQs only slightly exceed the LOC of 0.05 and the aquatic EECs

ar e based on the assumption that the aerobic aquatic metabolism half

- life is equal to twice the

90 th 

### percentile confidence limit of the half

- lives from the aerobic soil metabolism studies

because no aerobic aquatic metabolism studies have not been submitted to the agency.

Therefore, a may affect ( M A) listed species effect call is appropriate. However, this call

applies only to ornamental and pineapple uses for freshwater fish and estuarine marine

invertebrates. To potentially help alleviate aquatic risk conce rns in future assessments, the

registrant should submit an aerobic aquatic metabolism study to the agency.

Chronic Exposure

No chronic aquatic risks were identified in this assessment. Therefore, a listed species

effect call of no effect (NE) is appropriat e.

Aquatic Plants

– Vascular and Nonvascular

Risk to non

- listed nonvascular and vascular aquatic plants is considered to be within

acceptable levels for registered use of triflumizole. There were no non

- listed LOC

exceedances for both non

- vascular and vascular plants for triflumizole. Therefore , a listed

species effect call of no effect (NE) is appropriate.

4.0.7 Listed Species Effects Analysis

The direct and indirect effects analysis for general taxa of listed species is summarized in

Table 35 , for triflumizole uses. The analysis is based on the direct and indirect effects

concluded from the analysis of risk estimates.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

71 

### Table 35 Summary of Indirect and Direct Effects to Listed Species and Preliminary Effects Determination for Triflumizole

Uses

Listed species

group (1) Direct Effect Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect Effects Effects Determination Aquatic Organisms

Nonvascular Aquatic Plant Species Primary productivity No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Indirect effects to non

- vascular plants in aquatic areas would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Currently, there are no listed nonvascular aquatic plant species, therefore adverse effects to listed non

vascular plants is not expected. NE

Vascular Aquatic Plant Species Primary productivity No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC.

. Indirect effects to vascular plants in aquatic areas would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship between a listed vascular aquatic plant species and a mammal species , there could potentially be an indirect effect on the listed plant species.

More likely, would be impacts to riparian vegetation if mammals were adversely affected by triflumizole applications. MA

Freshwater

Fish and Amphibians Acute mortality MA Indirect effects to freshwater fish and amphibians would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship between a listed freshwater fish or amphibian species and a

mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on the listed freshwater fish or amphibian species.

More likely, would be impacts to riparian vegetation if mammals were adversely affected by triflumizole applications. MA
Chronic survival, growth and reproduction No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC.

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute mortality NE

– Listed RQ

values below listed

LOC. Indirect effects to freshwater invertebrates would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship

between a listed freshwater fish or amphibian species and a mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on the listed freshwater invertebrate species.

More likely, would be impacts to riparian vegetation if mammals were adversely affected by triflumizole applications. MA

Chronic survival and reproduction NE

– Listed RQ

values below listed

LOC.

Estuarine

marine Fish Acute mortality NE

– Listed RQ

values below listed

LOC. Indirect effects to estuarine/marine fish would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship

between a listed estuarine/marine fish species a nd a mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on the listed estuarine/marine fish species.

More likely, would be impacts to riparian vegetation if mammals were adversely affected by triflumizole applications. MA

Assessment of chronic growth and survival NE

– Listed RQ

values below listed

LOC.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

72 Listed species

group (1) Direct Effect Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect Effects Effects Determination

Estuarine

marine

Invertebrates Acute mortality

– embryo

- larvae survival for oyster No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Indirect effects to estuarine/marine invertebrate would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship between a listed estuarine/marine invertebrate species and a

mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on the listed

estuarine/marine invertebrate species.

More likely, would be impacts to riparian vegetation if mammals were adversely affected by triflumizole applications. MA

Assessment of chronic growth and reproductive

effects No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC.

Terrestrial Organisms

Non

- target plants in

terrestrial and

semi

- aquatic

areas Primary productivity

assessed from effects on

biomass as measured using survival and dry weight; incident data. No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Indirect effects to terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship between a listed terrestrial or semi

- aquatic plant species and a

mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on the listed plant species. MA

Birds, Reptiles, and

Land

- Phase Amphibians Acute mortality MA Indirect effects to birds, reptiles, or land

- phase amphibians would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship between a listed birds, reptiles, or land

- phase amphibians species

and a mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on th at listed bi rd, reptile

, or land

- phase amphibian species. MA
Chronic Reproduction No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC.

Mammals Acute mortality MA Indirect effects to mammals would most likely be from the direct effects on

other mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship between a

listed mammal species and a nother mammal , there could potentially be an

indirect effect on th at listed ma mmal species. MA Chronic Reproduction MA

Terrestrial

Insects Acute mortality based on

contact No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Indirect effects to terrestrial insects would most likely be from the direct effects on mammals. Potentially if there were an obligate relationship

between a listed terrestrial insect species and a mammal , there could potentially be an indirect effect on th at listed terrestrial insect species. MAChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

73 

### A CTION 

### A REA



### In the case of a nationwide risk assessment conducted under Registration Review, the action

area will encompass the entire U.S. and its territories. The purpose of defining the action

area as the entire U.S. and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration

encompasses all areas subject to U.S. laws where the pesticide may be used now and in the

future, incl uding the potential for off

- site transport via spray drift and downstream dilution.

Additionally, the concept of a nationwide action area takes into account the potential for

direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat b ased on

ecological effect measures associated with reduction in survival, growth, and reproduction, as

well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in the effects literature.

It is important to note that the nationwide action area does not imply that direct and/or

indirect effects and critical habitat modification are expected to or are likely to occur over the

full extent of the action area, but rather to identify all listed species and critical habitat that

may potentially be affected by the act ion. The Agency will use more rigorous analysis

including consideration of available land cover data, toxicity data, and exposure information

to determine areas where individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be

affected or modified vi a endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or reproduction.

E FFECTS 

### A REA 

### D ETERMINATION



### The potential for direct and/or indirect effects is possible to listed species from exposure to

triflumizole. The effects determination and reasoning for t he determination are described for

each taxon in Section 4.0.7 . Direct effects to mammals will be used to determine the

necessary distance off

- field to be below triflumizole exposure concentrations expected to

cause direct and indirect adverse risk.

In or der to determine terrestrial and aquatic habitats of concern due to triflumizole exposures

through spray drift, it is necessary to estimate the distance that spray applications can drift

from the treated area and still be present at concentrations that exc eed levels of concern. An

analysis of spray drift distances was completed using AgDRIFT.

The model was run as a Tier I ground or aerial analysis, focusing on determining a buffer

zone for bird, mammalian, and terrestrial invertebrate and plant species (Ta ble 3 6 ) . The

fraction of applied (LOC/RQ) was entered into AgDrift for each non

- listed and listed RQ that

exceeded the LOC. Also, since the label did not indicate spray droplet size, the conservative

size of very fine to fine was used. The acute listed LOC for terrestrial birds and mammals is

0.1, and the chronic LOC for birds and mammals is 1. The interim listed LOC for terrestrial

insects is 0.05.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

74 

### The graphical resolution for determining the spatial location of an NLCD area is ± 30 meters.

Therefore, a distance of 100 feet (30 meters equals 98.4 feet) was added to each of the effect

area distances calculated using AgDrift for each potentially affected taxon for each

triflumizole use.

Table 36

. Effect Distances Using AgDrift (ex cludes 100 feet addition due to NLCD uncertainty)

Triflumizole Use Areial

or Ground Aerial Application Effect Distance (feet)*

Acute Bird Acute Herp Acute

Mammal Chronic Mammal Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 125 Apples and Pears 1

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval A 5 NA 0 >1000

G 5 NA 0 235

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval A 35 0 0 >1000

G 10 5 0 320

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d

interval A 0 NA NA >1000

G 0 NA NA 125

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 125

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/ 14

- d

interval A 0 NA NA >1000

G 0 NA NA 125 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 85 Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval A 0 NA NA >1000

G 0 NA NA 125 Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d

interval A NA NA NA >1000

G NA NA NA 125

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d

interval A 80 0 15 >1000

G 15 5 5 360

NA = RQ values did not exceed the LOC

*Values rounded to nearest 5 feet

1 Apple and pear applications by aircraft are not allowed according to labels in California.



### Based on this screening

- level assessment, there are potential risks of direct effects to list ed

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians , freshwater fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and

freshwater fish and non

- listed monocots, mammals, and freshwater fish from the use of

triflumizole on some of its registered use sites. Listed species of all tax a may also be

affected through indirect effects because of the potential direct effects on listed and non

listed species. Potential direct effects on listed mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians

, freshwater fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and freshwa ter fish and non

- listed monocots,

mammals, and freshwater fish from the use of triflumizole may be associated with

modification of primary constituent elements of designated critical habitats, where such

designations have been made. However, at this curre nt stage of the Registration ReviewChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

75 

### process, it is premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further

refinements are conducted. To make effects determinations for individual species, useful

refinements may include analyses of 1) mo re detailed, species

- specific ecological and

biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate information on triflumizole use patterns; and

3) sub

- county level spatial proximity data for the co

- occurrence of potential effects areas and

listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are

described below.

EFED is currently developing tools that are expected to further refine the assessment and are

designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed specie s and their

designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other

reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all c urrently listed species. The

information will be stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticide Registration

Information SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase will

consist of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information

relevant to individual species (e.g., habitat, diet, and life history, including specific temporal

and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents (e.g.,

USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information (e.g., GIS data files). For terrestrial taxa,

the biological information relevant to risk quotient (RQ) calculations (e.g., diet and body

weight) will be used to parameterize exposure estimates to derive species

- specific RQs using

a method co nsistent with currently used methods in the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models.

Refinements may also include more detailed analyses of the registered uses and their use

patterns that result in LOC exceedances for federally listed species in the screening

- level

asses sment. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how

triflumizole is used on all use sites. Actual usage data (when available) and national land

cover datasets that indicate potential use sites [e.g., national land cover dataset (NLCD ), crop

data layer (CDL)] may be used to support a more refined analysis of where triflumizole is

reasonably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements for the timing of applications and

how triflumizole is used may be based on the analysis of additional usage data, beyond what

were available at the time of the screening

- level assessment, and a more in

- depth exploration

of agronomic practices.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), have announced the availability of a report developed by the National

Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council outlining re commendations on specificChapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

76 

### scientific and technical issues related to the development of endangered and threatened

species risk assessments for pesticides that are compliant with the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and R odenticide Act (FIFRA). The EPA,

USDA, FWS and NMFS asked the NRC to consider a range of scientific and technical issues

including:

• identifying best available scientific data and information;

• considering sub

- lethal, indirect and cumulative effects;

• assessing the effects of chemical mixtures and inert ingredients;

• analyzing the effects of pesticide use through the use of models;

• incorporating uncertainties into the evaluations; and

• using geospatial information and datasets that can be employed by t he agencies in the

course of these assessments.

After reviewing the NRC’s recommendations on these scientific and technical issues, the

EPA and its federal partners will determine how these recommendations can be implemented

and incorporated into the scie ntific approaches for developing listed species risk assessments.

It is anticipated that any draft guidance and/or science policies developed by EPA and its

federal partners as a result of the NAS recommendations would be released for public

comment prior to implementation.

The refinements based on individual species data; additional, detailed usage information,

when available; and further recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to

more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to b etter inform effects and habitat

determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats. For example, if

triflumizole is used when a particular species of concern is not present ( e.g. , it is migratory)

or is not co

- located in space, then r isk of potential direct effects to the species may often be

precluded. If LOCs are still exceeded for freshwater fish

, estuarine/marine invertebrates,

mammals, birds, and herpatofauna after conducting the refined analyses, further analyses of

the potentia l spatial and temporal co

- occurrence of listed species of concern (and any

designated critical habitat) may be conducted. The extent of possible refinement in the

analyses of spatial/temporal co

- occurrence will largely depend on the scale and quality of t he

available sub

- county level use site (e.g., NLCD, CDL) and species location data.Chapter 4 Results : Risk Characterization

77 

### The Agency has made several refinements to the list of endangered and threatened species

that may be affected by triflumizole uses. To date, there are 1442 listed species identified in

the LOCATES database (v. 2.2.4, derived from USFWS and NMFS). For 72 of these, a “no

effect” determination for direct and indirect effects can be made based on a lack of

geographical overlap, based on a county level of resolution, between th e species and

triflumizole uses. This leaves 1370 species ( 76 m ammals, 80 b irds, 23 a mphibians, 29

r eptiles, 121 f ish, 21 c rustaceans, 83 b ivalves, 79 g astropods, 12 a rachnids, 66 i nsects, 676

d icots, 69 m onocots, 28 f erns, 3 c on i f ers /cyc a ds, 2 c orals, and 2 l ichens ) that may be affected

either directly and/or indirectly by triflumizole applications ( Appendix J Table 36 ) . However,

only 159 species ( 76 m ammals, 80 b irds

, 0 f ish, 1 c rustacean, and 2 c orals ) were directly

affected by triflumizole applications ( Appendix J Table 37 ). The biological, geographical,

and use pattern information outlined above will be necessary to refine the assessment.

An uncertainty in these species counts is that LOCATES does not have a use category for

orname ntal nursery uses. Therefore, these species counts do not include species potentially

affected by ornamental nursery uses that were not already included in the totals for the other

uses.Chapter 5: Uncertainties

78 

# Chapter 5 Uncertainties

A description of assumptions, uncertainties, strengths, and limitations of the basic risk

assessment performed is described in Chapter 6 of the Agency’s Overview Document (EPA,

2004) and include those related to exposure for all taxa, those related to exposure for aquatic

species, those related to exposure for terrestrial animals, those related to the effects

assessment, and those associated with the acute LOC values. This Chapter discusses

additional uncertainties associated with refinements made to the basic risk assessment.



## Environmental Fate Uncertainties

The aerobic soil metabolism half

- life input parameter was calculated for the parent and

degradates. The submitted laboratory studies, however, suggest that one of degradates is

potentially volatile. Volatilization may be the major route of dissipation fo r this degradate.

The soil drench rate provided by BEAD for container

- grown and bed

- grown ornamentals was

13.6 lbs. a.i. per acre and 18.15 lbs a.i. per acre, respectively. Since this rate is applied to the

pots that are packed “can

- tight” and not direc tly to the soil, the percent of applied

radioactivity (2.21%) found in the leachate from the column leaching study on sandy soil

(MRID 40602601) was utilized to calculate the rate applied to the soil. For example, 18.15

lbs per acr e x 0.0221 = 0.4 lbs per acre.

In addition, it is assumed that treated pots would be placed outdoors immediately after the

drench application. If the treated pots remain indoors and/or the applied triflumizole is taken

up by the potted plants, the residual triflumizole would be less than the modeled application

rate and consequently exposure in surface water would be less than the reported values.

Additionally, exposure assessments were performed based on one seasonal application rate

for the drench method. Indoor potted plants can be grown several times within a year. If this

chemical is applied to multiple batches of potted plants and placed outdoors during the

growing season, exposure would be higher than the reported values in Table 3 . In addition,

exposure would be higher or lower based on residence time of treated potted plants remain

outdoors before planting or distributing to retailers.

Because th ere were no aerobic aquatic metabolism studies submitted by the registrant, the

half

- lives of these degradation pathways were conservatively estimated as stable (no

degradation). These studies were not requested in the registration review problem

formulation because aquatic risks had not been identifi ed in previous risk assessments.Chapter 5: Uncertainties

79 

### However, aquatic risks were identified in this assessment with a maximum aquatic risk

quotient (RQ) of 0.08, which on slightly exceeds the Agency’s level of concern of 0.05.

Potentially, submitting these studies would allow less conservative EECs to be used in risk

assessment, which would likely alleviate aquatic listed species concerns.



## Environmental Effects Uncertainties

A major uncertainty involves the presence of a tier I ryegrass seedling emergence study that

shows a st atistically significant 23% reduction in biomass at the only concentration tested

without a corresponding tier II ryegrass seedling emergence study to estimate the

concentration where limited effects occur (EC05). Conducting such a tier II study would

like ly eliminate concerns for listed and non

- listed plant species.

Another major uncertainty involves the avian data from which avian and herpatofauna risk is

assessed. The avian acute dose and dietary studies produced non

- definitive endpoints with

the highest concentrations tested being insufficient to preclude risks at the EECs predicted

for some triflumizole uses. Re

- testing at higher concentrations would likely alleviate avian

listed species concerns.

5.0.1 Label Uncertainties

There are several instances were the label is not clear in terms of application rate and/or

method. Therefore, there is uncertainty in terms of potential exposure for some registered

uses of triflumizole. Many of the labels specify a maximum application rate in terms of

lbs./gallon of spray solution rather than lbs./acre. This is acceptable for dip treatments ( e.g. , pineapple use in triflumizole’s case). However, The Terraguard 50W label (Reg. # 400

- 431)

and Terraguard 50WP label (Reg. # 400

- 502) specify all uses as lbs./gallon. The Terragua rd

50SC label (Reg. # 400

- 521) specifies almost all uses as lbs./gallon or lbs./pot. The Procure

labels did not have this problem. Similarly, reapplication intervals and maximum number of

application information was not evident on the Terraguard labels, bu t was only missing for a

few of the Procure labeled uses.

5.0.2 Differences between acute oral dose and acute dietary dose

In general, the dose

- based approach assumes that the uptake and absorption kinetics of a

gavage toxicity study approximate the absorption a ssociated with uptake from a dietary

matrix. Toxic response is a function of duration and intensity of exposure. Absorption

kinetics across the gut and enzymatic activation/deactivation of a toxicant may be important

and are likely variable across chemic als and species. The dietary

- based approach assumes

that animals in the field are consuming food at a rate similar to that of confined laboratoryChapter 5: Uncertainties

80 

### animals. Energy content in food items differs between the field and the laboratory and so do

the energy requ irements of wild and captive animals. The Wildlife Exposure Factors

Handbook can provide insights into energy requirements of animals in the wild as well as

energy content of their diets (USEPA, 1993).

5.0.3 Incomplete Life Histories and Locations of Listed Spe cies

Currently, an approved database of the complete life histories for each of the listed animals

and plants is not available. These life histories would include information such as body size

at each life stage, food sources, relationships with other tax a, habitat, and dietary habits. As

such, conservative assumptions were assumed concerning the potential relationships between

species in that each species was assumed to have a reliant/obligate relationship with the other

taxa. This is assumed to be an o verestimation of the actual species that have an obligate or

species dependant relationship. In addition, the location(s) of these listed species is not

known in some cases beyond county

- level. If the location of a species was not known

beyond county lev el, the species was assumed to occur anywhere within that county at any

time. This assumption may lead to an overestimation of co

- occurrence with triflumizole

exposure and overestimation of the number of species potentially at risk.

5.0.4 Use of the Most Sensit ive Species Tested

Although the screening

- level risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the

most sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoints

reflect sensitivity of the most sensitive speci es existing in a given environment. The relative

position of the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a

function of the overall variability among species to a particular chemical. In the case of

listed species, the re is uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species’ sensitivity

and the most sensitive species tested.

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk

assessment conclusions. The Agency also co nsiders toxicity data on non

- standard test species

when available.

5.0.5 Spray Drift Modeling

It is unlikely that the same organism would be exposed to the maximum amount of spray

drift from every application made. Variations in topography, cover, and meteorolo gical

conditions over the transport distance are not accounted for by the AgDRIFT model ( i.e ., it

models spray drift from aerial and ground applications in a flat area with little to no ground

cover and a steady, constant wind speed and direction). Theref ore, in most cases, the driftChapter 5: Uncertainties

81 

### estimates from AgDRIFT may overestimate exposure, especially as the distance increases

from the site of application, since the model does not account for potential obstructions ( e.g ., large hills, berms, buildings, trees, etc

. ). Furthermore, conservative assumptions are made

regarding the droplet size distributions being modeled (was set to the default ‘ASAE Very

Fine to Fine’), the application method ( i.e ., aerial), release heights and wind speeds (also set

to the default val ues of 10 ft and 10 mph respectively for aerial application; the height for

ground application was set to the default ‘high boom’). Alterations in any of these inputs

would decrease the area of potential effect

5.0.6 Endocrine Disrupter

EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to

determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients)

“may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a natu rally occurring

estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” Following

the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee

(EDSTAC), EPA determined that there were scientific bases for including, as part of the

program, androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone

system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC’s recommendation that the Program include evaluations

of potential effects in wildlife. When the appropriate scre ening and/or testing protocols

being considered under the Agency’s Endocrine Disrupter Screening Program (EDSP) have

been developed and vetted, “triflumizole” may be subjected to additional screening and/or

testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

82 

# Chapter 6 References

Markoglou, A., Ziogas, B.. SBI

- fungicides : fungicidal e ffectiveness and resistance in Botrytis cinerea . Phytopathologia Me diterranea, North America, 41, A ug. 2002.

Available at: http://www.fupress.net/index.php/pm/article/view/1663 . Date accessed: 17 May. 2013.

Roberts, T.; Hutson, D. Metabolic Pathways of Agrochemicals

- Part 2: Insecticides and Fungicides, 1st ed.; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 1999; pp 638

- 644.

USEPA. 2005. PRZM

- 3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide a nd Nitrogen Fate in the Crop

Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.12.2 May 2005.

USEPA. 2007. EFED Problem Formulation for Triflumizole Registration Review . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, March 22, 2007

.

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1. U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009.

USEPA. 2012. Water Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Science and Policy. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

Janssen R & D, Incorporated (1980) T arget Area Plant Toxicity Test ing. (Compila tion; unpublished study, including published data, received Feb 24, 19 82 under 43813

- 1;

CDL:070700

- C)

Fisher, D.; Hayes, A. (1982) Effects of some systemic imidazole and triazole fungicides on

white clov er and symbiotic nitrogen fixa tion by Rhizobium trif olii . Annals of Applied Biology 101(1): 19

- 24.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Triflumizole (PC 128879)

Health Effects Division (HED) Scoping Assessment for Registration Review. In

Triflumizole Summary Document Registration Review Docket March 2007. Docket

Number: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2006

- 0115

- 0003. www.regulations.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook Procedures for ConductingChapter 3 Effects Characterization

83 

### Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Final Draft. March 1998.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

84 

### Appendix A : Chemical Name and Structure of Triflumizole and its Degradates of

Potential Concern

Common Name/Number Chemical Structure

Triflumizole

[1

- (4

- chloro

- 2

- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl) imino

- 2

- propoxyethyl]

- 1 H

- imidazole

Metabolite FA

- 1

- 1

4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethylaniline moiety

Metabolite FM

- 3

- 1

Metabolite FM

- 5

- 1

(E)

- N

- (4

- chloro

- α, α, α

- trifluoromethylphenyl

- N

- formyl)

- propoxyacetamidine

Metabolite FM

- 6

- 1

N

- (4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- phenyl)

- imino

- 1

- propoxyethylamine)

Metabolite FM

- 8

- 1

N

- (4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- phenyl)

- imino

- 2

- methonolamine N N

C H

2 N C

C

F

3

O

C H 2 C H 2 C H 3



### H 2 

### N C l F 3 

### C

C l C F 3

N C

H 2 C

N H 2

O H

C F 3

N

C l C C H 2 O C 3 H 7 N H 2

C l C F 3

N C

H 2 C

N H 2

O HChapter 3 Effects Characterization

85 

### Common Name/Number Chemical Structure

Metabolite FD

- 2

- 1

4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethylphenyl

- hydroxyacetanilide

Metabolite FD

- 1

- 1

N

- (4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethylphenyl)

- 2

- propoxyacetamide or (4

- chloro

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- propoxyacetanilide)

Metabolite M

- 1

N

- [4

- Chloro

- 2

- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl]

- N

- hydroxy

- 2

- propoxyacetamide

Total Toxic Residue (TTR) Half

- Life Calculations

TTR calculations C F 3

H N

C l C C H 2 O H O

C l C F 3

H N C H 2 O C 3 H 7

Cl F

F F

N O H

O O C H 3Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

86 

### APPENDIX B : MARC Memorandum – D280869

HED Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews- File R042014- Page 2 of 5

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OPP OFFICIAl RECORD
HEALTH EFFECTS DIVISION SCIENTIFIC DATA REVIEWS
EPA SERIES 361 OFFlCE OF
PREVENTION. Pf:STICI"JES, AND

TOXIC SUE1ST ANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:

SUBJECT:

FROM:

THROUGH:

TO:

Attendance 13-MAR-2002

Triflumizole. Results of the Health Effects Division (HED) Metabolism

Assessment Review Committee (MARC) Meeting of2/26/02. Barcode D280869.

Chemical128879. Case 292400. Submission S588963. TXR# 0050485.

Jennifer R. Tyler, CbcmistA' ·· · 

## Q ·

# ~:1?~ Registration Action

## Brancht(~n'JED**(~9C)**

G. Jetrrey Herndon, Branch Senior Scientist 

# J?A n/JIJ/IJAj/,.} 

# j_ '/".b1

RABI/HED (7509C) 

# 'JlEf ff/J "f 

# 0'-{81

and

Christine Olinger, Chair

HED MARC (7509C)

Yan Donovan, Executive Secretary

RED MARC (7509C)

1. MARC Members:

Abdallah Khasawinah, Clu'istinc Olinger,Yan Donovan, Bill Wassell, Rick Loranger,

Norman Birchfield, Leung Cheng, Leonard Keifer, Sheila Piper

2. MARC Members in Absentia:

Alberto Protzel, David Nixon, John Doherty

3. Scientists (non-MARC members):

Jennifer Tyler, G. Jeffrey Herndon, Santhini RamasarnyChapter 3 Effects Characterization

87 HED Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews ·File R042014

- Page 3 of 5

Material Reviewed

The MARC reviewed and discussed the material in the Issues Memorandum of Jennifer Tyler

and David Nixon (Memo, 2/26/02; D280867) includi ng the results of the rotational crop, analytical methodology, and magnitude of the residue stud ies for triflumizole, [1-(4-chloro-2- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl) im.ino-2-propoxyethyl]-IH-imidazole. In addition, the MARC reviewed pertinent toxicolo gical and environmental fate data.

Committee Responses to Questions in Briefmg Memo

1. What are the residues of concern in rotational crops?

The Committee determined that the residues of concern i n rotational crops for risk assessment

and tolerance expression are the parent triflumizole and all metabolites containing the 4- chloro2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety. The majority of the individual mc::labolites identified in the

rotational crops contained the 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety, and would therefore be

included under the current tolerance expression. These metabolites could be potentially

converted by the current enforcement method to the common moiety F A-1-1 and expressed in

terms of triflumizole. The MARC determined that, judging from the chemical structures of the
metabolites, it is unlikely that the major metabolites in the rotational crop studies are of less toxicological concern than the parent compound, with the exception of Metabolite XIV (wheat
studies). Although Metabolite XIV (4-hydroxy-2-hexenoic acid) is a major metaboli te in rotated

wheat grain (47.5% TRR) and it cannot be determined by the current enforcement method, the

MARC determined that it is not of toxicological conce rn based on its SAR.

2. Wha t are the metabolites of c oncern in drinking water?

The ma jor degradates oftriflumizole are the 4-ch l oro-2-trifluorome tb ylaniline co ntainin g
metabo lites

. For the same re asons as described in the above rotational crop section (see question
I), the MARC recommended that parent and a ll metabolites containing the 4-chloro-2- trifluoromethylaniline moiety should b e included in the drinking water assessment.

Additional comments: The Committee concluded that there was no need to revisit the residues

of conce rn in primary crops and livestock. The MARC concurred with the current tolerance expressions for plants and livestock as stated in 40 CFR § 180.476.

2Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

88 HED Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews

- File R042014

- Page 4 of 5

Conclusions

Ghemi10al; · Triflumi?.ole 

### -, ; ' "' .. : ,:,.·**~ Y·;'-!;~**  •

Date : ,/ 

### : / Z6:-'FebnU!ry-2Q02

" ' '

### v~:;·;**.-,~-.+··** '' \ ''



## . -o

. , •

.**~**

. '**~ ~** 

### Resid~~ ofCo.ncem

. • · • 

# :">:;;,,:>' : 

# .



# .. :''t '

.. 

### ' 

# . :,!',

· · , 

### '.

· .• ·

· 

## . .... _; Matnx •: §' Fo.r 

### Risk Assessment ''

. .. ' '



## · fior Tolerance**Ex pt~s** **ion**

Plants Parent, and all metabolites containing Parent

, and all metabolites containing

the 4-cbloro

- 2 -tri fluoromethylaniline t he 4-chloro-2-trifluoro methylaniline
moiety moiety'

Lives tock Parent, the metabolite 4

- chloro-2- Parent, the metabolite 4-chloro-2- hydroxy-6-trifluo romethylaniline hydroxy-6--tri fl uoromethylaniline

sulfate

, and other metabolites sulfate, and other metabolites containing the 4-chloro

- 2

- containing the 4-chloro

- 2- trifluoromethylani l i ne moiety trifluoromethylaniline moiety 2

Rotational Parent, and all metabolites containing Parent, and all metabolites containing

crop the 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylani line the 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline
moiety moiety

Water Parent, and all metabolites containing NIA

the 4-chloro-2

- trif!uoromethylaniline moiety

1. Asstate d m 40 CFR §180.476(a)

. 2. As stated in 40 CFR § !80.476(b)

.

Attachments

Attachment I. Chemi c al N ame s/Cod es and Structures of Triflumizole Residues Mentioned in

this Memorandum

.

cc (wl attachment) : Mary Waller/Summer Gard n er- Jen

kins (RD 7505C), D. Griffith ( B E AD 7503C )

, S. Ramasamy (EFED 7507C), J. Tyler, D. Nixon

RDI : 0. Herndon (3/13/02), RABI Chemists (3n/02), 0. Kram<T (3nt02)

J.T yler : 8098: CM#2: (703)305-5564: 7509C : RABI

3Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

89 HEO Records Center Series 361 Science Reviews- File R042014- Page 5 of 5

Attachment 1. Chemical Names/Codes and Structures ofTriflumizole Residues Mentioned

in this Memorandum.

Copnnon N ame/Numb er Chemical Strucrure

Triflumizole CF 3 [ 1-(4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl) imino-2- 

# r" 

# ;--Q-a propoxyethyi)-IH-imidazole

# ~N~ c-o Hl \ CH,CH,CH 3

Metabolite FA-l-l 4-chloro-2-trifluoromethylaniline moiety F 3 C 

# H,N_:o-CI

4-chloro-2-hydroxy-6-trifluoromethylaniline sulfate

# H,N~I

HO

Metabolite XIV 4-hydroxy-2-h exeno i c acid 

# £000"

COOH

HO

4Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

90 

### APPENDIX C : Representative PRZM/EXAM Output

– FL Nursery Scenario representing Landscape

- Grown Ornamentals (Aerial Application)

stored as FLNurseryALeco.out

Chemical: Triflumizole

PRZM environment: FLnurserySTD_V2.txt modified Tueday, 27 May 2008 at 10:22:34
EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 05:14:07

Metfile: w12839.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 05:14:20
Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 16.17 15.37 13.38 11.73 10.19 4.79

1962 12.31 11.81 10.56 8.64 8.57 5.30

1963 23.89 22.64 19.05 15.21 13.27 6.90

1964 19.38 18.94 16.87 14.86 13.69 7.53

1965 12.15 11.71 10.49 9.73 9.19 5.78

1966 23.24 22.13 19.12 16.06 14.44 7.83

1967 21.79 20.80 18.47 14.71 12.95 8.00

1968 36.84 35.68 32.71 28.45 25.03 12.48

1969 23.04 22.30 20.36 19.30 17.82 10.47

1970 27.40 26.44 22.47 17.59 15.25 8.84

1971 16.35 15.61 13.97 13.20 12.23 7.32

1972 30.35 29.36 26.75 22.67 19.85 10.14

1973 16.20 15.61 13.98 11.76 11.17 7.19

1974 17.50 16.92 14.31 11.39 10.75 6.24

1975 10.45 10.02 9.68 8.51 8.11 4.88

1976 20.42 19.67 17.63 14.74 13.50 7.08

1977 85.71 80.84 67.09 53.14 45.20 20.04

1978 21.21 20.54 19.08 17.67 16.34 11.21

1979 83.88 79.09 66.76 48.83 41.23 18.74

1980 18.61 18.18 17.23 15.28 13.92 9.68

1981 19.82 18.85 16.18 13.07 11.73 6.84

1982 45.18 43.14 40.54 33.02 28.87 13.29

1983 17.09 16.41 14.46 12.85 12.24 8.16

1984 23.23 22.25 19.14 15.41 13.73 7.78

1985 12.84 12.33 10.86 10.22 9.80 6.32

1986 23.34 22.28 19.64 16.40 14.63 7.71

1987 15.01 14.35 12.90 11.10 10.54 6.25

1988 16.41 15.72 14.04 12.23 11.71 6.53

1989 10.49 10.28 9.35 8.58 8.59 5.28

1990 17.19 16.50 13.90 12.18 11.24 6.12

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03 85.71 80.84 67.09 53.14 45.20 20.04

0.06 83.88 79.09 66.76 48.83 41.23 18.74

0.10 45.18 43.14 40.54 33.02 28.87 13.29

0.13 36.84 35.68 32.71 28.45 25.03 12.48

0.16 30.35 29.36 26.75 22.67 19.85 11.21

0.19 27.40 26.44 22.47 19.30 17.82 10.47

0.23 23.89 22.64 20.36 17.67 16.34 10.14

0.26 23.34 22.30 19.64 17.59 15.25 9.68

0.29 23.24 22.28 19.14 16.40 14.63 8.84

0.32 23.23 22.25 19.12 16.06 14.44 8.16

0.35 23.04 22.13 19.08 15.41 13.92 8.00

0.39 21.79 20.80 19.05 15.28 13.73 7.83

0.42 21.21 20.54 18.47 15.21 13.69 7.78

0.45 20.42 19.67 17.63 14.86 13.50 7.71

0.48 19.82 18.94 17.23 14.74 13.27 7.53

0.52 19.38 18.85 16.87 14.71 12.95 7.32

0.55 18.61 18.18 16.18 13.20 12.24 7.19

0.58 17.50 16.92 14.46 13.07 12.23 7.08

0.61 17.19 16.50 14.31 12.85 11.73 6.90

0.65 17.09 16.41 14.04 12.23 11.71 6.84

0.68 16.41 15.72 13.98 12.18 11.24 6.53

0.71 16.35 15.61 13.97 11.76 11.17 6.32

0.74 16.20 15.61 13.90 11.73 10.75 6.25

0.77 16.17 15.37 13.38 11.39 10.54 6.24

0.81 15.01 14.35 12.90 11.10 10.19 6.12

0.84 12.84 12.33 10.86 10.22 9.80 5.78

0.87 12.31 11.81 10.56 9.73 9.19 5.30

0.90 12.15 11.71 10.49 8.64 8.59 5.28

0.94 10.49 10.28 9.68 8.58 8.57 4.88

0.97 10.45 10.02 9.35 8.51 8.11 4.79

0.10 44.35 42.39 39.76 32.56 28.49 13.21
Average of ye 8.49

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:
Output File: FLNurseryALeco

Metfile: w12839.dvf

PRZM scenario: FLnurserySTD_V2.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Triflumizole

Description Variable Nam Value Units Comments
Molecular weight mwt 345.75 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 5.20E-08 atm-m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.43E-06 torr
Solubility sol 12.5 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 1229 mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 12.7 days Half-life
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 88.4 days Halfife
Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 426 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 44.2 days Halfife
Hydrolysis: pH 7 2767 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual
Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP 1.12 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction
Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond
Application Date Date 15-04 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 1.12 kg/ha

Interval 2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 2 apprate 1.12 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 3

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5
Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

91 

### Appendix D . Foliar Dissapation Half

- life Data (Used in T

- REX Modeling)

The registrant submitted a Greenhouse Foliar Degradation Studyfor triflumizole (MRID 48244601) that provided both parent alone and parent plus degradate values for alfalfa foliage, clover foliage, dwarf fescue (a short grass ), green bean foliage, Lettuce, ryegrass (a short grass), soybean leaves, strawberry foliage, tomato foliage, wheat foliage (a tall grass). A review of this data was conducted in an effort to determine an appropriate foliar dissipation half

- life for input into the T

- REX model. Graphs of the fitted degradation curves (actually lines in the graphs due to a log

- transformation of the y

- axis) are presented in Appendix Table D

- 1.

Broadleaf Plants Alfalfa Foliage Clover Foliage

Green Bean Foliage Lettuce 1

Soybean Foliage Strawberry Foliage y = 60.79e

- 0.053x

R2 = 0.8602

y = 55.505e

- 0.018x

R2 = 0.2511

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue y = 81.675e

- 0.056x

R2 = 0.9411 y = 72.77e

- 0.031x

R2 = 0.883

1 10 100 1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue

y = 67.401e

- 0.071x

R2 = 0.9843

y = 56.972e

- 0.049x

R2 = 0.9515

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue y = 24.635e

- 0.068x

R2 = 0.5526

y = 20.382e

- 0.093x

R2 = 0.6601

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue

y = 107.24e

- 0.087x

R2 = 0.9221 y = 112.95e

- 0.027x

R2 = 0.6083

1 10 100 1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue y = 57.854e

- 0.122x

R2 = 0.965

0.1

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole AloneChapter 3 Effects Characterization

92 Tomato Foliage

Short Grass

Dwarf Fescue Ryegrass

Tall Grass Wheat Foliage

1 L ettuce and strawberry data were not used in deriving the foliar dissipation half

- life used in the assessment (see Section X ).

. y = 57.363e

- 0.064x

R2 = 0.9447

y = 41.499e

- 0.043x

R2 = 0.8283

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue

y = 52.682e

- 0.069x

R2 = 0.9355 y = 31.662e

- 0.033x

R2 = 0.5061

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue y = 57.875e

- 0.064x

R2 = 0.8189 y = 44.361e

- 0.042x

R2 = 0.5612

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite Residue

y = 58.808e

- 0.061x

R2 = 0.9215 y = 60.466e

- 0.056x

R2 = 0.9273

1 10 100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Concentration (ppm)

Days Triflumizole Alone

With Metabolite ResidueChapter 3 Effects Characterization

93 

### Appendix E. Risk Quotients for Taxa and Risk Categories that Did Not Exceed LOCs for any Scenario.

In an effort to streamline the risk assessment docume nt, tables of RQs for which LOCs were not exceeded by any scenario were removed from the main document and are presented here.

Avian Effects

Appendix Table E

- 1 Upper bound chronic dietary

- based RQ values for birds for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label

rates

Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based RQ s ( unitless ) Dietary Item

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds/ lg

insects Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 Apples and Pears

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 0.33 0.15 0.19 0.02

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 0.47 0.21 0.26 0.03

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 5

- apps /7

- d interval 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.01 Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.01 Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 0.06 0.02 0.03 < 0.0 1

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 0.60 0.28 0.34 0.04Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

94 

### Appendix Table E

- 2. Acute RQ values for freshwater and estuarine

- marine fish and invertebrates based on acute exposure concentrations in receiving water

.

Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Acute

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Acute

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Acute

Freshwater

Invertebrat e RQs 3 Acute

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrat e RQs 4

Grapes CA Grapes July 13

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NY Grapes August 27

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 7.49 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01



### Apples

Pears NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10, 14 days) 27.58 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.05

NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 25.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 13.42 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 10.12 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 16.23 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 13.36 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 6.62 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 5.43 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Cherries MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) A 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 26.29 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.04

MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) G 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 20.47 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03

Cucurbits FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) A 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 15.34 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) G 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 14.61 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02

Hazelnuts (Filberts) CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 6.30 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

95 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Acute

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Acute

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Acute

Freshwater

Invertebrat e RQs 3 Acute

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrat e RQs 4

CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 5.62 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 10.53 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 9.57 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

Strawberries FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) A 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 16.81 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) G 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 15.13 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

Brassica Leafy Greens Head, Stem Brassicas Leafy Greens CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) A 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) G 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Hops OR Hops July 28

- foliar A 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 6.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

OR Hops July 28

- foliar G 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.51 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Papayas FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar A 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 5.73 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar G 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 5.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Ornamentals (landscape grown ornamental trees,

shrubs and non

- bearing apples, pears, and grapes) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 15.72 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.42 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 44.35 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.07

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 41.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.07

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 19.94 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

96 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Acute

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Acute

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Acute

Freshwater

Invertebrat e RQs 3 Acute

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrat e RQs 4

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.36 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 25.13 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 20.59 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 11.86 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 4.80 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 28.55 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.05

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 22.97 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04

Ornamentals (all) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 12.68 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 10.65 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 37.39 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 35.12 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 13.52 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 9.47 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 17.75 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 14.10 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

OR Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 8.86 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

97 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Acute

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Acute

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Acute

Freshwater

Invertebrat e RQs 3 Acute

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrat e RQs 4

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 3.55 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 18.93 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.03

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 14.97 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02

Ornamentals (container

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 5.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ornamentals (bed

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 6.90 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Pineapples GENEEC

-- 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 34.15 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.06Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

98 

### Appendix Table E

- 3. Chronic RQ values for freshwater and estuarine

- marine fish and invertebrates based on acute exposure concentrations in receiving water

.

Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Chronic

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Chronic

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Chronic

Freshwater

Invertebrate RQs 3 Chronic

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs 4

Grapes CA Grapes July 13

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 1.42 1.22 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02

NY Grapes August 27

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 6.87 6.39 0.19 0.08 0.10 0.08



### Apples

Pears NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10, 14 days) 24.50 21.06 0.64 0.26 0.37 0.28

NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 22.05 18.85 0.57 0.24 0.33 0.25

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 12.60 11.37 0.34 0.14 0.19 0.14

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 9.35 8.37 0.25 0.10 0.14 0.11

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 14.96 14.43 0.44 0.18 0.22 0.17

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 12.78 12.33 0.37 0.15 0.19 0.15

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 5.46 4.48 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.06

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 4.00 3.07 0.09 0.04 0.06 0.05

Cherries MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) A 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 22.91 20.37 0.62 0.25 0.34 0.26

MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) G 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 10.89 6.67 0.20 0.08 0.16 0.13

Cucurbits FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) A 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.17 10.10 0.31 0.13 0.20 0.15

FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) G 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 12.47 9.38 0.28 0.12 0.19 0.14

Hazelnuts (Filberts) CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb

a.i./acre 5.42 4.54 0.14 0.06 0.08 0.06Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

99 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Chronic

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Chronic

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Chronic

Freshwater

Invertebrate RQs 3 Chronic

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs 4
(10 days)

CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb

a.i./acre (10 days) 4.72 3.88 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.05

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb

a.i./acre (10 days) 8.96 7.41 0.22 0.09 0.13 0.10

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb

a.i./acre (10 days) 8.16 6.91 0.21 0.09 0.12 0.09

Strawberries FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) A 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 15.32 13.54 0.41 0.17 0.23 0.18

FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) G 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 13.51 11.81 0.36 0.15 0.20 0.16

Brassica Leafy Greens Head, Stem Brassicas Leafy Greens CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) A 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 3.82 3.31 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.04

CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) G 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 3.43 2.86 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.04

Hops OR Hops July 28

- foliar A 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 5.63 5.07 0.15 0.06 0.08 0.06

OR Hops July 28

- foliar G 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 3.94 3.54 0.11 0.04 0.06 0.05

Papayas FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar A 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb

a.i./acre (14 days) 4.92 4.01 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.06

FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar G 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb

a.i./acre (14 days) 4.27 3.44 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.05

Ornamentals (landscape grown ornamental trees,

shrubs and non

- bearing CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.89 11.90 0.36 0.15 0.21 0.16

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 11.24 9.17 0.28 0.11 0.17 0.13Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

100 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Chronic

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Chronic

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Chronic

Freshwater

Invertebrate RQs 3 Chronic

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs 4
apples, pears, and grapes) FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 39.76 32.56 0.99 0.41 0.59 0.46

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 36.53 30.17 0.91 0.38 0.55 0.42

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 18.33 16.33 0.49 0.20 0.27 0.21

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 12.20 10.93 0.33 0.14 0.18 0.14

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 22.23 19.30 0.58 0.24 0.33 0.26

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 17.75 15.02 0.46 0.19 0.26 0.20

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 10.42 9.44 0.29 0.12 0.16 0.12

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 4.36 4.05 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.05

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 23.25 19.76 0.60 0.25 0.35 0.27

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 18.67 15.85 0.48 0.20 0.28 0.21

Ornamentals (all) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 10.94 8.45 0.26 0.11 0.16 0.13

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 8.81 7.02 0.21 0.09 0.13 0.10

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 31.28 24.13 0.73 0.30 0.47 0.36

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 29.54 22.84 0.69 0.29 0.44 0.34

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 12.45 11.41 0.35 0.14 0.19 0.14

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 8.60 7.57 0.23 0.09 0.13 0.10Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

101 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Chronic

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Chronic

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Chronic

Freshwater

Invertebrate RQs 3 Chronic

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs 4

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 15.30 12.77 0.39 0.16 0.23 0.18

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 11.69 9.87 0.30 0.12 0.17 0.13

OR Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 7.78 6.65 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.09

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 3.04 2.77 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.03

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 16.06 13.47 0.41 0.17 0.24 0.18

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 12.44 10.72 0.32 0.13 0.19 0.14

Ornamentals (container

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.23 0.97 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 4.36 3.37 0.10 0.04 0.07 0.05

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.15 1.00 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.63 1.38 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 0.30 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.74 1.50 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02

Ornamentals (bed

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.63 1.29 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 5.81 4.49 0.14 0.06 0.09 0.07

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.53 1.34 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.17 1.83 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.02Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

102 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method 2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) 21

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) 60

- day

EEC
( 

### μg/L ) Chronic

Freshwater Fish RQs 1 Chronic

Estuarine

/Marine Fish RQs 2 Chronic

Freshwater

Invertebrate RQs 3 Chronic

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate RQs 4

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 0.40 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.32 2.00 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.03

Pineapples GENEEC

-- 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 31.56 27.27 0.83 0.34 0.47 0.36Chapter 6: References

103 

### Appendix Table E

- 4. Aquatic Plant (vascular and non

- vascular) Risk Quotients (RQs).

Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method

2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC ( μg/L ) Vascular

Plant RQs Non

vascular

Plant RQs Grapes CA Grapes July 13

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 1.81 0.00 0.01

NY Grapes August 27

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 7.49 0.01 0.05



### Apples

Pears NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 , 14 days) 27.58 0.04 0.20

NC Apples (September 14

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 25.05 0.03 0.18

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 13.42 0.02 0.10

OR Apples (September 20

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 10.12 0.01 0.07

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 16.23 0.02 0.12

PA Apples (September 04

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 13.36 0.02 0.10

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) A 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 6.62 0.01 0.05

CA Fruit (June 21

– foliar) G 4 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7, 10, 10 days) 5.43 0.01 0.04

Cherries MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) A 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 26.29 0.04 0.19

MI Cherries (June 15

– foliar) G 6 app @ 0.50 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 20.47 0.03 0.15

Cucurbits FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) A 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 15.34 0.02 0.11

FL Cucumber (November 05

– foliar) G 5 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 14.61 0.02 0.10

Hazelnuts (Filberts) CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 6.30 0.01 0.05

CA Almonds (July 07

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 5.62 0.01 0.04

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) A 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 10.53 0.01 0.08

GA Pecans (July 25

– foliar) G 5.3 app @ 0.1875 lb a.i./acre (10 days) 9.57 0.01 0.07

Strawberries FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) A 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 16.81 0.02 0.12

FL Strawberries (January 03

– foliar) G 8 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 15.13 0.02 0.11

Brassica Leafy Greens Head, Stem Brassicas Leafy Greens CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) A 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.35 0.01 0.03

CA Lettuce (March 31

– foliar) G 2.25 app @ 0.25 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.02 0.01 0.03

Hops OR Hops July 28

- foliar A 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 6.20 0.01 0.04

OR Hops July 28

- foliar G 3 app @ 0.375 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 4.51 0.01 0.03

Papayas FL Citrus A 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb a.i./acre 5.73 0.01 0.04Chapter 6: References

104 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method

2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC ( μg/L ) Vascular

Plant RQs Non

vascular

Plant RQs

November 19

- foliar (14 days)

FL Citrus

November 19

- foliar G 2.4 app @ 0.3125 lb a.i./acre (14 days) 5.00 0.01 0.04

Ornamentals (landscape grown ornamental trees,

shrubs and non

bearing apples, pears, and grapes) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 15.72 0.02 0.11

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.42 0.02 0.10

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 44.35 0.06 0.32

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 41.01 0.06 0.29

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 19.94 0.03 0.14

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 13.36 0.02 0.10

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 25.13 0.03 0.18

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 20.59 0.03 0.15

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 11.86 0.02 0.08

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 4.80 0.01 0.03

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 28.55 0.04 0.20

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar G 3 app @ 1.0 lb a.i./acre (7 days) 22.97 0.03 0.16

Ornamentals (all) CA Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 12.68 0.02 0.09

CA Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 10.65 0.01 0.08

FL Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 37.39 0.05 0.27

FL Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 35.12 0.05 0.25

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 13.52 0.02 0.10

MI Nursery April 15

– foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 9.47 0.01 0.07

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 17.75 0.02 0.13

NJ Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 14.10 0.02 0.10

OR Nursery April 15

– foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 8.86 0.01 0.06

OR Nursery April 15

- foliar G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 3.55 0.00 0.03

TN Nursery April 15

- foliar A 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 18.93 0.03 0.14

TN Nursery G 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 14.97 0.02 0.11Chapter 6: References

105 Proposed Label Use PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario (first app date) Method

2 Maximum Application Rate (interval between

applications) Peak

EEC ( μg/L ) Vascular

Plant RQs Non

vascular

Plant RQs April 15

- foliar

Ornamentals (container

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.49 0.00 0.01

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 5.18 0.01 0.04

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.27 0.00 0.01

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 1.98 0.00 0.01

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 0.33 0.00 0.00

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.30 lb a.i./acre 2.10 0.00 0.02

Ornamentals (bed

- grown) CA Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.98 0.00 0.01

FL Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 6.90 0.01 0.05

MI Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 1.69 0.00 0.01

NJ Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.63 0.00 0.02

OR Nursery April 15

– soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 0.44 0.00 0.00

TN Nursery April 15

- soil drench S 1 app @ 0.40 lb a.i./acre 2.80 0.00 0.02

Pineapples GENEEC

-- 1 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre 34.15 0.05 0.24

1 Bold numbers denote maximum EEC values. No PCA adjustment factor was utilized.

2 A = aerial application, G = ground application, S = soil drench



### Appendix Table E

- 5 Upper bound chronic dietary

- based RQ values for herpatofauna for application of triflumizole on selected crops which cover the span of registered label

rates

Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based RQ s ( unitless ) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds/

lg insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals Small

Insectivore

Mammals Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians Grapes

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @ 4 apps/14

- d interval 

### 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.00

Apples and Pears

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @4 apps/10

- d interval 

### 0.33 0.15 0.19 0.02 0.22 0.01 0.01

Cherries

– 0.5 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps /7

- d interval 

### 0.47 0.21 0.26 0.03 0.31 0.02 0.01

Cucurbits

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @

5

- apps /7

- d interval 

### 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.00Chapter 6: References

106 Application Rate (crop) Dietary

- Based RQ s ( unitless ) Dietary Item

Short

Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/ sm

insects Fruits/ pods/seeds/

lg insects Small

Herbivore

Mammals Small

Insectivore

Mammals Small

Terrestrial

Phase Amphi

bians

Hazelnuts

– 0.1875 lb a.i./A @ 6 apps/ 10

- d interval 

### 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.00

Strawberries

– 0.25 lb a.i./A

@ 4 apps/ 14

- d interval 

### 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.00

Leafy Greens

– 0.25 lb a.i./A @3 apps/ 14

- d interval 

### 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00

Hops

– 0.375 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 

### 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.00

Papaya

– 0.3125 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 14

- d interval 

### 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.00

Ornamentals

- 1 lb a.i./A @ 3 apps/ 7

- d interval 

### 0.60 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.40 0.02 0.01Chapter 6: References

107 

### Appendix F. MRID Bibliography



## Ecological Effects Studies

71

- 1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

149871 Beavers, J. (1984) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study in the Bobwhite With A815 Technical: Final Report: Project No. 117

- 143. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 18 p.

149872 Nishibe, T.; Kosaka, S.; Saika, O.; et al. (1983) Acute Oral Toxi

- city Study of NF

- 114 in Japanese Quails: Report No. 0086. Un

- published study prepared by Nisso Institute For Life Science. 51 p.

71

- 2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

149873 Beavers, J. (1984) A Dietary LC50 Study in the Bobwhite With A815 Technical: Final Report: Project No. 117

- 141. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 14 p.

149874 Beavers, J. (1984) A Dietary LC50 Study in the Mallard With A815 Technical: Final Report: Project No. 117

- 142. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 14 p.

71

- 4 Avian Reproduction

40752009 Fletcher, D. (1988) Toxicity and Reproduction Study with Triflumi

- zole Technical: BLAL Study No. 87 DR 19. Unpublished study pre

- pared by Bio

- Life Associates, Ltd. 208 p.

40752010 Fletcher, D. (1988) Toxicity and Reproduction Study with Triflumi

- zole Technical in Bobwhite Quail: BLAL Study No. 87 QR 21. Un

- published study prepared by Bio

- Life Associates, Ltd. 252

p.

42551701 Fletcher, D. (1992) Procure 50W: Completed Response to Ecological Effects Branch 5/4/90: Supplemental Submission Info: Lab Project Number: 87QR21: 87DR19. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

- Life Associates, Ltd. 130 p.

72

- 1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

149868 Nishibe, T.; Kosaka, S.; Saika, O.; et al. (1983) Acute Toxicity Study of NF

- 114 in Carp: Report No. 0083. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Institute For Life Science. 16 p.

149869 Nishibe, T.; Kosaka, S.; Saika, O.; et al. (1983) Acute Toxicity Study of NF

- 114 in Rainbow Trout: Report No. 0084. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Institute For Life Science. 20 p.

154133 Surprenant, D. (1985) Acute Toxicity of A815(NF 114) to Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): [Triflumizole]: Report No. BW

- 85

- 2

- 1734. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. 15 p.

156552 McAllister, W.; Bowman, J. (1985) Acute Toxicity of A 8 15 Technical to Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri): Report No. 33998. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 52 p.

72

- 2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

149870 Nishibe,T.; Kosaka, S.; Saika, O.; et al. (1983) A cute Toxicity Study of NF

- 114 in Daphnids:Chapter 6: References

108 Report No. 0085. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Institute For Life Science. 15 p.

850.1025 Oyster acute toxicity test (shell deposition)

46302603 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2004) Triflumizole: A 96

- Hour Shell Deposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/126. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 43 p.

850.1035 Mysid acute toxicity test

46302602 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2003) Triflumizole: A 96

- Hour Flow

- Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Salt Water Mysid (Americamysis bahia): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/124. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 43 p.

850.1075 Fish acute toxici ty test marine

46302601 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2003) Triflumizole: A 96

- Hour Flow

- Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/125. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 43 p.

47136401 Palmer, D. (2004) An Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow: A 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Marine Diatom: Triflumizole. Project Number: 117A/133, 117A/128. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife Int ernational, Ltd. 7 p.

72

- 4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

40638301 Surprenant, D. (1988) The Toxicity of Procure to Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Embryos and Larvae: Report No. 87

- 11

- 2514: Study No.: 41.0387.6104.120. U npublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 47 p.

40999101 Springborn Life Sciences (1989) Response to EEB Review on Triflumi

- zole Fish Early Life

stage Study. Unpublished study. 26 p.

850.1300 Daphnid chronic toxicity test

46302604 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2003) Triflumizole: A Flow

- Through Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/127. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 63 p.

850.1350 Mysid chronic toxicity test

46302606 Blankinship, A.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2004) Triflumazole: A Flow

- Through Life

- Cycle Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/129. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlif e International, Ltd. 79 p.

850.1400 Fish early

- life stage toxicity test

46302605 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2004) Triflumizole: An Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test withChapter 6: References

109 the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodom variegatus): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/128. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 76 p.

141

- 1 Honey bee acute contact

149875 Glenn, L.; Dingledine, J. (1984) A Dermal Contact LD50 Study in Honey Bees TK

- 3091 A

- 815: Final Report: Project No. 117

- 144. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 12

p.

141

- 2 Honey bee residue on foliage

45346901 Hoberg, J. (2001) Evaluation of Toxicity of Residues of Acetamiprid (NI

- 25) and Procure 50WS on Alfalfa to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Lab Project Number: 13726.6123: 041100. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs., Inc. 40 p. {OPPTS 850.3030}

14 1

- 5 Field test for pollinators

45932504 Schur, A. (2002) A Semi

- Field Study on the Effects on Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.) of Assail 70 WP (EXP61842A, Acetamiprid 70%) Straight and in Combination with the Fungicide Procure 50WS (Triflumizole 50%): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 20011239/S 1

- BZEU: EXP61842A. Unpublished study prepared by GAB Biotechnologie GmbH. 54 p.

850.4100 Terrestrial plant toxicity, Tier 1 (seeding emergence)

46302612 Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2004) Terraguard 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the

Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 117/186. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 72 p.

850.4150 Terrestrial plant toxicity, Tier 1 (vegetative vigor)

46302613 Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2004) Terraguard 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 117/187. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 82 p.

850.4225 Seedling emergence, Tier II

46302612 Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2004) Terraguard 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 117/18 6. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 72 p.

850.4250 Vegetative vigor, Tier II

46302613 Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2004) Terraguard 50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. Project Number: 117/187. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 82 p.

850.4400 Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and IIChapter 6: References

110 46302611 Dejardins, D.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2004) Triflumizole: A 7

- Day Static

- Renewal Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/131. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 50 p.

850.5400 Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II

46302607 Manson, P. (2002) Triflumizole: Inhibition of Growth to the Alga Selenastrum capricornutum: Final Report. Project Number: 1537/017, 1537/017/D2149. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 51 p.

46302609 Desjardins, D.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2004) Trifl umizole: A 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/132. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 55 p.

46302610 Dejardins, D.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2004) Triflumizo le: A 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/133. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 55 p.

47136401 Palmer, D. (2004) An Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test with the Sheep shead Minnow: A 96

- Hour Toxicity Test with the Marine Diatom: Triflumizole. Project Number: 117A/133, 117A/128. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 7 p.

Non

- Guideline Study

47417001 Gagne, J. (2008) Review of EPA's Assessment for the Risk that Triflumizole may Pose to Small Mammals and Rationales for Performing a Refined Assessment. Project Number: PR09319, 08993/05/CA27, PR08993. Unpublished study prepared by Compliance Services International. 69

p.

48033008 Kojima, H.; Katsura, E.; Takeuchi, S.; et al. (2004) Screening for Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities in 200 Pesticides by In Vitro Reporter Gene Assays Using Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(5): 524

- 531.

48074204 Kojima,, M.; Fukunaga , K.; Sasaki, M.; et al. (2005) Evaluation of Estrogenic Activities of Pesticides Using an in vitro Reporter Gene Assay. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15(4): 271

- 280.



## Environmental Fate Studies

161

- 1 Hydrolysis

149858 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (1981) Hydrolysis of NF

- 114: Report No. RD

- 8180. Unpublished study. 17

p.

40018511 Sato, N.; Sugimoto, S. (1981) Response to EAB, HED Review of Hydrolysis Study: Report No.

RD

- 8180. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 3 p.

40494404 Soeda, Y.; Shiotani, H. (1987) Triflumizole

- Hydrolysis: Rept. No. EC

- 111. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 34 p.

161

- 2 Photodegradation

- water

149860 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (1982) Photodegradation of NF

- 114: Report No. RD

- 8224. UnpublishedChapter 6: References

111 study. 21 p.

40494405 Soeda, Y.; Shiotani, H. (1987) Triflumizole

- Photodegradation in Water: Rept. No. EC

- 113. Unpublished study prepared by Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. 28 p.

161

- 3 Photodegradation

- soil

156550 Harned, W.; Tortora, N.; Sullivan, E. (1985) Photodegradation of [Carbon

- 14]A815 on Soil: Project No. 8515. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Inc. 29 p.

40638302 Nowakowski, M. (1988) Photodegradation of ?Carbon 14| A815 on Soil: (Supplemental Data for Project No. 8515): Project No. 8803. Un

- published study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 39 p.

47036301 Ponte, M. (2006) Photodegradation of [14 Carbon] Tr iflumizole in/on Soil by Simulated Sunlight: Final Report. Project Number: 2006/004, 1512W. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 122 p.

162

- 1 Aerobic soil metabolism

149861 Harned, W.; Tortora, N.; Sullivan, E. (1985) Aerobic Soil Meta

- bolism St udy of [Carbon

- 14]A815 in Sandy Loam Soil: Project No. 84253. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical. 52 p.

46006051 Harned, W.H., N.J. Torcora, and E.A. Sullivan. 1985. Aerobic soil metabolism of [ 14 C]A815 in sandy loam soil. Unpublished stu dy performed and submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Naugatuck, CT. Project No.: 84253. Experiment initiation and termination dates were not reported. Final report issued February 1985.

162

- 3 Anaerobic aquatic metab.

47136403 Shelper, K. (2007) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [14

- Carbon] Triflumizole. Project Number: 1452W, 1452W/1, 2005/047. Unpublished study prepared by Chemtura Corporation, PTRL West, Inc. and Agvise Laboratories. 165 p. Relates to L0001133.

162

- 4 Aerobic aquatic metab.

149859 Nippon S oda Co., Ltd. (1982) Degradation and Dissipation of NF

- 114 in Water: RD

- 8218. Unpublished study. 10 p.

163

- 1 Leach/adsorp/desorption

149862 Harned, W.; Sullivan, E.; Tortora, N. (1985) [Carbon

- 14]A815 Soil Column Leaching: Project No. 84236. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical. 19 p.

149863 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (1982) Soil Column Leaching of NF

- 114: Report No. RD

- 8215. Unpublished study. 10 p.

149864 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (1981) Sorption of NF

- 114 on Soils: Report No. RD

- 8181. Unpublish ed study. 11 p.Chapter 6: References

112 40602601 Dzialo, D. (1988) Procure Soil Column Leaching on Sand: Project No. 8805. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. 17 p.

40813001

40824602 Spare, W. (1988) Adsorption/Desorption of (Carbon 14)

- Procure: Agrisearch Project No. 1915: Uniroyal Project No. 8808. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 97 p.

40824601 Spare, W. (1988) Adsorption/Desorption of ?Carbon 14|

- FD

- 1

- 1: Agrisearch P roject No. 1916: Uniroyal Project No. 8809. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch, Inc. 97 p.

41256601 Gaydosh, K. (1989) Procure Soil Column Leaching on Sand: Laboratory Project ID #8974. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemi

- cal Co., Inc. 23 p.

41256602 Gaydosh, K. (1989) Procure Soil Column Leaching on Sandy Loam: Laboratory Project ID #8946. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 22 p.

41706602 Beerbaum, C. (1990) Triflumizole Aged Column Leaching on Sand: Lab Project Number: 9016. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 32 p.

41988001 Beerbaum, C. (1991) Uniroyal Response to EFED/EFGWB Review Dated June 26, 1991. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 18 p.

164

- 1 Terrestrial field dissipation

156551 Harned, W. (1985) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of A815 under Typical Use Conditions: Project No. 84247. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal, Inc. 53 p.

44971304 Singer, G. (1999) Field Soil Dissipation of Procure 50 W in Bare Ground North Carolina: Lab Project Number: AA970307: RP

- 97023: 699W. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and PTRL West, Inc. 418 p.

44971305 Singer, G. (1999) Field Soil Dissipation of Procure 50 W in Bare Ground California: Lab Project

Number: RP

- 96030: 624W: 624W

- 1. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and PTRL West, Inc. 452 p.

45272001 Dzialo, D. (2000) Analytical Method for Triflumizole, and its Degradates in Soil: Lab Project

Number: AC

- 6005: 99096. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. 132 p.

164

- 2 Aquatic field dissipation

149859 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (1982) Degradation and Dissipation of NF

- 114 in Water: R D

- 8218. Unpublished study. 10 p.

165

- 1 Confined rotational crop

45375403 Yu, W.; Dzialo, D.; Whitright, R. et al. (2001) Confined Accumulation Study on Rotational Crops with (Carbon 14)

- Triflumazole (Procure): Lab Project Number: 98.394: 98201. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co. and Plant Sciences, Inc. 1169 p. {OPPTS 860.1850}

165

- 2 Field rotational crop

45375404 Gaydosh, K. (2000) Procure 50WS Rotational Crop Study: Procure 50WS Treated Cucumbers Rotated with Wheat, Lettuce and Turnips 30, 60, 90, and 180 Days After Harvest: Lab Project

Number: RP

- 98017: ML9 8

- 0743

- UNI: UV

- 98

- R0

- 18. Unpublished study prepared by Morse Labs., Plant Sciences, Inc. and South Texas Ag Research. 613 p. {OPPTS 860.1900 and 860.1000}Chapter 6: References

113 165

- 4 Bioaccumulation in fish

149866 Grandy, K.; Dionne, E. (1985) Accumulation and Elimination of [carbon

- 14]

- Residue by Bluegill (...) Exposed to A815(NF

- 114): Final Report: Report #BW

- 85

- 1

- 1723. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Bionomics, Inc. 39 p.

149867 Nippon Soda Co., Ltd. (1984) Bioaccumulation of NF

- 114 in Carp: Report No. RD

- 8427. Unpublished study. 5 p.

40018512 Lengen, M.; Parkins, M. (1986) Analysis of Residue in Edible Portions of Bluegill Sunfish Exposed to [Carbon 14]

- A815: Project No. 8675. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 23 p.

149865 Harned, W. (1985) Accumulation and Elimination of [carbon

- 14]

- Residue By Bluegill (lepomis macrochirus) Exposed to [carbon

- 14]

- A815: Project No. 84241. Unpublished summary prepared

b y Uni

- royal Chemical. 51 p.

Non

- Guideline Study

47161901 Fajardo, J.; Donovan, K. (2007) Triflumizole Usage in U.S. Major States, 2004

- 2005. Project Number: 7003. Unpublished study prepared by Chemtura Corporation. 52 p.

47161902 Fajardo, J.; Donovan, K. (2007) Triflumizole Usage in California and Washington Counties,

2003

- 2005. Project Number: 7003. Unpublished study prepared by Chemtura Corporation. 96 p.

48002601 Yu, W. (2010) Triflumizole Greenhouse Foliar Degradation Study: Interim Progress Report

. Project Number: 2009/001. Unpublished study prepared by Chemtura Corporation. 22 p.

48244601 Marin, J. (2010) Triflumizole

- Greenhouse Foliar Degradation Study. Project Number: 1951/W, CHEMTURA/STUDY/2009/001. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, In c. 337 p.

48458208 Odanaka, Y.; Taniguchi, T.; Shimamura, Y.; et al. (1994) Runoff and Leaching of Pesticides in

Golf Course. J. Pesticide Sci. 19:1

- 10.Chapter 6: References

114 

### Appendix G: The Risk Quotient (RQ) Method and LOCs

The Risk Quotient Method is the means used by EFED to integrate the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data. For this method, Risk Quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by the acute and chronic ecotoxicity values ( i.e. , RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY). These RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non

- target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. EFED has defined LOCs for acute risk, potential restricted use classification, and for enda ngered species.

The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects

on non

- target organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories:

(1) acute

- there is a potential for acute risk; regulatory action may be warranted in addition to restricted use classification;

(2) acute restricted use

- the potential for acute risk is high, but this may be mitigated through restricted use classifica tion;

(3) acute endangered species

- the potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, regulatory action may be warranted; and

(4) chronic risk

- the potential for chronic risk is high, regulatory action may be

warranted.

Currently, EFED doe s not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to mammalian or avian species.

The ecotoxicity test values ( i.e. , measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic RQs are derived from required stud ies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from

short

- term laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: (1) LC 50 

### (fish and birds), (2) LD 50 

### (birds and mammals), (3) EC 50 

### (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates), and (4) EC 25 

### (terrestrial plants). Examples of toxicity test effect levels derived from the results of long

term laboratory studies that assess chronic effects are: (1) the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (LOAEC) (birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates), and (2) the No

Observed Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). The NOAEC is generally used as the ecotoxicity test value in assessing chronic effects.Chapter 6: References

115 

### Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding RQs and LOCs are summarized in Table B

1.

Table B

- 1: Risk Presumptions and LOCs

Risk Presumption RQ LOC

Birds 1

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOEC 1

Wild Mammals 1

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOEC 1

Aquatic Animals 2

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.1

Acute Endangered Species EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.05

Chronic Risk EEC/NOEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 25 1

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC 05 or NOEC 1

Aquatic Plants 2

Acute Risk EEC/EC 50 1

Acute Endangered Species EEC/EC 05 or NOEC 1

1 

### LD 50 

### /sqft = (mg/sqft) / (LD 50 

### * wt. of animal)

LD 50 

### /day = (mg of toxicant consumed/day) / (LD 50 

### * wt. of animal)

2 

### EEC = (ppm or ppb) in waterChapter 6: References

116 

### Appendix H

– TerrPlant Output

Example triflumizole output

Chemical Name

PC code

Use Application Method

Application Form Solubility in Water (ppm)

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 1

Incorporation I 1 none
Runoff Fraction R 0.02 none

Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Equation EEC

(A/I)*R 0.02 (A/I)*R*10 0.2

A*D 0.05 ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.07 ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.25

Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot 4.02 1.34 4.02 4.02

Dicot 4.02 4.02 4.02 4.02

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot listed <0.1 0.19 <0.1

Dicot non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Runoff to dry areas Runoff to semi-aquatic areas Spray drift Total for dry areas Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Triflumizole

Ornamentals

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs. Aerial Liquid

12.5 128879

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group. Vegetative Vigor Seedling Emergence

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to Triflumizole through runoff and/or spray drift.* Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in . Description

Total for semi-aquatic areas Table 3. EECs for Triflumizole. Units in .Chapter 6: References

117 

### Appendix I

– T

- Rex Output

Example triflumizole output

Chemical Name:

Use

Formulation
Application Rate 1 lbs a.i./acre

Half-life 25 days
Application Interval 7 days

Maximum # Apps./Year 3

Length of Simulation 1 year

Bobwhite quail LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2510.00

Mallard duck) LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 5620.00

Mallard duck NOAEL(mg/kg-bw) 0.00
Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 1000.00

1057.00

0.00

3.50

30.00

Kenaga

Values

Short Grass 600.45

Tall Grass 275.21 Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 337.76 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 37.53 

## Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation



## Dietary-based EECs (ppm) NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 

## Mammals LD50 (mg/kg-bw) Triflumizole

Ornamentals

Procure and Terraguard



## Endpoints

LC50 (mg/kg-diet) 

## AvianChapter 6: References

118 Avian Results

Avian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g) (g bw/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day)

Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E-02

Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E-02
Large 1000 58 291 29 2.91E-01

20 5 5 25 5.06E-03

Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02

1000 58 65 6 6.46E-02

Avian Body Adjusted LD50

Weight (g) (mg/kg-bw)

20 1808.28

100 2302.03

1000 3251.70

small mid large

20 100 1000 20 100 1000

Short Grass 683.86 389.96 174.59

Tall Grass 313.43 178.73 80.02 Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 384.67 219.36 98.21 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 42.74 24.37 10.91 9.50 5.42 2.42

20 100 1000

Short Grass 0.38 0.17 0.05

Tall Grass 0.17 0.08 0.02 Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.21 0.10 0.03 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 0.02 0.01 0.00 Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.00 0.00

Acute Chronic

Short Grass 0.11 0.60

Tall Grass 0.05 0.28 Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 0.06 0.34 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 0.01 0.04

Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are available Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams) Dose-based EECs

(mg/kg-bw) Granivores(grams)

Avian Acute RQs Size Class (grams) 

### Dose-based RQs

(Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)

RQs 

### Dietary-based RQs

(Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC)Chapter 6: References

119 Mammalian Results

Mammalian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g bwt/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day)

15 3 14 95 1.43E-02

Herbivores/ 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01

15 3 3 21 3.18E-03

Grainvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03

1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02

Mammalian Body Adjusted Adjusted

Class Weight LD50 NOAEL

15 2323.11 7.69

Herbivores/ 35 1879.64 6.22

insectivores 1000 813.00 2.69

15 2323.11 7.69

Grainvores 35 1879.64 6.22

1000 813.00 2.69

15 35 1000 15 35 1000

Short Grass 572.49 395.67 91.74

Tall Grass 262.39 181.35 42.05 Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 322.02 222.56 51.60 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 35.78 24.73 5.73 7.95 5.50 1.27

15 grams 35 grams 1000 grams
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Short Grass 0.25 74.42 0.21 63.57 0.11 34.08

Tall Grass 0.11 34.11 0.10 29.14 0.05 15.62 Broadleaf plants/sm insects 0.14 41.86 0.12 35.76 0.06 19.17 Fruits/pods/lg insects 0.02 4.65 0.01 3.97 0.01 2.13 Seeds (granivore) 0.00 1.03 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.47

Acute Chronic

Short Grass #DIV/0! 20.02

Tall Grass #DIV/0! 9.17 Broadleaf plants/sm insects #DIV/0! 11.26 Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects #DIV/0! 1.25

Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are available 

### Dose-based RQs

(Dose-based EEC/LD50 or Granivores(grams) Mammalian Classes and Body weight Dose-Based EECs

(mg/kg-bw) Herbivores/ insectivores (grams)



### Dietary-based RQs

(Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC) Mammal RQs Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammalChapter 6: References

120 Terrestrial Residues Graph

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Concentration (mg ai/kg dietary item)

Days Terrestrial Application Residues

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/sm Insects Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 1 year For Risk Discussion PurposesChapter 6: References

121 

### APPENDIX J

– Listed Species Analysis

Table 37

. Species Potentially Affected both Directly and Indirectly 

# Taxon Count for Selected Crops

No species exclusions.

Minimum of 1 Acre All Medium Types Included


### apples, grapes, pears

- all, cherries

- sweet, cherries

- tart, bittermelons, cantaloupes, cucumbers and pickles, honeydew melons, muskmelons and pepinos, pumpkins, squash

- all, squash

- summer, squash

- winter, watermelons, hazelnuts (filberts), strawberries, broccoli, cabbage

- head, collards, escarole and endive, kale, lettuce

- all, mustard greens, parsley, spinach, rhubarb, hops, papayas

AL, AK, AS, AZ , AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FM, FL, GA, GU, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MH, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE,
NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, MP, OC, OA, OP, OH, OK, OR, PW, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UM, UT, VT, VI, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

Mammal Bird Amphi bian Reptile Fish Crustacean Bivalve Gastropod Arachnid Insect Dicot Monocot Ferns Conf/cycds Coral Lichen

County Counts 1459 1340 169 390 820 75 693 69 15 247 933 536 54 7 33 22

Species counts 76 80 23 29 121 21 83 79 12 66 676 69 28 3 2 2

State Counts 52 50 15 27 38 13 31 18 5 31 48 46 10 3 3 5



### 1370 species with crop co

- occurrence:

Nukupu`u (honeycreeper) (Hemignathus lucidus) Bird Alabama pearlshell (Margaritifera marrianae) Bivalve Freshwater

Amphipod, Noel's (Gammarus desperatus) Crustacean Freshwater Bankclimber, Purple (Elliptoideus sloatianus) Bivalve Freshwater

Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling Water (Brychius hungerfordi) Insect Freshwater Campeloma, Slender (Campeloma decampi) Gastropod Freshwater

Catfish, Yaqui (Ictalurus pricei) Fish Fr eshwater Cavefish, Alabama (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) Fish Freshwater

Cavefish, Ozark (Amblyopsis rosae) Fish Freshwater Choctaw Bean (Villosa choctawensis) Bivalve Freshwater

Chub, Bonytail (Gila elegans) Fish Freshwater Chub, Chihuahua (Gila nigrescens) Fish Freshwater

Chub, Gila (Gila intermedia) Fish Freshwater Chub, Humpback (Gila cypha) Fish Freshwater

Chub, Hutton Tui (Gila bicolor ssp.) Fish Freshwater Chub, Mohave Tui (Gila bicolor mohavensis) Fish Freshwater

Chub, Oregon (Oregonicht hys crameri) Fish Freshwater Chub, Owens Tui (Gila bicolor snyderi) Fish Freshwater

Chub, Pahranagat Roundtail (Gila robusta jordani) Fish Freshwater Chub, Slender (Erimystax cahni) Fish Freshwater

Chub, Sonora (Gila ditaenia) Fish Freshwater Chub, Spotf in (Erimonax monachus) Fish Freshwater

Chub, Virgin River (Gila seminuda (=robusta)) Fish Freshwater Chub, Yaqui (Gila purpurea) Fish Freshwater

Chucky Madtom (Noturus crypticus) Fish Freshwater Combshell, Southern (=Penitent mussel) (Epioblasma penita) Bivalve Freshwater

Combshell, Upland (Epioblasma metastriata) Bivalve Freshwater Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus aculabrum) (Cambarus aculabrum) Crustacean Freshwater

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus zophonastes) (Cambarus Crustacean Freshwater Crayfish, Nashville (Orconectes shoupi) Crustacean Freshwater

Crayfish, Shasta (Pacifastacus fortis) Crustacean Freshwater Cui

- ui (Chasmistes cujus) Fish FreshwaterChapter 6: References

122 Cumberland darter (Etheostoma susanae) Fish Freshwater Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus nevade nsis) Fish Freshwater

Dace, Blackside (Phoxinus cumberlandensis) Fish Freshwater Dace, Clover Valley Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus) Fish Freshwater

Dace, Desert (Eremichthys acros) Fish Freshwater Dace, Foskett Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) Fish Freshwater

Dace, Independence Valley Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus Fish Freshwater Dace, Moapa (Moapa coriacea) Fish Freshwater lethoporus)

Darter, Amber (Percina antesella) Fish Freshwater Darter, Bayou (Etheostoma rubrum) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Bluemask (=jewel) (Etheostoma sp.) Fish Freshwater Darter, Boulder (Etheostoma wapiti) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Cherokee (Etheostoma scotti) Fish Freshwater Darter, Duskytail (Etheostoma percnurum) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Etowah (Etheostoma etowahae) Fish Freshwater Darter, Fountain (Etheostoma fonticola) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Goldline (Percina aurolineata) Fish Freshwater Darter, Leopard (Percina pantherina) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Maryland (Etheostoma sellare) Fish Freshwater Darter, Ni angua (Etheostoma nianguae) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Okaloosa (Etheostoma okaloosae) Fish Freshwater Darter, Relict (Etheostoma chienense) Fish Freshwater

Darter, Slackwater (Etheostoma boschungi) Fish Freshwater Darter, Snail (Percina tanasi) Fish Freshw ater

Darter, Vermilion (Etheostoma chermocki) Fish Freshwater Darter, Watercress (Etheostoma nuchale) Fish Freshwater

Elimia, Lacy (Elimia crenatella) Gastropod Freshwater Elktoe, Appalachian (Alasmidonta raveneliana) Bivalve Freshwater

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) Bivalve Freshwater Fatmucket, Arkansas (Lampsilis powelli) Bivalve Freshwater

fuzzy pigtoe (Pleurobema strodeanum) Bivalve Freshwater Gambusia, Big Bend (Gambusia gaigei) Fish Freshwater

Gambusia, Clear Creek (Gambusia heterochir) F ish Freshwater Gambusia, Pecos (Gambusia nobilis) Fish Freshwater

Gambusia, San Marcos (Gambusia georgei) Fish Freshwater Goby, Tidewater (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Fish Freshwater

Hornsnail, rough (Pleurocera foremani) Gastropod Freshwater Isopod, Lee Co unty Cave (Lirceus usdagalun) Crustacean Freshwater

Isopod, Madison Cave (Antrolana lira) Crustacean Freshwater Isopod, Socorro (Thermosphaeroma thermophilus) Crustacean Freshwater

Kidneyshell, Triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) Bivalve Freshwater Laurel dace (Chrosomus aylori) Fish Freshwater

Limpet, Banbury Springs (Lanx sp.) Gastropod Freshwater Logperch, Conasauga (Percina jenkinsi) Fish Freshwater

Logperch, Roanoke (Percina rex) Fish Freshwater Madtom, Neosho (Noturus placidus) Fish Freshwate r
Madtom, Pygmy (Noturus stanauli) Fish Freshwater Madtom, Scioto (Noturus trautmani) Fish Freshwater

Madtom, Smoky (Noturus baileyi) Fish Freshwater Madtom, Yellowfin (Noturus flavipinnis) Fish Freshwater

Minnow, Devils River (Dionda diaboli) Fish Fres hwater Minnow, Loach (Tiaroga cobitis) Fish Freshwater

Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery (Hybognathus amarus) Fish Freshwater Mucket, Orange

- nacre (Lampsilis perovalis) Bivalve Freshwater

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Acornshell Southern (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Black (=Curtus' Mussel) Clubshell (Pleurobema Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema c lava) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Cumberlan d Pigtoe (Pleurobema gibberum) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Dark Pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Fat Threeridge (Amblema neislerii) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Fine

- lined Pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Fine

- rayed Pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Flat Pigtoe (=Marshall's Mussel) (Pleurobema Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Georgia pigtoe (Pleurobema hanleyianum) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Gulf Moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge Tait's Mussel) (Pleurobema Bivalve Freshwater taitianum)

Mussel, Heelsplitter Carolina (Lasmigona decorata) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Heelsplitter In flated (Potamilus inflatus) Bivalve FreshwaterChapter 6: References

123 Mussel, Ochlockonee Moccasinshell (Medionidus simpsonianus) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Oval Pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Oyster (Epioblasma capsaeformis) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly) (Obovaria retusa) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe (Fusconaia cor) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Shiny

- rayed Pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Southern Clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) Bivalve Freshwate r Mussel, Southern Pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum) Bivalve Freshwater

Mussel, Speckled Pocketbook (Lampsilis streckeri) Bivalve Freshwater Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) Bivalve Freshwater

Narrow Pigtoe (Fusconaia escambia) Bivalve Freshwater Ozark Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi) Amphibian Freshwater

Pearlshell, Louisiana (Margaritifera hembeli) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Alabama Lamp (Lampsilis virescens) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Appalachian Monkeyface (Quadrula sparsa) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Birdwing (Lemiox rimosus) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Cracking (Hemistena lata) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean (Villosa trabalis) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Monkey face (Quadrula intermedia) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Curtis' (Epioblasma florentina curtisii) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Dromedary (Dromus dromas) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymus sel, Green

- blossom (Epioblasma torulosa Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (Lampsilis higginsii) Bivalve Freshwater gubernaculum)

Pearlymussel, Little

- wing (Pegias fabula) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Orange

- footed (Plethobasus cooperianus) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Pale Lilliput (Toxolasma cylindrellus) Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Tubercled

- blossom (Epioblasma torulosa Bivalve Freshwater Pear lymussel, Turgid

- blossom (Epioblasma turgidula) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, White Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata Bivalve Freshwater Pearlymussel, White Wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus) Bivalve Freshwater

Pearlymussel, Yellow

- blossom (Epioblasm a florentina florentina) Bivalve Freshwater Pebblesnail, Flat (Lepyrium showalteri) Gastropod Freshwater

Poolfish, Pahrump (= Pahrump Killifish) (Empetrichthys latos) Dicot Freshwater Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa (Cyprinodon nevadensis Fish Freshwater mionectes)

Pupfish, Comanche Springs (Cyprinodon elegans) Fish Freshwater Pupfish, Desert (Cyprinodon macularius) Fish Freshwater

Pupfish, Devils Hole (Cyprinodon diabolis) Fish Freshwater Pupfish, Leon Springs (Cyprinodon bovinus) Fish Freshwater

Pupfish, Owens (Cyprinodon radiosus) Fish Freshwater Pupfish, Warm Springs (Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis) Fish Freshwater

Purple Bean (Villosa perpurpurea) Bivalve Freshwater Rabbitsfoot, Rough (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata) Bivalve Freshwater

Ray ed Bean (Villosa fabalis) Bivalve Freshwater Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) Bivalve Freshwater

Riffleshell, Tan (Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)) Bivalve Freshwater Riversnail, Anthony's (Athearnia anthonyi) Gastropod Freshwater

Rock

- pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) (Arkansia wheeleri) Bivalve Freshwater Rocksnail, interrupted (Leptoxis foremani) Gastropod Freshwater

Rocksnail, Painted (Leptoxis taeniata) Gastropod Freshwater Rocksnail, Plicate (Leptoxis plicata) Gastropod Freshwater

Rocksnail, Round (Leptoxis ampla) Gastropod Freshwater Round Ebonyshell (Fusconaia rotulata) Bivalve Freshwater

Rush darter (Etheostoma phytophilum) Fish Freshwater Sculpin, Pygmy (Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus)) Fish Freshwater

Sheepnos e mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) Bivalve Freshwater Shiner, Arkansas River (Notropis girardi) Fish Freshwater

Shiner, Beautiful (Cyprinella formosa) Fish Freshwater Shiner, Blue (Cyprinella caerulea) Fish Freshwater

Shiner, Cahaba (Notropis cahabae) Fish Freshwater Shiner, Cape Fear (Notropis mekistocholas) Fish Freshwater

Shiner, Palezone (Notropis albizonatus) Fish Freshwater Shiner, Pecos Bluntnose (Notropis simus pecosensis) Fish Freshwater

Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) Fish Freshwater Shrimp, Alabama Cave (Palaemonias alabamae) Crustacean Freshwater

Shrimp, California Freshwater (Syncaris pacifica) Crustacean Freshwater Shrimp, Kentucky Cave (Palaemonias ganteri) Crustacean Freshwater

Silverside, Waccamaw (Menidia extensa) Fish Freshw ater Slabshell, Chipola (Elliptio chipolaensis) Bivalve FreshwaterChapter 6: References

124 Snail, Armored (Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta) Gastropod Freshwater Snail, Bliss Rapids (Taylorconcha serpenticola) Gastropod Freshwater

Snail, Lioplax Cylindrical (Lioplax cyclostomaf ormis) Gastropod Freshwater Snail, Newcomb's (Erinna newcombi) Gastropod Freshwater

Snail, Pecos Assiminea (Assiminea pecos) Gastropod Freshwater Southern Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus jonesi) Bivalve Freshwater

Spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta) Bivalve Freshwater Spikedace (Meda fulgida) Fish Freshwater

Spinedace, Big Spring (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis) Fish Freshwater Spinedace, Little Colorado (Lepidomeda vittata) Fish Freshwater

Spinedace, White River (Lepidomeda albivallis) Fish Freshwater Spinymussel, Altamaha (Elliptio spinosa) Bivalve Freshwater

Spinymussel, James River (Pleurobema collina) Bivalve Freshwater Spinymussel, Tar River (Elliptio steinstansana) Bivalve Freshwater

Springfish, Hiko White River (Crenichthys bai leyi grandis) Fish Freshwater Springfish, Railroad Valley (Crenichthys nevadae) Fish Freshwater

Springfish, White River (Crenichthys baileyi baileyi) Fish Freshwater Springsnail, Alamosa (Tryonia alamosae) Gastropod Freshwater

Springsnail, Bruneau Hot (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis) Gastropod Freshwater Springsnail, Roswell (Pyrgulopsis roswellensis) Gastropod Freshwater

Springsnail, Socorro (Pyrgulopsis neomexicana) Gastropod Freshwater Springsnail, Three Forks (Pyrgulopsis trivialis) Gastropod Freshwater

Squawfish, Colorado (Ptychocheilus lucius) Fish Freshwater Stickleback, Unarmored Threespine (Gasterosteus aculeatus Fish Freshwater williamsoni)

Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) Bivalve Freshwater Sturgeon, Alabama (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) Fish Freshwa ter

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) Fish Freshwater Sucker, June (Chasmistes liorus) Fish Freshwater

Sucker, Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) Fish Freshwater Sucker, Modoc (Catostomus microps) Fish Freshwater

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) Fish Freshwater Sucker, Santa Ana (Catostomus santaanae) Fish Freshwater

Sucker, Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) Fish Freshwater Sucker, Warner (Catostomus warnerensis) Fish Freshwater

Tapered Pigtoe (Fusconaia burkei) Bivalve Freshwater Topminnow, G ila (Yaqui) (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) Fish Freshwater

Trout, Apache (Oncorhynchus apache) Fish Freshwater Trout, Bull (Salvelinus confluentus) Fish Freshwater

Trout, Gila (Oncorhynchus gilae) Fish Freshwater Trout, Greenback Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus cla rki stomias) Fish Freshwater

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) Fish Freshwater Trout, Little Kern Golden (Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) Fish Freshwater

Trout, Paiute Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris) Fish Freshwater Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) Fish Freshwater

Yellowcheek darter (Etheostoma moorei) Fish Freshwater Smelt, Delta (Hypomesus transpacificus) Fish Freshwater, Brackish

Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar) Fish Freshwater, Brackish, Salmon, Chinook (Onco rhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) Fish Freshwater, Brackish,

Saltwater Saltwater

Salmon, Chum (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta) Fish Freshwater, Brackish, Salmon, Coho (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch) Fish Freshwater, Brackish,

Saltwater Saltwater

Salmon, Sockeye (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka) Fish Freshwater, Brackish, Sawfish, Smalltooth (Pristis pectinata) Fish Freshwater, Brackish,

Saltwater Saltwater

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) Fish Freshwater, Brackish, Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) Fish Freshwater, Saltwater

Saltwater

Sturgeon, North American green (Acipenser medirostris) Fish Freshwater, Saltwater Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) Fish Freshwater, Saltwater

Sturgeon, White (Acipenser transmontanus) Fish Freshwater, Saltwater Amphipod, Illinois Cave (Gammarus acherondytes) Crustacean Freshwater,

Subterraneous

Amphipod, Kauai Cave (Spelaeorchestia koloana) Crustacean Freshwater, Amphipod, Peck's Cave (Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki) Crustacean Fr eshwater,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid (Stygoparnus comalensis) Insect Freshwater, Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle (Heterelmis comalensis) Insect Freshwater,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Cavesnail, Tumbling Creek (Antrobia culveri) Gastropod Freshwater, Salamander, Texas Blind (Typhlomolge rathbuni) Amphibian Freshwater,

Subterraneous SubterraneousChapter 6: References

125 Shrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave (Palaemonetes cummingi) Crustacean Freshwater, Abalone, Black (Haliotis cracherodii) Gastropo d Saltwater

Subterraneous

Abalone, White (Haliotis sorenseni) Gastropod Saltwater Coral, Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) Coral Saltwater

Coral, Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) Coral Saltwater Killer whale, Southern Resident DPS (Orcinus orca) Mammal Saltwater

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) Mammal Saltwater Otter, Northern Sea (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Mammal Saltwater

Otter, Southern Sea (Enhydra lutris nereis) Mammal Saltwater Rockfish, Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) Fish Saltwater

Sea turtle, green (Chelonia mydas) Reptile Saltwater Sturgeon, Shovelnose (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) Fish Saltwater

Whale, beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Mammal Saltwater Whale, Finback (Balaenoptera physalus) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, Gray (Eschrichtius robustus) Mammal Saltwater Whale, Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis)) Mammal Saltwater Whale, Sei (Balaenoptera borealis) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, Sperm (Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus)) Mammal Saltwater Sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) Reptile Saltwater, Coastal

Sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) Reptile Saltwater, Coastal Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Reptile Saltwater, Coastal

Sea l, Guadalupe Fur (Arctocephalus townsendi) Mammal Saltwater, Coastal Seal, Hawaiian Monk (Monachus schauinslandi) Mammal Saltwater, Coastal

Seal, spotted (Phoca largha) Mammal Saltwater, Coastal Sea

- lion, Steller (Eumetopias jubatus) Mammal Saltwater, Coa stal

Beetle, Coffin Cave Mold (Batrisodes texanus) Insect Subterraneous Beetle, Helotes Mold (Batrisodes venyivi) Insect Subterraneous

Beetle, Kretschmarr Cave Mold (Texamaurops reddelli) Insect Subterraneous Beetle, Tooth Cave Ground (Rhadine persephone ) Insect Subterraneous

Akekee (Loxops caeruleirostris) Bird Terrestrial 'Akepa, Hawaii (Loxops coccineus coccineus) Bird Terrestrial

'Akepa, Maui (Loxops coccineus ochraceus) Bird Terrestrial 'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus) (Hemignathus Bird Terrestrial procerus)

'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) (Hemignathus munroi) Bird Terrestrial Bear, American Black (Ursus americanus) Mammal Terrestrial

Bear, Grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis) Mammal Terrestrial Bear, Louisiana Black (Ursus americanus luteolus) Mammal Terrestrial

Beetle, American Burying (Nicrophorus americanus) Insect Terrestrial Beetle, Casey's June (Dinacoma caseyi) Insect Terrestrial

Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis) Insect Terrestrial Beetle, Ohlone T iger (Cicindela ohlone) Insect Terrestrial

Beetle, Salt Creek Tiger (Cicindela nevadica lincolniana) Insect Terrestrial

Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn (Desmocerus californicus Insect Terrestrial Bison, Wood (Bison bison athabascae) Mammal Terrestrial dimorphus)

Blackbird, Yellow

- shouldered (Agelaius xanthomus) Bird Terrestrial blackline Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion nigrohamatum Insect Terrestrial nigrolineatum)

Bladderpod, White Bluffs (Physaria douglasii subsp. Dicot Terrestrial Boa, Puerto Rican (Epicrates inornatus) Reptile Terrestrial Tuplashensis)

Boa, Virgin Islands Tree (Epicrates monensis granti) Reptile Terrestrial Bobwhite, Masked (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi) Bird Terrestrial

Buckwheat, Umtanum Desert (Eriogonum codi um) Dicot Terrestrial Butterfly [Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, Nickerbean Blue] Insect Terrestrial (Leptotes and Hemiargus and Cyclargus genus)

Butterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's euphydryas) (Euphydryas Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot (Speyeria zerene behrensii) Insect Terrestrial editha bayensis)

Butterfly, Callippe Silverspot (Speyeria callippe callippe) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Ceranus Blue (Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus) Insect Terrestrial

Butterfly, El Segundo Blue (Euphilotes battoides allyni) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Fender's Blue (Icaricia icarioides fenderi) Insect Terrestrial

Butterfly, Karner Blue (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Lange's Metalmark (Apodemia mormo langei) Ins ect Terrestrial

Butterfly, Lotis Blue (Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Miami Blue (Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri) Insect Terrestrial

Butterfly, Mission Blue (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Myrtle's Silverspot (Speyeria zerene myrtleae) Insect TerrestrialChapter 6: References

126 Butterfly, Nickerbean Blue (Cyclargus ammon) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Insect Terrestrial

Butterfly, Palos Verdes Blue (Glaucopsyche lygda mus Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Quino Checkerspot (Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. Insect Terrestrial palosverdesensis) wrighti))

Butterfly, Saint Francis' Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii francisci) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, San Bruno Elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis) Insect Terrestrial

Butterfly, Smith's Blue (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) Insect Terrestrial Butterfly, Uncompahgre Fritillary (Boloria acrocnema) Insect Terrestrial

Caracara, Audubon's Crested (Polyborus plancus audubonii) Bird Terrestrial Caribou, Woodland (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Mammal Terrestrial

Condor, California (Gymnogyps californianus) Bird Terrestrial Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) (Fulica americana alai) Bird Terrestrial

Creeper, Hawaii (Oreomystis mana) Bird Terrestrial Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) (Paroreomyza maculata) Bird Terrestrial

Crimson Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion leptodemas) Insect Terrestrial Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) (Corvus hawaiiensis) Bird Terrestrial

Crow, Mariana (Corvus kubaryi) Bird Terrest rial Curlew, Eskimo (Numenius borealis) Bird Terrestrial

Damselfly, Flying Earwig Hawaiian (Megalagrion nesiotes) Insect Terrestrial Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian (Megalagrion pacificum) Insect Terrestrial

DeBeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica) Dicot Terres trial Deer, Columbian White

- tailed (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) Mammal Terrestrial

Elepaio, Oahu (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis) Bird Terrestrial Falcon, Northern Aplomado (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) Bird Terrestrial

Ferret, Black

- footed (Mustela nigripes) Mammal Terrestrial Fly, Delhi Sands Flower

- loving (Rhaphiomidas terminatus Insect Terrestrial abdominalis)

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila tarphytrichia) Insect Terrestrial Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila neoclavisetae) Insect Terrestrial

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila obatai) Insect Terrestrial Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila aglaia) Insect Terrestrial

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila substenoptera) Insect Terrestrial Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Dr osophila mulli) Insect Terrestrial

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila montgomeryi) Insect Terrestrial Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila heteroneura) Insect TerrestrialChapter 6: References

127 Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila musaphilia) Insect Terrestrial Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila ochrobasis) Insect Terrestrial

Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing (Drosophila hemipeza) Insect Terrestrial Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow (Empidonax traillii extimus) Bird Terrestrial

Fox, San Joaquin Kit (Vulpes macrotis mutic a) Mammal Terrestrial Fox, San Miguel Island (Urocyon littoralis littoralis) Mammal Terrestrial

Fox, Santa Catalina Island (Urocyon littoralis catalinae) Mammal Terrestrial Fox, Santa Cruz Island (Urocyon littoralis santacruzae) Mammal Terrestrial

Fox, Santa Rosa Island (Urocyon littoralis santarosae) Mammal Terrestrial Gnatcatcher, Coastal California (Polioptila californica californica) Bird Terrestrial

Grasshopper, Zayante Band

- winged (Trimerotropis infantilis) Insect Terrestrial Gray Wolf (Canis lupu s) Mammal Terrestrial

Hawaiian picture

- wing Fly (Drosophila sharpi) Insect Terrestrial Hawk, Hawaiian (Io) (Buteo solitarius) Bird Terrestrial

Hawk, Puerto Rican Broad

- winged (Buteo platypterus Bird Terrestrial Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp

- shinned (Accipiter striatus venator) Bird Terrestrial brunnescens)

Honeycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe) (Palmeria dolei) Bird Terrestrial Jaguar (Panthera onca) Mammal Terrestrial

Jaguarundi, Gulf Coast (Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi Mammal Terrestrial Jagua rundi, Sinaloan (Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca) Mammal Terrestrial cacomitli)

Kangaroo Rat, Fresno (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) Mammal Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, Giant (Dipodomys ingens) Mammal Terrestrial

Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis) Mammal Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Merriam's (Dipodomys merriami Mammal Terrestrial parvus)

Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' (Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. Mammal Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, Tipton (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) Mammal Terrestrial

Kauai creeper (Oreomystis bairdi) Bird Terrestrial Kingfisher, Guam Micronesian (Halcyon cinnamomina Bird Terrestrial cinnamomina)

Kite, Everglades Snail (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) Bird Terrestrial Lizard, Blunt

- no sed Leopard (Gambelia silus) Reptile Terrestrial

Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe

- toed (Uma inornata) Reptile Terrestrial Lizard, Island Night (Xantusia riversiana) Reptile Terrestrial

Lizard, St. Croix Ground (Ameiva polops) Reptile Terrestrial Lobelia n iihauensis (ncn) (Lobelia niihauensis) Dicot Terrestrial

Lynx, Canada (Lynx canadensis) Mammal Terrestrial Marstonia, Royal (=Royal Snail) (Pyrgulopsis ogmorhaphe) Gastropod Terrestrial

Megapode, Micronesian (La Perouse's) (Megapodius laperouse) Bird Terrestrial Moorhen, Hawaiian Common (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis) Bird Terrestrial

Moorhen, Mariana Common (Gallinula chloropus guami) Bird Terrestrial Moth, Blackburn's Sphinx (Manduca blackburni) Insect Terrestrial

Moth, Kern Primrose Sphinx (Euproserpinus euterpe) Insect Terrestrial Mouse, Pacific Pocket (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) Mammal Terrestrial

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Mammal Terrestrial Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest (Reithrodontomys raviventris) Ma mmal Terrestrial

Naucorid, Ash Meadows (Ambrysus amargosus) Insect Terrestrial Nightjar, Puerto Rico (Caprimulgus noctitherus) Bird Terrestrial

Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly (Megalagrion oceanicum) Insect Terrestrial Ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis) Mammal Terrestrial

'O'o, Kauai (='A'a) (Moho braccatus) Bird Terrestrial 'O'u (Honeycreeper) (Psittirostra psittacea) Bird Terrestrial

Owl, Mexican Spotted (Strix occidentalis lucida) Bird Terrestrial Owl, Northern Spotted (Strix occidentalis caurina) Bi rd Terrestrial

Pagosa Skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) Dicot Terrestrial Palila (Loxioides bailleui) Bird Terrestrial

Panther, Florida (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi) Mammal Terrestrial Parachute Beardtongue (Penstemon debilis) Dicot Terrestrial

Parrot, P uerto Rican (Amazona vittata) Bird Terrestrial Parrotbill, Maui (Pseudonestor xanthophrys) Bird Terrestrial

Petrel, Hawaiian Dark

- rumped (Pterodroma phaeopygia Bird Terrestrial Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain (Columba inornata wetmorei) Bird Terrestrial sandwichensis)

Plover, Piping (Charadrius melodus) Bird Terrestrial Plover, Western Snowy (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Bird Terrestrial

Po'ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) Bird Terrestrial Prairie

- chicken, Attwater's Greater (Tympanuchus cupido Bird T errestrial attwateri)

Pronghorn, Sonoran (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) Mammal Terrestrial Puma (=Cougar), Eastern (Puma (=Felis) concolor (all subsp. Mammal Terrestrial except coryi))Chapter 6: References

128 Rabbit, Pygmy (Brachylagus idahoensis) Mammal Terrestrial Rab bit, Riparian Brush (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) Mammal Terrestrial

Rail, California Clapper (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Bird Terrestrial Rail, Guam (Rallus owstoni) Bird Terrestrial

Rail, Light

- footed Clapper (Rallus longirostris levipes) Bird Terrestrial Rail, Yuma Clapper (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) Bird Terrestrial

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge

- nosed (Crotalus willardi Reptile Terrestrial Scrub

- Jay, Florida (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Bird Terrestrial obscurus)

Shagreen, Magazine Mountain (Mesodon magazinensis) Gastropod Terrestrial Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) Mammal Terrestrial

Sheep, Sierra Nevada Bighorn (Ovis canadensis sierrae) Mammal Terrestrial Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate (Sorex ornatus relictus) Mammal Terrestrial

Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi) Bird Terrestrial Skink, Blue

- tailed Mole (Eumeces egregius lividus) Reptile Terrestrial

Skink, Sand (Neoseps reynoldsi) Reptile Terrestrial Skipper, Carson Wandering (Pseudo copaeodes eunus obscurus) Insect Terrestrial

Skipper, Laguna Mountain (Pyrgus ruralis lagunae) Insect Terrestrial Skipper, Pawnee Montane (Hesperia leonardus montana) Insect Terrestrial

Snail, Flat

- spired Three

- toothed (Triodopsis platysayoides) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, Iowa Pleistocene (Discus macclintocki) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, Morro Shoulderband (Helminthoglypta walkeriana) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, Noonday (Mesodon clarki nantahala) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Acha tinella abbreviata) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella apexfulva) (Achatinella apexfulva) Gastropod Terrestrial abbreviata)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bellula) (Achatinella bellula) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu T ree (Achatinella buddii) (Achatinella buddii) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bulimoides) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella byronii) (Achatinella byronii) Gastropod Terrestrial bulimoides)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella caesia) (Achatinella caesia) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella casta) (Achatinella casta) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella cestus) (Achatinella cestus) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella concavospira) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial concavospira)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella curta) (Achatinella curta) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decipiens) (Achatinella decipiens) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O 'ahu Tree (Achatinella decora) (Achatinella decora) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella dimorpha) (Achatinella dimorpha) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella elegans) (Achatinella elegans) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ah u Tree (Achatinella fulgens) (Achatinella fulgens) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fuscobasis) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juddii) (Achatinella juddii) Gastropod Terrestrial fuscobasis)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juncea) (Achatinella juncea) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lehuiensis) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella leucorraphe) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Ac hatinella lila) (Achatinella lila) Gastropod Terrestrial leucorraphe)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella livida) (Achatinella livida) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lorata) (Achatinella lorata) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree ( Achatinella mustelina) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella papyracea) (Achatinella papyracea) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella phaeozona) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pulcherrima) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial phaeozona) pulcherrima)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pupukanioe) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella rosea) (Achatinella rosea) Gastropod Ter restrial pupukanioe)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella sowerbyana) (Achatinella Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella spaldingi) (Achatinella spaldingi) Gastropod Terrestrial sowerbyana)

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella stewartii) (Achatinel la stewartii) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella swiftii) (Achatinella swiftii) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella taeniolata) (Achatinella taeniolata) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella thaanumi) (Ach atinella Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella turgida) (Achatinella turgida) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella valida) (Achatinella valida) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella viridans) (Achatinella viridans) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vittata) (Achatinella vittata) Gastropod TerrestrialChapter 6: References

129 Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vulpina) (Achatinella vulpina) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, Painted Snake Coiled Forest (Anguispira picta) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, Snake River Physa (Physa natricina) Gastropod Terrestrial Snail, Tulotoma (Tulotoma magnifica) Gastropod Terrestrial

Snail, Virginia Fringed Mountain (Polygyriscus virginianus) Gastropod Terrestrial Snake, Eastern Indigo (Dry marchon corais couperi) Reptile Terrestrial

Sparrow, Cape Sable Seaside (Ammodramus maritimus Bird Terrestrial Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum Bird Terrestrial floridanus)

Sparrow, San Clemente Sage (Amphispiza belli clementeae) Bi rd Terrestrial Spider, Spruce

- fir Moss (Microhexura montivaga) Arachnid Terrestrial

Springsnail, Koster's (Juturnia kosteri) Gastropod Terrestrial Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying (Glaucomys sabrinus Mammal Terrestrial coloratus)

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox (Sciurus niger cinereus) Mammal Terrestrial Squirrel, Mount Graham Red (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Mammal Terrestrial grahamensis)

Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground (Spermophilus brunneus Mammal Terrestrial Stilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o) (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) Bird Terrestrial brunneus)

Stork, Wood (Mycteria americana) Bird Terrestrial Swiftlet, Mariana Gray (=Vanikoro) (Aerodramus vanikorensis Bird Terrestrial bartschi)

Tern, California Least (Sterna antillarum browni) Bird Terrestrial Tern, Interior (population) Least (Sterna antillarum) Bird Terrestrial

Tern, Roseate (Sterna dougallii dougallii) Bird Terrestrial Thrush, Large Kauai (Myadestes myadestinus) Bird Terrestrial

Thrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) (Myadestes palmeri) Bird Terrest rial Tortoise, Desert (Gopherus agassizii) Reptile Terrestrial

Tortoise, Gopher (Gopherus polyphemus) Reptile Terrestrial Towhee, Inyo Brown (Pipilo crissalis eremophilus) Bird Terrestrial

Vireo, Black

- capped (Vireo atricapilla) Bird Terrestrial Vireo, L east Bell's (Vireo bellii pusillus) Bird Terrestrial

Vole, Amargosa (Microtus californicus scirpensis) Mammal Terrestrial Vole, Hualapai Mexican (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) Mammal Terrestrial

Warbler (=Wood), Golden

- cheeked (Dendroica chrysoparia) Bird Terrestrial Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's (Dendroica kirtlandii) Bird Terrestrial

Warbler, Bachman's (Vermivora bachmanii) Bird Terrestrial Warbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler) (Acrocephalus Bird Terrestrial luscinia)

Whipsnake (=Striped Racer), Alameda (Masticophis lateralis Reptile Terrestrial White

- eye, Bridled (Nossa) (Zosterops conspicillatus Bird Terrestrial euryxanthus) conspicillatus)

White

- eye, Rota Bridled (Zosterops rotensis) Bird Terrestrial Wolf, Red (C anis rufus) Mammal Terrestrial

Woodpecker, Ivory

- billed (Campephilus principalis) Bird Terrestrial Woodpecker, Red

- cockaded (Picoides borealis) Bird Terrestrial

Woodrat, Riparian (Neotoma fuscipes riparia) Mammal Terrestrial Vole, Florida Salt Marsh (Mic rotus pennsylvanicus Mammal Terrestrial, Brackish dukecampbelli)

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh (Nerodia clarkii taeniata) Reptile Terrestrial, Brackish, Beetle, Puritan Tiger (Cicindela puritana) Insect Terrestrial, Coastal

Saltwater

Mouse, Alabama Beach (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach (Peromyscus polionotus phasma) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal

Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach (Peromyscus polionotus Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal Mouse, Perdido Key Beach (Peromyscus polionotus Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal allophrys)

Mouse, Southeastern Beach (Peromyscus polionotus Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal Mouse, St. Andrew Beach (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal

Ambersnail, Kana b (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) Gastropod Terrestrial, Freshwater Coqui, Golden (Eleutherodactylus jasperi) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Crane, Mississippi Sandhill (Grus canadensis pulla) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater

Crocodile, American (Crocodylus acutus) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) Insect Terrestrial, Freshwater

Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) (Anas wyvilliana) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater Fro g, California Red

- legged (Rana aurora draytonii) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard (Rana chiricahuensis) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) (Rana capito sevosa) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Frog, Mountain Yellow

- legged (Rana muscosa) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) (Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis) Bird Terrestrial, FreshwaterChapter 6: References

130 Guajon (Eleutherodactylus cooki) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Mountain Beaver, Point Arena (Aplodontia rufa nigra) Mammal Terrestrial, Freshwater

Salamander, Barton Springs (Eurycea sosorum) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Salamander, Cheat Mountain (Plethodon nettingi) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Salamander, Desert Slender (Batrachoseps aridus) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Salamander, Red Hills (Phaeognathus hubrichti) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Salamander, Reticulated flatwoods (Ambystoma bishopi) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Salamander, San Marcos (Euryce a nana) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Salamander, Shenandoah (Plethodon shenandoah) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Snail, Chittenango Ovate Amber (Succinea chittenangoensis) Gastropod Terrestrial, Freshwater

Snake, Giant Garter (Thamnophis gigas) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water (Nerodia erythrogaster Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater neglecta)

Snake, San Francisco Garter (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater Springsnail, Chupadera (Pyrg ulopsis chupaderae) Gastropod Terrestrial, Freshwater

Springsnail, San Bernardino (Pyrgulopsis bernardina) Gastropod Terrestrial, Freshwater Toad, Arroyo Southwestern (Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Toad, Houston (Bufo houstonensis) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Toad, Puerto Rican Crested (Peltophryne lemur) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater

Toad, Wyoming (Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys)) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater Turtle, Alabama Red

- bellied (Pseudemys alab amensis) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater Turtle, Flattened Musk (Sternotherus depressus) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater

Turtle, Plymouth Red

- bellied (Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi) Repti le Terrestrial, Freshwater Turtle, Ringed Map (Graptemys oculifera) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater

Turtle, Yellow

- blotched Map (Graptemys flavimaculata) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater Alligator, American (Alligator mississippiensis) Reptile Terrestrial, Freshwater,

Brackish

Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater, Salamander, Frosted Flatwoods (Ambystoma cingulatum) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater,

Saltwater Vernal pool

Salamander, Santa Cruz Long

- toed (Ambystoma Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater, Salamander, Sonora Tiger (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) Amphibian Terrestrial, Freshwater, macrodactylum croceum) Vernal pool Vernal pool

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr (Neony mpha mitchellii mitchellii) Insect Terrestrial, Perm. Albatross, Short

- tailed (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) Bird Terrestrial, Saltwater

wetland

Eider, Steller's (Polysticta stelleri) Bird Terrestrial, Saltwater Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's (Puff inus auricularis newelli) Bird Terrestrial, Saltwater

Bat, Gray (Myotis grisescens) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Hawaiian Hoary (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Bat, Indiana (Myotis sodalis) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long

- nosed (Leptonycteris curasoae Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous yerbabuenae) Subterraneous

Bat, Little Mariana Fruit (Pteropus tokudae) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Mariana Fruit (=Mariana Flying Fox) (Pteropus mariannus Mamm al Terrestrial,

Subterraneous mariannus) Subterraneous

Bat, Mexican Long

- nosed (Leptonycteris nivalis) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Ozark Big

- eared (Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous ingens) Subterraneous

Bat, Virgi nia Big

- eared (Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii Mammal Terrestrial, Beetle, Mount Hermon June (Polyphylla barbata) Insect Terrestrial, virginianus) Subterraneous Subterraneous

Harvestman, Bee Creek Cave (Texella reddelli) Arachnid Terrestrial, Harvestman, Bone Cave (Texella reyesi) Arachnid Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Harvestman, Cokendolpher Cave (Texella cokendolpheri) Arachnid Terrestrial, Meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave (Cicurina venii) Arachnid Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subt erraneous

Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave (Cicurina vespera) Arachnid Terrestrial, Meshweaver, Madla's Cave (Cicurina madla) Arachnid Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Meshweaver, Robber Baron Cave (Cicurina baronia) Arachnid Terrestrial

, Prairie Dog, Utah (Cynomys parvidens) Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous SubterraneousChapter 6: References

131 Pseudoscorpion, Tooth Cave (Tartarocreagris texana) Arachnid Terrestrial, Rhadine exilis (ncn) (Rhadine exilis) Insect Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Rhadine infernalis (ncn) (Rhadine infernalis) Insect Terrestrial, Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave (Neoleptoneta microps) Arachnid Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Spider, Kauai Cave Wolf (Adelocosa anops) Arachnid Terrestrial, Spider, Tooth Cave (Leptoneta myopica) Arachnid Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Beetle, Delta Green Ground (Elaphrus viridis) Insect Terrestrial, Vernal pool Salamander, California Tiger (Ambystoma californiense) Amphibian Terrestrial, Vernal pool

(ncn) (D oryopteris angelica) Ferns Unattributed Wetland (ncn) (Diellia mannii) Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

(ncn) (Doryopteris takeuchii) Ferns Unattributed Wetland (ncn) (Tetraplasandra bisattenuata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

(ncn) (Lysimachia scopulensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland (ncn) (Keysseria (=Lagenifera) helenae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

(ncn) (Schiedea attenuata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland (ncn) (Tetraplasandra lydgatei) Dicot Unattributed Wetlan d

Status Status

(ncn) (Tetraplasandra flynnii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) (Abutilon sandwicense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Achyranthes mutica (ncn) (Achyranthes mutica) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata (ncn) (Achyranthes Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status splendens var. rotundata) Status

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin (Pseudobahia peirsonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland A'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum) (Zant hoxylum Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status dipetalum var. tomentosum) Status

A'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) (Nothocestrum breviflorum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Statu s Status

'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) (Nothocestrum peltatum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Akoko (Chamaesyce remyi var. kauaiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

'akoko (Chamaesyce eleanoriae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana) (Chamaesyce Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status celastroides var. kaenana) Status

'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) (Chamaesyce deppeana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) (Chamaesyce herbst ii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. skottsbe (Chamaesyce Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status skottsbergii var. kalaeloana) St atus

'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) (Euphorbia haeleeleana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Alani (Melicope adscendens) (Melicope adscendens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Alani (Melicope balloui) (Melicope balloui) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Alani (Melicope haupuensis) (Melicope haupuensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Alani (Melicope knudsenii) (Melicope knudsenii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Alani (Melicope mucronulata) (Melicope mucronulata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Statu s Status

Alani (Melicope ovalis) (Melicope ovalis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Alani (Melicope pallida) (Melicope pallida) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Alani (Melicope saint

- johnii) (Melicope saint

- johnii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) (Melicope zahlbruckneri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Alopecurus, Sonoma (Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) (Alsinidendron obovatum) Dicot Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

132 Status Status

Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) (Alsinidendron trinerve) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ambrosia, South Texas (Ambrosia cheiranthifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Amole, Cammatta Canyon (Chlorogalum purpure um var. Monocot Unattributed Wetland Amole, Purple (Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum) Monocot Unattributed Wetland reductum) Status Status

'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) (Lepidium arbuscula) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Anunu (Sicyos alba) (Sicyos alba) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Aristida chaseae (ncn) (Aristida chaseae) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Asplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn) (Asplenium fragile var. Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status insulare) Status

Aster, Decurrent False (Boltonia decurrens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Aster, Florida Golden (Chrysopsis floridana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Aster, Ruth's Golden (Pityopsis ruthii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Auerodendron pauciflorum (ncn) (Auerodendron pauciflorum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

aumakua, Palapalai (Dryopteris crinalis podosorus) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Aupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) (Isodendrion hosakae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Aupaka (Isodendrion laur ifolium) (Isodendrion laurifolium) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) (Isodendrion longifolium) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Avens, Spreading (Geum radiatum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland awikiwiki (Canavalia napaliensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) (Centaurium sebaeoides) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) (Hedyotis cookiana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ayenia, Texas (Ayenia lim itaris) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Baccharis, Encinitas (Baccharis vanessae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Barberry, Island (Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Barberry, Nevin's (Berberis nevinii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bariaco (Trichilia triacantha) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bearclaw poppy, Dwarf (Arctomecon humilis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Beardtongue, Penland (Penstemon penlandii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland B eargrass, Britton's (Nolina brittoniana) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bedstraw, El Dorado (Galium californicum ssp. sierrae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bedstraw, Island (Galium buxifolium) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Birch, Virginia Round

- leaf (Betula uber) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bird's

- beak, Pennell's (Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bird's

- beak, salt marsh (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bird's

- beak, Soft (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs (Lesquerella congesta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bladderpod, Kodachrome (Lesquerella tumulosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status S tatus

Bladderpod, Lyrate (Lesquerella lyrata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bladderpod, Missouri (Lesquerella filiformis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bladderpod, San Bernardino Mountains (Lesquerella kingii ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland B ladderpod, Spring Creek (Lesquerella perforata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland bernardina) Status Status

Bladderpod, Zapata (Lesquerella thamnophila) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Blazing Star, Heller's (Liatris helleri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status StatusChapter 6: References

1 33 Blazing Star, Scrub (Liatris ohlingerae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bluecurls, Hidden Lake (Trichostema austromontanum ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status compactum) Status

Blue

- star, Kearney's (Amsonia kearneyana) Dicot Unattributed Wetlan d Bluet, Roan Mountain (Hedyotis purpurea var. montana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bonamia menziesii (ncn) (Bonamia menziesii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bonamia, Florida (Bonamia grandiflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Boxwood, Vahl's (Buxus vahlii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Broom, San Clemente Island (Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Buckwheat, Cushenbury (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Buckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill) (Eriogonum apricum (incl. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status var. prostratum)) Status

Buckwheat, Scrub (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Buckwheat, Southern Mountain Wild (Eriogonu m kennedyi Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status var. austromontanum) Status

Buckwheat, Steamboat (Eriogonum ovalifolium var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Bush

- mallow, San Clemente Island (Malacothamnus Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Bush

- mal low, Santa Cruz Island (Malacothamnus fasciculatus Dicot Unattributed Wetland Butterfly Plant, Colorado (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland var. nesioticus) Status Status

Butterweed, Layne's (Senecio layneae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Button

- celery, San Diego (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Bakersfield (Opuntia treleasei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland arizonicus) Status Status

Cactus, Black Lace (Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Brady Pincushion (Pediocactus bradyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Bunched Cor y (Coryphantha ramillosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Chisos Mountain Hedgehog (Echinocereus chisoensis Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status var. chisoensis) Status

Cactus, Cochise Pincushion (Coryphantha robbinsorum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Colorado hookless (Sclerocactus glaucus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Knowlton (Pediocactus knowltonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Kuenzler Hedgehog (Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Lee Pincushion (Coryphantha sneedii var. leei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Lloyd's Mariposa (Echinomastus mariposensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Mesa Verde (Sclerocactus mesae

- verdae) Dicot Unattri buted Wetland Cactus, Nellie Cory (Coryphantha minima) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Nichol's Turk's Head (Echinocactus horizonthalonius Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Pariette (Sclerocactus brevispinus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland var. nicholii) Status Status

Cactus, Peebles Navajo (Pediocactus peeblesianus peeblesianus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Pima Pineapple (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactu s, San Rafael (Pediocactus despainii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Siler Pincushion (Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status sileri) Status

Cactus, Sneed Pincushion (Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii) Dicot Unattribu ted Wetland Cactus, Star (Astrophytum asterias) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Tobusch Fishhook (Ancistrocactus tobuschii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Uinta Basin hookless (Sclerocactus wetlandicus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cactus, Winkler (Pediocactus winkleri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cactus, Wright Fishhook (Sclerocactus wrightiae) Dicot Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

134 Status Status

Campion, Fringed (Silene polypetala) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Catchfly, Spal ding's (Silene spaldingii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Catesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn) (Catesbaea melanocarpa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cat's

- eye, Terlingua Creek (Cryptantha crassipes) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ceanothus, Coyote (Ceanothus ferrisae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ceanothus, Pine Hill (Ceanothus roderickii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ceanothus, Vail Lake (Ceanothus ophiochilus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Chamaecrista glandulosa (ncn) (Chamaecr ista glandulosa var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status mirabilis) Status

Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) (Chamaesyce halemanui) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Checker

- mallow, Keck's (Sidalcea keckii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Checker

- mallow, Kenwood Marsh (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Checker

- mallow, Wenatchee Mountains (Sidalcea oregana var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status calva) Status

Chumbo, Higo (Harrisia portoricensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cladonia, Florida Perforate (Cladonia perforata) Lichen Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Clarkia, Pismo (Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Clarkia, Presidio (Clarkia franciscana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Clarkia, Springville (Clarkia springvillensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Clarkia, Vine Hill (Clarkia imbricata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cliffrose, Arizona (Purshia (=cowania) subintegra) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Clover, Leafy Prair ie (Dalea foliosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Clover, Monterey (Trifolium trichocalyx) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Clover, Prairie Bush (Lespedeza leptostachya) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Clover, Running Buffalo (Trifolium stoloniferum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Coneflower, Smooth (Echinacea laevigata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cranichis Ricartii (Cranichis ricartii) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Crownbeard, Big

- leaved (Verbesina dissita) Dicot Unattribu ted Wetland

Status Status

Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cyanea undulata (ncn) (Cyanea undulata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cycladenia, Jones (Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis)) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Cypress, Gowen (Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana) Conf/cycds Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Cypress, Santa Cruz (Cupressus abramsiana) Conf/cycds Unattributed Wetland Daisy, Lakeside (Hymenoxys herbacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Daisy, Parish's (Erigeron parishii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Daisy, Willamette (Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Daphnopsis hellerana (ncn) (Daphnopsis hellerana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Delissea rhytodisperma (ncn) (Delissea rhytidosperma) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Diellia erecta (ncn) (Diellia erecta) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Diellia falcata (ncn) (Diellia falcata) Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Diellia pallida (ncn) (Diellia pallida) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Diellia unisora (ncn) (Diellia unisora) Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Diplazium molokaiense (ncn) (Diplazium molokaiense) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Dogweed, Ashy (Thymophylla tephroleuca) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status StatusChapter 6: References

135 Dubautia latifolia (ncn) (Dubautia latifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Dudleya, Conejo (Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Dudleya, Marcesce nt (Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley (Dudleya setchellii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island (Dudleya nesiotica) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Dudleya, Santa Monica Mountains (Dudleya cymosa ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status ovatifolia) Status

Dudleya, Verity's (Dudleya verityi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Dwarf

- flax, Marin (Hesperolinon congestum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Erubia (Solanum drymophilum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Eugenia Woodburyana (Eugenia woodburyana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Evening

- primrose, Antioch Dunes (Oenothera deltoides ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Evening

- primrose, Eureka Valley (Oenothera avita ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland howellii) Status eurekensis) Status

Evening

- primrose, San Benito (Camissonia benitensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Fern, Alabama Streak

- sorus (Thelypteris pilosa var. Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Fern, American hart's

- tongue (Asplenium scolopendrium var. Ferns Unattributed Wetland Fern, Elaphoglossum serpens (Elaphoglossum serpens) Ferns Unattributed Wetland americanum) Status Status

Fern, Pendant Kihi (Ad enophorus periens) (Adenophorus Ferns Unattributed Wetland Fern, Thelypteris inabonensis (Thelypteris inabonensis) Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Fern, Thelypteris verecunda (Thelypteris verecunda) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Fern, Thelypter is yaucoensis (Thelypteris yaucoensis) Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Fiddleneck, Large

- flowered (Amsinckia grandiflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Flannelbush, Mexican (Fremontodendron mexicanum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Flannelbush, Pine Hill (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Fleabane, Zuni (Erigeron rhizomatus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland decumbens) Status Status

Four

- o'clock, Macfarlane's (Mirabilis macfarlanei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Frankenia, Johnston's (Frankenia johnstonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Fringe Tree, Pygmy (Chionanthus pygmaeus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Fringepod, Santa Cruz Island (Thysanocarpus conchuliferus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Fritillary, Gentner's (Fritillaria gentneri) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) (Geocarpon minimum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Geranium, Hawaiian Red

- flowered (Geranium arboreum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Gerardia, Sandplain (Agalinis acuta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Gilia, Hoffmann's Slender

- flowered (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Gilia, Monterey (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

hoffmannii ) Status Status

Goetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey) (Goetzea elegans) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's (Pseudobahia bahiifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Goldenrod, Blue Ridge (Solidago spithamaea) Dicot Unattributed Wetl and Goldenrod, Short's (Solidago shortii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Goldenrod, White

- haired (Solidago albopilosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Gouania hillebrandii (ncn) (Gouania hillebrandii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Gouania meyenii (ncn) (Gouania meyenii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Gouania vitifolia (ncn) (Gouania vitifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Gourd, Okeechobee (Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Grass, Eureka Dune (Swallenia alexandrae) Monocot Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

136 okeechobeensis) Status Status

Grass, Fosberg's Love (Eragrostis fosbergii) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Ground

- plum, Guthrie's (Astragalus bibullatus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Groundsel, San Francisco Peaks (Senecio franciscanus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) (Cyanea asarifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii) (Cyanea copelandii Dicot Unattributed Wetla nd Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) (Cyanea Dicot Unattributed Wetland ssp. copelandii) Status copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) Status

Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa) (Cyanea (=Rollandia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea gl abra) (Cyanea glabra) Dicot Unattributed Wetland crispa) Status Status

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) (Cyanea grimesiana Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae) (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland ssp. grimesiana) Status obatae) Status

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) (Cyanea hamatiflora Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora) (Cyanea hamatiflora Dicot Unattributed Wetland ssp. Carlsonii) Status ssp. hamat iflora) Status

Haha (Cyanea lobata) (Cyanea lobata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea longiflora) (Cyanea longiflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Haha (Cyanea pinnatifida) (Cyanea pinnatifida) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyane a platyphylla) (Cyanea platyphylla) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Haha (Cyanea recta) (Cyanea recta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea shipmanii) (Cyanea shipmannii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) (Cyanea stictophylla) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Haha (Cyanea superba) (Cyanea superba) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Haha (Cyanea truncata) (Cyanea truncata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra crenata) (Cyrtandra crenata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra dentata) (Cyrtandra dentata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) (Cyrtandra giffardii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra limahulie nsis) (Cyrtandra limahuliensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra munroi) (Cyrtandra munroi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) (Cyrtandra polyantha) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) (Cyrtandra subumbellata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Hala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) (Pleomele hawaiiensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) (Haplostachys haplostachya) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Harebells, Avon Park (Crotalaria avonensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Hau Kauhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) (Hibiscadelphus woodii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) (Hibiscadelphus distans) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus giffardianus) (Hibiscadelphus Dicot Unattributed Wetland Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis) (Hibiscadelphus Dicot Unattributed Wetland giffardianus) Status hualalaiensis) Status

Hayun Lagu (Tronkon Guafi) (Serianthes nelsonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Heartleaf, Dwarf

- flowered (Hexastylis naniflor a) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Heather, Mountain Golden (Hudsonia montana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Hedyotis degeneri (ncn) (Hedyotis degeneri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Hedyotis parvula (ncn) (Hedyotis parvula) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Hedyotis St.

- Johnii (ncn) (Hedyotis st.

- johnii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status StatusChapter 6: References

137 Hesperomannia arborescens (ncn) (Hesperomannia arborescens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Hesperomannia arbuscula (ncn) (Hesperomannia arbuscula) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Hibiscus, Clay's (Hibiscus clayi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland ho'awa (Pittosporum napaliense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Holei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) Dicot Una ttributed Wetland Hypericum, Highlands Scrub (Hypericum cumulicola) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Iliau (Wilkesia hobdyi) (Wilkesia hobdyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ipomopsis, Holy Ghost (Ipomopsis sancti

- spiritus) Dicot Unattributed Wetl and

Status Status

Irisette, White (Sisyrinchium dichotomum) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Ivesia, Ash Meadows (Ivesia kingii var. eremica) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Jacquemontia, Beach (Jacquemontia reclinata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Jewelflower, California (Caulanthus californicus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Jewelflower, Metcalf Canyon (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Jewelflower, Tiburon (Streptanthus niger) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

kamakahala (Labordia helleri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaen) (Labordia Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status tinifolia var. wahiawaensis) Status

Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides) (Cenchrus Monocot Unattributed Wetland Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) (Colubrina oppositifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland agrimonioides) Status Status

Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) (Hedyotis coriacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) (Phyllostegia racemosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) (Kokia drynarioides) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Koki'o (Kokia kauaiensis) (Kokia kauaiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae) (Hibiscus Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status waimeae ssp. hannerae) Status

Kolea (Myrsine knu dsenii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland kolea (Myrsine mezii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha) (Bidens Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ko'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii) (Abutilon menziesii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland micrantha ssp. kalealaha) Status Status

kopiko (Psychotria hobdyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Kulu'I (Nototrichium humile) (Nototrichium humile) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ladies'

- tresses, Navasota (Spiranthes park sii) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Larkspur, Baker's (Delphinium bakeri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Larkspur, San Clemente Island (Delphinium variegatum ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Larkspur, Yellow (Delphinium luteum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland kinkiense) Status Status

Lau'ehu (Panicum niihauense) (Panicum niihauense) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago hawaiensis) (Plantago hawaiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Laulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) (Schiedea stellarioides) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Layia, Beach (Layia carnosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lead

- plant, Crenulate (Amorpha crenulata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Leather

- flower, Alabama (Clematis socialis) D icot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Leather

- flower, Morefield's (Clematis morefieldii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Lepanthes eltorensis (ncn) (Lepanthes eltoroensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lessingia, San Francisco (Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Lichen, Rock Gnome (Gymnoderma lineare) Lichen Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

138 germanorum)) Status Status

Lily, Minnesota Trout (Erythronium propullans) Monocot Unattributed We tland Lily, Pitkin Marsh (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lily, Tiburon Mariposa (Calochortus tiburonensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Lipochaeta venosa (ncn) (Lipochaeta venosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetla nd

Status Status

Liveforever, Laguna Beach (Dudleya stolonifera) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Liveforever, Santa Barbara Island (Dudleya traskiae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) (Pritchardia napaliensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Lo`ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri) (Pritchardia schattaueri) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lobelia monostachya (ncn) (Lobelia monostachya) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Locoweed, Fassett's (Oxytropis campestris var . chartacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lupine, Clover (Lupinus tidestromii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Lupine, Kincaid's (Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status kincaidii (=var. kincaidii)) Status

Lupine, Nipomo Mesa (Lupinus nipomensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Lupine, Scrub (Lupinus aridorum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Lyonia truncata var. proctorii (ncn) (Lyonia truncata var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Lysimachia lydgatei (ncn) (Lysimachia lydgatei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland proctorii) Status Status

Mahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) (Alectryon macrococcus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Makou (Peucedanum sandwicense) (Peucedanum sandwicense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Malacothrix, Island (Malacothrix squalida) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Malacothrix, Santa Cruz Island (Malacothrix indecora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Mallow, Kern (Eremalche kernensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mallow, Peter's Mountain (Iliamna corei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Manioc, Walker's (Manihot walkerae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Manzanita, Del Mar (Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Manzanita, Ione (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Manzanita, Morro (Arctostaphylos morroensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Manzanita, Pallid (Arctostaphylos pallida) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Manzanita, Santa Rosa Island (Arcto staphylos confertiflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ma'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus brackenridgei) (Hibiscus brackenridgei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos) (Schiedea apokremnos) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Stat us

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae) (Schiedea kealiae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mariscus fauriei (ncn) (Mariscus fauriei) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Mariscus pennatiformis (ncn) (Mariscus pennatiformis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Meadowfoam, Butte County (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status californica) Status

Meadowfoam, Large

- flowered Woolly (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) (Flueggea neowawraea) Dico t Unattributed Wetland Grandiflora) Status Status

Milkpea, Small's (Galactia smallii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Applegate's (Astragalus applegatei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Braunton's (Astragalus brauntonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Clara Hunt's (Astragalus clarianus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Coachella Valley (Astragalus lentiginosus var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Coastal Dunes (Astragalus tener var. titi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland coachellae) Status StatusChapter 6: References

139 Milk

- vetch, Cushenbury (Astragalus albens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Deseret (Astragalus desereticus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Heliotrope (Astra galus montii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Holmgren (Astragalus holmgreniorum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Jesup's (Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Lane Mountain (Astragalus j aegerianus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Mancos (Astragalus humillimus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Osterhout (Astragalus osterhoutii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Pierson's (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Sentry (Astragalus cremnophylax var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Shivwits (Astragalus ampullarioides) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milk

- vetch, Triple

- ribbed (Ast ragalus tricarinatus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Milk

- vetch, Ventura Marsh (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Milkweed, Mead's (Asclepias meadii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland lanosissimus) Status Status

Milkweed, Welsh's (Asclepias welshii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mint, Garrett's (Dicerandra christmanii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Mint, Lakela's (Dicerandra immaculata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mint, Longspurred (Dicerandra cornutissima) Dico t Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Mint, Scrub (Dicerandra frutescens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mitracarpus Maxwelliae (Mitracarpus maxwelliae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Mitracarpus Polycladus (Mitracarpus polycladus) Dicot Unattr ibuted Wetland Monkey

- flower, Michigan (Mimulus glabratus var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status michiganensis) Status

Monkshood, Northern Wild (Aconitum noveboracense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Morning

- glory, Stebbins (Calystegia stebbinsii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Mountainbalm, Indian Knob (Eriodictyon altissimum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mountain

- mahogany, Catalina Island (Cercocarpus traskiae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Munroidendron racemosum (ncn) (Munroi dendron racemosum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Mustard, Carter's (Warea carteri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Myrcia Paganii (Myrcia paganii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland na`ena`e (Dubautia imbricata imbricata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

na`ena`e (Dubautia plantaginea magnifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Naenae (Dubautia kalalauensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Naenae (Dubautia kenwoodii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) (Dubautia herbstobatae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) (Dubautia Dicot Unattributed Wetland Nani Wai'ale'ale (Viola kauaensis var. wahiawaensis) (Viola Dicot Unattributed Wetland plantaginea ss p. humilis) Status kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis) Status

Nanu (Gardenia mannii) (Gardenia mannii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) (Gardenia brighamii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) (Sca evola coriacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Navarretia, Few

- flowered (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Pauciflora) Status

Navarretia, Many

- flowered (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Nehe (Lipochaeta fauriei) (Lipochaeta fauriei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland plieantha) Status Status

Nehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis) (Lipochaeta kamolensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Nehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla) (Lipochaeta lobata Dicot Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

140 Status var. leptophylla) Status

Nehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) (Lipochaeta micrantha) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeae nsis) (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Neraudia angulata (ncn) (Neraudia angulata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Neraudia ovata (ncn) (Neraudia ovata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Neraudia sericea (ncn) (Neraudia sericea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Nioi (Eugenia koolauensis) (Eugenia koolauensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Oak, Hinckley (Quercus hinckleyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

'Oha (Delissea rivularis) (Delissea rivularis) Dicot Unat tributed Wetland 'Oha (Delissea subcordata) (Delissea subcordata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

'Oha (Delissea undulata) (Delissea undulata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) (Lobelia gaudichaudii Dicot Una ttributed Wetland

Status ssp. koolauensis) Status

'Oha Wai (Clermontia lindseyana) (Clermontia lindseyana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis) (Clermontia Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis) Status

'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana) (Clermontia peleana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland 'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) (Clermontia pyrularia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

'Olulu (Brighamia insignis) (Brighamia i nsignis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Onion, Munz's (Allium munzii) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Opuhe (Urera kaalae) (Urera kaalae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed (Platanthera praeclara) Monocot Unattributed We tland

Status Status

Oxytheca, Cushenbury (Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Paintbrush, Ash

- grey Indian (Castilleja cinerea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Paintbrush, Golden (Castilleja levisecta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Paintbrush, San Clemente Island Indian (Castilleja grisea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Paintbrush, Soft

- leaved (Castilleja mollis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Paintbrush, Tiburon (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta) Dico t Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Palo de Ramon (Banara vanderbiltii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Palo de Rosa (Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var.carteri) (Panicum Monocot Unattributed Wetland Papala (Charpentiera densiflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland fauriei var. carteri) Status Status

Pauoa (Ctenitis squamigera) (Ctenitis squamigera) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Pawpaw, Four

- petal (Asimina tetramera) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Pelos del Diablo (Aristida portoricensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Penny

- cress, Kneeland Prairie (Thlaspi californicum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Pennyroyal, Todsen's (Hedeoma todsenii) Dicot Unattributed We tland Penstemon, Blowout (Penstemon haydenii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Pentachaeta, Lyon's (Pentachaeta lyonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Pentachaeta, White

- rayed (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Peperomia, Wheeler's (Peperomia wheeleri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Peppergrass, Slick Spot (Lepidium papilliferum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Phacelia, Clay (Phacelia argillacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Phacelia, Island (Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status StatusChapter 6: References

141 Phacelia, North Park (Phacelia formosula) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Phlox, Texas Trailing (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Phlox, Yreka (Phlox hirsuta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Phyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn) (Phyllostegia kaalaensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Phyllostegia knudsenii (ncn) (Phyllostegia knudsenii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Phyllostegia mollis (ncn) (Phyllostegia mollis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Phyllostegia parviflora (ncn) (Phyllostegia parviflora) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Phyllostegia velutina (ncn) (Phyllostegia velutina) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Phyllosteg ia waimeae (ncn) (Phyllostegia waimeae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Pilo (Hedyotis mannii) (Hedyotis mannii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

pilo kea lau li`i (Platydesma rostrata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Pinkroot, Gentian (Spigelia gentian oides) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Piperia, Yadon's (Piperia yadonii) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Pitaya, Davis' Green (Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Pitcher

- plant, Alabama Canebrake (Sarracenia rubra Dicot Unattributed Wetland Pitcher

- plant, Mountain Sweet (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Plum, Scrub (Prunus geniculata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Polygala, Lewton's (Polygala lewtonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Polygonum, Scott's Valley (Polygonum hickmanii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Polystichum calderonense (ncn) (Polystichum calderonense) Ferns Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Popolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum sandwicense) (Solanum Dicot Unattributed Wetland Popolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum) (Solanum Dicot Unattributed Wetland sandwicense) Status Status

Poppy, Sacramento Prickly (Argemone pleiacantha ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Poppy

- mallow, Texas (Callirhoe scabriuscula) Dicot Unattributed Wetland pinnatisecta) Status Status

Potato

- bean, Price's (Apios priceana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Prickly

- apple, Fragrant (Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans) Dicot U nattributed Wetland

Status Status

Prickly

- ash, St. Thomas (Zanthoxylum thomasianum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Pua'ala (Brighamia rockii) (Brighamia rockii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Pussypaws, Mariposa (Calyptridium pulchellum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Rattleweed, Hairy (Baptisia arachnifera) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Reed

- mustard, Barneby (Schoenocrambe barnebyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Reed

- mustard, Clay (Schoenocrambe argillacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Reed

- mustard, Shrubby (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Remya kauaiensis (ncn) (Remya kauaiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Remya montgomeryi (ncn) (Remya montgomeryi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland R emya, Maui (Remya mauiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Ridge

- cress (=Pepper

- cress), Barneby (Lepidium barnebyanum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Rock

- cress, Braun's (Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. ampla Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Rollins) Status

Rock

- cress, Hoffmann's (Arabis hoffmannii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Rock

- cress, McDonald's (Arabis mcdonaldiana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Rock

- cress, Santa Cruz Island (Sibara filifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Rock

- cress, Shale Barren (Arabis serotina) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Rock

- cress, Small (Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Rosemary, Etonia (Conradina etonia) Dicot Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

142 perstellata Fernald) Status Status

Rosemary, Short

- leaved (Conradina brevifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Roseroot, Leedy's (Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Rush

- pea, Slender (Hoffmannseggia tenella) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Rush

- rose, Island (Helianthemum greenei) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Sandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi) (Santalum freycinetianum var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Sandlace (Polygonella myriophylla) Dicot Unattributed Wetlan d lanaiense) Status Status

Sand

- verbena, Large

- fruited (Abronia macrocarpa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Sandwort, Bear Valley (Arenaria ursina) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Sandwort, Cumberland (Arenaria cumberlandensis) Dicot Unattribute d Wetland Sanicula mariversa (ncn) (Sanicula mariversa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Schiedea haleakalensis (ncn) (Schiedea haleakalensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Schiedea helleri (ncn) (Schiedea helleri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Schiedea hookeri (ncn) (Schiedea hookeri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Schiedea kaalae (ncn) (Schiedea kaalae) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Schiedea kauaiensis (ncn) (Schiedea kauaiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Schiedea me mbranacea (ncn) (Schiedea membranacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Schiedea nuttallii (ncn) (Schiedea nuttallii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (ncn) (Schiedea spergulina Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status var. leiopoda) Status

Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina (ncn) (Schiedea spergulina Dicot Unattributed Wetland Schiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea adamantis) (Schiedea Dicot Unattributed Wetland var. spergulina) Status adamantis) Status

Schoepfia aren aria (ncn) (Schoepfia arenaria) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Sedge, Golden (Carex lutea) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Silene hawaiiensis (ncn) (Silene hawaiiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Silene lanceolata (ncn) (Silene lanceolata) Dico t Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Silene perlmanii (ncn) (Silene perlmanii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) (Argyroxiphium Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum) Status

Silversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina) (Argyroxiphium Dicot Unattributed Wetland Skullcap, Large

- flowered (Scutellaria montana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland sandwicense ssp. sandwicense) Status Status

Snakeroot (Eryngium cuneifolium) Dicot Unattributed Wet land Snowbells, Texas (Styrax texanus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn) (Spermolepis hawaiiensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Spineflower, Ben Lomond (Chorizanthe pungens var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status h artwegiana) Status

Spineflower, Howell's (Chorizanthe howellii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Spineflower, Monterey (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Spineflower, Orcutt's (Chorizanthe orcuttiana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Spineflower, Robust (Chorizanthe robusta va r. robusta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Spineflower, Scotts Valley (Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Spineflower, Slender

- horned (Dodecahema le ptoceras) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Spineflower, Sonoma (Chorizanthe valida) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Spurge, Deltoid (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Spurge, Garber's (Chamaesyce garber i) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Spurge, Telephus (Euphorbia telephioides) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status StatusChapter 6: References

143 Stenogyne angustifolia (ncn) (Stenogyne angustifolia var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Stenogyne campanulata (ncn) (Stenogyne campanulata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland angustifolia) Status Status

Stenogyne kanehoana (ncn) (Stenogyne kanehoana) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Stickseed, Showy (Hackelia venusta) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Stonecrop, Lake County (Parvisedum leiocar pum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Sumac, Michaux's (Rhus michauxii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly (Eriophyllum latilobum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Sunflower, Schweinitz's (Helianthus schweinitzii) Dicot Unattribu ted Wetland

Status Status

Sunray, Ash Meadows (Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Tarplant, Gaviota (Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Tarplant, Otay (Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Tarplant, Santa Cruz (Holocarpha macradenia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Tectaria Estremerana (Tectaria estremerana) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Tetramolopium arenarium (ncn) (Tetramolopium arenarium) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Tetramolopium capillare (ncn) (Tetramolopium capillare) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Tetramolopium filiforme (ncn) (Tetramolopium filiforme) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (ncn) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Tetramolopium remyi (ncn) (Tetramolopium remyi) Dicot Unattributed Wetland (Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum) Status Status

Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) (Tetramolopium rockii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Thelypody, Howell's Spectacular (Thelypodium howellii Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status spectabilis) Status

Thistle, Chorro creek Bog (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Thistle, Fountain (Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Thistle, La Graciosa (Cirsium loncholepis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Thistle, Pitcher's (Cirsium pitcheri) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Thistle, Suisun (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum) Dico t Unattributed Wetland Thornmint, San Mateo (Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Torreya, Florida (Torreya taxifolia) Conf/cycds Unattributed Wetland Townsendia, Last Chance (Townsendia aprica) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Tree Fern, Elfin (Cyathea dryopteroides) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Trillium, Persistent (Trillium persistens) Monocot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Trillium, Relict (Trillium reliquum) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Twinpod, Dudley Bluffs (Physaria obcordata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) (Caesalpinia kavaiense) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Vernonia Proctorii (ncn) (Vernonia proctorii) Dicot Unattribut ed Wetland

Status Status

Vetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) (Vicia menziesii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Vigna o

- wahuensis (ncn) (Vigna o

- wahuensis) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Wahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium) (Isodendrion Dicot Unattributed Wetland Wallflower, Ben Lomond (Erysimum teretifolium) Dicot Unattributed Wetland pyrifolium) Status Status

Wallflower, Contra Costa (Erysimum capitatum var. Dicot Unattributed Wetland Wallflower, Menzie's (Erysimum menziesii) Dico t Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Walnut, Nogal (Juglans jamaicensis) Monocot Unattributed Wetland Warea, Wide

- leaf (Warea amplexifolia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Watercress, Gambel's (Rorippa gambellii) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Huperzia) mannii) (Huperzia Ferns Unattributed WetlandChapter 6: References

144 Status mannii) Status

Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Lycopodium) nutans) Ferns Unattributed Wetland Whitlow

- wort, Papery (Paronychia chartacea) Dicot Unattributed Wetlan d (Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus) nutans) Status Status

Wild

- buckwheat, Clay

- loving (Eriogonum pelinophilum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Wild

- buckwheat, Gypsum (Eriogonum gypsophilum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Wings, Pigeon (Clitoria frag rans) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Wireweed (Polygonella basiramia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Woodland

- star, San Clemente Island (Lithophragma maximum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Woolly

- star, Santa Ana River (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status sanctorum) Status

Woolly

- threads, San Joaquin (Monolopia (=Lembertia) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Yellowhead, Desert (Yermo xanthocephalus) Dicot Unattributed Wetland congdonii) Status Status

Yerba Santa, Lompoc (Er iodictyon capitatum) Dicot Unattributed Wetland Ziziphus, Florida (Ziziphus celata) Dicot Unattributed Wetland

Status Status

Monardella, Willowy (Monardella linoides ssp. viminea) Dicot Upland Oahu wild coffee (Psychotria hexandra ssp. Oahuensis) Dicot Upland

'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) (Sesbania tomentosa) Dicot Upland Pamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana) (Viola Dicot Upland chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana)

Primrose, Maguire (Primula maguirei) Dicot Upland Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Fairy (Branchinecta conservatio) Crustacean Vernal pool

Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn (Branchinecta longiantenna) Crustacean Vernal pool Fairy Shrimp, Riverside (Streptocephalus woottoni) Crustacean Vernal pool

Fairy Shrimp, San Diego (Branchinecta sandiegonens is) Crustacean Vernal pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool (Branchinecta lynchi) Crustacean Vernal pool

Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool (Lepidurus packardi) Crustacean Vernal pool (ncn) (Phyllostegia hispida) Dicot Wetland

(ncn) (Cyanea kolekoleensis) Dicot Wetlan d (ncn) (Stenogyne kealiae) Dicot Wetland

(ncn) (Lysimachia venosa) Dicot Wetland (ncn) (Platydesma cornuta var. cornuta) Dicot Wetland

(ncn) (Platydesma cornuta var. decurrens) Dicot Wetland (ncn) (Keysseria (=Lagenifera) erici) Dicot Wetland

(ncn) (Lysimachia iniki) Dicot Wetland (ncn) (Lysimachia pendens) Dicot Wetland

(ncn) (Phyllostegia renovans) Dicot Wetland a'e (Zanthoxylum oahuense) Dicot Wetland

'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii) (Chamaesyce rockii) Dicot Wetland alani (Melicope hiiakae) Dicot Wet land

alani (Melicope christophersenii) Dicot Wetland alani (Melicope puberula) Dicot Wetland

alani (Melicope degeneri) Dicot Wetland alani (Melicope makahae) Dicot Wetland

alani (Melicope paniculata) Dicot Wetland Alani (Melicope lydgatei) (Melicope lydgatei) Dicot Wetland

Alani (Melicope quadrangularis) (Melicope quadrangularis) Dicot Wetland Allocarya, Calistoga (Plagiobothrys strictus) Dicot Wetland

Alsinidendron viscosum (ncn) (Alsinidendron viscosum) Dicot Wetland Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) Dicot Wetland

Ambrosia, San Diego (Ambrosia pumila) Dicot Wetland Amphianthus, Little (Amphianthus pusillus) Dicot Wetland

Arrowhead, Bunched (Sagittaria fasciculata) Monocot Wetland Barbara Buttons, Mohr's (Marshallia mohrii) Dicot Wetland

Be aked

- rush, Knieskern's (Rhynchospora knieskernii) Monocot Wetland Beauty, Harper's (Harperocallis flava) Monocot Wetland

Bellflower, Brooksville (Campanula robinsiae) Dicot Wetland Bird's

- beak, Palmate

- bracted (Cordylanthus palmatus) Dicot Wetland

Birds

- in

- a

- nest, White (Macbridea alba) Dicot Wetland Bittercress, Small

- anthered (Cardamine micranthera) Dicot Wetland

Bladderpod, White (Lesquerella pallida) Dicot Wetland Blazing Star, Ash Meadows (Mentzelia leucophylla) Dicot Wetland

Bluegrass, Hawai ian (Poa sandvicensis) Monocot Wetland Bluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) (Poa mannii) Monocot Wetland

Bluegrass, Napa (Poa napensis) Monocot Wetland Bluegrass, San Bernardino (Poa atropurpurea) Monocot Wetland

Brodiaea, Chinese Camp (Brodiaea pallida) Monoc ot Wetland Brodiaea, Thread

- leaved (Brodiaea filifolia) Monocot WetlandChapter 6: References

145 Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) (Scirpus Monocot Wetland Buttercup, Autumn (Ranunculus aestivalis (=acriformis)) Dicot Wetland

Butterwort, Godfrey's (Pinguicula ionantha) Dicot Wetland Capa Rosa (Callicarpa ampla) Dicot Wetland

Centaury, Spring

- loving (Centaurium namophilum) Dicot Wetland Chaffseed, American (Schwalbea americana) Dicot Wetland

Checker

- mallow, Nelson's (Sidalcea nelsoniana) Dicot Wetland Checker

- mallow, Pe date (Sidalcea pedata) Dicot Wetland

Chupacallos (Pleodendron macranthum) Dicot Wetland Clover, Fleshy Owl's (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta) Dicot Wetland

Clover, Showy Indian (Trifolium amoenum) Dicot Wetland Cobana Negra (Stahlia monosperma) Di cot Wetland

Cordia bellonis (ncn) (Cordia bellonis) Dicot Wetland Coyote

- thistle, Loch Lomond (Eryngium constancei) Dicot Wetland

Dawn

- flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed) (Hymenoxys Dicot Wetland Dropwort, Canby's (Oxypolis canbyi) Dicot Wetland texana)

Dubautia pauciflorula (ncn) (Dubautia pauciflorula) Dicot Wetland Gesneria pauciflora (ncn) (Gesneria pauciflora) Dicot Wetland

Goldenrod, Houghton's (Solidago houghtonii) Dicot Wetland Goldfields, Burke's (Lasthenia burkei) Dicot Wetland

Goldfi elds, Contra Costa (Lasthenia conjugens) Dicot Wetland Gooseberry, Miccosukee (Ribes echinellum) Dicot Wetland

Grass, California Orcutt (Orcuttia californica) Monocot Wetland Grass, Colusa (Neostapfia colusana) Monocot Wetland

Grass, Hairy Orcutt (Orcutt ia pilosa) Dicot Wetland Grass, Sacramento Orcutt (Orcuttia viscida) Dicot Wetland

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt (Orcuttia inaequalis) Monocot Wetland Grass, Slender Orcutt (Orcuttia tenuis) Dicot Wetland

Grass, Solano (Tuctoria mucronata) Monocot Wetland Grass, Tennessee Yellow

- eyed (Xyris tennesseensis) Monocot Wetland

Gumplant, Ash Meadows (Grindelia fraxino

- pratensis) Dicot Wetland ha`iwale (Cyrtandra sessilis) Dicot Wetland

ha`iwale (Cyrtandra kaulantha) Dicot Wetland haha (Cyanea purpurellif olia) Dicot Wetland

Haha (Cyanea kuhihewa) Dicot Wetland Haha (Cyanea dolichopoda) Dicot Wetland

haha (Cyanea eleeleensis) Dicot Wetland Haha (Cyanea calycina) Dicot Wetland

Haha (Cyanea lanceolata) Dicot Wetland Haha (Cyanea acuminata) (Cyanea acuminata) Dicot Wetland

Haha (Cyanea humboldtiana) (Cyanea humboldtiana) Dicot Wetland Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) (Cyanea koolauensis) Dicot Wetland

Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) (Cyanea mceldowneyi) Dicot Wetland Haha (Cyanea remyi) (Cyanea remyi) Dicot Wet land

Haha (Cyanea St

- Johnii) (=Rollandia St

- Johnii) (Cyanea st

- Dicot Wetland haiwale (Cyrtandra waiolani) Dicot Wetland johnii)

haiwale (Cyrtandra gracilis) Dicot Wetland haiwale (Cyrtandra paliku) Dicot Wetland

Ha'iwale (Cyrtandra oenobarba) (Cyrtand ra oenobarba) Dicot Wetland Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) (Cyrtandra viridiflora) Dicot Wetland

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) Dicot Wetland Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) (Exocarpos luteolus) Dicot Wetland

Hesperomannia lydgatei (ncn) (Hesperomannia lydgatei) Dicot Wetland Higuero De Sierra (Crescentia portoricensis) Dicot Wetland

Hilo Ischaemum (Ischaemum byrone) (Ischaemum byrone) Monocot Wetland Holly, Cook's (Ilex cookii) Dicot Wetland

Howellia, Water (Howellia aquatilis) Dicot Wetland 'Ihi'Ihi (Marsilea villosa) (Marsilea villosa) Ferns Wetland

Ilex sintenisii (ncn) (Ilex sintenisii) Dicot Wetland Iris, Dwarf Lake (Iris lacustris) Monocot Wetland

Joint

- vetch, Sensitive (Aeschynomene virginica) Dicot Wetland kamakahala (Labordia pumila) Dicot W etland

Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) (Labordia cyrtandrae) Dicot Wetland Kamakahala (Labordia lydgatei) (Labordia lydgatei) Dicot Wetland

kaulu (Pteralyxia macrocarpa) Dicot Wetland ko`oko`olau (Bidens amplectens) Dicot Wetland

Kolea (Myrsine juddii) (Myrsine juddii) Dicot Wetland Kolea (Myrsine linearifolia) (Myrsine linearifolia) Dicot Wetland

kopiko (Psychotria grandiflora) Dicot Wetland Kuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides) (Alsinidendron Dicot Wetland lychnoides)

Ladies'

- tresses, Canelo Hil ls (Spiranthes delitescens) Monocot Wetland Ladies'

- tresses, Ute (Spiranthes diluvialis) Monocot WetlandChapter 6: References

146 Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago princeps) (Plantago princeps) Dicot Wetland lehua makanoe (Lysimachia daphnoides) Dicot Wetland

Liliwai (Acaena exigua) (Acaena exigua) Dicot Wetland Lily, Western (Lilium occidentale) Monocot Wetland

lo`ulu (Pritchardia hardyi) Monocot Wetland Lo`ulu (Pritchardia affinis) (Pritchardia affinis) Monocot Wetland

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia kaalae) (Pritchardia kaalae) Monocot Wetla nd Lo`ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) (Pritchardia viscosa) Monocot Wetland

Lobelia oahuensis (ncn) (Lobelia oahuensis) Dicot Wetland Lomatium, Bradshaw's (Lomatium bradshawii) Dicot Wetland

Lomatium, Cook's (Lomatium cookii) Dicot Wetland Loosestrife, Rough

- l eaved (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Dicot Wetland

Lousewort, Furbish (Pedicularis furbishiae) Dicot Wetland Lysimachia filifolia (ncn) (Lysimachia filifolia) Dicot Wetland

Manaca, palma de (Calyptronoma rivalis) Monocot Wetland Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) Dicot Wetland

Meadowfoam, Sebastopol (Limnanthes vinculans) Dicot Wetland Meadowrue, Cooley's (Thalictrum cooleyi) Dicot Wetland

Milk

- vetch, Ash Meadows (Astragalus phoenix) Dicot Wetland Milk

- vetch, Fish Slough (Astrag alus lentiginosus var. Dicot Wetland

Mint, Otay Mesa (Pogogyne nudiuscula) Dicot Wetland Mint, San Diego Mesa (Pogogyne abramsii) Dicot Wetland

Mustard, Penland Alpine Fen (Eutrema penlandii) Dicot Wetland Mustard, Slender

- petaled (Thelypodium stenopeta lum) Dicot Wetland

Na`ena`e (Dubautia waialealae) Dicot Wetland Navarretia, Spreading (Navarretia fossalis) Dicot Wetland

Niterwort, Amargosa (Nitrophila mohavensis) Dicot Wetland nohoanu (Geranium kauaiense) Dicot Wetland

Nohoanu (Geranium multiflorum) (Geranium multiflorum) Dicot Wetland 'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) (Clermontia Dicot Wetland drepanomorpha)

'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) (Clermontia samuelii) Dicot Wetland 'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) (Tetraplasandra Dicot Wetland

gy mnocarpa)

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed (Platanthera leucophaea) Monocot Wetland Pa'iniu (Astelia waialealae) Monocot Wetland

Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) (Ternstroemia Dicot Wetland Palo de Jazmin (Styrax portoricensis) Dicot Wetland

lu quillensis)

Palo de Nigua (Cornutia obovata) Dicot Wetland Pawpaw, Beautiful (Deeringothamnus pulchellus) Dicot Wetland

Pawpaw, Rugel's (Deeringothamnus rugelii) Dicot Wetland Phyllostegia hirsuta (ncn) (Phyllostegia hirsuta) Dicot Wetland

Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) (Phyllostegia mannii) Dicot Wetland Phyllostegia warshaueri (ncn) (Phyllostegia warshaueri) Dicot Wetland

Phyllostegia wawrana (ncn) (Phyllostegia wawrana) Dicot Wetland Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) Monocot Wetland

Pitcher

- plant, Green (Sa rracenia oreophila) Dicot Wetland Platanthera holochila (ncn) (Platanthera holochila) Monocot Wetland

Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) (Poa siphonoglossa) Monocot Wetland Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) (Portulaca sclerocarpa) Dicot Wetland

Pogonia, Small Whorled (I sotria medeoloides) Monocot Wetland Polygala, Tiny (Polygala smallii) Dicot Wetland

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) Dicot Wetland Pondweed, Little Aguja Creek (Potamogeton clystocarpus) Monocot Wetland

Popcornflower, Rough (Plagiobothrys hirtus) Dicot Wetland Potentilla, Hickman's (Potentilla hickmanii) Dicot Wetland

Pteris lidgatei (ncn) (Pteris lidgatei) Ferns Wetland Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) (Cyperus trachysanthos) Monocot Wetland

Quillwort, Black

- spored (Isoetes melanospora) Ferns Wetland Quillwort, Louisiana (Isoetes louisianensis) Ferns Wetland

Quillwort, Mat

- forming (Isoetes tegetiformans) Ferns Wetland Rhododendron, Chapman (Rhododendron chapmanii) Dicot Wetland

Rosemary, Cumberland (Conradina verticillata) Dicot Wetland Sandwort, Marsh (Arenaria paludicola) Dicot Wetland

Sanicula purpurea (ncn) (Sanicula purpurea) Dicot Wetland Sea

- blite, California (Suaeda californica) Dicot Wetland

Seagrass, Johnson's (Halophila johnsonii) Monocot Wetland Sedge, Navajo (Carex specuicola) Monocot Wetland

Sedge, White (Carex albida) Monocot Wetland Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense) (Argyroxiphium Dicot Wetland kauense)

Skullcap, Florida (Scutellaria floridana) Dicot Wetland Sneezeweed, Virginia (Helenium virginicum) Dicot Wetland

Spiraea, Virginia (Spiraea virginiana) Dicot Wetland Spurge, Hoover's (Chamaesyce hooveri) Dicot WetlandChapter 6: References

147 Stickyseed, Baker's (Blennosperma bakeri) Dicot Wetland Sunflower, Pecos (Helianthus paradoxus) Dicot Wetland

Taraxacum, California (Taraxacum cali fornicum) Dicot Wetland Ternstroemia subsessilis (ncn) (Ternstroemia subsessilis) Dicot Wetland

Thistle, Sacramento Mountains (Cirsium vinaceum) Dicot Wetland Thornmint, San Diego (Acanthomintha ilicifolia) Dicot Wetland

Trematolobelia singularis (ncn) (Trematolobelia singularis) Dicot Wetland Tuctoria, Green's (Tuctoria greenei) Dicot Wetland

Umbel, Huachuca Water (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) Dicot Wetland Uvillo (Eugenia haematocarpa) Dicot Wetland

Vervain, California (Verbena californica) Dicot Wetland Viola helenae (ncn) (Viola helenae) Dicot Wetland

Viola oahuensis (ncn) (Viola oahuensis) Dicot Wetland Water

- plantain, Kral's (Sagittaria secundifolia) Monocot Wetland

Water

- willow, Cooley's (Justicia cooleyi) Dicot Wetland Wild

- rice, Tex as (Zizania texana) Monocot Wetland

Xylosma crenatum (ncn) (Xylosma crenatum) Dicot Wetland



### No species were selected for exclusion.

Dispersed species included in report.Chapter 6: References

148 

### Table 38

. Species Potentially Affected Directly Only 

# Taxon Count for Selected Crops

No species exclusions.

Minimum of 1 Acre All Medium Types Included



## Summary Counts of Counties, States and Species

Mammal

grapes, apples, pears

- all, cherries

- sweet, cherries

- tart, cucumbers and pickles, bittermelons, cantaloupes, honeydew melons, muskmelons and pepinos, pumpkins, squash

- all, squash

- summer, squash

- winter, watermelons, hazelnuts (filberts), strawberries,

broc coli, cabbage

- head, collards, escarole and endive, kale, lettuce

- all, mustard greens, parsley, spinach, rhubarb, hops, papayas,

AL, AK, AS, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FM, FL, GA, GU, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MH, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, N E, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, MP, OC, OA, OP, OH, OK, OR, PW, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UM, UT, VT, VI, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

County Counts 1465

Species counts 76

State Counts 52



### 76 species with crop co

- occurrence:

Killer whale, Southern Resident DPS (Orcinus orca) Mammal Saltwater Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) Mammal Saltwater

Otter, Northern Sea (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Mammal Saltwater Otter, Southern Sea (Enhydra lutris nereis) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) Mammal Saltwater Whale, Finback (Balaenoptera physalus) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, Gray (Eschrichtius robustus) Mammal Saltwater Whale, Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis)) Mammal Saltwater Whale, Sei (Balaenoptera borealis) Mammal Saltwater

Whale, Sperm (Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus)) Mammal Sal twater Seal, Guadalupe Fur (Arctocephalus townsendi) Mammal Saltwater, Coastal

Seal, Hawaiian Monk (Monachus schauinslandi) Mammal Saltwater, Coastal Seal, spotted (Phoca largha) Mammal Saltwater, Coastal

Sea

- lion, Steller (Eumetopias jubatus) Mammal Sal twater, Coastal Bear, American Black (Ursus americanus) Mammal Terrestrial

Bear, Grizzly (Ursus arctos horribilis) Mammal Terrestrial Bear, Louisiana Black (Ursus americanus luteolus) Mammal Terrestrial

Bison, Wood (Bison bison athabascae) Mammal Terrestrial Caribou, Woodland (Rangifer tarandus caribou) Mammal Terrestrial

Deer, Columbian White

- tailed (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) Mammal Terrestrial Ferret, Black

- footed (Mustela nigripes) Mammal Terrestrial

Fox, San Joaquin Kit (Vulpes macroti s mutica) Mammal Terrestrial Fox, San Miguel Island (Urocyon littoralis littoralis) Mammal Terrestrial

Fox, Santa Catalina Island (Urocyon littoralis catalinae) Mammal Terrestrial Fox, Santa Cruz Island (Urocyon littoralis santacruzae) Mammal Terrestrial

Fox, Santa Rosa Island (Urocyon littoralis santarosae) Mammal Terrestrial Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Mammal Terrestrial

Jaguar (Panthera onca) Mammal Terrestrial Jaguarundi, Gulf Coast (Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi Mammal Terrestrial cacomitli)Chapter 6: References

149 Jaguarundi, Sinaloan (Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca) Mammal Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, Fresno (Dipodomys nitratoides exilis) Mammal Terrestrial

Kangaroo Rat, Giant (Dipodomys ingens) Mammal Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay (Dipodomys heerman ni morroensis) Mammal Terrestrial

Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Merriam's (Dipodomys merriami Mammal Terrestrial Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' (Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus)) Mammal Terrestrial parvus)

Kangaroo Rat, Tipton (Dipodomys nitratoides nitra toides) Mammal Terrestrial Lynx, Canada (Lynx canadensis) Mammal Terrestrial

Mouse, Pacific Pocket (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) Mammal Terrestrial Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Mammal Terrestrial

Mouse, Salt Marsh Harve st (Reithrodontomys raviventris) Mammal Terrestrial Ocelot (Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis) Mammal Terrestrial

Panther, Florida (Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi) Mammal Terrestrial Pronghorn, Sonoran (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) Mammal Terrestrial

Puma (=Cougar), Eastern (Puma (=Felis) concolor (all subsp. Mammal Terrestrial Rabbit, Pygmy (Brachylagus idahoensis) Mammal Terrestrial except coryi))

Rabbit, Riparian Brush (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius) Mammal Terrestrial Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn (O vis canadensis nelsoni) Mammal Terrestrial

Sheep, Sierra Nevada Bighorn (Ovis canadensis sierrae) Mammal Terrestrial Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate (Sorex ornatus relictus) Mammal Terrestrial

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus) Mammal Terrestrial Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox (Sciurus niger cinereus) Mammal Terrestrial

Squirrel, Mount Graham Red (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Mammal Terrestrial Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground (Spermophilus brunneus Mammal Terrestrial grahamensis) brunneus)

Vole, Amargosa (Microtus californicus scirpensis) Mammal Terrestrial Vole, Hualapai Mexican (Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis) Mammal Terrestrial

Wolf, Red (Canis rufus) Mammal Terrestrial Woodrat, Riparian (Neotoma fuscipes riparia ) Mammal Terrestrial

Vole, Florida Salt Marsh (Microtus pennsylvanicus Mammal Terrestrial, Brackish Mouse, Alabama Beach (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal dukecampbelli)

Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach (Peromyscus polionotus p hasma) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach (Peromyscus polionotus Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal allophrys)

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal Mouse, Southeastern Beach (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal

Mouse, St. Andrew Beach (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) Mammal Terrestrial, Coastal Mountain Beaver, Point Arena (Aplodontia rufa nigra) Mammal Terrestrial, Freshwater

Bat, Gray (Myotis grisescen s) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Hawaiian Hoary (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Subterraneous

Bat, Indiana (Myotis sodalis) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long

- nosed (Leptonycteris curasoae Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous yerbabuenae) Subterraneous

Bat, Little Mariana Fruit (Pteropus tokudae) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Mariana Fruit (=Mariana Flying Fox) (Pteropus mariannus Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous mariannus) Subterraneous

Bat, Mexican Long

- nosed (Leptonycteris nivalis) Mammal Terrestrial, Bat, Ozark Big

- eared (Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii Mammal Terrestrial,

Subterraneous ingens) Subterraneous

Bat, Virginia Big

- eared (Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii Mammal Terrestrial, Prairie D og, Utah (Cynomys parvidens) Mammal Terrestrial, virginianus) Subterraneous Subterraneous



## Bird

apples, pears

- all, cherries

- sweet, cherries

- tart, bittermelons, cantaloupes, cucumbers and pickles, honeydew melons, muskmelons and pepinos, pumpkins, squash

- all, squash

- summer, squash

- winter, watermelons, hops

AL, AK, AS, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FM, FL, GA, GU, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MH, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, N E,Chapter 6: References

150 

### NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, MP, OC, OA, OP, OH, OK, OR, PW, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UM, UT, VT, VI, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY

County Counts 1284

Species counts 80

State Counts 50



### 80 species with crop co

- occurrence:

Nukupu`u (honeycreeper) (Hemignathus lucidus) Bird Akekee (Loxops caeruleirostris) Bird Terrestrial

'Akepa, Hawaii (Loxops coccineus coccineus) Bird Terrestrial 'Akepa, Maui (Loxops coccineus ochraceus) Bird Terrestrial

'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus) (Hemignathus Bird Terrestrial 'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) (Hemignathus munroi) Bird Ter restrial procerus)

Blackbird, Yellow

- shouldered (Agelaius xanthomus) Bird Terrestrial Bobwhite, Masked (Colinus virginianus ridgwayi) Bird Terrestrial

Caracara, Audubon's Crested (Polyborus plancus audubonii) Bird Terrestrial Condor, California (Gymnogy ps californianus) Bird Terrestrial

Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) (Fulica americana alai) Bird Terrestrial Creeper, Hawaii (Oreomystis mana) Bird Terrestrial

Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) (Paroreomyza maculata) Bird Terrestrial Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) (Corvus hawaiiensis) Bird Terrestrial

Crow, Mariana (Corvus kubaryi) Bird Terrestrial Curlew, Eskimo (Numenius borealis) Bird Terrestrial

Elepaio, Oahu (Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis) Bird Terrestrial Falcon, Northern Aplomado (Falco femoralis septentr ionalis) Bird Terrestrial

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow (Empidonax traillii extimus) Bird Terrestrial Gnatcatcher, Coastal California (Polioptila californica californica) Bird Terrestrial

Hawk, Hawaiian (Io) (Buteo solitarius) Bird Terrestrial Hawk, Pu erto Rican Broad

- winged (Buteo platypterus Bird Terrestrial brunnescens)

Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp

- shinned (Accipiter striatus venator) Bird Terrestrial Honeycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe) (Palmeria dolei) Bird Terrestrial

Kauai creeper (Oreomystis bairdi) Bird Terrestrial Kingfisher, Guam Micronesian (Halcyon cinnamomina Bird Terrestrial cinnamomina)

Kite, Everglades Snail (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) Bird Terrestrial Megapode, Micronesian (La Perouse's) (Megapodius laperouse) Bird Terrestria l

Moorhen, Hawaiian Common (Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis) Bird Terrestrial Moorhen, Mariana Common (Gallinula chloropus guami) Bird Terrestrial

Nightjar, Puerto Rico (Caprimulgus noctitherus) Bird Terrestrial 'O'o, Kauai (='A'a) (Moho braccatus) Bird Terrestrial

'O'u (Honeycreeper) (Psittirostra psittacea) Bird Terrestrial Owl, Mexican Spotted (Strix occidentalis lucida) Bird Terrestrial

Owl, Northern Spotted (Strix occidentalis caurina) Bird Terrestrial Palila (Loxioides bailleui) Bird Terrestrial

Parrot, Puerto Rican (Amazona vittata) Bird Terrestrial Parrotbill, Maui (Pseudonestor xanthophrys) Bird Terrestrial

Petrel, Hawaiian Dark

- rumped (Pterodroma phaeopygia Bird Terrestrial Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain (Columba inornata wetmorei) Bird Terrest rial sandwichensis)

Plover, Piping (Charadrius melodus) Bird Terrestrial Plover, Western Snowy (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Bird Terrestrial

Po'ouli (Melamprosops phaeosoma) Bird Terrestrial

Prairie

- chicken, Attwater's Greater (Tympanuchus cupido Bird Terrestrial Rail, California Clapper (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) Bird Terrestrial attwateri)

Rail, Guam (Rallus owstoni) Bird Terrestrial Rail, Light

- footed Clapper (Rallus longirostris levipes) Bird Terrestrial

Rail, Yuma Clapper (Rallus longirostris yumanensis) Bird Terrestrial Scrub

- Jay, Florida (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Bird Terrestrial

Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi) Bird Terrestrial Sparrow, Cape Sable Seaside (Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis) Bird Terres trial

Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum Bird Terrestrial Sparrow, San Clemente Sage (Amphispiza belli clementeae) Bird Terrestrial floridanus)Chapter 6: References

151 Stilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o) (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) Bird Terrestrial Stork, Wood (Mycte ria americana) Bird Terrestrial

Swiftlet, Mariana Gray (=Vanikoro) (Aerodramus vanikorensis Bird Terrestrial Tern, California Least (Sterna antillarum browni) Bird Terrestrial bartschi)

Tern, Interior (population) Least (Sterna antillarum) Bird Terrestrial Tern, Roseate (Sterna dougallii dougallii) Bird Terrestrial

Thrush, Large Kauai (Myadestes myadestinus) Bird Terrestrial Thrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) (Myadestes palmeri) Bird Terrestrial

Towhee, Inyo Brown (Pipilo crissalis eremophilus) Bird Terrestrial Vireo, Black

- capped (Vireo atricapilla) Bird Terrestrial

Vireo, Least Bell's (Vireo bellii pusillus) Bird Terrestrial Warbler (=Wood), Golden

- cheeked (Dendroica chrysoparia) Bird Terrestrial

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's (Dendroica kirtlandii) Bird Terrestrial Warbler, Bachman's (Vermivora bachmanii) Bird Terrestrial

Warbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler) (Acrocephalus Bird Terrestrial White

- eye, Bridled (Nossa) (Zosterops conspicillatus Bird Terrestrial luscinia) conspicillatus)

White

- eye, Rota Bridled (Zosterops rotensis) Bird Terrestrial Woodpecker, Ivory

- billed (Campephilus principalis) Bird Terrestrial

Woodpecker, Red

- cockaded (Picoides borealis) Bird Terrestrial Crane, Mississippi Sandhill (Grus canadensis pulla) Bird Terres trial, Freshwater

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) (Anas wyvilliana) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater

Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) (Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Bird Terrestrial, Freshwater,

Saltwater

Albatross, Short

- tailed (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) Bird Terrestrial, Saltwater Eider, Steller's (Polysticta stelleri) Bird Terrestrial, Saltwater

Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's (Puffinus auricularis newelli) Bird Terrestrial, Saltwater



## Bivalve, Coral, Crustacean

pineapples harvested



## Summary Counts of Counties, States and Species

Mammal Bird Amphibian Reptile Fish Crustacean Bivalve Gastropod Arachnid Insect Dicot Monocot Ferns Conf/cycds Coral Lichen

County Counts 1 19

Species counts 1 2

State Counts 1 2



### 3 species with crop co

- occurrence:

Amphipod, Kauai Cave (Spelaeorchestia koloana) Crustacean Freshwater, Coral, Elkhorn (Acropora palmata) Coral Saltwater

Subterraneous

Coral, Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) Coral Saltwater



### No species were selected for exclusion.

Dispersed species included in report.Chapter 6: References

152 

### Appendix K . ECOTOX Open Literature That Passed Initial Screen

Accepted ECOTOX DATA Table

– Triflmizole The code list for ECOTOX can be found at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/blackbox/help/codelist.pdf

Chemical

Name Genus Species Common

Name Effect Group Effect Meas Endpt1 Endpt2 Dur
Preferred
Mean Dur Unit
Preferred Conc #1 Purity Adjusted

in
Preferred
Unit
Mean Conc #2 Purity Adjusted

in
Preferred

Unit
Mean Conc
Units
Preferred % Purity Ref #

Triflumizole Apis mellifera Honey Bee MOR MOR MORT NOAEL 1 d 0.45 AI kg/ha 100 90553

Triflumizole Apis mellifera Honey Bee MOR MOR MORT NOAEL 1 d 0.45 AI kg/ha 100 90553

Triflumizole Apis mellifera Honey Bee BEH AVO CHEM NOAEL 2.08E

- 02 d 0.45 AI kg/ha 100 90553

Triflumizole Malus sp. Apple REP REP GERM NOAEL 0.25 d 0.4014 lb/acre 100 90553

Triflumizole Apis mellifera Honey Bee BEH AVO CHEM NOAEL 2.08E

- 02 d 0.45 AI kg/ha 100 90553

Triflumizole Pyrus communis Pear REP REP GERM LOAEL 0.25 d 0.4014 lb/acre 100 90553

Triflumizole Malus sp. Apple REP REP GERM LOAEL 0.25 d 0.4014 lb/acre 100 90553

Triflumizole Rosa sp. Rose GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 28 d 0.015 % 30 75966

Triflumizole Sphaerotheca pannosa Powery
Mildew POP POP ABND LOAEL 14 d 0.015 % 30 75966

Triflumizole Sphaerotheca pannosa Powery
Mildew POP POP ABND LOAEL 14 d 0.015 % 30 75966

Triflumizole Spathiphyllum floribundum Snowflower GRO GRO NROT NOAEL 70 d 40 uM 100 96404

Triflumizole Encarsia formosa Parasitic Wasp MOR MOR MORT NR

ZERO 14 d 0.012 % 100 96254

Triflumizole Galendromus occidentalis Western Predatory
Mite REP REP FCND NOAEL 3 d 157.72 ppm 50 96453

Triflumizole Gal endromus occidentalis Western Predatory
Mite MOR MOR SURV NOAEL 3 d 157.72 ppm 50 96453

Triflumizole Galendromus occidentalis Western Predatory
Mite BEH FDB FCNS NOAEL 3 d 157.72 ppm 50 96453

Triflumizole Spathiphyllum floribundum Snowflower GRO MPH LGTH NOAEL 70 d 40 uM 100 96404

Triflumizole Neoseiulus fallacis Predatory
Mite MOR MOR MORT NOEL 1 d 225 ppm 50 73149

Triflumizole Neoseiulus fallacis Predatory
Mite MOR MOR MORT NOEL 2 d 225 ppm 50 73149

Triflumizole Ostrinia nubilalis European
Corn Borer POP POP ABND NOEL 1 gs 0.03 lb/acre 0.5 95501

Triflumizole Ostrinia nubilalis European
Corn Borer POP POP ABND NOEL 1 gs 0.03 lb/acre 0.5 95501

Triflumizole Ostrinia nubilalis European
Corn Borer POP POP ABND NOEL 1 gs 0.03 lb/acre 0.5 95501

Triflumizole Ostrinia nubilalis European POP POP ABND NOEL d 0.03 lb/acre 0.5 95500Chapter 6: References

153 Chemical

Name Genus Species Common

Name Effect Group Effect Meas Endpt1 Endpt2 Dur
Preferred

Mean Dur Unit
Preferred Conc #1 Purity Adjusted

in
Preferred
Unit

Mean Conc #2 Purity Adjusted

in
Preferred

Unit

Mean Conc
Units
Preferred % Purity Ref #

Corn Borer

Triflumizole Ostrinia nubilalis European
Corn Borer POP POP ABND NOEL d 0.03 lb/acre 0.5 95500

Triflumizole Ostrinia nubilalis European
Corn Borer POP POP ABND NOEL d 0.03 lb/acre 0.5 95500

Triflumizole Pseudoplusia includens Soybean Looper POP POP ABND LOEL 3 d 0.75 qt/acre 100 92283

Triflumizole Pseudoplusi a includens Soybean Looper POP POP ABND LOEL 7 d 0.75 qt/acre 100 92283

Triflumizole Steinernema feltiae Nematode BEH BEH GBHV NOAEL 9 d 0.3 ml/L 50 71382

Triflumizole Steinernema feltiae Nematode MOR MOR SURV NOAEL 3 d 0.3 ml/L 50 71382Chapter 6: References

154 

### Triflumizole Papers that Were Accepted for ECOTOX

Acceptable to EcoTox and OPP

May 2011

De Nardo, E. A. B. and Grewal, P. S. (2003). Compatibility of Steinernema fel tiae (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) with Pesticides and Plant Growth Regulators Used in Glasshouse Plant Production. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 13:

441

- 448.

EcoReference No.: 71382

Chemical of Concern: ACM,ACP,AZX,CLT,DFZ,FDX,FTL,FYC,IPD,MFX,PBZ,PNB,RMLX,SS, TFZ,TPM,TZL; Habitat : T;

Effect Codes : BEH,MOR; Code : LITE EVAL CODED (ACM,ACP,AZX,CLT,DFZ,FDX,FTL,FYC,IPD,MFX,PBZ,PNB,RMLX,SS,TFZ,TPM,TZL), NO EFED CHEM (SS,TPM,TZL), TARGET (PNB).

DeVries, T. A. and Wright, R. J. (1996). Evaluation of Microbial and Conventional Insecticides for Control of Larval European Corn Borer on Whorl Stage Corn, Clay Center, NE, 1995. Arthropod Manag. Tests 21 : 218

- (35F).

EcoReference No.: 95500 Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNF,LCYT,PMR,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; C ode : LITE EVAL CODED (CPY,LCYT,PMR,TFZ), NO EFED CHEM (FNF), TARGET (LCYT).

Haas, M. J. and Landis, D. A. (1996). 1st Generation European Corn Borer Larvicide Trial, 1995. Arthropod Manag.

Tests 21: 219

- (36F).

EcoReference No.: 95501

Chemical of Concern : CBF,CPY,FNF,LCYT,PMR,PRT,TBO,TFT,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP;

Code : LITE EVAL CODED (CBF,CPY,LCYT,PMR,PRT,TBO,TFZ), NO EFED CHEM (FNF,TFT), TARGET (CBF,LCYT,TBO).

Mascarenhas, R. N., Fitzpatrick, B. J., Boyd, M. L., Clemens, C. G., Boethel, D. J., Vidrine, P. R., and Moore, S. H. (1997). Evaluation of Selected Experimental and Standard Insecticides Against Soybean Looper, 1996. Arthropod Manag. Tests 22: 314

- (126F).

EcoReference No.: 92283 Chemical of Concern: ACP,CFP,EMMB,MFZ,PMR,PPB,SS,TDC,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP;

Code : LITE EVAL CODED (CFP,EMMB,PMR,TDC,TFZ), NO EFED CHEM (SS), NO MIXTURE (ACP,MFZ,PPB), TARGET (ACP,CFP,EMMB,MFZ,TDC)

.

Metzger, J. A. and Pfeiffer, D. G. (2002). Topical Toxicity of Pesticides Used in Virginia Vineyards to the Predatory Mite, Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 37: 329

- 337.

EcoReference No.: 73149

Chemical of Concern: AZ,AZX,CBL,CHX,D CF,DU,FBOX,FO,FRM,GFS,GFSNH,KRSM,MZB,OXF,PQT,PRB,PSM,PZM,TEZ,TF
Z; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Code : LITE EVAL CODED (AZ,AZX,CBL,DCF,DU,FBOX,FRM,GFSNH,MZB,OXF,PQT,PRB,PSM,PZM,TEZ,TFZ), NO EFED CHEM (CHX,KRSM), OK (GFS), TARGET (AZ,CBL,DCF,FBOX,PRB,P SM).



### November 2007

1. Abou

- Jawdah, Y. and Itani, H. M. (1995). Sensitivity of Botrytis cinerea Isolates to Fungicides Used in Lebanon .Chapter 6: References

155 Phytopathol.Medit. 34: 100

- 108.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

2. Abou

- Jawdeh, Y. A. and Barghout, B. A. (1993). Fungicide Resistance of Botrytis cinerea Isolates on Tomatoes in

Lebanon. Phytopathol.Medit. 32: 182

- 187.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

3. Alston, D. G. and Thomson, S. V. (2004). Effects of Fungicide Residues on the Survival, Fecundity, and Predation of the Mites Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Galendromus occidentalis (Acari: Phytoseiidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 97: 950

- 956.

EcoReference No.: 96453

Chemical o f Concern: BMY,TFZ,MYC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP,REP,MOR; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(TFZ).

4. Amano, T. and Takeda, T. (2002). Case Studies of Fungicide

- Resistance Management in Japan. ACS Symp.Ser.

808: 230

- 241.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

5. Biggs, A. R. and Warner, J. (1987). Control of Primary and Secondary Apple Scab Infections with Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides. Can.J.Plant Pathol. 9: 41

- 48.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Reject ion Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

6. Blumel, S. (1990). Results of a Direct Contact Test for the Evaluation of Side Effects of Pesticides on the Pupal Stage of Encarsia formosa (Gah.). Pflanzenschutzberichte 51: 139

- 142.

EcoReference No.: 96254

Chemical of Concern: MYC,PPM,MZB,TFZ,TPM,AV,FCX,BDC,ES,PIM,MVP,DINO,CYF,THO,FPP,FYT; Habitat : T; Effect

Codes : REP,MOR,GRO; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(TFZ),TARGET(CYF),MIXTURE(MZB).

7. Chase, A. R. (1986). Cylindrocladium Root and Petiole Rot C ontrol Update. In: Proc.Fla.State Hortic.Soc. 98: 115

- 118.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

8. Cimanowski, J. (1989). Antisporulant Action of the Latest Systemic Fungicides Used Against the Powdery Mildew Podosph aera leucotricha (Ell. et Ev.) Salm. Fruit Sci.Rep. 16: 23

- 26.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

9. Dell, K. J., Gubler, W. D., Krueger, R., Sanger, M., and Bettiga, L. J. (1998). The Efficacy of Jms Stylet

- Oil on Grape Powdery Mildew and Botrytis Bunch Rot and Effects on Fermentation. Am.J.Enol.Vitic. 49: 11

- 16.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

10. Elmer, W. H. (2006). Efficacy of Preplant Treatments of Gladiolus Corms w ith Combinations of Acibenzolar

- s

Methyl and Biological or Chemical Fungicides for Suppression of Fusarium Corm Rot [Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. gladioli]. Can.J.Plant Pathol. 28: 609

- 614.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

11. Geml, J., Davis, D. D., and Geiser, D. M. (2005). Influence of Selected Fungicides on In Vitro Growth of ArtilleryChapter 6: References

156 Fungi (Sphaerobolus spp.). J.Environ.Hortic. 23: 63

- 66.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

12. Goulart, A. and Paiva, F. (1993). Efficiency of Wheat Seed Chemical Treatment on the Control of Helminthosporium sativum and Pyricularia oryzae. Summa Phytopathol. 19: 199

- 202.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ ).

13. Grinchenko, S. G., Chkanikov, D. I., Umnov, A. M., and Shabanova, A. M. (1989). Possibility of Using Enzyme Immunoassay in Studies of Antirust Fungicide Effectiveness. Agrokhimiya 6: 103

- 105.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Cod e : TARGET (TFZ).

14. Hamamoto, H., Hasegawa, K., Nakaune, R., Lee, Y. J., Akutsu, K., and Hibi, T. (2001). PCR

- Based Detection of Sterol Demethylation Inhibitor

- Resistant Strains of Penicillium digitatum. Pest Manag.Sci. 57: 839

- 843.

Chemical of Conce rn: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

15. Hamamoto, H., Nawata, O., Hasegawa, K., Nakaune, R., Lee, Y. J., Makizumi, Y., Akutsu, K., and Hibi, T. (2001). The Role of the ABC Transporter Gene PMR1 in Demethylation Inhibitor Resistance in P enicillium digitatum. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 70: 19

- 26.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

16. Hamamura, H., Kawahara, M., and Shimoda, S. (1989). Some Characteristics of Gibberella Fujikuroi (Fusarium moniliforme) Isolates less Sensitive to Triflumizole. Ann.Phytopathol.Soc.Jpn. 55: 275

- 280.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

17. Hamamura, H., Kawahara, M., Shimoda, S., and Kataoka, M. (1991). Heterokaryosis of Gibberella Fu jikuroi (Fusarium moniliforme) Isolates less Sensitive to Triflumizole. Ann.Phytopathol.Soc.Jpn. 57 : 387

- 393.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

18. Haramoto, M., Hamamura, H., Sano, S., Felsenstein, F. G., and Otani, H. (2006). Sensitivity Monitoring of Powdery Mildew Pathogens to Cyflufenamid and the Evaluation of Resistance Risk. J.Pestic.Sci. 31: 397

- 404.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; R ejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

19. Hashimoto, S., Sano, S., Murakami, A., Mizuno, M., Nishikawa, H., and Yasuda, Y. (1986). Fungitoxic Properties

of Triflumizol. Nippon Shokubutsu Byori Gakkaiho 52: 599

- 610.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejec tion Code : TARGET (TFZ).

20. Hema, L. R., Shivanna, M. B., Kumar, V., Krishnappa, M., Prakash, H. S., and Shetty, H. S. ( 1991). Control of

Seed

- Borne Fungi in Okra Hibiscus esculentus by Fungicidal Seed Treatment. Indian J.Agric.Sci. 61: 778

- 782.

Che mical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

21. Hermann, M., Szith, R., and Zinkernagel, V. (1989). Reduced Sensitivity of Some Scab Isolates Venturia inaequalis

from Steiermark Austria to EBI

- Fungicides. Gartenbauwissenschaft 54: 160

- 165.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

22. Hildebrand, P. D., Lockhart, C. L., Newbery, R. J., and Ross, R. G. (1988). Resistance of Venturia inaequalis to Bitertanol and Other Demethylation

- Inhibiting Fung icides. Can.J.Plant Pathol. 10: 311

- 316.Chapter 6: References

157 Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

23. Kalamarakis, A. E., Demopoulos, V. P., Ziogas, B. N., and Georgopoulos, S. G. (1989). A Highly Mutable Major

Gene for Triadimenol Resist ance in Nectria haematococca var. Cucurbitae. Netherlands J.Plant Pathol.

95: 109

- 120.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

24. Kim, K. W., Kim, W. T., and Eum, S. J. (1998). Bent

- Neck Inhibition in Cut Rose with Fun gicides. J.Korean

Soc.Hortic.Sci. 39: 98

- 102.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

25. Kohler, G., Viernstein, H., and Wolschann, P. (1996). Molecular Calculations and Thermodynamical Considerations on the Solubility Enhancement of Triflumizole by Cyclodextrin Complexation. J.Inclus.Phenomen.Mol.Recog.Chem. 25: 237

- 241.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

26. Koller, W. ( 1994). Chemical Control of Apple Scab

- Status Quo and Future. Norw.J.Agric.Sci.Suppl. 17: 149

- 170.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

27. Leroux, P., Albertini, C., Gautier, A., Gredt, M., and Walker, A . S. (2007). Mutations in the CYP51 Gene Correlated with Changes in Sensitivity to Sterol 14a

- Demethylation Inhibitors in Field Isolates of Mycosphaerella graminicola. Pest Manag.Sci. 63: 688

- 698.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

28. Leroux, P., Cavelier, N., and Migeon, J. L. (1990). Resistance to Inhibitors of Sterol Biosynthesis in Pseudocercosporella herpotrichoides, the Causal Agent of Cereal Eye

- Spot. In: Tagungsber.Akad.Landwirtschaftswiss., Vol.1, Syst.Fung ic.Antifungal Compd. 291: 137

- 144.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

29. Leroux, P. and Gredt, M. (1997). Evolution of Fungicide Resistance in the Cereal Eyespot Fungi Tapesia yallundae and Tapesia acuformis in Franc e. Pestic.Sci. 51: 321

- 327.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

30. Leroux, P., Gredt, M., and Boeda, P. (1988). Resistance to Inhibitors of Sterol Biosynthesis in Field Isolates or Laboratory Strains of the Eyespot Pathogen Pseudocercosporella herpotrichoides. Pestic.Sci. 23: 119

- 129.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

31. Magarey, R. D., Emmett, R. W., Magarey, P. A., and Franz, P. R. (1993). Evaluation of Control of Grapevine Anthracnose Caused by Elsinoe ampelina by Pre

- Infection Fungicides. Aust.Plant Pathol. 22: 48

- 52.

EcoRefe rence No.: 92094 Chemical of Concern: FRM,HCZ,DFC,CTN,Captan,Ziram,TEB,PCZ,FUZ,MYC,TFZ,FZN; Habitat : T;

Effect Codes : POP,PHY; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(FRM),OK(CTN),TARGET(Captan,PCZ,TFZ).

32. Markoglou, A. N. and Ziogas, B. N. (2000). Geneti c Control of Resistance to Tridemorph in Ustilago maydis. Phytoparasitica 28: 349

- 360.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).Chapter 6: References

158 33. Markoglou, A. N. and Ziogas, B. N. (2002). SBI

- Fungicides: Fungicidal Effectiveness and R esistance in Botrytis

cinerea. Phytopathol.Medit. 41: 120

- 130.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

34. Matheron, M. E. and Porchas, M. (2007). Comparative Performance and Preservation of Chemical Management

Tools for Powdery Mildew on Muskmelon. Acta Hortic./ In: Proc.3rd Int.Symp.on Cucurbits, 2005 731:

357

- 361.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

35. Mayer, D. F. and Lunden, J. D. (1986). Toxicity of Fungicides and an Acarici de to Honey Bees Apis

- Mellifera Hymenoptera and Their Effects on Bee Foraging Behavior and Pollen Viability on Blooming Apples and

Pears. Environ.Entomol. 15: 1047

- 1049.

EcoReference No.: 90553 Chemical of Concern: TFR,HTX,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Code s : MOR,BEH,REP; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(TFR,HTX,TFZ).

36. Mizuno, M. ( 1988). Triflumizole (Trifmine): A New Broad Spectrum Fungicide. Jpn.Pestic.Inf. 52: 27

- 30.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

37. M otomura, M., Suwa, S., and Hirooka, E. Y. (1997). Biological Control: Microbial Versus Chemical Fungicide on

Growth of Rice Infected with Fusarium moniliforme. Rev.Microbiol. 28: 11

- 16.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY ( TFZ).

38. Mueller, D. S., Jeffers, S. N., and Buck, J. W. (2005). Toxicity of Fungicides to Urediniospores of Six Rust Fungi that Occur on Ornamental Crops. Plant Dis. 89: 255

- 261.

EcoReference No.: 90062 Chemical of Concern: CuS,MZB,TDF,MYC,PCZ,TFZ,AZ X,IPD,TPM,FHX,CTN,TFX; Habitat : T;

Effect Codes : REP,CEL,MOR; Rejection Code : TARGET(ALL CHEMS).

39. Nakaune, R., Adachi, K., Nawata, O., Tomiyama, M., Akutsu, K., and Hibi, T. (1998). A Novel ATP

- Binding Cassette Transporter Involved in Multidrug R esistance in the Phytopathogenic Fungus Penicillium digitatum. Appl.Environ.Microbiol. 64: 3983

- 3988.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

40. Nowacka, H. (1989). Effectiveness of Systemic Fungicides from the Ergosterol Biosynthesis Inhibitor Group in the Post Infection Control of Apple Scab. Fruit Sci.Rep. 16: 81

- 86.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

41. Nowacka, H. (1991). Stability of Resistance to Benzimidazole Fungicides in Venturia inaequalis (CKE) Aderh. Fruit Sci.Rep. 18: 143

- 146.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

42. O'Brien, R. G., Vawdrey, L. L., an d Glass, R. J. (1988). Fungicide Resistance in Cucurbit Powdery Mildew (Sphaerotheca fuliginea) and Its Effect on Field Control. Aust.J.Exp.Agric. 28: 417

- 423.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

43. O'Leary, A. L., Jones, A. L., and Ehret, G. R. (1987). Application Rates and Spray Intervals for Apple Scab Control With Flusilazol and Pyrifenox. Plant Dis. 71: 623

- 626.Chapter 6: References

159 EcoReference No.: 90209 Chemical of Concern: FUZ,Captan,FRM,TFZ,BMY,DCZ,MZB,TDF,MEM; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : GRO,POP; Rejection Code : TARGET(TFZ,FRM,Captan),NO MIXTURE(MZB,TDF).

44. Ohtsuka, N., Sou, K., Amano, T., Ojima, M., Nakazawa, Y., and Yamada, Y. (1988). Decreased Sensitivity of Cucumber Powdery Mildew Sphaerotheca fuliginea to Ergoste rol Biosynthesis Inhibitors. Ann.Phytopathol.Soc.Jpn.(Nippon Shokubutsu Byori Gakkaiho) 54: 629

- 632.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

45. Pscheidt, J. W. and Cluskey, S. (2001). Fungicide Control of Eastern Filbe rt Blight. Acta Hortic./ In: Proc.5th Int.Congr.on Hazelnut, 2000 556: 411

- 417.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

46. Resende, G., Costa, N. D., Melo, N., and Souza, R. (1996). Efficiency of Fungicides for the Con trol of Leaf Blight (Alternaria dauci (Kuhn) Groves and Skolko) in Carrot (Daucus carota L.). Cienc.Agrotecnol. 20: 168

- 172.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

47. Rolim, P., Toledo, A., Cardoso, R., Brignani, and Oliveira, D. A. (1990). Fungicides Compared for Rose Black Spot (Diplocarpon rosae) and Powdery Mildew (Sphaerotheca pannosa var. rosae) Control . Summa Phytopathol. 16: 269

- 274.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

48. Stanis, V. F. (1985). Genetics of Benomyl Resistance and Reduced Sensitivity to Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides in Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) Wint. (Apple Scab). Ph.D.Thesis, Michigan State Univ. 70 p.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

49. Stanis, V. F. and Jones, A. L. (1985). Reduced Sensitivity to Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides in Field Isolates of Venturia inaequalis. Phytopathology 75: 1098

- 101.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

50. Sutton, T. B., Filajdic, N., and Brown, E. (1994). Current Status of the Management of Summer Diseases of Apples. Norw.J.Agric.Sci. Suppl.17: 361

- 369.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

51. Suzuki, M. , Hamamura, H., and Iwamori, M. (1994). Relationship Between Formulations of Triflumizole and Their Efficacy to Bakanae Disease in Rice Seed Treatment. J.Pestic.Sci.(Nippon Noyaku Gakkaishi) 19: 251

- 256.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

52. Swait, A. A. J. and Butt, D. J. (1985). Fungicides to Control Apple Powdery Mildew; 1984 Trial A. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv. 6: 36

- 37.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

53. Tateishi, H. and Chida, T. (2000). Sensitivity of Fusarium moniliforme Isolates to Ipconazole. J.Gen.Plant Pathol.

66: 353

- 359.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).Chapter 6: References

160 54. Toledo, A. and Rolim, P. (1989). Selection of Fungicides to Control Chrysanthemum White Rust, Caused by

Puccinia horiana. Summa Phytopathol. 15: 238

- 245.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

55. Trandafirescu, M. and Topor, E. (1995). Investigations on Stereum purpureum (Pers.ex Fr.) Fr. Control on Apricot. Acta Hortic./ 10th Int.Symp.on Apricot Culture, 1993 384: 595

- 599.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

56. Wada, T., Kuzum a, S., and Takenaka, M. (1990). Sensitivity of Fusarium moniliforme Isolates to Pefurazoate. Nippon Shokubutsu Byori Gakkaiho 56: 449

- 56.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

57. Werbrouck, S. P. O. and Debergh, P. C. (1996). Imidazole Fungicides and Paclobutrazol Enhance Cytokinin

Induced Adventitious Shoot Proliferation in Araceae. J.Plant Growth Regul. 15: 81

- 85.

EcoReference No.: 96404 Chemical of Concern: PBZ,TFZ,ILL; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : GRO; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(TFZ),TARGET(PBZ).

58. Wojdyla, A. T. (1999). Chemical Control of Rose Diseases V. Effectiveness of Fungicides in the Control of Powdery Mildew on Rose cv Mercedes in Greenhouse. J.Fruit Ornam.Plant Res. 7: 47

- 54.

EcoReference No .: 75966

Chemical of Concern: TFR,FRM,FUZ,MZB,CBD,Folpet,TEZ,TCZ,CTN,TDF,TDM,BTN,TFZ,MYC,DFC; Habitat : T; Effect

Codes : PHY,GRO,ACC,POP; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(TCZ,TDF,TFR,FRM,TFZ),OK(MZB,Folpet,CTN).

59. Yokota, C. ( 2004). Cyflufenamid: A New Fungicide Against Powdery Mildew on Various Crops. Agrochem.Jpn.

84: 12

- 14.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : EFFICACY (TFZ).

60. Yoshida, M., Kawasaki, A., Yukimoto, M., and Nose, K. (1990). Detection of the Effects of Fun gicides on the Cell Membrane by Proton NMR Spectroscopy. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 38: 172

- 177.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).

61. Yoshida, M. and Yukimoto, M. (1993). Effects of Fungicides on Channels in the Funga l Membrane. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 47: 171

- 177.

Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Rejection Code : TARGET (TFZ).Chapter 6: References

161 

### Appendix K. ECOTOX Open Literature Excluded From the Effects Assessment

Acceptable to EcoTox but not OPP

May 2011

Fitzpatrick, B. J., Mascarenhas, R. N., Boyd, M. L., Boethel, D. J., Burris, E., and Cook, D. (1997). Soybean Looper and Beet Armyworm Control on Soybean in Louisiana, 1995. Arthropod Manag. Tests 21: 289

- 291 (126F).

EcoReference No.: 96095

Chemical of C oncern: CFP,CPY,EMMB,MFZ,MOM,SS,TDC,TFZ,TUZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP;

Code : LITE EVAL CODED (CFP,CPY,EMMB,MOM,TDC), NO EFED CHEM (SS), NO MIXTURE (MFZ,TFZ,TUZ), TARGET (CFP,EMMB,MFZ,MOM,TDC,TUZ).

Hashimoto, S., Sano, S., and Morishima, Y. (1985) . Ergosterol Biosynthesis Inhibition and Morphological Changes in the Sporidia of Ustilago maydis Treated with Triflumizole. In: I.M.Smith (Ed.), Monogr.No.31, Fungicides for Crop Protection: 100 Years of Progress, Volume 2 Poster Paps., Proc.of the Borde aux Mixture Centenary Meet., Sept.5

- 7, 1985, Bordeaux, France, BCPC Publ., Croydon, England 277

- 280.

EcoReference No.: 73077 Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : CEL,GRO,POP; Code : NO ENDPOINT (TFZ).

Iwasa, T., Motoyama, N., Ambrose, J. T., and Roe, R. M. (2004). Mechanism for the Differential Toxicity of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the Honey Bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Prot. 23: 371

- 378.

EcoReference No.: 95986 Chemical of Concern: ACT,CTD,DNF,IMC,TAP,TFZ,TMX; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Code : LITE EVAL CODED (IMC), NO EFED CHEM (ACT,CTD,DNF,TAP,TMX), NO MIXTURE (TFZ).

Lee, Y. J., Yamamoto, K., Hamamoto, H., Nakaune, R., and Hibi, T. (2005). A Novel ABC Transporter Gene ABC2 Involved in Multidrug Susceptibility but not Pathog enicity in Rice Blast Fungus, Magnaporthe grisea. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 81: 13

- 23.

EcoReference No.: 109561 Chemical of Concern: BMY,BTN,CuS,FHX,FRM,HgCl2,IPD,KRSM,KSM,MPP,MYC,TEZ,TFZ,VCZ;

Habitat : T; Effect Codes : CEL,GRO; Code : NO EFED CHEM (B TN,FHX,HgCl2,KRSM,MPP), NO ENDPOINT (BMY,CuS,FRM,IPD,KSM,MYC,TEZ,TFZ,VCZ), TARGET (BMY,FRM,IPD,KSM,MYC,TEZ,TFZ,VCZ).

Mink, J. S., Wier, A. T., Thomas, J. D., and Boethel, D. J. (1991). Evaluation of Insecticides for Soybean Looper Control

in South Louisian a, 1990. Insectic. Acaric. Tests 16: 221

- 222 (120F).

EcoReference No.: 151055 Chemical of Concern: PMR,PPB,TDC,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Code : LITE EVAL CODED (PMR,TDC), NO BIOLOGICAL TOXICANT (TFZ), NO MIXTURE (PPB), TARGET (TDC).

Nowacka , H., Cimanowski, J., Dadej, J., Lewandowska, M., and Olszewski, K. (1991). Effectiveness of EBI Systemic Fungicides and Their Mixtures in the Control of Apple Scab. Fruit Sci. Rep. (Skierniewice) 18: 173

- 183.

EcoReference No.: 94288

Chemical of Concern: Captan,DFC,FRM,FUZ,HCZ,MEM,MYC,MZB,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP;

Code : EFFICACY (Captan,MEM,MZB), NO EFED CHEM (DFC,HCZ), NO MIXTURE (FRM,FUZ,MYC,TFZ).

Olszak, R. W. (1999). Influence of Some Pesticides on Mortality and Fecundity of the Aphidop hagous Coccinellid Adalia bipunctata L. (Col., Coccinellidae). Z. Angew. Entomol. 123: 41

- 45.Chapter 6: References

162 EcoReference No.: 64265

Chemical of Concern: ACYP,AMZ,CTZ,DFC,DOD,EFV,ES,FBOX,FO,FPP,FRM,FUZ,HTX,IPD,MEM,MZB,PHSL,PPG,TFR,TFZ, VCZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR,REP; Code : LITE EVAL CODED (AMZ,CTZ,DOD,EFV,ES,FBOX,FPP,FRM,FUZ,IPD,MEM,MZB,PPG,TFR,VCZ), NO EFED CHEM (ACYP,DFC,PHSL), NO ENDPOINT (HTX,TFZ), TARGET (AMZ,CTZ,EFV,FBOX,FPP,HTX,PPG,TFR).

Takeuchi, S., Matsuda, T., Kobayashi, S., Takahashi, T., and Koj ima, H. (2006). In Vitro Screening of 200 Pesticides for Agonistic Activity via Mouse Peroxisome Proliferator

- Activated Receptor (PPAR)alpha and PPARgamma and Quantitative Analysis of In Vivo Induction Pathway. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 217: 235

- 244.

Eco Reference No.: 89206

Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,ACF,ACFM,ACP,ACR,AMZ,AND,ANL,ANZ,ASM,ATZ,BDC,BMY,BPH,BSF,BTN,CBD,CBF,CB L,CHD,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CTN,CYF,CYH,CYP,Captan,DBN,DCF,DDT,DDVP,DFPM,DFZ,DLD,DM,DMT,D S,DU,DZ,DZM,EFX,EN,EPRN,ES,ETN,EXQ,FMP,FNT,FNTH,FNV,FNZ,F RM,FTL,FVL,FYT,FZFB,Folpet, GYP,HCCH,HPT,IFP,ILL,IMC,IPD,LNR,MBZ,MCB,MCPA,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MOM,MP,MTL,MTM, MXC,OML,OXF,PAQT,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PFF,PHMD,PHSL,PIM,PIRM,PMR,PMT,PPCP,PPN,PRN,PRO,PRT, PSM,PYN,PZM,SXD,SZ,TBAH,TBC,TBO,TCF,TCM,TDF,TFN,TFR,TFT,TFZ,THM,TLM,TPM ,TVMP,TVP ,VCZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : BCM,CEL; Code : NO EFED CHEM (ACF,ACFM,AND,ANL,ANZ,BDC,BTN,CHD,DDT,DFPM,DLD,EN,EPRN,ETN,EXQ,FNTH,FYT,FZFB,H CCH,HPT,IFP,ILL,MCPA,MXC,PHSL,PPCP,PRN,PYN,TBAH,TCM,TFT,TPM), NO EXP TYPE (24DXY,ACP,ACR,AMZ,ASM,ATZ,BMY ,BPH,BSF,CBD,CBF,CBL,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CTN,CYF,CYH,CYP ,Captan,DBN,DCF,DDVP,DFZ,DM,DMT,DS,DU,DZ,DZM,EFX,ES,FMP,FNT,FNV,FNZ,FRM,FTL,FVL,Fol pet,GYP,IMC,IPD,LNR,MBZ,MCB,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MOM,MP,MTL,MTM,OML,OXF,PAQT,PCP,PC Z,PDM,PFF,PHMD,PIM,PIRM,PMR,PMT,PPN,PRO,PRT,PS M,PZM,SXD,SZ,TBC,TBO,TCF,TDF,TFN,TFR ,TFZ,THM,TLM,TVP,VCZ), NO IN VITRO (24DXY,ACP,ACR,AMZ,ASM,ATZ,BMY,BPH,BSF,CBD,CBF,CBL,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CTN,CYF,CYH,CYP ,Captan,DBN,DCF,DDVP,DFZ,DM,DMT,DS,DU,DZ,DZM,EFX,ES,FMP,FNT,FNV,FNZ,FRM,FTL,FVL,Fol pet,GYP,IMC,IPD,LNR,MBZ ,MCB,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MOM,MP,MTL,MTM,OML,OXF,PAQT,PCP,PC Z,PDM,PFF,PHMD,PIM,PIRM,PMR,PMT,PPN,PRO,PRT,PSM,PZM,SXD,SZ,TBC,TBO,TCF,TDF,TFN,TFR ,TFZ,THM,TLM,TVP,VCZ) .



### November 2007

1. Backman, C. B. and Mack, T. P. (1991). Evaluation of Insecticides for Insect Control in Alabama Soybeans, 1990.

Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 216

- 217 (116F).

EcoReference No.: 95616 Chemical of Concern: PMR,LCYT; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(PMR).

2. Barry, D. W. and Bowman, J. S. (1993). Leaf

- Dip Bioassays of Chitin Inhibitors and ABG

- 6178 for Control of Colorado Potato Beetle on Potatoes, 1991. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 372

- 373 (20L).

EcoReference No.: 95632

Che mical of Concern: DFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

3. Bartels, D. W. and Hutchison, W. D. (1995). Insecticidal Control of European Corn Borer and Corn Earworm in Minnesota, 1994. Arthropod Manag.Tests 20: 84 (27E).

EcoReference No.: 95791 Chemical of Concern: BFT,PMR,LCYT,MP; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(BFT,PMR,MP).

4. Brunner, J. F., Doerr, M. D., and Smith, L. O. (1995). Bioassay, Laboratory Tests of Bacillus thuringiens is Products on Leafroller Larvae, 1994. Arthropod Manag.Tests 20: 348 (31L).Chapter 6: References

163 EcoReference No.: 95793; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

5. Burris, E. and Leonard, B. R. (1993). Soybean Looper Control with Reduced Rates of Selected Biological Insecticides, 1991. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 268 (106F).

EcoReference No.: 95627 Chemical of Concern: PMR,TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(PMR,TDC).

6. Cimanowski, J. and Goszczynski, W. (1992). The Influence of Fungicides on the Sporulation of Apple Powdery Mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha (Ell. et Ev.) Salm.) and Gooseberry American Mildew (Sphaerotheca mors uvae (Schw.) Berk. et Curtis). Fruit Sci.Rep. 19: 89

- 93.

EcoReference No.: 7587 9 Chemical of Concern: TCZ,Captan,TFZ,TPM,FUZ,DFC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection

Code : LITE EVAL CODED(TCZ),OK(FUZ,DFC),NO MIXTURE(TPM,TARGET

- TFZ,Captan).

7. DeVries, T. A. and Wright, R. J. (1996). Evaluation of Microbial and Conventiona l Insecticides for Control of Larval European Corn Borer on Whorl Stage Corn, Clay Center, NE, 1995. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 218 (35F).

EcoReference No.: 95500 Chemical of Concern: PMR,LCYT,CPY,FNF; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : N O COC(TFZ),TARGET(PMR,CPY).

8. Elzen, G. W. (1993). Evaluation of Biological Insecticides for Control of Lepidopterous Pests, 1992.

Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 366

- 367 (11L).

EcoReference No.: 95633; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

9. Fife, J. H., Leonard, B. R., Torrey, K. D., and Graves, J. B. (1998). Evaluation of an Insecticide Rescue Treatment Against Bollworm, 1997. Arthropod Manag.Tests 23: 227

- 228 (66F).

EcoReference No.: 95499 Chemical of Concern: SS,CFP,LCYT; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR,POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

10. Fitzpatrick, B. J., Baur, M. E., and Boethel, D. J. (1999). Evaluation of Insecticides Against Soybean Looper on Soybean in Central Louisiana, 1998. Arthropod Manag.Tests 24: 285

- 286 (F106).

EcoReference No.: 95795 Chemical of Concern: TDC,LCYT,MOM,PMR; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC,MOM,PMR).

11. Gomyo, T., Morishima, Y., Yamazaki, S., Dairiki, H., and Ono, S. (1991). Analytical Metho d for the Total Content of Residues of Triflumizole Fungicide and Its Metabolites in Crops by High Performance Liquid and Gas Chromatography. Anal.Sci. 7: 579

- 584.

EcoReference No.: 96265 Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : ACC; Rejection Code : NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(TFZ).

12. Haas, M. J. and Landis, D. A. (1996). 1st Generation European Corn Borer Larvicide Trial, 1995. Arthropod.Manag.Tests 21: 219 (36F).

EcoReference No.: 95501 Chemical of Concern: LCYT,CBF,PMR,CPY,FNF,PRT; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection

Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(PMR,CPY,PRT).Chapter 6: References

164 13. Hashimoto, S., Sano, S., and Morishima, Y. (1985). Ergosterol Biosynthesis Inhibition and Morphological Changes

in the Sporidia of Ustilago maydis Treated with Triflumizole. In: I.M.Smith (Ed.), Monogr.No.31, Fungicides for Crop Protection: 100 Years of Progress, Volume 2 Poster Paps., Proc.of the Bordeaux Mixture Centenary Meet., Sept.5

- 7, 1985, Bordeaux, France, BCPC P ubl., Croydon, England 277

- 280.

EcoReference No.: 73077 Chemical of Concern: TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP,GRO,CEL; Rejection Code : NO ENDPOINT(TFZ).

14. Hazzard, R. V. and Gault, J. (1993). Microbial Control of Second Generation European Corn Borer and Fall Armyworm, 1992. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 122

- 123 (44E).

EcoReference No.: 95628; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

15. Hazzard, R. V. and Gault, J. (1993). Microbial Insecticides for Control of First Gene ration European Corn Borer,

1992. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 122 (43E).

EcoReference No.: 95634; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

16. Iwasa, T., Motoyama, N., Ambrose, J. T., and Roe, R. M. (2004). Mechanism for the Diffe rential Toxicity of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in the Honey Bee, Apis mellifera. Crop Prot. 23: 371

- 378.

EcoReference No.: 95986 Chemical of Concern: TFZ,ACT,IMC,TAP,CTD,DNF,TMX; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Rejection

Code : NO MIXTURE(TFZ).

17. Johnson, D. R. and Jordan, A. M. (1994). Control of Bollworm and Budworm in Cotton Using BT's in Combination

with Larvin. Arthropod.Manag.Tests 19: 224

- 225 (66F).

EcoReference No.: 95797 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Reject ion Code : NO MIXTURE(TDC),NO COC(TFZ).

18. Klein, C. D., Johnson, D. R., and Jordan, A. M. (1995). The Role of Bacillus thuringiensis plus Ovicides in Management of the Heliothine Complex. Proc.

- Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2: 880

- 881.

EcoReference No.: 956 29 Chemical of Concern: MOM,TDC,LCYT,OML; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),NO MIXTURE(MOM,TDC).

19. Kolodny

- Hirsch, D. M. and Daoust, R. A. (1992). Efficacy of Condor OF and Dipel 8 L Against the Gypsy Moth,

1988. Insectic .Acaric.Tests 17: 363 (12H).

EcoReference No.: 95617; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

20. Leibee, G. L., Jansson, R. K., Nuessly, G., and Taylor, J. L. (1995). Efficacy of Emamectin Benzoate and Bacillus thuringiensis at Controlling Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Populations on Cabbage in

Florida. Fla.Entomol. 78: 82

- 96.

EcoReference No.: 96461 Chemical of Concern: EMMB,MVP,EFV,TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(EFV ,TDC).

21. Leonard, B. R. and Boethel, D. J. (1991). Control of Soybean Insect Pests in Louisiana

- Macon Ridge I, 1990.

Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 223 (123F).

EcoReference No.: 95615 Chemical of Concern: PMR; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejectio n Code : NOChapter 6: References

165 COC(TFZ),TARGET(PMR).

22. Mascarenhas, R. N., Wier, A. T., Boethel, D. J., Lingren, P. S., and Leonard, B. R. (1995). Evaluation of Selected Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticides for Control of Soybean Looper in North Louisiana, 1994. Arthropo d.Manag.Tests 20: 238 (116F).

EcoReference No.: 95798 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

23. McKenzie, C. L. and Cartwright, B. (1993). Effectiveness of Bacillus thuringiensis Formulations for Control of Lepidopterous Pests on Fall Cabbage, 1992. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 106

- 108 (23E).

EcoReference No.: 95635; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : PHY, POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

24. McPherson, R. M., Lambert, A. L., Taylor, J. D., and Padgett, M. L. (1994). Control of Velvetbean Caterpillars on Georgia Soybeans, 1993. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 271 (128F).

EcoReference No.: 95789 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

25. Miyake, Y., Hashimoto, K., Matsuki, H., Ono, M., and Tajima, R. (2002). Fate of Insecticide and Fungicide Residues on Barley During Storage and Mal ting. J.Am.Soc.Brew.Chem. 60: 110

- 115.

EcoReference No.: 95493 Chemical of Concern: PCZ,TDF,TFZ,FNT; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : ACC; Rejection Code : NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(TDF,TFZ,PCZ).

26. Nowacka, H., Cimanowski, J., Dadej, J., Lewandowska, M., and Olszewski, K. (1991 ). Effectiveness of EBI Systemic Fungicides and Their Mixtures in the Control of Apple Scab. Fruit Sci.Rep.(Skierniewice) 18:

173

- 183.

EcoReference No.: 94288 Chemical of Concern: Captan,MEM,HCZ,FUZ,MZB,FRM,MYC,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO ENDPOINT(TARGET

- Captan,MZB,EFFICACY

- TFZ),NO MIXTURE(TARGET

FRM,MYC).

27. Reuven, M., Szmulewich, Y., Kolesnik, I., Gamliel, A., Zilberg, V., Mor, M., Cahlon, Y., and Ben

- Yephet, Y. (2005). Methyl Bromide Alternati ves for Controlling Fusarium Wilt and Root Knot Nematodes in

Carnations. Acta Hortic.,Proc.6th Int.Symp.,Chemical and Non

- Chemical Soil and Substrate Disinfestation, 2004 698: 99

- 104.

EcoReference No.: 95424 Chemical of Concern: DZM,MB,13DPE; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),NO ENDPOINT(DZM,13DPE).

28. Rosenberger, D. A., Robinson, T. L., Schupp, J. R., Engle

- Ahlers, C. A., and Meyer, F. W. (2003). Effect of Sterol

Demethylation Inhibiting Fungicides on Apple Fruit Set, Fr uit Size, Total Yield, and Gross Returns.

Hortscience 38: 601

- 604.

EcoReference No.: 82333 Chemical of Concern: TFZ,FRM,MYC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : GRO,POP; Rejection Code : NO CONTROL(TFZ,FRM,MYC).

29. Schuster, D. J. (1994). Control of Armywor ms on Bell Pepper in West

- Central Florida, Fall 1992.

Insectic.Acaric.Tests 19: 107

- 108 (65E).Chapter 6: References

166 EcoReference No.: 82730 Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,MOM,CFP,CPY,EMMB; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP,PHY; Rejection Code : LITE EVAL CODED(DKGNa,MOM,CFP,CPY ,EMMB),NO COC(TFZ).

30. Schuster, D. J. (1994). Influence of Bacillus thuringiensis Products on the Tomato Pinworm in the Laboratory,

Summer 1992. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 153 (117E).

EcoReference No.: 95785 Chemical of Concern: MOM; Habitat : T; Ef fect Codes : MOR,REP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(MOM).

31. Steinkraus, D. C. and Young, S. Y. (1994). Evaluation of Microbial Insecticides for Control of Armyworms on Winter Wheat, 1993. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 297 (164F).

EcoReference No.: 95783; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR,POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

32. Takeuchi, S., Matsuda, T., Kobayashi, S., Takahashi, T., and Kojima, H. (2006). In Vitro Screening of 200 Pesticides for Agonistic Activity via Mouse Peroxisome Proliferator

- Activated Receptor (PPAR)alpha and PPARgamma and Quantitative Analysis of In Vivo Induction Pathway. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 217:

235

- 244.

EcoReference No.: 89206

Chemical of Concern: AND,HCCH,Captan,CHD,CTN,DDT,DBN,DCF,DLD,ES,EN,Folpet,HPT,MXC,PCP,ACF,A CFM,DFPM, FZFB,OXF,ACP,ANL,CPY,CPYM,DZ,DDVP,DMT,DS,ETN,FMP,FNT,FNTH,GYP,IFP,MLN,MTM,M DT,MP,PRN,PRT,PHSL,PSM,PIRM,PFF,TBO,TVP,TCM,TCF,CYF,CYH,CYP,DM,EFX,FNV,FYT,FVL ,PMR,PYN,TFT,TLM,BDC,BMY,CBL,CBD,CBF,CPP,MCB,MOM,MLT,OML,PHMD,PIM,TBC,THM, ACR,ASM,FTL,MLX,MTL, PZM,ANZ,ATZ,MBZ,PRO,PMT,SZ,BSF,DFZ,DU,LNR,PPN,AMZ,BPH,BT N,DZM,EXQ,FRM,FZN,ILL,IMC,IPD,MCPA,24DXY,PAQT,PDM,PCZ,SXD,TBAH,TPM,TDF,TFZ,TF N,TFR,VCZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : BCM,CEL; Rejection Code : OK(ILL,PYN,DFPM),NO IN VITRO(ALL OTHER CHEMS).

33. Tjo svold, S. A. and Koike, S. T. (2001). Evaluation of Reduced Risk and Other Biorational Fungicides on the Control of Powdery Mildew on Greenhouse Roses. Acta Hortic. 547: 59

- 67.

EcoReference No.: 95422 Chemical of Concern: DZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP,GRO; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),NO ENDPOINT(DZ).

34. Tsuda, M., Itoh, H., and Kato, S. (2004). Evaluation of the Systemic Activity of Simeconazole in Comparison with that of Other DMI Fungicides. Pest Manag.Sci. 60: 875

- 880.

EcoReference No.: 86818 Chemical of Concern: DFL,FNB,HCZ,TEZ,TCZ,TFZ; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR,POP,PHY; Rejection Code : NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).

35. Werbrouck, S. P. O., Jumli, De Roeck, K., Eeckhaut, T. G. R., and Debergh, P. C. (1997). Screening Hormonal

Effect s of Fungicides with a Ficus benjamina L. Chimera. Med.Fac.Landbouww.Univ.Gent. 62: 1103

- 1107.

EcoReference No.: 95423 Chemical of Concern: TFZ,ILL,DDM,CBD; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : PHY; Rejection Code : NO ENDPOINT(TFZ).

36. White, C. A., Graves, J. A., Leonard, B. R., and Burris, E. (1993). Evaluation of Selected Bt Compounds for Bollworm and Tobacco Budworm Control, 1992. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 257 (89F).

EcoReference No.: 95630Chapter 6: References

167 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

37. White, C. A., Leonard, B. R., Barfield, M. E., Martin, S. H., and Graves, J. B. (1994). Evaluation of Selected Bt Compounds for Bollworm and Tobacco Budworm Control, 1993. Arthropod Manag .Tests 19: 242 (89F).

EcoReference No.: 95787 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

38. White, C. A., Leonard, B. R., Boethel, D. J., Thomas, J. D., and Wier, A. T. (1994). Soybean Looper Control in the Macon Ridge Region of Louisiana with Selected Bt Insecticides, 1993. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 273

- 274 (137F).

EcoReference No.: 95786 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

39. White, C. A., Leonard, B. R., Burris, E., Martin, S. H., and Graves, J. B. (1994). Evaluation of Condor of Against

Bollworm

- Tobacco Budworm, 1993. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 242

- 243 (90F).

EcoReference No.: 95788 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

40. White, C. A., Leonard, B. R., Burris, G., and Graves, J. B. (1995). Laboratory Bioassay of Selected Bt Insecticides Against Tobacco Budworm, 1994. Arthropod Manag.Tests 20: 331 (9L).

EcoReference No.: 95792 Chemical of Concern: TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : MOR; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC).

41. Wolf, S. P. and Mack, T. P. (1994). Evaluation of Insecticides for Control of Velvetbean Caterpillar on Peanuts,

1993. Ar thropod Manag.Tests 19: 251

- 252 (103F).

EcoReference No.: 95790 Chemical of Concern: EFV,TDC; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(TDC,EFV).

42. Young, S. Y. (1994). Control of Soybean Looper on Soybean with Bacillus th uringiensis, 1993. Arthropod.Manag.Tests 19: 275

- 276 (139F).

EcoReference No.: 95796; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ).

43. Young, S. Y. (1995). Control of Soybean Looper on Soybean with Bacillus thuringiensis, 1994. Art hropod Manag.Tests 20: 253 (129F).

EcoReference No.: 95794 Chemical of Concern: PMR; Habitat : T; Effect Codes : POP; Rejection Code : NO COC(TFZ),TARGET(PMR).



### Excluded

May 2011

2007

- ). California backs a bill to help safeguard rare condor. The New Scientist 195: 4.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : SURVEY.Chapter 6: References

168 2000). Consolidation of certain food and feed additive tolerance regulations. Federal Register 65: 33692

- 33702.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

1994). Pest icide tolerances and feed additive regulations for triflumizole. Federal Register 59: 59165

- 7.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

1988). Pesticide tolerances for triflumizole. Federal Register 53: 15812

- 13.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

2005). Pesticides; removal of expired time

- limited tolerances for emergency exemptions . Federal Register 70: 7044

- 7047.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

2002). Triflumizole; Pesticide Toler ance. Federal Register 67: 40219

- 40229.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

2002). Triflumizole; pesticide tolerance for emergency exemption. Federal Register 67: 54583

- 54588.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN H EALTH.

2005). Triflumizole; pesticide tolerances for emergency exemptions. Federal Register 70: 17908

- 17916.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

Aguera, Ana, Lopez, Susana, Fernandez

- Alba, Amadeo R., Contreras, Mariano, Crespo, Juan, and Piedra, Luis (2004).

One

- year routine application of a new method based on liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry to the analysis of 16 multiclass pesticides in vegetable samples. Journal of Chromatography, A 1045: 125

- 135.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Akiyama, Y., Yoshioka, N., Yano, M., Mitsuhashi, T., Takeda, N., Tsuji, M., and Matsushita, S. (1997). Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products (F.Y. 1994

- 1996). J. Food Hyg. Soc. Jpn. (Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi) 38:

381

- 389(JPN).

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: ACP,BFZ,BPH,BTN,CYF,CYP,DDVP,DM,DPDP,DZ,EFX,ES,FNT,FNV,FRM,FVL,ILL,IPD,MLN,MOM,M TM,MYC,PMR,TBA,TDF,TDM,TFY,TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Akiyama, Y., Yoshioka, N., Yano, M., Mitsuhashi, T., Takeda, N., Tsuji, M., and Matsushita, S. (1997). Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products (F.y. 1994

- 1996). J. Food Hyg. Soc. Jpn. (Shokuhin Eiseigaku Zasshi) 38:

381

- 389(JPN).

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: ACP,BFZ,BPH,BTN,CYF,CYP,DDVP,DM,DPDP,DZ,EFX,ES,FNT, FNV,FRM,FVL,ILL,IPD,MLN,MOM,M TM,MYC,PMR,TBA,TDF,TDM,TFY,TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Akiyama, Yumi, Yoshioka, Naoki, and Tsuji, Masahiko (2002). Pesticide residues in agricultural products monitored in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, FYs 1995

- 1999. Journal of AOAC I nternational 85: 692

- 703.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

Alikhanidi, Sokratis and Takahashi, Yoshimasa (2004). Pesticide persistence in the environment

- collected data and

structure

- based analysis. Journal of Computer Chemist ry, Japan 3: 59

- 70.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : MODELING, FATE.

Allen, S. D., Fathi, Y., Gross, K., and Mace, M. (2010). An optimal and near

- optimal strategy to selecting individuals for transfer in captive breeding programs. Biological Conservation 143: 2858

- 2863.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Altman, Ira and Johnson, Thomas (2009). Organization of the current U.S. biopower industry: A template for future bioenergy industries. Biomass and Bioenergy 33: 779

- 7 84.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Anon (1991). Official Plant Protection Agent List With a Plant Protection Device List of the Federal Institute for PlantChapter 6: References

169 Protection Vienna Austria Status as of October 31 1990. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 1

- 78.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : REVIEW.

Anon ( Pesticide Fact Sheet Number 228: Triflumizole. Govt reports announcements &amp; index (gra&i),
issue 07, 1992

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOX DATA

.

Aragaki, M. and Yahata, P. S. (1992). Integrated Biological and Chemical Control of Alfalfa Seedling Blight. Annual meeting of the american phytopathological society, portland, oregon, usa, august 8

- 12, 1992. Phytopathology

82: 1129.

Chem Codes : Chemic al of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Arrebola, F. J., Martinez Vidal, J. L., Mateu

- Sanchez, M., and Alvarez

- Castellon, F. J ( 2003). Determination of 81 multiclass pesticides in fresh foodstuffs by a single injection analysis using gas chromatography

- chemi cal ionization and electron ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta 484: 167

- 180.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Ashihara, W., Inoue, K., and Osakabe, M. (1988). Influences of Some Pesticides on the Development and Oviposition of Phytoseiulus

- Persimilis Athias

- Henriot. Bull fruit tree res stn ser e (akitsu) 0: 51

- 58.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Barker, G. C., Mercer, J. G., Svoboda, J. A., Thompson, M. J., Rees, H. H., and Howells, R. E (1989). Effects of potential inhibitors on Brugia pahangi in vitro: macrofilaricidal action and inhibition of microfilarial production. Parasitology 99: 409

- 16.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : IN VITRO.

Bedlan, G. (1991). Overview of Fungicides Permitted in 1991 for Vegetable Cultivation. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 10

- 16.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : REVIEW.

Bedlan, G. (1992). Table of Licensed Fungicides in Horticulture for 1992. Pflanzenschutz (vienna ) 0: 9

- 16.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : REVIEW.

Blanco, J. M., Wildt, D. E., Höfle, U., Voelker, W., and Donoghue, A. M. (2009

- ). Implementing artificial insemination as an effective tool for ex situ conservation of endangered avian specie s. Theriogenology 71: 200

- 213.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

BolaÑ, Os, P. P., Romero

- GonzÁ, Lez, R., Frenich, A. G., and Vidal, J. L. ( Application of Hollow Fibre Liquid Phase Microextraction for the Multiresidue Determination of Pesticides in Alcoholic Beverages by

Ultra

- High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J chromatogr a. 2008, oct 24; 1208(1

- 2):16

- 24. [Journal of chromatography. A]: J Chromatogr A

. Chem Codes : Chemical of C oncern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Boneti, J. I Ds, Katsurayama, Y., and Greiner, L. C. (1988). Control of Apple Scab With Ergosterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides Applied to the Curative System. 21st annual meeting of the brazilian phytopathological society,

salv ador, brazil, july 10

- 17, 1988. Fitopatol bras 13: 121.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Boneti, J. I Ds, Katsurayama, Y., and Krueger, R. (1992). Greenhouse Evaluation of the Protective, Curative and Postsymptom Activities of Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides on Apple Scab Control. Fitopatol bras 17: 412

- 419.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Brooks, G. T. (1990). Seventh International Congress of Pesticide Chemistry Hamburg Germany August 1990. Pestic

sci 30: 367

- 498.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Buitink, Julia and Leprince, Olivier (2008). Intracellular glasses and seed survival in the dry state. Comptes Rendus Biologies 331: 788

- 795.Chapter 6: References

170 Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Byrne, J. M. and Hausbeck, M. K. (1999). Management of Powdery Mildew (Oidium Sp.) On Poinsettia. Joint meeting of the american phytopathological society, northeastern division and the american phytopathological society,

potomac division, annapolis, maryland, usa, march 10

- 12, 1999.yphytopathology 89: S99.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Casalegno, Mose', Sello, Guido, and Benfenati, Emilio (2006). Top

- Priority Fragment QSAR Approach in Predicting

Pesticid e Aquatic Toxicity. Chemical Research in Toxicology 19: 1533

- 1539.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : QSAR.

Cepeda, Mauricio, Saguan, Marcelo, Finon, Dominique, and Pignon, Virginie (2009). Generation adequacy and

transmission interconnection i n regional electricity markets. Energy Policy 37: 5612

- 5622.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Charumanee, Suporn, Titwan, Aurawan, Sirithunyalug, Jakkapan, Weiss

- Greiler, Petra, Wolschann, Peter, Viernstein, Helmut, and Okonogi, Siriporn (2006). Thermodynamics of the encapsulation by cyclodextrins. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 81: 523

- 529.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Chatani, Y., Chikamoto, T., Munehisa, M., Adachi, T., and Kom atsu, M. (1996). Systematic Determination of Pesticide

Residues in Citrus Fruits. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 37: 215

- 221.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

Chun, Ock Kyoung, Kang, Hee Gon, and Kim, Myung Hee (2 003). Multiresidue method for the determination of pesticides in Korean domestic crops by gas chromatography/mass selective detection. Journal of AOAC

International 86: 823

- 831.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

CoscollÀ, C, YusÀ, V, Beser, M. I., and Pastor, A. ( Multi

- Residue Analysis of 30 Currently Used Pesticides in Fine Airborne Particulate Matter (Pm 2.5) By Microwave

- Assisted Extraction and Liquid Chromatography

- Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J chromatogr a. 2009, dec 18; 1216(51):8817

- 27. [Journal of chromatography. A]: J Chromatogr A

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Cronin, Katherine A. and Snowdon, Charles T. (2008). The effects of unequal reward distributions on cooperative problem solving by cottontop tamarins, Saguinus oedipus. Animal Behaviour 75: 245

- 257.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Daughtrey, M. and Macksel, M. (1998). Evaluation of Biological and Chemical Fungicides for Control of Powdery

Mildew in Poinsettia and Miniature Rose. Meeting of the american phytopathological society, northeastern division, burlington, vermont, usa, july 8

- 10, 1998. Phytopathology 88: S135.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Ekerhovd, N. A. (2010). The Stability and Resilience of Management Agreements on Climate

- Sensitive Straddling Fishery Resources: the Blue Whiting (Micromesistius Poutassou) Coastal State Agreement. Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences/Journal canadien des sciences halieutiques et aquatiques [Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci./J. Can. Sci. Halieut. Aquat.]. 67, 534

- 552. 2010.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Endalew, A. Melese, Delele M.A., Ramon, H., NicolaiĚ  B.M., Verboven, P., Debaer, C., Rutt en, N., and Vercammen, J. (2010). A New Integrated Cfd Modelling Approach Towards Air

- Assisted Orchard Spraying

- Part Ii: Validation for Different Sprayer Types. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 137

- 147,

2010

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : METHODS.

Ferrer, Imma, Garcia

- Reyes, Juan F., Mezcua, Milagros, Thurman, E. Michael, and Fernandez

- Alba, Amadeo R (2005).

Multi

- residue pesticide analysis in fruits and vegetables by liquid chromatography

- time

- of

- flight massChapter 6: References

171 spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography, A 1082: 81

- 90.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Ferrer, Imma, Garcia

- Reyes, Juan Francisco, and Fernandez

- Alba, Amadeo (2005). Identification and quantitation of pesticides in vegeta bles by liquid chromatography time

- of

- flight mass spectrometry. TrAC, Trends in Analytical Chemistry 24: 671

- 682.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Fischer

- Colbrie, P. (1988). Approved Active Substances for Austrian Fruit Growing and Their Side Effects. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 13

- 15.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Fischer

- Colbrie, P. (1987). Approved Agents for Use in Austrian Horticulture and Their Side Effects on Beneficial Organisms. Pflanzensc hutz (vienna) 0: 8

- 12.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Fischer

- Colbrie, P. (1988). Review of Active Substances and Approved Commercial Preparations Available for Plant Protection in Fruit Growing. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 6

- 1 2.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : REVIEW.

Frenich, Antonia Garrido, Gonzalez

- Rodriguez, Manuel J., Arrebola, Francisco J., and Vidal, Jose L. Martinez (2005). Potentiality of Gas Chromatography

- Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry in Vanguard and Rearguard Methods of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables. Analytical Chemistry 77: 4640

- 4648.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Garrido Frenich, A., Martinez Salvador, I., Martinez Vidal, J. L., and Lopez

- Lopez, T (2005). Deter mination of multiclass pesticides in food commodities by pressurized liquid extraction using GC

- MS/MS and LC

- MS/MS. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 383: 1106

- 1118.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Gomyo, Takeshi, Morishi ma, Yasushi, Tachibana, Teruo, Kobayashi, Shigeru, and Ono, Shigeo (1991). Analytical method for the residues of triflumizole fungicide and its main metabolite in crops by high

- performance liquid and gas chromatography. Analytical Sciences 7: 749

- 56.

Che m Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Goulart, A. Cp, Mesquita, A. Nd, and Paiva, F. Da (1990). Efficiency of Chemical Treatment of Wheat Seeds on the Control of Pyricularia Oryzae and Cochliobolus Sativus (Helminthosporium Sativum). Fi topatol bras 15: 302

- 305.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Grinchenko, S. G., Chkanikov, D. I., Umnov, A. M., and Shabanova, A. M. (1989). Possibility of Using Enzyme Immunoassay in Studies of Antirust Fungicide Effectiveness. A grokhimiya 6: 103

- 105(RUS).

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Grinchenko, S. G., Chkanikov, D. I., Umnov, A. M., and Shabanova, A. M. (1989). Possibility of Using Enzyme Immunoassay in Studies of Antirust Fungicide Effectiveness. Agrokhimiya 6: 103

- 105(RUS).

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Hager, Reinmar and Johnstone, Rufus A. (2007). Maternal and offspring effects influence provisioning to mixed litters of own and alien young in mice. Animal Behaviour 74: 1039

- 1045.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Hashimoto, Y., Sugimoto, S., Soeda, Y., Sano, S., Nakata, A., and Hashimoto, S. (1990). Absorption, Translocation and Metabolism of the Fungicide Triflumizole in Cucumber Plants. J pestic sci 15: 375

- 384.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE.

Hayami, Hitoshi and Nakamura, Masao (2007). Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and Japan: Sector

- specific estimates and managerial and economic implications. Journal of Environmen tal Management 85: 371

- 392.Chapter 6: References

172 Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Hernandez, F., Pozo, O. J., Sancho, J. V., Bijlsma, L., Barreda, M., and Pitarch, E (2006). Multiresidue liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry determination of 52 non gas chromatography

- amenable pesticides

and metabolites in different food commodities. Journal of Chromatography, A 1109: 242

- 252.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Hewer, Ekkehard and Goebel, Hans H. (2008

- ). Myopathology of non

- infectious inflammatory myopathies

- The current

status. Pathology

- Research and Practice 204: 609

- 623.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : REVIEW, HUMAN HEALTH.

Hiemstra, Maurice and De Kok, Andre (2007). Comprehensive multi

- residue met hod for the target analysis of pesticides in crops using liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography, A 1154: 3

- 25.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Hirahara, Y., Nakamuro, K., and Sayato, Y. (1997) . Studies on Behaviors of Decomposition of Pesticides in

Environment. Japanese journal of toxicology and environmental health 43: 221

- 229.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE.

Hirota, K. and Miyagawa, T. (1989). Control of Peach Blister Can ker Using Fungicides. Res bull aichi

- ken agric res

cent 0: 247

- 252.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Hofmann, A., Wittenmayer, L., Merbach, W., Hofmann, A., Arnold, G., Schieber, A., Hofmann, A., Wittenmayer, L., Merbach, W., Arn old, G., and Schieber, A. (2009). Root Exudation of Phloridzin by Apple Seedlings (Malus X Domestica Borkh.) With Symptoms of Apple Replant Disease. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality, vol. 82, no. 2, pp. 193

- 198, 2009

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Co ncern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Huang, Zhiqiang, Li, Yongjun, Chen, Bo, and Yao, Shouzhuo (2007). Simultaneous determination of 102 pesticide residues in Chinese teas by gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography, B: Analytical

Techn ologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences 853: 154

- 162.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Hughes, David John, Peace, James Edward, Riley, Suzanna, Russell, Sally, Swanborough, Joseph John, Jeanguenat, Andre, Renold, Peter, Hall, Roger Graham, Loiseleur, Olivier, Trah, Stephan, and Wenger, Jean (20070125). Synergistic pesticidal mixtures with nitrogen

- containing component. 261pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Iijima, Kazuaki, Saka, Machiko, Odanaka, Yos hitsugu, and Matano, Osami (1997). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in agricultural products. 1. Multiresidue analytical method of pesticides by GC

- MS. Application of macroporous diatomaceous earth column and silica gel cartridge. Nippon Noyaku Gakkais hi 22: 17

- 26.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Iliuta, Ion, Leclerc, Arnaud, and Larachi, Faďçal (2010). Allothermal steam gasification of biomass in cyclic multi

compartment bubbling fluidized

- bed gasifier/combustor

- New reacto r concept. Bioresource Technology 101:

3194

- 3208.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Inam, Recai, Guelerman, Ebru Zeynep, and Sariguel, Tuba (2006). Determination of triflumizole by differential pulse polarography in formulation, s oil and natural water samples. Analytica Chimica Acta 579: 117

- 123.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Jamet, Paul and Eudeline, Valerie (1992). Assessment of the movement of triazole fungicides by soil thin

- layer chromatography. Science of the Total Environment 123

- 124: 459

- 68.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE.

Kaihara, Akiko, Yoshii, Kimihiko, Tsumura, Yukari, Ishimitsu, Susumu, and Tonogai, Tasuhide (2002). Multi

- residueChapter 6: References

173 analysis of 18 pesticides in fresh frui ts, vegetables, and rice by supercritical fluid extraction and liquid chromatography

- electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Journal of Health Science 48: 173

- 178.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Kaihara, Akiko, Yoshii, Kimi hiko, Tsumura, Yukari, Nakamura, Yumiko, Ishimitsu, Susumu, and Tonogai, Yasuhide (2000). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in fresh fruits and vegetables by supercritical fluid extraction and

HPLC. Journal of Health Science 46: 336

- 342.

Chem Codes : Ch emical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Katsurayama, Y. and Greiner, L. C. (1989). Apple Scab Control, in Post

- Infection, Using Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides.

Au

- Boneti J I Ds. Fitopatol bras 14: 268

- 271.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Kawasaki, M., Fukuhara, K., and Uchiyama, S. (1994). Gas Chromatographic

- Mass Spectrometric (Gc) Screening of Pesticides./Growth & Development. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 35: 479

- 496.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: T FZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Key, B. D., Howell, R. D., and Criddle, C. S. (1997). Fluorinated Organics in the Biosphere. Environmental science & technology 31: 2445

- 2454.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE.

Khan, H. U. R., Link, W., Hocking, T. J., and Stoddard, F. L. (2007). Evaluation of Physiological Traits for Improving Drought Tolerance in Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.). Plant and Soil, 292 (1

- 2) pp. 205

- 217, 2007

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Kim, K. W., Kim, W. T., and Eum, S. J. (1998). Bent

- Neck Inhibition in Cut Rose with Fungicides. J.Korean Soc.Hortic.Sci.(Hanguk Wonye Hakhoechi) 39: 98

- 102(KOR) (ENG ABS).

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NOT PURSUING,NON

- ENGLISH.

Kim, K. W., Kim, W. T., and Eum, S. J. (1998). Bent

- Neck Inhibition in Cut Rose With Fungicides. J.Korean Soc.Hortic.Sci.(Hanguk Wonye Hakhoechi) 39: 98

- 102(KOR) (ENG ABS).

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NOT PURSUING,NON

- ENGLISH.

Klein, Ch. Th., Koehler, G., Mayer, B ., Mraz, K., Reiter, S., Viernstein, H., and Wolschann, P (1995). Solubility and molecular modeling of triflumizole

- b

- cyclodextrin inclusion complexes. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Molecular Recognition in Chemistry 22: 15

- 32.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : MODELING.

Kobayashi, Hiroko, Jimbo, Yuko, Matano, Osami, and Goto, Shinko (1991). Stability of triflumizole and its metabolites in extracts from crops. Nippon Noyaku Gakkaishi 16: 405

- 11.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : IN VITRO, FATE.

Koizumi, M. (1987). (B

- Iii) Fungicides: Fruit Trees. Jpn. Pestic. Inf. 34

- 36.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,BMY,BTN,Captan,Cu,DPP1,DZM,FNZ,FRM,FSTAL,FUZ,IPD,MYC,MZB,PXDZn,SFR,STRP,TFZ, TPM,VCZ Code : NO DURATION.

Kojima, H., Katsura, E., Takeuchi, S., Niiyama, K., and Kobayashi, K. (2004). Screening for Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities in 200 Pesticides by In Vitro Reporter Gene Assays Using Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells. Environ. Health Perspect. 112: 524

- 531.

Chem C odes : Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,ACF,ACFM,ACP,ACR,AMZ,AND,ANL,ANZ,ASM,ATZ,BDC,BMY,BPH,BSFM,BT,BTN,CB D,CBF,CBL,CHD,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CTN,CYF,CYH,CYP,Captan,DBN,DCF,DDT,DDVP,DFPM,DFZ,DLD, DM,DMT,DS,DU,DZ,DZM,EFX,EN,EPRN,ES,ETN,EXQ,FMP,FNT,FNTH,FNV,FNZ,FRM,FTL ,FVL,FYT,F ZFB,Folpet,GYP,HCCH,HPT,IFP,ILL,IMC,IPD,LNR,MBZ,MCB,MCPA,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MOM,MP, MTL,MTM,MXC,OML,OXF,PAQT,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PFF,PHMD,PHSL,PIM,PIRM,PMR,PMT,PPCP,PPN,PR N,PRO,PRT,PSM,PYN,PZM,SXD,SZ,TBA,TBC,TBO,TCF,TCM,TDF,TFN,TFR,TFT,TFZ,THM,TLM,TPE,T VP,VC Z Code : IN VITRO.Chapter 6: References

174 Kojima, H., Katsura, E., Takeuchi, S., Niiyama, K., and Kobayashi, K. (2004). Screening for Estrogen and Androgen Receptor Activities in 200 Pesticides by in Vitro Reporter Gene Assays Using Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells.

Environ. Health Perspect. 112: 524

- 531.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,ACF,ACFM,ACP,ACR,AMZ,AND,ANL,ANZ,ASM,ATZ,BDC,BMY,BPH,BSFM,BT,BTN,CB D,CBF,CBL,CHD,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CTN,CYF,CYH,CYP,Captan,DBN,DCF,DDT,DDVP,DFPM,DFZ,DLD, DM,DMT,DS,DU,DZ,DZM,EFX,EN,EPRN,ES,ETN,E XQ,FMP,FNT,FNTH,FNV,FNZ,FRM,FTL,FVL,FYT,F ZFB,Folpet,GYP,HCCH,HPT,IFP,ILL,IMC,IPD,LNR,MBZ,MCB,MCPA,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MOM,MP, MTL,MTM,MXC,OML,OXF,PAQT,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PFF,PHMD,PHSL,PIM,PIRM,PMR,PMT,PPN,PRN,PR O,PRT,PSM,PYN,PZM,SXD,SZ,TBA,TBC,TBO,TCF,TCM,TDF,TFN,TFR, TFT,TFZ,THM,TLM,TPE,TVP,V

CZ Code : IN VITRO.

Kojima, Hiroyuki, Katsura, Eiji, Takeuchi, Shinji, Niiyama, Kazuhito, and Kobayashi, Kunihiko (2004). Screening for estrogen and androgen receptor activities in 200 pesticides by in vitro reporter gene assays u sing chinese hamster ovary cells. Environmental Health Perspectives 112: 524

- 531.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : IN VITRO.

Kojima, Mihoko, Fukunaga, Kenji, Sasaki, Mari, Nakamura, Masafumi, Tsuji, Motohiro, and Nishiyama, Toshimasa (2005). Evaluation of estrogenic activities of pesticides using an in vitro reporter gene assay. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15: 271

- 280.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

Lambertucci, Sergio A., Donázar, José Antonio, Huertas, Antonio Delgado, Jiménez, Begońa, Sáez, Mónica, Sanchez

Zapata, José Antonio, and Hiraldo, Fernando ( Widening the problem of lead poisoning to a South

- American top scavenger: Lead concentrations in feathers of wild Andean condors. Biological Conservation In Press,

Corrected Proof.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : SURVEY, NO CONC.

Lehotay, Steven J., De Kok, Andre, Hiemstra, Maurice, and Van Bodegraven, Peter (2005). Validation of a fast and easy

method for the determination of residues from 229 pesticides in fruits and vegetables using gas and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometric detection. Journal of AOAC International 88: 595

- 614.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Leroux, Pie rre, Chapeland, Florence, Arnold, Annick, and Gredt, Michel (2000). New cases of negative cross

- resistance between fungicides, including sterol biosynthesis inhibitors. Journal of General Plant Pathology 66: 75

- 81.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ C ode : SURVEY.

Li, Hong

- Ping, Li, Gwo

- Chen, and Jen, Jen

- Fon (2004). Fast multi

- residue screening for 84 pesticides in tea by gas chromatography with dual

- tower auto

- sampler, dual

- column and dual detectors. Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society (Taipei, Taiwan) 51: 531

- 542.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Macdonald, A. M. (2008). The Mean Woce

- Era Pacific Ocean General Circulation as Seen Through Assimilative and

Inverse Models.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Maciver, D. R., Keane, P. A., Jones, D. G., and Jones, A. G. (1997). Pyrethrins and Piperonyl Butoxide as Public Health

Insecticides. Pyrethrum post 20: 3

- 46.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

Maji, Swarup Kumar, Muk herjee, Nillohit, Mondal, Anup, Adhikary, Bibhutosh, Karmakar, Basudeb, and Dutta, Supriya ( Synthesis and characterization of nanocrystalline zinc sulfide via zinc thiobenzoate

- lutidine single

source precursor. Inorganica Chimica Acta In Press, Corrected Proof

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Martin, Cyrus (2008

- ). Condor's new neighbours. Current Biology 18: R450

- R451.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.Chapter 6: References

175 Martinez Vidal, J. L., Arrebola, F. J., and Mate u

- Sanchez, M (2002). Application of gas chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry to the analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. Journal of Chromatography, A 959: 203

- 213.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Martinez Vidal, J. L., Arrebola Liebanas, F. J., Gonzalez Rodriguez, M. J., Garrido Frenich, A., and Fernandez Moreno, J. L (2005). Validation of a gas chromatography/triple quadrupole mass spectrometry based method for the quantification of pesticides in food commoditie s. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 20: 365

- 375.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Mcgovern, R. J. (1996). Reduction of Rhizoctonia Crown Rot in Impatiens by Fungicides and Biocontrols. Annual meeting of the american ph ytopathological society, north central division, indianapolis, indiana, usa, july 27

- 31, 1996. Phytopathology 86: S6.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Meehan, Cheryl L. and Mench, Joy A. (2007). The challenge of challenge: Can proble m solving opportunities enhance

animal welfare? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102: 246

- 261.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Mercer, Gregory E (2005). Determination of 112 halogenated pesticides using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected ion monitoring. Journal of AOAC International 88: 1452

- 1462.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Miller, M. E., Isakeit, T., Zhang, J. X., and Bruton, B. D. (1998). Gummy Stem Blight of Melons. Meeting o f the american phytopathological society, caribbean division, san jose, puerto rico, november 10

- 15, 1997. Phytopathology 88: S122.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Mills, Andrew, Phadke, Amol, and Wiser, Ryan (2011). Exploration of resource and transmission expansion decisions in the Western Renewable Energy Zone initiative. Energy Policy 39: 1732

- 1745.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Miyake, Y., Tajima, R., and Ono, M (2003). Fate of pesticide metabolites on malt during brewing. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 61: 33

- 36.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE, HUMAN HEALTH.

Molina, J. and Struwe, L. (2008). Revision of Ring

- Gentians (Symbolanthus, Gentianaceae) From Bolivia , Ecuador and Peru, With a First Assessment of Conservation Status. Systematics and Biodiversity, 6 (4) pp. 477

- 501, 2008

. Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Mustea, Ana and Miu, I (1999). Influence of some pesticides on the nitrog en fixing bacteria. Roumanian Biotechnological Letters 4: 497

- 503.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : BACTERIA.

Nagami, H. (1997). Multiresidue Analysis of Fungicides in Strawberry. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 58: 5 3

- 60.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH, CHEM METHODS.

Nakao, H. (1992). Studies on Biological Control of Spider Mites on Greenhouse Vegetables by the Resistant Strain of Phytoseiulus Persimilis Athias

- Henriot. Rep hokkaido prefec t agric exp stn 0: 1

- 75.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Nakata, A., Hashimoto, S., Ikura, K., and Katsuura, K. (1991). Development of a New Fungicide, Triflumizole. J pestic

sci 16: 301

- 314.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: T FZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Nakayama, A. (1990). Computer

- Aided Molecular Design and Structure

- Activity Relationships of Pesticides. J pestic

sci 15: 481

- 494.Chapter 6: References

176 Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : MODELING.

Nakayama, Akira (1992). Quantitative structure

- activity relationships and molecular graphics study of triflumizole and related fungicidal imidazoles. 445

- 63.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : QSAR.

Nakayama, Akira, Ikura, Katsuyata, Katsuura, Kiyoshi, Hashimoto, Sho, and Nakata, Akira (1989). Quantitative

structure

- activity relationships, conformational analyses, and computer graphics study of triflumizole analogs, fungicidal N

- (1

- imidazol

- 1

- ylalkylidene)anilines. Nippon Noyaku Gakkaishi 14: 23

- 37.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concer n: TFZ Code : QSAR.

Neicheva, A., Kovacheva, E., and Karageorgiev, D (1990). Simultaneous determination of insecticides, acaricides and fungicides by thin

- layer chromatography. Journal of Chromatography 509: 263

- 9.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Nguyen, T. D., Han, E. M., Seo, M. S., Kim, S. R., Yun, M. Y., Lee, D. M., and Lee, G. H. (2008). A Multi

- Residue Method for the Determination of 203 Pesticides in Rice Paddies Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 619 : 67

- 74.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,AMZ,AND,AZ,BFT,BMC,BPZ,BTN,CAP,CBX,CDF,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CPZ,CTN,CYD,CYH,CY P,Captan,DCF,DCNA,DDT,DDVP,DFPM,DINO,DLD,DM,DMM,DMT,DPA,DS,DTP,DU,DZ,EFL,EFV,EN, EP,EPRN,ES1,ES2,ESS,ETN,EXZ,FFC,FMP,FNB,FNT,FN TH,FPN,FPP,FRM,FTL,FTZ,FUZ,FVL,FYC,FYT, FZQ,Folpet,HCCH,HPT,HRF,IDC,IFP,ILL,IPD,KRSM,LUF,MBZ,MCZ,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MP,MTC,M VP,MYC,ODL,ODZ,OFX,OMT,PDM,PFF,PHSL,PIM,PMR,PMT,PNB,PPCP,PPG,PPN,PPX,PRB,PRN,PRT, PSM,SDF,SZ,TBC,TBO,TBZ,TCM,TDF,TDM,TEF,TFN,TFY,TFZ,TLM, TPZ,TYF,TZA,VCZ Code : CHEM

METHODS.

Nguyen, T. D., Han, E. M., Seo, M. S., Kim, S. R., Yun, M. Y., Lee, D. M., and Lee, G. H. (2008). A Multi

- Residue Method for the Determination of 203 Pesticides in Rice Paddies Using Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometr y. Anal. Chim. Acta 619 : 67

- 74.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,AMZ,AND,AZ,BFT,BMC,BPZ,BTN,CAP,CBX,CDF,CPP,CPY,CPYM,CPZ,CTN,CYD,CYH,CY P,Captan,DCF,DCNA,DDT,DDVP,DFPM,DINO,DLD,DM,DMM,DMT,DPA,DS,DTP,DU,DZ,EFL,EFV,EN, EP,EPRN,ES1,ES2,ESS,ETN,EXZ,FF C,FMP,FNB,FNT,FNTH,FPN,FPP,FRM,FTL,FTZ,FUZ,FVL,FYC,FYT, FZQ,Folpet,HCCH,HPT,HRF,IDC,IFP,ILL,IPD,KRSM,LUF,MBZ,MCZ,MDT,MLN,MLT,MLX,MP,MTC,M VP,MYC,ODL,ODZ,OFX,OMT,PDM,PFF,PHSL,PIM,PMR,PMT,PNB,PPCP,PPG,PPN,PPX,PRB,PRN,PRT, PSM,SDF,SZ,TBC,TBO,TBZ,TCM,TDF,TDM,TEF, TFN,TFY,TFZ,TLM,TPZ,TYF,TZA,VCZ Code : CHEM

METHODS.

Obana, Hirotaka, Akutsu, Kazuhiko, Okihashi, Masahiro, and Hori, Shinjiro (2001). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in vegetables and fruits using two

- layered column with graphitized carbon and water absorbent polymer. Analyst (Cambridge, United Kingdom) 126: 1529

- 1534.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Obana, Hirotaka, Akutsu, Kazuhiko, Okihashi, Masahiro, Kakimoto, Sachiko, and Hori, Shinjiro (1999). Multiresidue analysis o f pesticides in vegetables and fruits using a high capacity absorbent polymer for water. Analyst (Cambridge, United Kingdom) 124: 1159

- 1165.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Odanaka, Y., Taniguchi, T., Shimamura, Y., Iijima, K., Koma, Y., Takechi, T., and Matano, O. (1994). Runoff and Leaching of Pesticides in Golf Course. Journal of pesticide science 19: 1

- 10.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE.

Ogawa, M., Sakai, T., Ohkuma, K., Matsumoto, T., Hisamatsu, Y., and Nakazawa, H. ( Rapid Determination of Multiple Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products by Gpc Clean

- up and Gc

- Sim./Growth & Development.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Ohlson, Jan I., Prum, Richard O., and Ericson, Per G . P. (2007). A molecular phylogeny of the cotingas (Aves:Chapter 6: References

177 Cotingidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 25

- 37.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Olson, B. D. (1999). Effects of Si Fungicides on Red Delicious Apples. Join t meeting of the american phytopathological society, northeastern division and the american phytopathological society, potomac division, annapolis, maryland, usa, march 10

- 12, 1999.yphytopathology 89: S101.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Omote, M., Harayama, K., Sasaki, T., Mochizuki, N., and Yamashita, H (2006). Analysis of simultaneous screening for 277 pesticides in malt and beer by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of the American Society of Brewin g Chemists 64: 139

- 150.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH, CHEM METHODS.

Parida, S. K., Singh, S. N., and Srivastava, S. C. (2009). An integrated approach for optimal frequency regulation service procurement in India. Energy Poli cy 37: 3020

- 3034.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Pehl, D., Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Kamloops, BC (Canada). Oceans, Habitat and Enhancement Branch, and Flynn, M. B. (ed) (2009). Juvenile Salmonid Utilization of Selecte d Habitat Restoration Projects in Southern

Interior British Columbia. 65 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Peng, C. F., Kuang, H., Li, X. Q., and Xu, C. L (2007). Evaluation and interlaboratory validation of a GC

- MS method

for analysis of pesticide residues in teas. Chemical Papers 61: 1

- 5.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Pis'mennaya, M. V. (1991 ). Determination of Triflumizole and Its Transformation Products in Agricultural Crops Water

and Soil. Gig sanit 0: 83

- 84.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Pizzutti, Ionara R., de Kok, Andre, Zanella, Renato, Adaime, Martha B., Hiemstra, Maurice, Wickert, Cristine, and Prestes, Osmar D (2007). Method validation for the analysis of 169 pesticides in soya grain, without clean up, by liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry using positive and negative electrospray ionization. Journal of Chromatography, A 1142: 123

- 136.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS

.

Ricart, I. Sahuquillo, Anton

- Fos, G. M., Duart, M. J., Mateo, J. V. Garcia, Zamora, L. Lahuerta, and Calatayud, J. Martinez (2007). Theoretical prediction of the photoinduced chemiluminescence of pesticides. Talanta 72:

378

- 386.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Riveros, F. (1997). Effect of Sbi Fungicides on Uncinula Necator Affecting Grapes in Northern Chile. Annual meeting of the american society for enology and viticulture, san diego, california, usa, june 1997. American jo urnal of enology and viticulture 48: 393

- 394.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : ABSTRACT.

Röder, Achim, Hill, Joachim, Duguy, Beatriz, Alloza, José Antonio, and Vallejo, Ramon (2008

- ). Using long time series

of Landsat data to monitor fire even ts and post

- fire dynamics and identify driving factors. A case study in the Ayora region (eastern Spain). Remote Sensing of Environment 112: 259

- 273.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOXICANT.

Saito, I., Yamada, S., Oshima, H., and Hayaka wa, J. (1995). Multi Residue Method for Determination of Pesticides Using Luke Method Extraction, Gel Permeation Chromatography and Gas Chromatography. Journal of pesticide science 20: 109

- 118.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

S aito, T. and Yabuta, M. (1996). Laboratory Studies on Effect of Pesticide on Entomopathogenic Fungus, Verticillium

Lecanii. Japanese journal of applied entomology and zoology 40: 71

- 76.Chapter 6: References

178 Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

Sakamoto, Mitsushi and Tsutsumi, Taizou (2004). Applicability of headspace solid

- phase microextraction to the

determination of multi

- class pesticides in waters. Journal of Chromatography, A 1028: 63

- 74.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Sato, Futoshi, Iwata, Hitoshi, Nomura, Takakazu, and Komatsu, Kazuhiro (2005). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in foods using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. ACS Symposium Series 899: 28

- 37.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Cod e : CHEM METHODS.

Shibata, Y., Oyama, M., Sato, H., Nakao, K., Tsuda, M., Sonoda, M., and Tanaka, F. (1998). Simultaneous Cleanup Method for Multi Pesticide Residue Analysis by Gc and Hplc. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 39:

241

- 250.

Chem C odes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Shiga, N., Matano, O., and Goto, S. (1987). Residue Analysis of Triflumizole and Its Metabolite in Crops by High

Performance Liquid Chromatography. J chromatogr 396: 327

- 336.

Chem Codes : Chemical of C oncern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Sutton, T. B. (1996). Changing Options for the Control of Deciduous Fruit Tree Diseases. Webster, r. K. (Ed.). Annual review of phytopathology, vol. 34. Xi+620p. Annual reviews inc.: Palo alto, california, usa. Isbn 0

- 824 3

- 1334

- 8. 34: 527

- 547.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : REVIEW.

Suzuki, Takahiro (2001). A Nonlinear Group Contribution Method for Predicting the Free Energies of Inclusion Complexation of Organic Molecules with a

- and b

- Cyclodextrins. Journa l of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 41: 1266

- 1273.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : MODELING.

Takatsuki, S., Nemoto, S., Matsuda, R., Sasaki, K., and Toyoda, M. (1999). Determination of 21 Pesticides in Agricultural Products by Hpl c

- Photodiode Array Detection. Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi 40: 314

- 319.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Thompson, D. C., Biehn, W. L., and Guest, R. T. (1995). Ir

- 4 Registration of Minor Uses of Fungicides and

Nematicides. Annu al meeting of the american phytopathological association, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, usa, august 12

- 16, 1995. Phytopathology 85: 1125.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO TOX DATA.

Tonogai, Y., Tsumura, Y., Nakamura, Y., and Shibata, T. (1998). Simultaneous Determination of Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables by Hplc. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 39: 13

- 25.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Tsutsumi, Taizou, Sakamoto, Mitsus hi, Kataoka, Hiroyuki, and Pawliszyn, Janusz (2006). Automated headspace solid

phase microextraction and gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry for screening and determination of multiclass pesticides in water. Methods in Biotechnology 19: 343

- 364.

Chem Cod es : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Ueno, Eiji, Oshima, Harumi, Saito, Isao, Matsumoto, Hiroshi, Yoshimura, Yoshihiro, and Nakazawa, Hiroyuki (2004). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in vegetables and fruits by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry after gel permeation chromatography and graphitized carbon column cleanup. Journal of AOAC International 87: 1003

- 1015.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Vidal, J. L. Martinez, Arrebola, F. J., Frenich, A. Garrido, Fernandez, J. Martinez, and Mateu

- Sanchez, M (2004). Validation of a gas chromatographic

- tandem mass spectrometric method for analysis of pesticide residues in six

food commodities. Selection of a reference matrix for calibration. Chromatographia 59: 321

- 327.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS, HUMAN HEALTH.Chapter 6: References

179 Vidal, J. L. Martinez, Arrebola, F. J., and Mateu

- Sanchez, M (2002). Application to routine analysis of a method to determine multiclass pesticide residues in fresh vegetables b y gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 16: 1106

- 1115.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Viernstein, H., Reiter, S., and Wolschann, P (1994). Solubility enhancement of triflumizole by host

- guest interaction

with b

- cyclodextrin. Monatshefte fuer Chemie 125: 681

- 9.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : MODELING.

Viernstein, Helmut, Weiss

- Greiler, Petra, and Wolschann, Peter (2003). Solubility enhancement of low soluble biolog ically active compounds

-- temperature and cosolvent dependent inclusion complexation: Proceedings of the 4th Central European Symposium on Pharmaceutical Technology. International Journal of Pharmaceutics

256: 85

- 94.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Viernstein, Helmut, Weiss

- Greiler, Petra, and Wolschann, Peter (2003). Solubility enhancement of low soluble biologically active compounds by b

- cyclodextrin and dimethyl

- b

- cyclodextrin. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic C hemistry 44: 235

- 239.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Wallace

- Kunkel, Christie, Lennard, Chris, Stoilovic, Milutin, and Roux, Claude (2007

- ). Optimisation and evaluation of 1,2

- indanedione for use as a fingermark reagent and its application to real samples. Forensic Science

International 168: 14

- 26.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

Wilson, M. and Lindow, S. E. (1993). Release of Recombinant Microorganisms. Ornston, l. N. (Ed.). Annual review of

micro biology, vol. 47. X+996p. Annual reviews inc.: Palo alto, california, usa. Isbn 0

- 8243

- 1147

- 7. 0: 913

- 944.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : FATE.

Wong, Jon W., Webster, Michael G., Bezabeh, Dawit Z., Hengel, Mathew J., Ngim, Kenley K., Krynits ky, Alexander J., and Ebeler, Susan E (2004). Multiresidue Determination of Pesticides in Malt Beverages by Capillary Gas Chromatography with Mass Spectrometry and Selected Ion Monitoring. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52: 6361

- 6372.

Chem Co des : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : HUMAN HEALTH, CHEM METHODS.

Yamano, T. and Morita, S. ( Effects of Pesticides on Isolated Rat Hepatocytes, Mitochondria, and Microsomes Ii. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology; 28 (1). 1995. 1

- 7.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : IN VITRO.

Yoshii, K., Tonogai, Y., Tsumura, Y., Nakamura, Y., and Shibata, T. (1998). Studies on Simultaneous Determination of 15 Pesticides in Cereals by Sf and Hplc. Journal of the food hygienic society of j apan 39: 184

- 191.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Yoshii, Kimihiko and Tonogai, Yasuhide (2004). Water content using Karl

- Fisher aquametry and loss on drying determinations using thermogravimeter for pesticide standard materials. Journal of Health Science 50: 142

- 147.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.

Young, S. Y. and Ali, A. (1992). Evaluation of Bacillus

- Thuringiensis Products for Control of Corn Earworm on Heading Grain Sorghum 1990. Burdi tt, a. K. Jr. (Ed.). Insecticide and acaricide tests, vol. 17. Ii+421p. Entomological society of america: lanham, maryland, usa. Illus. Paper. 0: 259

- 260.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : BIOLOGICAL TOXICANT.

Zaragoza

- Contreras, Erasto Armand o, Hernández

- Escobar, Claudia Alejandra, Navarrete

- Fontes, Alfredo, and Flores

Gallardo, Sergio Gabriel (2011 ). Synthesis of carbon black/polystyrene conductive nanocomposite. Pickering emulsion effect characterized by TEM. Micron 42: 263

- 270.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : CHEM METHODS.Chapter 6: References

180 Excluded written in English.

Ackerman, Peter, Stierli, Daniel, Jung, Pierre Marcel Joseph, Maienfisch, Peter, Cederbaum, Fredrik Emil Malcolm, and Wenger, Jean

- Frederic (20040929). Fungicidal compositions comprising N

- phenyl

- N

- [4

- (4

- pyridyl)

- 2

- pyrimidin

- 2

- yl]amine derivatives. 112 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Angst, Max, Rindlisbacher, Alfred, and Maienfisch, Peter (20020516). Synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising

N

- cyanomethyl

- 4

- (trifluoromethyl)nicotinamide. 30 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Asrar, Jawed and Ding, Yiwei (20021024). Preparation of controlled

- release microcapsules containing agrochemicals having a high melting point. 101 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Asrar, Jawed, Ding, Yiwei, Bourque, June E., and Sanders, Ernest F (20041111). Treatment of plants and plant propagation materials with an antioxidant and pesticide to improve plant health an d/or yield. 79 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Asrar, Jawed and Essinger, James F. Jr (20020321). Controlled release pesticide formulations containing a matrix polymer and a plasticizer. 69 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concer n: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Asrar, Jawed, Heppner, Claudia, and Ding, Yiwei (20030403). Fungicidal compositions and their applications in agriculture. 98 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Asrar, Jawed, Sanders, Ernest F., and Ding , Yiwei (20030327). Method of improving yield and vigor of plants by treatment with diazole, triazole and strobilurin

- type fungicides. 25 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 26,301.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Dahmen, Peter, S eitz, Thomas, and Wachendorff

- Neumann, Ulrike (20070322). Synergistic fungicide composition comprising an arylamidine derivative and two known fungicides. 49pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Ding, Yiwei and Asrar, Jawed (2002092 6). Polymeric film coatings for seed treatment for controlled release of pesticides. 15 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Garnier, Alain Joseph Jean Florimond (20050818). Synergistic antifungal compositions comprising didecyldimethylammonium chloride. 19 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Garnier, Alain Joseph Jean Florimond, Bylemans, Dany Leopold Jozefien, and Bosselaers, Jan Pieter Hendrik (20070412). Synergistic fungicidal imazalil combinations. 26pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Goldshtein, Rina, Kamburg, Roman, Ratner, Galina, Kopylov, Michael, Zelkind, Ilya, Goldshtein, Vadim, Skylarsky, Olga, Tulbovich, Boris, and Stern, Erwin (20050901). Amphiphilic polymer

- based water soluble nanoparticles as drug delivery systems. 37 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 256,023.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Goldshtein, Rina, Kamburg, Roman, Ratner, Galina, Kopylov, Michael, Zelkind, Ilya , Goldshtein, Vadim, Skylarsky, Olga, Tulbovich, Boris, and Stern, Erwin (20050407). Water soluble nanoparticles and method for their production. 52 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Goldshtein, Rina, Sklyarsky, Olga, Zelkind, Ilya, Kopylov, Michael, Tulbovich, Boris, and Goldshtein, VadimChapter 6: References

181 (20051013). Inclusion complexes of active compounds in acrylate (co)polymers. 13 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 952,380.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Gouot, J ean

- Marie and Latorse, Marie

- Pascale (20061228). Synergistic fungicide composition comprising a phosphorous acid derivative, a mandelamide type compound and a further fungicide. 39pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Grosjean

- Courn oyer, Marie

- Claire and Gouot, Jean

- Marie (20050825). Synergistic fungicidal composition comprising a pyridylethylbenzamide derivative and an ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitor. 36 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Harmer, Mark A. , Qiu, Weiming, and Xue, Zhixiong (20060601). Wood preservative comprising colloidal silica or

alumina. 5 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Hiramatsu, Motohiro and Inatsugu, Hiromitsu (19890308). A synergistic fungicidal compo sition comprising a triazole

derivative. 53 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Iida, Seiji and Fujii, Katsutoshi (19910619). Preparation of pyrimidine derivatives as components in synergistic fungicidal compositions. 42 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Kang, Kyung

- Goo, Kim, Tae

- Young, Kim, Dal

- Soo, and Chun, Sam

- Jae (20050602). Fungicidal aqueous suspension

concentrate. 19 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Knauf

- Beiter, Gert rude, Zurfluh, Rene, and Gsell, Bettina (19990311). Synergistic fungicidal combinations comprising phenylacrylic acid derivatives. 66 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Krishnan, Venkataram (20070628). Cationic latex as a carrier for bioactive antibacterial or antifungal ingredients, methods for making by emulsion polymerization and using them. 19pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 882,570.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Leach, Robert M. and Zhang, Jun ( 20050602). Micronized wood preservative formulations. 21 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 821,326.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Matsunaga, Rei (19970910). Dithiocarbonimide microbicidal composition. 12 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Muller, Kaspar, Knauf

- Beiter, Gertrude, Hermann, Dietrich, and Walter, Harald (19990610). Synergistic fungicidal compositions comprising thieno[2,3

- d]pyrimidin

- 4

- one derivatives. 51 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Nasu, Rikuo, Komyoji, Terumasa, Nakajima, Toshio, Suzuki, Kazumi, Ito, Keiichiro, Ohshima, Takeshi, and Yoshimura, Hideshi (19891018). Biocidal composition. 40 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE

.

Sasson, Yoel, Toledano, Ofer, and Levi

- Ruso, Ganit (20030918). Pesticidal composition comprising a lactate ester as crystal growth inhibitor. 19 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Schlatter, Christian and Ramachandran, Ravi (20 050426). Aqueous fungicide formulations for seed treatment. 11 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.Chapter 6: References

182 Schlatter, Christian and Ramachandran, Ravi (20050929). Aqueous neonicotinoid insecticidal compositions for seed

treatment. 12 p p., Cont. of U.S. Ser. No. 256,323, abandoned.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Suzuki, Masahiro (20040325). Granular water

- dispersible pesticide formulations. 10 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 913,618.

Chem Codes : Chemical o f Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Sztor, Edmond, Poels, Pascal, Oostendorp, Michael, and Brandl, Franz (20070111). Method of reducing mycotoxin

contamination of the harvest. 17pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Takahi, Yukiyoshi, Takeshiba, Hideo, Kato, Shigehiro, Tobitsuka, Junzo, Ohkouchi, Takeo, Kondo, Yasuhiko, Tsuda, Mikio, and Ohta, Hiroshi (19940803). Synergistic antimicrobial and antifungal compositions comprising silicon compounds. 89 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern : TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Takayanagi, Norikazu, Kimpara, Masaomi, and Suzuki, Munehiro (20020122). Light, extruded agricultural compositions containing a ceramic carrier for water surface application in paddy fields. 8 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concer n: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Takayanagi, Norikazu, Kimpara, Masaomi, and Suzuki, Munehiro (20000817). Light, extruded pesticidal compositions containing a ceramic carrier for water surface application in paddy fields. 31 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Tateishi, Hideaki, Watanabe, Takeo, and Saishoji, Toshihide (19940629). Synergistic fungicide composition for agriculture and horticulture. 27 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Toledano, Ofer (20030130). Liquid pesticidal composition containing azole fungicides and a polyvinyl alcohol as a crystal growth inhibitor. 17 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Walter, Harald, Forster, Birgit, and Knauf

- beiter, Gertrude (20000518). Syner gistic fungicidal combinations comprising a thieno[2,3

- d]pyrimidin

- 4

- one. 44 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Walter, Harald, Muller, Kaspar, Knauf

- Beiter, Gertrude, and Hermann, Dietrich (19990610). Synergistic fungicidal combinations comprising quinazolinone derivatives. 44 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Walter, Harald, Neuenschwander, Urs, Zeun, Ronald, Ehrenfreund, Josef, Tobler, Hans, Corsi, Camilla, and Lamberth, Clemens (20060216). Syner gistic fungicidal compositions comprising pyrazole derivatives. 104 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Whyte, Susan Kay (20031127). Agitation process for the preparation and activation of drugs and other substances, and production means. 90 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Windsor, J. Brian, Roux, Stan J., Lloyd, Alan M., and Thomas, Collin E (20050217). Methods and compositions for increasing the efficacy of biologically

- active ingredients su ch as antitumor agents. 243 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Xue, Zhixiong (20051027). Wood preservatives and methods of wood preservation. 23 pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Yasuda, Yasushi, Mizun o, Masami, Nishikawa, Hiroaki, and Murakami, Akira (19810624). Fungicidal composition. 6

pp.Chapter 6: References

183 Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.

Zhang, Jun and Ziobro, Richard J (20070125). Compositions including pyrethroid and wood preservation. 1 3pp.

Chem Codes : Chemical of Concern: TFZ Code : NO SOURCE.



### November 2007

1. 2000). Consolidation of certain food and feed additive tolerance regulations. Federal Register 65: 33692

- 33702. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

2. 1994). Pesticide toleranc es and feed additive regulations for triflumizole. Federal Register 59: 59165

- 7. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

3. 1988). Pesticide tolerances for triflumizole. Federal Register 53: 15812

- 13. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

4. 2005). Pesticides; remov al of expired time

- limited tolerances for emergency exemptions. Federal Register 70:

7044

- 7047. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

5. 2002). Triflumizole; Pesticide Tolerance. Federal Register 67: 40219

- 40229. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

6. 2006). Tri flumizole; pesticide tolerance. Federal Register 71: 13274

- 13279. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

7. 2002). Triflumizole; pesticide tolerance for emergency exemption. Federal Register 67: 54583

- 54588. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

8. 2005). Triflumizole; pesticide tolerances for emergency exemptions. Federal Register 70: 17908

- 17916. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

9. 2006). Triflumizole; pesticide tolerances for emergency exemptions. Federal Register 71: 49354

- 49358. Rejection Code : HUMA N HEALTH.

10. Ackerman, Peter, Stierli, Daniel, Jung, Pierre Marcel Joseph, Maienfisch, Peter, Cederbaum, Fredrik Emil Malcolm, and Wenger, Jean

- Frederic (20040929). Fungicidal compositions comprising N

- phenyl

- N

- [4

- (4

- pyridyl)

- 2

- pyrimidin

- 2

- yl]amine deri vatives. 112 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

11. Aguera, Ana, Lopez, Susana, Fernandez

- Alba, Amadeo R., Contreras, Mariano, Crespo, Juan, and Piedra, Luis (2004). One

- year routine application of a new method based on liquid chromatography

- tandem mass

spect rometry to the analysis of 16 multiclass pesticides in vegetable samples. Journal of Chromatography,

A 1045: 125

- 135. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

12. Akiyama, Yumi, Yoshioka, Naoki, and Tsuji, Masahiko (2002). Pesticide residues in agricultural produ cts monitored in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, FYs 1995

- 1999. Journal of AOAC International 85: 692

- 703. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

13. Albertini, C., Gredt, M., and Leroux, P. (2003). Polymorphism of 14a

- Demethylase Gene (CYP51) in the Cereal Eyespot F ungi Tapesia acuformis and Tapesia yallundae. Eur.J.Plant Pathol. 109: 117

- 128. Rejection Code : NO TOXICANT.

14. Alikhanidi, Sokratis and Takahashi, Yoshimasa (2004). Pesticide persistence in the environment

- collected data and

structure

- based analysi s. Journal of Computer Chemistry, Japan 3: 59

- 70. Rejection Code : MODELING, FATE.Chapter 6: References

184 15. Angst, Max, Rindlisbacher, Alfred, and Maienfisch, Peter (20020516). Synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising N

- cyanomethyl

- 4

- (trifluoromethyl)nicotinamide. 30 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

16. Anon (1991). Official Plant Protection Agent List With a Plant Protection Device List of the Federal Institute for

Plant Protection Vienna Austria Status as of October 31 1990. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 1

- 78. Rejec tion Code : REVIEW.

17. Anon ( Pesticide Fact Sheet Number 228: Triflumizole. Govt reports announcements &amp; index (gra&i), issue 07, 1992

. Rejection Code : NO TOX DATA.

18. Aragaki, M. and Yahata, P. S. (1992). Integrated Biological and Che mical Control of Alfalfa Seedling Blight. Annual meeting of the american phytopathological society, portland, oregon, usa, august 8

- 12, 1992. Phytopathology 82: 1129. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

19. Arrebola, F. J., Martinez Vidal, J. L., Mateu

- Sanchez, M., and Alvarez

- Castellon, F. J (2003). Determination of 81 multiclass pesticides in fresh foodstuffs by a single injection analysis using gas chromatography

- chemical ionization and electron ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta 484: 167

- 180. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

20. Ashihara, W. , Inoue, K., and Osakabe, M. (1988). Influences of Some Pesticides on the Development and Oviposition of Phytoseiulus

- Persimilis Athias

- Henriot. Bull fruit tree res stn ser e (akitsu) 0: 51

- 58.

R ejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

21. Asrar, Jawed and Ding, Yiwei (20021024). Preparation of controlled

- release microcapsules containing agrochemicals having a high melting point. 101 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

22. Asrar, Jawed, Ding, Yiwei, Bourque, Ju ne E., and Sanders, Ernest F (20041111). Treatment of plants and plant propagation materials with an antioxidant and pesticide to improve plant health and/or yield. 79 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

23. Asrar, Jawed and Essinger, James F. Jr (20020321). Controlled release pesticide formulations containing a matrix polymer and a plasticizer. 69 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

24. Asrar, Jawed, Heppner, Claudia, and Ding, Yiwei (20030403). Fungicidal compositions and their applications in agriculture. 98 p p. Rejection Code : PATENT.

25. Asrar, Jawed, Sanders, Ernest F., and Ding, Yiwei (20030327). Method of improving yield and vigor of plants by treatment with diazole, triazole and strobilurin

- type fungicides. 25 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 26,30 1. Rejection Code : PATENT.

26. Barker, G. C., Mercer, J. G., Svoboda, J. A., Thompson, M. J., Rees, H. H., and Howells, R. E (1989). Effects of potential inhibitors on Brugia pahangi in vitro: macrofilaricidal action and inhibition of microfilarial

pr oduction. Parasitology 99: 409

- 16. Rejection Code : IN VITRO.

27. Bedlan, G. ( 1991). Overview of Fungicides Permitted in 1991 for Vegetable Cultivation. Pflanzenschutz (vienna)

0: 10

- 16. Rejection Code : REVIEW.

28. Bedlan, G. ( 1992). Table of Lic ensed Fungicides in Horticulture for 1992. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 9

- 16. Rejection Code : REVIEW.Chapter 6: References

185 29. Boneti, J. I Ds, Katsurayama, Y., and Greiner, L. C. (1988). Control of Apple Scab With Ergosterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides Applied to the Curative Sys tem. 21st annual meeting of the brazilian phytopathological society, salvador, brazil, july 10

- 17, 1988. Fitopatol bras 13: 121. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

30. Boneti, J. I Ds, Katsurayama, Y., and Krueger, R. (1992). Greenhouse Evaluation of the Protec tive, Curative and Postsymptom Activities of Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides on Apple Scab Control. Fitopatol bras 17: 412

- 419. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

31. Brooks, G. T. (1990). Seventh International Congress of Pesticide Chemistry Hamburg Germany Au gust 1990.

Pestic sci 30: 367

- 498. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

32. Byrne, J. M. and Hausbeck, M. K. (1999). Management of Powdery Mildew (Oidium Sp.) On Poinsettia. Joint meeting of the american phytopathological society, northeastern division and the american phytopathological society, potomac division, annapolis, maryland, usa, march 10

- 12, 1999.yphytopathology 89: S99. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

33. Casalegno, Mose', Sello, Guido, and Benfenati, Emilio (2006). Top

- Priority Fragment QSAR Approac h in Predicting Pesticide Aquatic Toxicity. Chemical Research in Toxicology 19: 1533

- 1539. Rejection Code : QSAR.

34. Charumanee, Suporn, Titwan, Aurawan, Sirithunyalug, Jakkapan, Weiss

- Greiler, Petra, Wolschann, Peter, Viernstein, Helmut, and Okonogi, Siriporn (2006). Thermodynamics of the encapsulation by cyclodextrins. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 81: 523

- 529. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

35. Chatani, Y., Chikamoto, T., Munehisa, M., Adachi, T., and Komatsu, M. (1996). Systema tic Determination of

Pesticide Residues in Citrus Fruits. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 37: 215

- 221. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

36. Chun, Ock Kyoung, Kang, Hee Gon, and Kim, Myung Hee (2003). Multiresidue method for the determination of pesticides in Korean domestic crops by gas chromatography/mass selective detection. Journal of AOAC

International 86: 823

- 831. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

37. Dahmen, Peter, Seitz, Thomas, and Wachendorff

- Neumann, Ulrike (20070322). Synergistic f ungicide composition comprising an arylamidine derivative and two known fungicides. 49pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

38. Daughtrey, M. and Macksel, M. (1998). Evaluation of Biological and Chemical Fungicides for Control of Powdery

Mildew in Poinsettia and Miniature Rose. Meeting of the american phytopathological society, northeastern division, burlington, vermont, usa, july 8

- 10, 1998. Phytopathology 88: S135. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

39. Ding, Yiwei and Asrar, Jawed (20020926). Polymeric film coatings for seed treatment for controlled release of pesticides. 15 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

40. Ferrer, Imma , Garcia

- Reyes, Juan F., Mezcua, Milagros, Thurman, E. Michael, and Fernandez

- Alba, Amadeo R (2005). Multi

- residue pesticide analysis in f ruits and vegetables by liquid chromatography

- time

- of

- flight

mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography, A 1082: 81

- 90. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

41. Ferrer, Imma , Garcia

- Reyes, Juan Francisco, and Fernandez

- Alba, Amadeo (2005). Identification and quantitation of pesticides in vegetables by liquid chromatography time

- of

- flight mass spectrometry. TrAC, Trends inChapter 6: References

186 Analytical Chemistry 24: 671

- 682. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

42. Fischer

- Colbrie, P. (1988). Approved Active Substances for Austr ian Fruit Growing and Their Side Effects. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 13

- 15. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

43. Fischer

- Colbrie, P. (1987). Approved Agents for Use in Austrian Horticulture and Their Side Effects on Beneficial Organisms. Pflanzenschutz (v ienna) 0: 8

- 12. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

44. Fischer

- Colbrie, P. (1988). Review of Active Substances and Approved Commercial Preparations Available for Plant Protection in Fruit Growing. Pflanzenschutz (vienna) 0: 6

- 12. Rejection Code : REVIEW.

45

. Frenich, Antonia Garrido, Gonzalez

- Rodriguez, Manuel J., Arrebola, Francisco J., and Vidal, Jose L. Martinez (2005 ). Potentiality of Gas Chromatography

- Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry in Vanguard and Rearguard Methods of Pesticide Residues in Veget ables. Analytical Chemistry 77: 4640

- 4648. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

46. Garnier, Alain Joseph Jean Florimond (20050818). Synergistic antifungal compositions comprising didecyldimethylammonium chloride. 19 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

47. Garnie r, Alain Joseph Jean Florimond, Bylemans, Dany Leopold Jozefien, and Bosselaers, Jan Pieter Hendrik (20070412). Synergistic fungicidal imazalil combinations. 26pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

48. Garrido Frenich, A., Martinez Salvador, I., Martinez Vidal, J. L., and Lopez

- Lopez, T (2005). Determination of multiclass pesticides in food commodities by pressurized liquid extraction using GC

- MS/MS and LC

MS/MS. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 383: 1106

- 1118. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

49. Goldshte in, Rina, Kamburg, Roman, Ratner, Galina, Kopylov, Michael, Zelkind, Ilya, Goldshtein, Vadim, Skylarsky, Olga, Tulbovich, Boris, and Stern, Erwin (20050901). Amphiphilic polymer

- based water soluble nanoparticles as drug delivery systems. 37 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 256,023. Rejection Code : PATENT.

50. Goldshtein, Rina, Kamburg, Roman, Ratner, Galina, Kopylov, Michael, Zelkind, Ilya, Goldshtein, Vadim, Skylarsky, Olga, Tulbovich, Boris, and Stern, Erwin (20050407). Water soluble nanoparticles and method for their production. 52 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

51. Goldshtein, Rina, Sklyarsky, Olga, Zelkind, Ilya, Kopylov, Michael, Tulbovich, Boris, and Goldshtein, Vadim (20051013). Inclusion complexes of active compounds in acrylate (co)polymers

. 13 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 952,380. Rejection Code : PATENT.

52. Gomyo, Takeshi, Morishima, Yasushi, Tachibana, Teruo, Kobayashi, Shigeru, and Ono, Shigeo (1991). Analytical method for the residues of triflumizole fungicide and its main me tabolite in crops by high

- performance liquid and gas chromatography. Analytical Sciences 7: 749

- 56. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

53. Goulart, A. Cp, Mesquita, A. Nd, and Paiva, F. Da (1990). Efficiency of Chemical Treatment of Wheat Seeds on the

Contr ol of Pyricularia Oryzae and Cochliobolus Sativus (Helminthosporium Sativum). Fitopatol bras 15:

302

- 305. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.Chapter 6: References

187 54. Gouot, Jean

- Marie and Grosjean

- Cournoyer, Marie

- Claire (20050817). Synergistic fungicidal composition comprising a pyridylethylbenzamide derivative and an ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitor. 11 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

55. Gouot, Jean

- Marie and Latorse, Marie

- Pascale (20061228). Synergistic fungicide composition comprising a phosphorous acid derivative, a mandelamide type compound and a further fungicide. 39pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

56. Grosjean

- Cournoyer, Marie

- Claire and Gouot, Jean

- Marie (20050825). Synergistic fungicidal composition comprising a pyridylethylbenzamide derivative and an ergosterol b iosynthesis inhibitor. 36 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

57. Harmer, Mark A., Qiu, Weiming, and Xue, Zhixiong (20060601). Wood preservative comprising colloidal silica or

alumina. 5 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

58. Hashimoto, Y., Sugimoto, S., Soeda, Y ., Sano, S., Nakata, A., and Hashimoto, S. (1990). Absorption, Translocation and Metabolism of the Fungicide Triflumizole in Cucumber Plants. J pestic sci 15: 375

- 384. Rejection Code : FATE.

59. Hernandez, F., Pozo, O. J., Sancho, J. V., Bijlsma, L., Ba rreda, M., and Pitarch, E (2006). Multiresidue liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry determination of 52 non gas chromatography

- amenable pesticides and metabolites in different food commodities. Journal of Chromatography, A 1109: 242

- 252. Rejecti on Code : CHEM METHODS.

60. Hiemstra, Maurice and De Kok, Andre (2007). Comprehensive multi

- residue method for the target analysis of pesticides in crops using liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography,

A 1154: 3

- 25. Reje ction Code : CHEM METHODS.

61. Hirahara, Y. , Nakamuro, K., and Sayato, Y. (1997). Studies on Behaviors of Decomposition of Pesticides in

Environment. Japanese journal of toxicology and environmental health 43: 221

- 229. Rejection Code : FATE.

62. Hira matsu, Motohiro and Inatsugu, Hiromitsu (19890308). A synergistic fungicidal composition comprising a

triazole derivative. 53 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

63. Hirota, K. and Miyagawa, T. (1989). Control of Peach Blister Canker Using Fungicides. Res bu ll aichi

- ken agric

res cent 0: 247

- 252. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

64. Huang, Zhiqiang, Li, Yongjun, Chen, Bo, and Yao, Shouzhuo (2007). Simultaneous determination of 102 pesticide residues in Chinese teas by gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry. Jou rnal of Chromatography, B: Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences 853: 154

- 162. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

65. Hughes, David John, Peace, James Edward, Riley, Suzanna, Russell, Sally, Swanborough, Joseph John, Jeanguenat, Andre, Renold, Peter, Hall, Roger Graham, Loiseleur, Olivier, Trah, Stephan, and Wenger, Jean (20070125). Synergistic pesticidal mixtures with nitrogen

- containing component. 261pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

66. Iida, Seiji and Fujii, Katsutoshi (19910619). Prep aration of pyrimidine derivatives as components in synergistic fungicidal compositions. 42 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

67. Iijima, Kazuaki, Saka, Machiko, Odanaka, Yoshitsugu, and Matano, Osami (1997). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in agricultural products. 1. Multiresidue analytical method of pesticides by GC

- MS. ApplicationChapter 6: References

188 of macroporous diatomaceous earth column and silica gel cartridge. Nippon Noyaku Gakkaishi 22: 17

- 26. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

68. Inam, Recai, Guelerman, Ebru Zeynep, and Sariguel, Tuba (2006). Determination of triflumizole by differential pulse polarography in formulation, soil and natura l water samples. Analytica Chimica Acta 579: 117

- 123. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

69. Inam, Recai, Gulerman, Ebru Zeynep, and Sarigul, Tuba (2006). Determination of triflumizole by differential pulse polarography in formulation, soil and natural wate r samples. Analytica Chimica Acta 579: 117

- 123. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

70. Jamet, Paul and Eudeline, Valerie (1992). Assessment of the movement of triazole fungicides by soil thin

- layer chromatography. Science of the Total Environment 123

- 124: 459

- 68. Rejection Code : FATE.

71. Kaihara, Akiko, Yoshii, Kimihiko, Tsumura, Yukari, Ishimitsu, Susumu, and Tonogai, Tasuhide (2002). Multi

residue analysis of 18 pesticides in fresh fruits, vegetables, and rice by supercritical fluid extracti on and liquid chromatography

- electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Journal of Health Science 48: 173

- 178. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

72. Kaihara, Akiko, Yoshii, Kimihiko, Tsumura, Yukari, Nakamura, Yumiko, Ishimitsu, Susumu, and Tonogai,

Yasuhi de (2000). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in fresh fruits and vegetables by supercritical fluid

extraction and HPLC. Journal of Health Science 46: 336

- 342. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

73. Kang, Kyung

- Goo, Kim, Tae

- Young, Kim, Dal

- Soo, and Chun, Sam

- Jae (20050602). Fungicidal aqueous suspension concentrate. 19 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

74. Katsurayama, Y. and Greiner, L. C. (1989). Apple Scab Control, in Post

- Infection, Using Sterol

- Inhibiting Fungicides. Au

- Boneti J I Ds. Fitopatol bras 14: 268

- 271. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

75. Kawasaki, M. , Fukuhara, K., and Uchiyama, S. (1994). Gas Chromatographic

- Mass Spectrometric (Gc) Screening of Pesticides./Growth & Development. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 35: 479

- 496.

Re jection Code : CHEM METHODS.

76. Key, B. D., Howell, R. D., and Criddle, C. S. (1997). Fluorinated Organics in the Biosphere. Environmental science & technology 31: 2445

- 2454. Rejection Code : FATE.

77. Klein, Ch. Th., Koehler, G., Mayer, B., Mraz, K. , Reiter, S., Viernstein, H., and Wolschann, P (1995). Solubility and molecular modeling of triflumizole

- b

- cyclodextrin inclusion complexes. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Molecular Recognition in Chemistry 22: 15

- 32. Rejection Code : MODELING.

78. Knauf

- Beiter, Gertrude, Zurfluh, Rene, and Gsell, Bettina (19990311). Synergistic fungicidal combinations comprising phenylacrylic acid derivatives. 66 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

79. Kobayashi, Hiroko, Jimbo, Yuko, Matano, Osami, and Goto, Shinko (199 1). Stability of triflumizole and its metabolites in extracts from crops. Nippon Noyaku Gakkaishi 16: 405

- 11. Rejection Code : IN VITRO, FATE.

80. Koizumi, M. (1987). (B

- III) Fungicides: Fruit Trees. Jpn.Pestic.Inf. 34

- 36. Rejection Code : REVIEW.

81

. Kojima, Hiroyuki, Katsura, Eiji, Takeuchi, Shinji, Niiyama, Kazuhito, and Kobayashi, Kunihiko (2004). ScreeningChapter 6: References

189 for estrogen and androgen receptor activities in 200 pesticides by in vitro reporter gene assays using chinese hamster ovary cells. Environ mental Health Perspectives 112: 524

- 531. Rejection Code : IN VITRO.

82. Kojima, Mihoko, Fukunaga, Kenji, Sasaki, Mari, Nakamura, Masafumi, Tsuji, Motohiro, and Nishiyama, Toshimasa (2005). Evaluation of estrogenic activities of pesticides using an in vit ro reporter gene assay. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15: 271

- 280. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

83. Krishnan, Venkataram (20070628). Cationic latex as a carrier for bioactive antibacterial or antifungal ingredients,

methods fo r making by emulsion polymerization and using them. 19pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 882,570. Rejection Code : PATENT.

84. Leach, Robert M. and Zhang, Jun (20050602). Micronized wood preservative formulations. 21 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of

U.S. Ser. No . 821,326. Rejection Code : PATENT.

85. Lehotay, Steven J., De Kok, Andre, Hiemstra, Maurice, and Van Bodegraven, Peter (2005). Validation of a fast and easy method for the determination of residues from 229 pesticides in fruits and vegetables using gas and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometric detection. Journal of AOAC International 88: 595

- 614. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

86. Leroux, Pierre, Chapeland, Florence, Arnold, Annick, and Gredt, Michel (2000). New cases of negative cross

resistance between fungicides, including sterol biosynthesis inhibitors. Journal of General Plant Pathology

66: 75

- 81. Rejection Code : SURVEY.

87. Li, Hong

- Ping, Li, Gwo

- Chen, and Jen, Jen

- Fon (2004). Fast multi

- residue screening for 84 pesticide s in tea by gas chromatography with dual

- tower auto

- sampler, dual

- column and dual detectors. Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society (Taipei, Taiwan) 51: 531

- 542. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

88. Maciver, D. R., Keane, P. A., Jones, D. G., and Jones, A. G. (1997). Pyrethrins and Piperonyl Butoxide as Public

Health Insecticides. Pyrethrum post 20: 3

- 46. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH.

89. Martinez Vidal, J. L., Arrebola, F. J., and Mateu

- Sanchez, M (2002). Application of gas chromatography

- tandem

mass spectrometry to the analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. Journal of Chromatography, A

959: 203

- 213. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

90. Martinez Vidal, J. L., Arrebola Liebanas, F. J., Gonzalez Rodriguez, M. J., Garrido Frenich, A., and Fern andez Moreno, J. L (2005). Validation of a gas chromatography/triple quadrupole mass spectrometry based method for the quantification of pesticides in food commodities. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 20: 365

- 375. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

91. Matsunaga, Rei (19970910). Dithiocarbonimide microbicidal composition. 12 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

92. Mcgovern, R. J. (1996). Reduction of Rhizoctonia Crown Rot in Impatiens by Fungicides and Biocontrols. Annual meeting of the american phyt opathological society, north central division, indianapolis, indiana, usa, july

27

- 31, 1996. Phytopathology 86: S6. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

93. Mercer, Gregory E (2005). Determination of 112 halogenated pesticides using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected ion monitoring. Journal of AOAC International 88: 1452

- 1462.Chapter 6: References

190 Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

94. Micinski, S., Scarborough, R. G., Forrester, F. D., and Graves, J. B. (1996). Efficacy of Selected Insecticide

Mixtures for Bollwo rm/Tobacco Budworm Control, 1995. Arthropod Manag.Tests 21: 259

- 260. Rejection Code : MIXTURE.

95. Miller, M. E., Isakeit, T., Zhang, J. X., and Bruton, B. D. (1998). Gummy Stem Blight of Melons. Meeting of the american phytopathological society, carib bean division, san jose, puerto rico, november 10

- 15, 1997. Phytopathology 88: S122. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

96. Miyake, Y., Tajima, R., and Ono, M (2003). Fate of pesticide metabolites on malt during brewing. Journal of the American Society of Brewi ng Chemists 61: 33

- 36. Rejection Code : FATE, HUMAN HEALTH.

97. Muller, Kaspar, Knauf

- Beiter, Gertrude, Hermann, Dietrich, and Walter, Harald (19990610). Synergistic fungicidal compositions comprising thieno[2,3

- d]pyrimidin

- 4

- one derivatives. 51 pp. Rej ection Code : PATENT.

98. Mustea, Ana and Miu, I (1999). Influence of some pesticides on the nitrogen fixing bacteria. Roumanian Biotechnological Letters 4: 497

- 503. Rejection Code : BACTERIA.

99. Nagami, H. ( 1997). Multiresidue Analysis of Fungicid es in Strawberry. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 58: 53

- 60. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH, CHEM METHODS.

100. Nakao, H. ( 1992). Studies on Biological Control of Spider Mites on Greenhouse Vegetables by the

Resistant Strain of P hytoseiulus Persimilis Athias

- Henriot. Rep hokkaido prefect agric exp stn 0: 1

- 75. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

101. Nakata, A., Hashimoto, S., Ikura, K., and Katsuura, K. (1991). Development of a New Fungicide,

Triflumizole. J pestic sci 16: 301

- 314. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

102. Nakayama, A. (1990). Computer

- Aided Molecular Design and Structure

- Activity Relationships of

Pesticides. J pestic sci 15: 481

- 494. Rejection Code : MODELING.

103. Nakayama, Akira (1992). Quantitative structure

- activ ity relationships and molecular graphics study of triflumizole and related fungicidal imidazoles. 445

- 63. Rejection Code : QSAR.

104. Nakayama, Akira, Ikura, Katsuyata, Katsuura, Kiyoshi, Hashimoto, Sho, and Nakata, Akira (1989). Quantitative structure

- activity relationships, conformational analyses, and computer graphics study of triflumizole analogs, fungicidal N

- (1

- imidazol

- 1

- ylalkylidene)anilines. Nippon Noyaku Gakkaishi 14: 23

- 37. Rejection Code : QSAR.

105. Nasu, Rikuo, Komyoji, Terumasa, Nakaji ma, Toshio, Suzuki, Kazumi, Ito, Keiichiro, Ohshima, Takeshi, and Yoshimura, Hideshi (19891018). Biocidal composition. 40 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

106. Neicheva, A., Karageorgiev, D., and Konstantinova, T. (1992). Gas Chromatographic Determination o f

Some Modern Pesticides in Fruits. Sci.Total Environ. 123

- 124: 29

- 37. Rejection Code : MIXTURE.

107. Neicheva, A., Kovacheva, E., and Karageorgiev, D (1990). Simultaneous determination of insecticides,Chapter 6: References

191 acaricides and fungicides by thin

- layer chromatogr aphy. Journal of Chromatography 509: 263

- 9. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

108. Obana, Hirotaka, Akutsu, Kazuhiko, Okihashi, Masahiro, and Hori, Shinjiro (2001). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in vegetables and fruits using two

- layered column with graphitized carbon and water absorbent polymer. Analyst (Cambridge, United Kingdom) 126: 1529

- 1534. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

109. Obana, Hirotaka, Akutsu, Kazuhiko, Okihashi, Masahiro, Kakimoto, Sachiko, and Hori, Shinjiro (1999).

Multiresidue ana lysis of pesticides in vegetables and fruits using a high capacity absorbent polymer for

water. Analyst (Cambridge, United Kingdom) 124: 1159

- 1165. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

110. Odanaka, Y. , Taniguchi, T., Shimamura, Y., Iijima, K., Koma, Y., Tak echi, T., and Matano, O. (1994). Runoff and Leaching of Pesticides in Golf Course. Journal of pesticide science 19: 1

- 10. Rejection Code : FATE.

111. Ogawa, M., Sakai, T., Ohkuma, K., Matsumoto, T., Hisamatsu, Y., and Nakazawa, H. ( Rapid

Determination of Multiple Pesticide Residues in Agricultural Products by Gpc Clean

- up and Gc

Sim./Growth & Development. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

112. Olson, B. D. (1999). Effects of Si Fungicides on Red Delicious Apples. Joint meeting of the american phytopath ological society, northeastern division and the american phytopathological society, potomac division, annapolis, maryland, usa, march 10

- 12, 1999.yphytopathology 89: S101. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

113. Omote, M., Harayama, K., Sasaki, T., Mochizuki, N. , and Yamashita, H (2006). Analysis of simultaneous screening for 277 pesticides in malt and beer by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 64: 139

- 150. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH, CHEM METHODS.

114. Peng, C. F. , Kuang, H., Li, X. Q., and Xu, C. L (2007). Evaluation and interlaboratory validation of a GC

MS method for analysis of pesticide residues in teas. Chemical Papers 61: 1

- 5. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

115. Pis'mennaya, M. V. (1991). Determination of Triflumizole and Its Transformation Products in Agricultural Crops Water and Soil. Gig sanit 0: 83

- 84. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

116. Pizzutti, Ionara R., de Kok, Andre, Zanella, Renato, Adaime, Martha B., Hiemstra, Maurice , Wickert, Cristine, and Prestes, Osmar D (2007). Method validation for the analysis of 169 pesticides in soya grain, without clean up, by liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry using positive and negative electrospray ionization. Journal of Chromatography, A 1142: 123

- 136. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

117. Ricart, I. Sahuquillo, Anton

- Fos, G. M., Duart, M. J., Mateo, J. V. Garcia, Zamora, L. Lahuerta, and Calatayud, J. Martinez (2007). Theoretical prediction of the photoinduced chemilu minescence of pesticides. Talanta 72: 378

- 386. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

118. Riveros, F. (1997). Effect of Sbi Fungicides on Uncinula Necator Affecting Grapes in Northern Chile. Annual meeting of the american society for enology and viticulture, san diego, california, usa, june 1997. American journal of enology and viticulture 48: 393

- 394. Rejection Code : ABSTRACT.

119. Saito, I., Yamada, S., Oshima, H., and Hayakawa, J. (1995). Multi Residue Method for Determination of Pesticides Using Luke Method Extraction, Gel Permeation Chromatography and Gas Chromatography.Chapter 6: References

192 Journal of pesticide science 20: 109

- 118. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

120. Saito, T. and Yabuta, M. (1996). Laboratory Studies on Effect of Pesticide on Entomopathogenic Fungus,

Verticillium Lecanii. Japanese journal of applied entomology and zoology 40: 71

- 76. Rejection Code : NON

- ENGLISH.

121. Sakamoto, Mitsushi and Tsutsumi, Taizou (2004). Applicability of headspace solid

- phase microextraction

to the determination of multi

- class pesticides in waters. Journal of Chromatography, A 1028: 63

- 74. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

122. Sasson, Yoel, Toledano, Ofer, and Levi

- Ruso, Ganit (20030918). Pesticidal composition comprising a lactate ester as crystal growth inhibitor. 19 p p. Rejection Code : PATENT.

123. Sato, Futoshi, Iwata, Hitoshi, Nomura, Takakazu, and Komatsu, Kazuhiro (2005). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in foods using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. ACS Symposium Series 899: 28

- 37. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

124. Schlatter, Christian and Ramachandran, Ravi (20050426). Aqueous fungicide formulations for seed

treatment . 11 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

125. Schlatter, Christian and Ramachandran, Ravi (20050929). Aqueous neonicotinoid insectic idal compositions

for seed treatment. 12 pp., Cont. of U.S. Ser. No. 256,323, abandoned. Rejection Code : PATENT.

126. Shibata, Y. , Oyama, M., Sato, H., Nakao, K., Tsuda, M., Sonoda, M., and Tanaka, F. (1998). Simultaneous Cleanup Method for Multi Pes ticide Residue Analysis by Gc and Hplc. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 39: 241

- 250. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

127. Shiga, N., Matano, O., and Goto, S. (1987). Residue Analysis of Triflumizole and Its Metabolite in Crops by High

- Perfo rmance Liquid Chromatography. J chromatogr 396: 327

- 336. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

128. Sutton, T. B. (1996). Changing Options for the Control of Deciduous Fruit Tree Diseases. Webster, r. K. (Ed.). Annual review of phytopathology, vol. 34. Xi+620 p. Annual reviews inc.: Palo alto, california, usa.

Isbn 0

- 8243

- 1334

- 8. 34: 527

- 547. Rejection Code : REVIEW.

129. Suzuki, Masahiro (20040325). Granular water

- dispersible pesticide formulations. 10 pp., Cont.

- in

- part of U.S. Ser. No. 913,618. Rejection Code : PATENT.

130. Suzuki, Takahiro (2001). A Nonlinear Group Contribution Method for Predicting the Free Energies of Inclusion Complexation of Organic Molecules with a

- and b

- Cyclodextrins. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 41: 126 6

- 1273. Rejection Code : MODELING.

131. Sztor, Edmond, Poels, Pascal, Oostendorp, Michael, and Brandl, Franz (20070111). Method of reducing mycotoxin contamination of the harvest. 17pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

132. Takahi, Yukiyoshi, Takeshiba, Hideo, Kato, Shigehiro, Tobitsuka, Junzo, Ohkouchi, Takeo, Kondo, Yasuhiko, Tsuda, Mikio, and Ohta, Hiroshi (19940803). Synergistic antimicrobial and antifungal compositions comprising silicon compounds. 89 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT .Chapter 6: References

193 133. Takatsuki, S., Nemoto, S., Matsuda, R., Sasaki, K., and Toyoda, M. (1999). Determination of 21 Pesticides in Agricultural Products by Hplc

- Photodiode Array Detection. Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi 40: 314

- 319. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

134. Takayanagi, Norikazu, Kimpara, Masaomi, and Suzuki, Munehiro (20020122). Light, extruded agricultural compositions containing a ceramic carrier for water surface application in paddy fields. 8 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

135. Takayanagi, Norikazu, Kimpara, Masaomi, and Suzu ki, Munehiro (20000817). Light, extruded pesticidal compositions containing a ceramic carrier for water surface application in paddy fields. 31 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

136. Tateishi, Hideaki, Watanabe, Takeo, and Saishoji, Toshihide (19940629). Syn ergistic fungicide composition for agriculture and horticulture. 27 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

137. Thompson, D. C., Biehn, W. L., and Guest, R. T. (1995). Ir

- 4 Registration of Minor Uses of Fungicides and

Nematicides. Annual meeting of the american phytopathological association, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, usa, august 12

- 16, 1995. Phytopathology 85: 1125. Rejection Code : NO TOX DATA.

138. Toledano, Ofer (20030130). Liquid pesticidal composition containing azole fungicides and a polyvinyl

alcohol as a crystal growth inhibitor. 17 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

139. Tonogai, Y. , Tsumura, Y., Nakamura, Y., and Shibata, T. ( 1998). Simultaneous Determination of Pesticides and Their Metabolites in Fresh Fruits and Vegetables by Hplc. Journal of the foo d hygienic society of japan 39: 13

- 25. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

140. Tsutsumi, Taizou, Sakamoto, Mitsushi, Kataoka, Hiroyuki, and Pawliszyn, Janusz (2006). Automated headspace solid

- phase microextraction and gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry for screening and determination of multiclass pesticides in water. Methods in Biotechnology 19: 343

- 364. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

141. Ueno, Eiji, Oshima, Harumi, Saito, Isao, Matsumoto, Hiroshi, Yoshimura, Yoshihiro, and Nakazawa, Hiroyuki (2004). Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in vegetables and fruits by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry after gel permeation chromatography and graphitized carbon column cleanup. Journal of

AOAC International 87: 1003

- 1015. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

1 42. Vidal, J. L. Martinez, Arrebola, F. J., Frenich, A. Garrido, Fernandez, J. Martinez, and Mateu

- Sanchez, M (2004). Validation of a gas chromatographic

- tandem mass spectrometric method for analysis of pesticide

residues in six food commodities. Selectio n of a reference matrix for calibration. Chromatographia 59:

321

- 327. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS, HUMAN HEALTH.

143. Vidal, J. L. Martinez, Arrebola, F. J., and Mateu

- Sanchez, M (2002). Application to routine analysis of a

method to determine multicl ass pesticide residues in fresh vegetables by gas chromatography/tandem mass

spectrometry. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry 16: 1106

- 1115. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

144. Viernstein, H., Reiter, S., and Wolschann, P (1994). Solubility enhan cement of triflumizole by host

- guest
interaction with b

- cyclodextrin. Monatshefte fuer Chemie 125: 681

- 9. Rejection Code : MODELING.

145. Viernstein, Helmut, Weiss

- Greiler, Petra, and Wolschann, Peter (2003). Solubility enhancement of low soluble biologically active compounds

-- temperature and cosolvent dependent inclusion complexation:Chapter 6: References

194 Proceedings of the 4th Central European Symposium on Pha rmaceutical Technology. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 256: 85

- 94. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

146. Viernstein, Helmut, Weiss

- Greiler, Petra, and Wolschann, Peter (2003). Solubility enhancement of low soluble biologically active compounds by b

- cyclodextrin and dimethyl

- b

- cyclodextrin. Journal of Inclusion Phenomena and Macrocyclic Chemistry 44: 235

- 239. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

147. Walter, Harald, Forster, Birgit, and Knauf

- beiter, Gertrude (20000518). Synergistic fungicidal combinations comprising a thieno[2,3

- d]pyrimidin

- 4

- one. 44 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

148. Walter, Harald, Muller, Kaspar, Knauf

- Beiter, Gertrude, and Hermann, Dietrich (19990610). Synergistic fungicidal combinations comprising quinazolinone derivati ves. 44 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

149. Walter, Harald, Neuenschwander, Urs, Zeun, Ronald, Ehrenfreund, Josef, Tobler, Hans, Corsi, Camilla, and Lamberth, Clemens (20060216). Synergistic fungicidal compositions comprising pyrazole derivatives. 104 pp

. Rejection Code : PATENT.

150. Whyte, Susan Kay (20031127). Agitation process for the preparation and activation of drugs and other substances, and production means. 90 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

151. Wilson, M. and Lindow, S. E. (1993). Release of Recombinant Microorganisms. Ornston, l. N. (Ed.). Annual review of microbiology, vol. 47. X+996p. Annual reviews inc.: Palo alto, california, usa. Isbn 0

- 8243

- 1147

- 7. 0: 913

- 944. Rejection Code : FATE.

152. Windsor, J. Brian, Roux, Stan J., Lloyd, Alan M., and Thomas, Collin E (20050217). Methods and compositions for increasing the efficacy of biologically

- active ingredients such as antitumor agents. 243

pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

153. Wong, Jon W., Webster, Michael G., Bezabeh, Dawit Z., Hengel, M athew J., Ngim, Kenley K. , Krynitsky, Alexander J., and Ebeler, Susan E (2004). Multiresidue Determination of Pesticides in Malt Beverages by Capillary Gas Chromatography with Mass Spectrometry and Selected Ion Monitoring. Journal of Agricultural and Foo d Chemistry 52: 6361

- 6372. Rejection Code : HUMAN HEALTH, CHEM METHODS.

154. Xue, Zhixiong (20051027). Wood preservatives and methods of wood preservation. 23 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

155. Yamano, T. and Morita, S. ( Effects of Pesticides on Isola ted Rat Hepatocytes, Mitochondria, and

Microsomes Ii. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology; 28 (1). 1995. 1

- 7. Rejection Code : IN VITRO.

156. Yasuda, Yasushi, Mizuno, Masami, Nishikawa, Hiroaki, and Murakami, Akira (19810624). Fungic idal composition. 6 pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.

157. Yoshii, K., Tonogai, Y., Tsumura, Y., Nakamura, Y., and Shibata, T. (1998). Studies on Simultaneous Determination of 15 Pesticides in Cereals by Sf and Hplc. Journal of the food hygienic society of japan 39:

184

- 191. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.Chapter 6: References

195 158. Yoshii, Kimihiko and Tonogai, Yasuhide (2004). Water content using Karl

- Fisher aquametry and loss on drying determinations using thermogravimeter for pesticide standard materials. Journal of Health Science

50: 142

- 147. Rejection Code : CHEM METHODS.

159. Young, S. Y. and Ali, A. (1992). Evaluation of Bacillus

- Thuringiensis Products for Control of Corn Earworm on Heading Grain Sorghum 1990. Burditt, a. K. Jr. (Ed.). Insecticide and acaricide tests, vol. 17. Ii+421p. Entomological society of america: lanham, maryland, usa. Illus. Paper. 0: 259

- 260. Rejection Code : BIOLOGICAL TOXICANT.

160. Zhang, Jun and Ziobro, Richard J (20070125). Compositions including pyrethroid and wood preservation. 13pp. Rejection Code : PATENT.