### MEM ORAND UM

S ubject:

To :

From:

Through: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AG ENC Y

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFF ICE OF

CHE MI CA L SA FETY ANO

POLLUTION PREVENTIO N



### PC Code: 

### 1 22305

July 

### JO

, 2015

Addend um to Section 3 E nvironmental Fate and Ecologica l R i sk

Assess m e nt for Benzovindiflupyr New Chemical Reg i strat ion for

Pr oposed Uses on Blu ebe r r i es, Cano la

, Cereal Crops (oats

, wheat

, rye

, and

barley)

, Corn, Cotton

, Cucu rbit s

, T omatoes, Grapes

, Legumes

, Peanuts

,

Pome fruit

, Soybeans

, Potat oes. Turf Grass

, and Nursery crops.



### DP Barcode No.: 428095

Shaunta Hill, Ph.D.

, Plant Pathologist

Shaja Joyner, Product Manager

Cyn thia Giles -P arker

, Branch Ch ief

F un gicide Branch

Re g istration Division 

### ( 7505P )

Geoffrey Sinclair

, Ph

. D

., Bi o logi s t**~** 

### Gabe Rothman

, Environmental Scientist

E n v ironmental Risk Branch V

E n v ironmental Fate and Effec t s Division 

### (7507P)

Mah Sha mim

, Ph.D

., Branch C hi ef 

# d

E nvir onmen t al Risk Branch V

Environmenta l Fate and E ff ec ts Division 

### (75

· )

T hi s memorandum tran sm it s an addendum to the Section 3 New Chemica l ecological ri sk

a ssess ment for the n e v.r proposed fungicide benzovinditlupyr from the Environmental Fate and

Effects Division (E FED ) (DP Barcode Nos. 

### 408819

, 4088221

, 408822

, 408824

, 408825, 408826

, 408827, and 

### 415318

, dated Jun e 

### 30

, 2015). The addendum addresses a m y riad of mitigation

measures proposed from th e current lab els by th e registrant to addre ss the risks to non-target

aq uatic and terrestr i al organisms identified in th e risk assessment. T hi s document describes eac h

of the mitigation measures and addresses th e i r i1n pact on the exposure analysis for non-target

aquatic and terrestrial organisms and the resulting changes in risk conclusions. 

### This docum e nt

also r e-a ffirm s th e ne e d for data r ega rdin g dietary a nd chroni c h o n ey bee toxici ty s tudi es to

a ddr ess unc er tainti es for terrestria l invert e br a t es. F urtherm o r e, a targeted w a t er b o d y

monitorin g s tud y i s r eco mmend ed to verify the e xpo s ure and potential buildup of

### 2

benzovindiflupyr in aquatic habitats that is identified in this risk assessment addendum. This

monitoring study is also critical for addressing the remaining risks identified mainly for freshwater

fish. EFED recommends that t he requested water body monitoring study along with the additional

honeybee toxicity studies be considered to support future registration decisi ons for this new active

ingredient.

### 3 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



# Addendum to Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk

Assessment for Benz ovindiflupyr New Chemical

Registration for Proposed Uses on blueberries, canola,

cereal crops (oats, wheat, rye, and barley), corn,

cotton, cucurb its, tomatoes, grapes, legumes , peanuts,

pome fruit , soybeans, potatoes, turf grass, and nursery

crops

.

Ch emical Formula: C 18 

# H 15 

# Cl 2 

# F 2 

# N 3 

# O

PC Code: 122305

CAS Number: 1072957

- 71

- 1

P repared by:

Gabe Rothman, Environmental Scientist

Geoffrey Sinclair, Ph.D., Biologist

Reviewed by:

José L. Meléndez , Chemist

Justin Housenger

, Biologist

Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Bran ch Chief, ERB5 United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch V

1200 Pennsylvania Ave.

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, D.C. 20460

### 4 

# Contents

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ............................. 5

2. Use Characterization (Revised)

................................ ................................ ............ 7

3. Exposure Characterization (R evised)

................................ ................................ ... 9

3.1 Aquatic Exposure Estimation (Revised)

................................ ................... 9

3.2 Terrestrial Exposure Estimation (Revised)

................................ ............... 9

4. Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ......................... 17

4.1 Risk Estimation (Revised)

................................ ................................ ...... 18

4.1.1 Non

- Target Aquatic Organisms

................................ .............................. 18

4.1.2 Non

- Target Terrestrial Organisms

................................ .......................... 23

4.2 Risk Description

................................ ................................ ..................... 28

4.2.1 Non

- Target Aquatic Organisms

................................ .............................. 28

4.2.2 Non

- Target Terrestrial Organisms

................................ .......................... 29

5. CONCLUSIONS

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

### 5



# 1. E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY

This document provides an addendum to the previous Section 3 New Chemical ecological risk

assessment for the new fungicide benzovindiflupyr for proposed uses on a wide variety of crops

(DP Barcode Nos. 408819+, dated June 30, 2 015) to evaluate mitigation measures proposed by

the registrant addressing the risks identified in aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Refer to

Section 2 and Attachment 1 of this addendum for further details on the proposed mitigation

measures. Parts of t his addendum document supersedes this previous risk assessment (hereafter

the pre

- mitigation risk assessment) while other sections provide supplemental information. The

pre

- mitigation risk assessment should be referred to for information related the Fate

Characterization (Section 2.2) , Effects Characterization (Section 2.3) , Conceptual M odel

(Section 2.4) , and Analysis Plan (Section 2.5) for benzovindiflupyr as these section still remain

applicable to the risk assessment. However, revisions and updated in formation on the Use

Characterization ( Section 2 below ) , Exposure Characterization ( Section 3 below ) , Risk

Estimation and Characterization for terrestrial a nd aquatic org anisms ( Section 4 below ), and

Conclusions ( Section 5 below ) are provided in this adden dum addressing the mitigation

measures proposed by the registrant

. Revised tables presenting updated results and conclusion

summaries accounting for the proposed mitigation measures are provided in this addendum, and

the order of tables are preserved from the pre

- mitigation risk assessment. The impact of the risk

conclusions resulting from the proposed mitigation measures are described below. Refer to

Section 5 of this document for a comprehensive discussion on the risk conclusions resulting

from the pro posed mitigation. Risk conclusions are broken down by use for aquatic and

terrestrial tax in Table 26 and Table 27 of this addendum.

For aquatic organisms, the proposed mitigation resolves some of the acute listed, acute non

listed, and chronic LOC excee dances for some of the uses, or all risks with certain aquatic taxa in

its entirety for other uses. However, there are still broad risks of concern indicated for

freshwater fish, estuarine/marine fish, freshwater invertebrates (water column), and

estuarin e/marine invertebrates (water column and pore water) accounting for the proposed

mitigation measure s . As stated in the pre

- mitigation risk assessment, both acute and chronic

exposure in aquatic environments is driven by the buildup of benzovindiflupyr in a quatic water

bodies occurring predominately due to runoff from treated fields 1 

### . While reductions in

benzovindiflupyr loading in water bodies due to proposed spray drift buffers (see Section 2 of

this addendum ) are considered in this risk assessment addend um, the spray drift mitigation does

not contribute to substantial reductions in exposure for many of the proposed uses which are

anticipated to occur in regions where runoff is substantial. Furthermore, while vegetative buffer

strips are also being propos ed by the registrant as a mitigation measure (see Section 2 of this

addendum ) , their impacts are not evaluated in the risk assessment addendum given the large

uncertainties which exist related to current maintenance practices of vegetative buffer strips.

Potential weathering with poorly maintained vegetative buffer strips may largely diminish the

1 Please refer to Section 6 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment (Aquatic Exposure Assessment subsection) for the

discussion and uncertainties on the persisten ce of benzovindiflupyr in mesocosm

- type aquatic environments based

on registrant

- submitted studies.

### 6

effectiveness for vegetative buffer strips to reduce benzovindiflupyr exposure resulting from

runoff in aquatic environments.

For terrestrial organisms, the pr oposed mitigation resolves some of the acute listed and chronic

LOC exceedances for some of the uses . However, there are also still broad risks of concern

indicated for mammals and birds accounting for the proposed mitigation measure s

. As stated in

the p re

- mitigation risk assessment, t he acute risks identified to birds via exposure to

benzovindiflupyr residues in food items are driven by conservative endpoints developed in

response to uncertainties associated with regurgitation issues in the passerine ora l toxicity study.

Acute and chronic di etary risks to mammals to benzo vindiflupyr residues in food items are

indicated with exposure estimates based on steady dosage of benzovindiflupyr. Such a scenario

is most representative of foraging mammals which may be susceptible repeat exposure from

contaminated food items within treated fields. For terrestrial invertebrates and beneficial insects,

there are still uncertainties which exist with acute oral and chronic exposures mainly due to data

gaps. Refer to Se ction 6 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment for a further description.

G iven the overall concern expressed for benzovindiflupyr’s tendency to bui l dup in aquatic

environments, a targeted monitoring study in water bodies nearby high benzovindiflupyr

usage areas is recommended to verify the exposure findings in this risk assessment.

Furthermore, acute oral and chronic honeybee toxicity studies are being requested to address

uncertainties identified for terrestrial invertebrates ( refer to Section 6 of the p re

- mitigation risk

assessment for further information ). All of these studies will be used to further evaluate

benzovindiflupyr in future ecological risk assessments.

### 7



# 2. U SE 

# C HARACTERIZATION 

# (R EVISED 

# )

T his section supersedes Section 2.1 of the pre

- mitiga tion risk assessment

. T he revised use

information for proposed benzovindiflupyr application methods are shown below in Table 1

. Table 1 only shows the post

- mitigation use information for benzovindiflupyr proposed by the

registrant.

Table 1 (Revised)

. Summary of proposed use information for benzovindiflupyr emulsifiable

concentrate and water dispersible granules including proposed mitigation measures

.

CROP USE MAX. SINGLE

APP. RATE

(lbs. a.i./A) MAX. NUMBER OF APPS.

and MIN. RETREATMENT

INTERVAL SEASO NAL

APP. RATE

(lbs. a.i./A) 3 APPLICATION

METHOD 1

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegetables

0.068 4 apps.,

7 days apart (first interval)

then 14 days apart 0.272 Foliar Spray

(G) Cucurbits

Grapes

0.068 3 apps.,

14 days apart 0.204 Foliar Spray

(G)

Peanuts Foliar Spray

(G, A)

Cotton

0.068 2 apps.,

14 days apart 0.136 Foliar Spray

(G, A)

Sweet Corn Foliar Spray

(G)

Legumes 0.0 56 2 apps.,

14 days apart 0.112 Foliar Spray

(G, A)

Pome Fruit

0.046 4 apps.,

7 days apart (first interval)

then 14 days apart 0.184 Foliar Spray

(G, A)

Corn

(Other than Sweet)

0.0 46 2 apps.,

14 days apart 0.092 Foliar Spray

(G, A) Cereal

(Oats, Barley, and Wheat)

Soybeans 0.046 2 apps.,

14 days apart 0.092 Foliar Spray

(G, A)

Tubers (Potatoes)

0. 089 1 app. 0.0 89 Soil applied/

in furrow

(Pre

- Plant)

Nursery Plants, Tomato

Transplant, Fruit

Transplant, Cucurbit

Transplant 0.089 3 apps.,

7 days apart 0.267 Foliar Spray

(G, A)

Turf Grass 0. 068 4 apps.,

14 days apart 0.272

Blueberries 0.0 68 1 app. 0.068 Foli ar Spray

(G, A)

### 8

Table 1 (Revised)

. Summary of proposed use information for benzovindiflupyr emulsifiable

concentrate and water dispersible granules including proposed mitigation measures

.

CROP USE MAX. SINGLE

APP. RATE

(lbs. a.i./A) MAX. NUMBER OF APPS.

and MIN. RETREATMENT

INTERVAL SEASO NAL

APP. RATE

(lbs. a.i./A) 3 APPLICATION

METHOD 1

Canola 0.046 1 app. 0.068 Foliar Spray

(G, A)

1 Foliar spray method identifiers: G = Ground spray; A = Aerial Spray

2 Seasonal application rate assumed to be equivalent to a yearly application rate. Further label clarification needed

fo r all crops. Refer to pre

- mitigation risk assessment where this uncertainty was previously identified.



### Details on the comparison of changes of the use information for each crop use with the original

benzovindiflupyr labels provided by the registrant can be referenced in the table provided in

Attachment 1 in this document. A summary of the proposed changes from the original labels

submitted by the registrant are described below:

1. Reduced maximum application rates per treatment:

Canola, cereal crops, corn (other than sweet), legumes, and soybeans

2. Restricted to single application per season:

Potatoes and blueberries

3. Reduced number of applications per season allowed :

S weet corn, grapes, cotton, and peanuts

4. Removed aerial spray applications :

Potatoes, swe et corn, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, cotton, and grapes

5. Restricted to in

- furrow soil application only (removed aerial and ground spray applications):

Potatoes

6. Increased re

- treatment interval by one week for all re

- treatments:

Corn (other than sweet), cotton, and grapes

7. Increased re

- treatment interval by one week after the second re

- treatment :

Sweet corn, cucurbits, fruiting vegetables, and pome fruits

8. Added 150

- feet aerial spray buffer:

Corn (other than sweet) , ornamentals, peanuts, turf, grape, soybe ans, wheat, canola, and pome

fruits

9. Added 15

- feet vegetative buffer strip:

All crops

10. No mitigation proposed for proposed turf and ornamental uses despite risk above the LOCs

for aquatic and terrestrial organisms

.

### 9



# 3. E XPOSURE 

# C HARACTERIZATION 

# (R EVISED 

# )

3.1 Aquatic Exposure Estimation (Revised)

This section supersedes Section 3.1.1 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment

. SWCC inputs

related to benzovindiflupyr’s physical chemical and fate properties are unchanged in this

assessment addendum, and therefore T able 7 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment are still

applicable

. However, given the mitigation proposed by the registrant presented in Section 2 of

this document and Attachment 1 of th is document

, cro p use specific input parameters in the

SWCC are upd ated and aquatic estimated exposure concentrations (EECs) are revised in this

addendum for each crop use

. Refer to Table 8 of this addendum for crop use specific inputs for

the revised SWCC runs. R evised aquatic EECs are shown in Table 9 of this addendum

. The

updated sample SWCC model run from the Florida Tomatoes scenario (surrogate for Fruit and

Vegetables proposed use) is shown in Appendix C in this document

.



## 3.2 Terrestrial Exposure Estimation (Revised)

This section supersedes S ection 3.1.2 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment

. Given the scope

of the proposed mitigation presented in Section 2 of this document and Attachment 1 of this

document

, crop use specific input parameters for the TREX model are also updated and EECs

for dietary exposure are revi sed. Furthermore, the change in aquatic EECs discussed in Section

3.1 above and presented in Table 9 below impacts EECs related to dietary exposure for

piscivorous birds ingesting fish exposed to benzovindiflupyr residues in water. Details of the

related revisions in this addendum are provided below.

 Wildlife Dietary Exposure Estimation

The TREX model inputs and an example run are shown in Appendix A of th e pre

- mitigation

document

. T he estimated environmental dose

- based concentrations (EECs) for the th ree weight

classes of birds and mammals, respectively are revised in Table 10 and Table 11 in this

addendum and reflect the changes in the prop o sed mitigation documented in Attachment 1

of this document

. D ietary

- based concentrations (EECs) for both birds and mammals are revised

in Table 12 in this addendum.

 Terrestrial Plant Exposure Estimation

No r isks were identified with te rrestrial plants in the pre

- mitigation risk assessment. Therefore,

the terrestrial pla nt exposure estimation analysis is not re

- presented in this addendum since

further reductions in loading associated with the proposed mitigation for benzovindiflupyr would

result in the same conclusions.

### 10

Table 8 (Revised) . SWCC crop scenario and application methods input parameter values fo r benzovindiflupyr aquatic

exposure estimation.

Crop Use SWCC Application Method and Crop Scenario Input Parameters

Representative

Vulnerable SWCC

Sc e nario and

Weather Station 1 Application

Rate

(kg a.i. /ha) 2 Number of Applications

and Retreatment

Interv al 2 First

Application

Date 3 Application

Methods Application

Efficiency 6 Spray Drift

Fraction 7

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegetables FL Tomato

12844.dvf

(West Palm Beach, FL) 0.076 4 apps.,

7 days apart (first interval)

then 14 days apart (all

following interv als) May 1

Foliar

–

Ground 4 0.99 0.062 Cucurbits FL Cucumbers

12844.dvf

(West Palm Beach, FL) Oct. 25

Grapes NY Grape

14860.dvf

(Erie, PA) 0.076 3 apps.,

14 days apart Sept. 15 Foliar

-

Ground 4

0.99 0.062 Peanuts NC Peanuts

13722.dvf

(Raleigh, NC) Aug. 1 Foliar

–

Ground 5

Cotton MS Cotton

03940.dvf

(Jackson, MS)

0.076 2 apps.,

14 days apart May 15 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

Sweet Corn MS Corn

03940.dvf

(Jackson, MS) Apr. 10 Foliar

-

Ground 4 0.99 0.062

Soybeans and

Legumes MS Soybean

03940. dvf

(Jackson, MS) 0.06 3 2 apps.,

14 days apart May 15 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

Pome Fruit CA Fruit

93193.dvf

(Fresno, CA) 0.050 4 apps.,

7 days apart (first interval)

then 14 days apart (all

following intervals) Feb. 10 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

Corn (Other than

Sweet) MS Corn

03940.dvf

(Jackson, MS) 0.050 2 apps.,

14 days apart Apr. 10 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

### 11

Table 8 (Revised) . SWCC crop scenario and application methods input parameter values fo r benzovindiflupyr aquatic

exposure estimation.

Crop Use SWCC Application Method and Crop Scenario Input Parameters

Representative

Vulnerable SWCC

Sc e nario and

Weather Station 1 Application

Rate

(kg a.i. /ha) 2 Number of Applications

and Retreatment

Interv al 2 First

Application

Date 3 Application

Methods Application

Efficiency 6 Spray Drift

Fraction 7

Cereal (Oats, Barley,

and Wheat) ND Wheat

14914.dvf

(Fargo, ND) 0.050 2 apps.,

14 days apart Jun. 20 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

Tubers (Potatoes) ME Potato

14607.dvf

(Caribou, ME) 0.1 1 app. Aug. 15 Soil applied/

in furrow 4 1.0 0

Nursery Plants,

Tomato Transplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cucurbit Transplant NJ Nursery

93730.dvf

(Atlantic City, NJ)

0.1 3 apps.,

7 days a part Aug. 5

Foliar

-

Ground 4 0.99 0.062

Turf Grass FL Turf

12834.dvf

(Daytona Beach, FL) 4 apps.,

14 days apart Oct. 5

Blueberries NY Grape

14860.dvf

(Erie, PA) 0.076 1 app. Sept. 15 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

Canola ND Canola

24013.dvf

(Minot, N D) 0.050 1 app. Aug. 15 Foliar

–

Ground 5 0.99 0.062

1 Selected crop scenarios possessing most vulnerable environmental conditions for all benzovindiflupyr uses. Refer to Table 1 for information on

maximum application rates specified on the label for propos ed uses which was partially considered to select crop scenarios.

2 Maximum single application rate specified on product labels ( Table 1 ).

3 Selected based on maximum rainfall climatological date at meteorological station after crop emergence date specified in PRZM crop scenario based on

expected pest pressure

. 4 Only application method specified on product labels

. 5 The most conservative application method evaluated based on crop uses specified on product labels . This determination accounts for consideration of

pr oposed 150 feet spray buffer zone for aerial applications which reduces the spray drift deposition fraction to 0.0385 accordi ng to Tier I AgDrift estimate.

Therefore, ground applications without spray buffer zone is the most conservative application metho d.

6 EFE D input parameter guidance for ground spray applications

. 7 Spray drift fraction for ground spray applications from Table 2 of EPA, 2013, “Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides via Spray Drift”.

### 12

Table 9 (Revised) . SWCC estimated u pper bound concentrations in the surface

water column, pore water, and sediment (ppb) for benzovindiflupyr applications 1 , 2



### at the highest application rate for proposed crop uses.

Crop Use

(SWCC Scenario, App.

Rate, Number of Apps.,

App. Interval) Pore Water EECs

(μg/L) 3 Sediment EECs

(μg/Kg dry wt.) 3 Surface Water Column EECs

(μg/L) 3

Peak 21

- day 60

- day Peak 21

- day Peak 21

- day

Sweet Corn

(MS Corn,

0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps.

14 days apart) 4.12 3.37 3.23 3.07 3.06 550 548

Corn

(Other th an Sweet)

(MS Corn,

0.046 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps.

14 days apart) 2.71 2.22 2.12 2.02 2.02 362 362

Cucurbits

(FL Cucumber, 0.068

lbs. a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days

apart first interval then

14 days apart next

intervals ) 4.78 4.07 3.87 3.47 3.47 623 623

Grapes

(NY Grape , 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 14 days

apart) 4.08 3.64 3.45 3.32 3.32 594 594

Nursery Crops

(NJ Nursery , 0.0 89 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 7 days

apart) 3.83 3.24 3.01 2.85 2.85 510 510

Peanuts

(NC Pea nuts , , 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 14 days

apart) 2.88 2.42 2.29 2.17 2.16 388 387

Tubers (Potatoes)

(ME Potatoes, 0.0 89 lbs.

a.i./A, 1 app

. ) 3.06 2.70 2.58 2.51 2.50 449 447

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegetables

(FL Tom atoes, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days

apart first interval then

14 days apart next

intervals ) 5.35 4.38 4.02 3.64 3.63 652 650

Turf Grass

(FL Turf, 0.089 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 14 days

apart) 1.51 1.16 1.10 0.96 0.96 172 171

### 13

Table 9 (Revised) . SWCC estimated u pper bound concentrations in the surface

water column, pore water, and sediment (ppb) for benzovindiflupyr applications 1 , 2



### at the highest application rate for proposed crop uses.

Crop Use

(SWCC Scenario, App.

Rate, Number of Apps.,

App. Interval) Pore Water EECs

(μg/L) 3 Sediment EECs

(μg/Kg dry wt.) 3 Surface Water Column EECs

(μg/L) 3

Peak 21

- day 60

- day Peak 21

- day Peak 21

- day

Cotton

(MS Cotton, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 2 apps. 14 days

apart) 3.36 2.83 2.69 2.47 2.47 442 442

Blueberries

(NY Grape, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 1 app.) 1.55 1.33 1.26 1.22 1.22 218 218

Soybeans and Legumes

(MS Soybeans, 0.056

lbs. a.i./A , 2 apps . 14

days apart) 2.06 1.74 1.61 1.50 1.50 269 269

Cereal Crops

(ND Wheat, 0.046 lbs.

a.i./A, 2 apps. 14 days

apart) 1.47 1.32 1.27 1.20 1.20 215 215

Canola

(ND Canola, 0.046 lbs.

a.i./A, 1 app.) 0.63 0.5 2 0.48 0.44 0.44 79 79

Pome fruit

(CA Fruit, 0.046 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days

apart first interval then

14 days apart next

intervals ) 0.699 0.597 0.56 0.493 0.492 88 88

* Bold text indicate maximum values.

1 For all uses except for potatoes, g round spray application method evaluated as the most conservative application

method evaluated based on crop uses specified on product labels . This determination accounts for consideration of

proposed 150 feet spray buffer zone for aerial applications wh ich reduces the spray drift deposition fraction to

0.0385 according to Tier I AgDrift estimate.

2 For potato use, soil application method evaluated as specified on product labels.

3 EECs are one

- in

- ten year return frequency values

.

### 14

Table 10 (Revise d) . Terrestrial food item residue estimates for birds with proposed crop uses of benzovindiflupyr

(environmental dose mg/kg

- bw).

Crop Use 20 g ram "Small" Bird 100 gram "Medium" Bird 1000 gram "Large" Bird

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants

Fruits /pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds

Blueberries 18.6 8.5 10.5 1.2 7.3 0.3 10.6 4.9 6.0 0.7 4.2 0.1 4.7 2.2 2.7 0.3 1.9 0.1

Canola 12.6 5.8 7.1 0.8 4.9 0.2 7.2 3.3 4.0 0.4 2.8 0.1 3.2 1.5 1.8 0.2 1.3 0.0

Cereal 17.7 8.1 10.0 1.1 6.9 0.2 10.1 4.6 5.7 0.6 4.0 0.1 4.5 2.1 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.1

Corn , Other 17.7 8.1 10.0 1.1 6.9 0.2 10.1 4.6 5.7 0.6 4.0 0.1 4.5 2.1 2.5 0.3 1.8 0.1

Corn, swee t 26.2 12.0 14.7 1.6 10.3 0.4 15.0 6.9 8.4 0.9 5.9 0.2 6.7 3.1 3.8 0.4 2.6 0.1

Cotton 26.2 12.0 14.7 1.6 10.3 0.4 15.0 6.9 8.4 0.9 5.9 0.2 6.7 3.1 3.8 0.4 2.6 0.1

Cucurbits 31.4 14.4 17.6 2.0 12.3 0.4 17.9 8.2 10.1 1.1 7.0 0.2 8.0 3.7 4.5 0.5 3.1 0.1

Fr uiting Vegetables 31.4 14.4 17.6 2.0 12.3 0.4 17.9 8.2 10.1 1.1 7.0 0.2 8.0 3.7 4.5 0.5 3.1 0.1

Grapes, Peanuts 29.4 13.5 16.5 1.8 11.5 0.4 16.7 7.7 9.4 1.0 6.6 0.2 7.5 3.4 4.2 0.5 2.9 0.1

Soybeans and

Legumes 21.6 9.9 12.1 1.3 8.5 0.3 12.3 5.6 6.9 0.8 4 .8 0.2 5.5 2.5 3.1 0.3 2.2 0.1

Peanuts 30.7 14.1 17.3 1.9 12.0 0.4 17.5 8.0 9.9 1.1 6.9 0.2 7.8 3.6 4.4 0.5 3.1 0.1

Pome 21.2 9.7 11.9 1.3 8.3 0.3 12.1 5.5 6.8 0.8 4.7 0.2 5.4 2.5 3.0 0.3 2.1 0.1

Nursery Plants,

Tomato Transplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cu c u r bit Transplant 4 9.3 22.6 27.8 3.1 19.3 0.7 28.1 12.9 15.8 1.8 11 0.4 12.6 5.8 7.1 0.8 4.9 0.2

Turf grasses 38 17.4 21.4 2.4 14.9 0.5 21.7 9.9 12.2 1.4 8.5 0.3 9.7 4.4 5.5 0.6 3.8 0.1

Potatoes 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1 Calculation on LD 50 per square foot basis with pre

- plant soil application

.

Table 11 (Revised) . Terrestrial food item residue estimates for mammals with proposed crop uses of benzovindiflupyr

(environmental dose mg/kg

- bw).

Crop Use 15 g ram "Small" Mammal 35 gram "Medium" Mammal 1000 gram "Large" Mammal

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/p ods Arthropods Seeds

Blueberries 15.6 7.1 8.8 1.0 6.1 0.2 10.8 4.9 6.0 0.7 4.2 0.1 2.5 1.1 1.4 0.2 1.0 0.0

Canola 10.5 4.8 5.9 0.7 4.1 0.1 7.3 3.3 4.1 0.5 2.8 0.1 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.0

Cereal 14.8 6.8 8.4 0.9 5.8 0.2 10.3 4.7 5.8 0.6 4.0 0.1 2.4 1.1 1 .3 0.1 0.9 0.0

Corn 14.8 6.8 8.4 0.9 5.8 0.2 10.3 4.7 5.8 0.6 4.0 0.1 2.4 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.9 0.0

Corn, sweet 21.9 10.1 12.3 1.4 8.6 0.3 15.2 7.0 8.5 0.9 5.9 0.2 3.5 1.6 2.0 0.2 1.4 0.0

Cotton 21.9 10.1 12.3 1.4 8.6 0.3 15.2 7.0 8.5 0.9 5.9 0.2 3.5 1.6 2.0 0.2 1.4 0.0

### 15

Table 11 (Revised) . Terrestrial food item residue estimates for mammals with proposed crop uses of benzovindiflupyr

(environmental dose mg/kg

- bw).

Crop Use 15 g ram "Small" Mammal 35 gram "Medium" Mammal 1000 gram "Large" Mammal

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/p ods Arthropods Seeds

Cucurbits 26.3 12.0 14.8 1.6 10.3 0.4 18.1 8.3 10.2 1.1 7.1 0.3 4.2 1.9 2.4 0.3 1.6 0.1

Fruiting Vegetables 26.3 12.0 14.8 1.6 10.3 0.4 18.1 8.3 10.2 1.1 7.1 0.3 4.2 1.9 2.4 0.3 1.6 0.1

Grapes, Peanuts 24.6 11.3 13.8 1.5 9.6 0.3 17.0 7.8 9.6 1.1 6.7 0.2 3.9 1.8 2.2 0.2 1.5 0.1

Soybeans and

Legumes 18.1 8.3 10.2 1.1 7.1 0.3 12.5 5.7 7.0 0.8 4.9 0.2 2.9 1.3 1.6 0.2 1.1 0.0

Peanuts 25.7 11.8 14.5 1.6 10.1 0.4 17.8 8.1 10.0 1.1 7.0 0.2 4.1 1.9 2.3 0.3 1.6 0.1

Pome 17.8 8.1 10.0 1.1 7.0 0.2 12. 3 5.6 6.9 0.8 4.8 0.2 2.8 1.3 1.6 0.2 1.1 0.0

Nursery Plants,

Tomato T ransplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cu cu r bit Transplant 41.3 18.9 23.2 2.6 16.2 0.6 28.5 13.1 16.1 1.8 11.2 0.4 6.6 3 3.7 0.4 2.6 0. 1

Turf grasses 31.8 14.6 17.9 2 12.5 0.4 22 10.1 12.4 1. 4 8.6 0.3 5.1 2.3 2.9 0.3 2 0. 1

Potatoes 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1 Calculation on LD 50 per square foot basis for pre

- plant soil application

.

Table 12 (Revised) . Terrestrial food item residue estimates for birds and mammals with

proposed crop uses of benzovindiflupyr (dietary concentration ppm).

Crop Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods

Blueberries 16.3 7.5 9.2 1.0 6.4

Canola 11.0 5.1 6.2 0.7 4.3

Cereal 15.6 7.1 8.8 1.0 6.1

Corn 15.6 7.1 8.8 1.0 6.1

Corn, sweet 23.0 10.6 12.9 1.4 9.0

Cotton 23.0 10.6 12.9 1.4 9.0

Cucurbits 27.5 12.6 15.5 1.7 10.8

Fruiting Vegetables 27.5 12.6 15.5 1.7 10.8

Grapes, Peanuts 25.8 11.8 14.5 1.6 10.1

### 16 Table 12 (Revised) . Terrestrial food item residue estimates for birds and mammals with

proposed crop uses of benzovindiflupyr (dietary concentration ppm).

Crop Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods

Soybeans and Legumes 19.0 8.7 10.7 1.2 7 .4

Peanuts 27.0 12.4 15.2 1.7 10.6

Pome 18.6 8.5 10.5 1.2 7.3

Nursery Plants, Tomato Transplant, Fruit Transplant,

Curcubit Transplant 43.3 19.9 24.4 2.7 17.0

Turf grasses 33.4 15.3 18.8 2.1 13.1

Potatoes 1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

1 Calculation on LD 50 pe r square foot basis for pre

- plant soil application.



###  Terrestrial Organism Exposure to Residues in Aquatic Food Items

The revised i nput parameters and EECs for various food sources with KABAM modeling are

presented in Table 14 and Table 15 below, respectiv ely

. The example output from KABAM is

provided in Appendix B of the pre

- mitigation assessment

.

Table 14 (Revised) . Benzovindiflupyr input parameter values for KABAM.

Parameter Input Value Source

Pesticide Name Benzovindiflupyr

Log K OW 4.3 MRID 48 604402

K OC 4,478 L/kg OC MRIDs 48604505

Crop Uses

(SWCC Scenario 1 ) Acute Concentration

in sediment pore

water

(ppb) 1 Acute Concentration

in water column

(ppb) 1

Sweet Corn (MS Corn) 3.37 3.06

Other Corn (MS Corn) 2.22 2.02

Curcurbits (FL Cucum

ber) 4.07 3.47

Grape (NY Grape) 3.64 3.32

Ornamental (NJ Nursery) 3.24 2.85

Peanuts (NC Peanuts) 2.42 2.16

Potatoes (ME Potatoes) 2.70 2.50

Fruit (FL Tomatoes) 4.38 3.63

Turf (FL Turf) 1.16 0.96

Cotton (MS Cotton) 2.83 2.47

### 17 Table 14 (Revised) . Benzovindiflupyr input parameter values for KABAM.

Parameter Input Value Source

Blueberries (NY Grape) 1 .33 1.22

Soybeans and Legumes (MS Soybeans) 1.74 1.50

Cereal Crops (ND Wheat) 1.32 1.20

Canola (ND Canola) 0.52 0.44

Pome Fruit (CA Fruit) 0.597 0.492

1 Initial water concentration from SWCC peak EECs also shown in Table 9

.

Table 15 (Revised) . Pred icted Acute Concentrations of B enzovindiflupyr in Aquatic Organism Tissues at

Different Trophic Levels (  g/kg).



### Crop Uses Phytoplankton Zooplankton Benthic

Invertebrates Filter

Feeders Small

Fish Medium

Fish Large

Fish

Sweet Corn 2842 2102 2325 1529 3076 3194 3395

Other Corn 1876 1388 1535 1009 2031 2108 2241

Curcurbits 3223 2384 2646 1740 3501 3635 3852

Grape 3083 2281 2522 1659 3337 3464 3684

Ornamental 2647 1958 2170 1427 2870 2980 3163

Peanuts 2006 1484 1643 1080 2174 2257 2397

Potatoes 2322 1717 1898 1248 2511 2606 2774

Fruit 3371 2494 2773 1824 3668 3808 4031

Turf 892 660 733 482 970 1007 1066

Cotton 2294 1697 1881 1237 2489 2584 2742

Blueberries 1133 838 927 609 1226 1273 1354

Soybeans and

Legumes 1393 1030 1143 752 1512 1570 1665

Cereal Crops 1114 824 912 600 1206 1252 1332

Canola 409 302 336 221 444 461 489

Pome Fruit 4 57 338 376 247 497 516 546



# 4. R ISK 

# C HARACTERIZATION

This addendum document provides r evised risk estimates and risk quotients (RQs) for aquatic

and terrestrial organisms associated with mitigation measures proposed by t he registrant since

the pre

- mitigatio n risk assessment. Furthermore, a risk description discussing changes in risk

conclusions and related impacts on aquatic and terrestrial organisms is also provided below. An

overview of the risk quotient results and risk conclusions and changes due to re visions in the risk

estimation for ea ch aquatic and terrestrial taxa are provided in Section 5 of this document.

### 18



## 4.1 Risk Estimation (Revised)

4.1.1 Non

- Target Aquatic Organ i s ms

This section supersedes Section 3.2.1 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment.

 Fish (A cute and Chronic)

Table 16 below provides the revised acute and chronic RQs for freshwater and estuarine/marine

fish in the water column

.

Table 16 (Revised) . RQs for freshwa ter and estuarine/marine fish for the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr

. 1,2

F reshwater Fish Es t uarine / Marine Fish

Crop Use

(SWCC Scenario, App.

Rate, Number of Apps.,

App. Interval) Acute RQ Chronic RQ Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Sweet Corn

(MS Corn,

0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps. 14

days apart) 1.14 4.4 0.15 0.6

Corn

(Other th an Sweet)

(MS Corn,

0.046 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps. 14

days apart) 0.75 2.9 0.10 0.4

Cucurbits

(FL Cucumber, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart

first interval then 14 days

apart next intervals ) 1.33 5.3 0.17 0.7

Grapes

(NY Grape , 0.0 68 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 14 days

apart) 1.13 4.7 0.15 0.6

Nursery Crops

(NJ Nursery , 0.0 89 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 7 days apart) 1.06 4.1 0.14 0.5

Peanuts

(NC Peanuts , , 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 14 days

apart) 0.80 3.1 0.10 0.4

Tubers (Potatoes)

(ME Potatoes, 0.0 89 lbs.

a.i./A, 1 app

. ) 0.85 3.5 0.11 0.5

### 19

Table 16 (Revised) . RQs for freshwa ter and estuarine/marine fish for the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr

. 1,2

F reshwater Fish Es t uarine / Marine Fish

Crop Use

(SWCC Scenario, App.

Rate, Number of Apps.,

App. Interval) Acute RQ Chronic RQ Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegetables

(FL Tomatoes, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart

first interval then 14 days

apart next in tervals ) 1.49 5.5 0.19 0.7

Turf Grass

(FL Turf, 0.089 lbs. a.i./A,

4 apps. 14 days apart) 0.42 1.5 0.05 0.2

Cotton

(MS Cotton, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 2 apps. 14 days

apart) 0.93 3.7 0.12 0.5

Blueberries

(NY Grape, 0.068 lbs

. a.i./A, 1 app.) 0.43 1.7 0.06 0.2

Soybeans and Legumes

(MS Soybeans, 0.056 lbs.

a.i./A , 2 apps. 14 days

apart) 0.57 2.2 0.07 0.3

Cereal Crops

(ND Wheat, 0.046 lbs.

a.i./A, 2 apps. 14 days

apart) 0.41 1.7 0.05 0.2

Cano la

(ND Canola, 0.046 lbs.

a.i./A, 1 app.) 0.18 0.7 0.02 0.1

Pome fruit

(CA Fruit, 0.046 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart

first interval then 14 days

apart next intervals ) 0.19 0.8 0.02 0.1

* Acute Listed Species LOC = 0.05; No n

- listed species LOC 0.5; Chronic LOC = 1.0

.

** Bolded values indicate LOC exceedance

. 1 Please refer to Table 9 for the acute (peak) and chronic (60

- day average) SWCC water column EECs for

each crop use utilized in RQs.

2 Most sensitive endpoints for benzo vindiflupyr utilized in RQs :

Acute Freshwater Fish: Carp LC 50 = 3.6  g a.i./L (MRID No. 48604562)

Chronic Freshwater Fish: Carp ACR NOAEC = 0. 73  g a.i./ L based on Fathead minnow data.

Utilizing the Carp ACR rather than the fathead minnow chronic data of 0.95  g a.i./L (MRID No.

486045 20 ) increased the freshwater chronic RQs by 33 percent.

Acute Estuarine/Marine Fish: Sheepshead Minnow EC 50 = 28  g a.i./L ( MRID No. 48604534 )

Chronic Estuarine/Marine Fish: Sheepshead Minnow NOAEC = 5.66  g a.i./L ( A cute to Chronic

Ratio using values from Fathead minnow )

### 20

 Aquatic Invertebrates

- Water Column (Acute and Chronic)

Table 1 7 below provides the revised acute and chronic RQs for fres hwater and estuarine/marine

invertebrates in the water column.

T able 17 (Revised) . RQs for freshwater and estuarine/marine aquatic invertebrates

in the water column for the proposed uses of benzovindiflupyr. 1,2

Freshwater Invertebrates Estuarine / Marine Invertebrates

Crop Use

(SWCC Scenario, App. Rate,

Number of Ap ps., App.

Interval) Acute RQ Chronic RQ Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Sweet Corn

(MS Corn,

0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps. 14

days apart) 0.05 0.6 0.09 0.4

Corn

(MS Corn,

0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 4 apps. 7

days apart) 0.03 0.4 0.06 0.3

Cucurbits

(FL Cucum ber, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart) 0.06 0.7 0.10 0.5

Grapes

(NY Grape, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A,

4 apps. 7 days apart) 0.05 0.6 0.09 0.5

Nursery Crops

(NJ Nursery , 0.088 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 7 days apart) 0.05 0.5 0.08 0.4

Peanuts

(NC Peanuts, , 0.089 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 7 days apart) 0.03 0.4 0.06 0.3

Tubers (Potatoes)

(ME Potatoes, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart) 0.04 0.5 0.07 0.3

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegetables

(FL Tomatoes, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart) 0.06 0.7 0.11 0.5

Turf Grass

(FL Turf, 0.088 lbs. a.i./A, 3

apps. 14 days apart) 0.02 0.2 0.03 0.1

Cotton

(MS Cotton, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A,

3 apps. 7 days apa rt) 0.04 0.5 0.07 0.4

Blueberries

(NY Grape, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A,

2 apps. 10 days apart) 0.02 0.2 0.03 0.2

### 21

T able 17 (Revised) . RQs for freshwater and estuarine/marine aquatic invertebrates

in the water column for the proposed uses of benzovindiflupyr. 1,2

Freshwater Invertebrates Estuarine / Marine Invertebrates

Crop Use

(SWCC Scenario, App. Rate,

Number of Ap ps., App.

Interval) Acute RQ Chronic RQ Acute RQ Chronic RQ

Soybeans and Legumes

(MS Soybeans, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 2 apps. 7 days apart) 0.02 0.3 0.04 0.2

Cer eal Crops

(ND Wheat, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A,

2 apps. 14 days apart) 0.02 0.2 0.03 0.2

Canola

(ND Canola, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A,

1 app.) 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1

Pome fruit

(CA Fruit, 0.046 lbs. a.i./A, 4

apps. 7 days apart) 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1

* Acute Listed Species LOC = 0.05; Non

- listed species LOC 0.5; Chronic LOC = 1.0

.

** Bolded values indicate LOC exceedance

.

1 Please refer to Table 9 for the acute (peak) and chronic (60

- day average) SWCC water column EECs for each cro p

use utilized in RQs.

2 Most sensitive endpoints for benzovindiflupyr utilized in RQs :

Acute Freshwater Invertebrates : Water Flea LC 50 = 85  g a.i./L (MRID No. 48604522 )

Chronic Freshwater Invertebrates : Water Flea NOAEC = 5.6  g a.i./L (MRID No. 486045 23 )

Acute Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates : Eastern Oyster EC 50 = 47  g a.i./L ( MRID No. 48604535 )

Chronic Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates : Saltwater Mysid NOAEC = 7.4  g a.i./L ( MRID No.

48604536 )



###  Benthic Invertebrates ( Acute and Chronic)

Table 1 8 below provides the revised acute and chronic RQs for freshwater and estuarine/marine

fish in the water column.

Table 18 (Revised)

. RQs for benthic invertebrates for the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr. 1,2

Crop Use Chroni c Pore Water Chronic Sediment Acute Porewater

Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine (SWCC Scenario, App. Rate,

Number of Apps., App.

Interval)

Sweet Corn

(MS Corn,

0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps. 14

d ays apart) <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.07

### 22

Table 18 (Revised)

. RQs for benthic invertebrates for the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr. 1,2

Crop Use Chroni c Pore Water Chronic Sediment Acute Porewater

Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine (SWCC Scenario, App. Rate,

Number of Apps., App.

Interval)

Corn

(Other than Sweet)

(MS Corn,

0.046 lbs. a.i./A, 2 apps. 14

days apart) <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.04

Cucurbits 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.04 0.07

(FL Cucumber, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days ap art

first interval then 14 days apart

next intervals)

Grapes <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.07

(NY Grape, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 3

apps. 14 days apart)

Nursery Crops <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.03 0 .06

(NJ Nursery , 0.089 lbs. a.i./A,

3 apps. 7 days apart)

Peanuts <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.03 0.05

(NC Peanuts, , 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 3 apps. 14 days apart)

Tubers (Potatoes) <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.03 0. 0 5

(ME Potatoes, 0.089 lbs.

a.i./A, 1 app.)

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegetables 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.08

(FL Tomatoes, 0.068 lbs.

a.i./A, 4 apps. 7 days apart

first interval then 14 days apart

next interva ls)

Turf Grass <0.1 <0.1 0. 2 0. 2 0.01 0.02

(FL Turf, 0.089 lbs. a.i./A, 4

apps. 14 days apart)

Cotton <0.1 <0.1 0.1 < 0.1 0.03 0.03

(MS Cotton, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A,

2 apps. 14 days apart)

Blueberries

<0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.03 (NY Grape, 0.068 lbs. a.i./A, 1

app.)

Soybeans and Legumes

<0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.03 (MS Soybeans, 0.056 lbs.

a.i./A, 2 apps. 14 days apart)

### 23

Table 18 (Revised)

. RQs for benthic invertebrates for the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr. 1,2

Crop Use Chroni c Pore Water Chronic Sediment Acute Porewater

Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine Freshwater Estuarine/

Marine (SWCC Scenario, App. Rate,

Number of Apps., App.

Interval)

Cereal Crops

<0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 (ND Wheat, 0.046 lbs. a.i./A,

2 apps. 14 days apart)

Canola

(ND Canola, 0.046 lbs. a.i./A,

1 app.) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01



### Pome fruit

(CA Frui t, 0.046 lbs. a.i./A, 4

apps. 7 days apart first interval

then 14 days apart next

intervals) <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.01 0.01

Chro nic LOC = 1.0 ; Acute risk listed species = 0.05;Acute non

- listed species LOC = 0.5.

B olded values indicate LOC exceedance

** Bolded values indicate LOC exceedance

.

1 Please refer to Table 9 for acute (peak) and chronic (21

- day average) SWCC pore water and sediment EECs for

each crop use utilized in RQs.

2 Most sensitive endpoints for benzovin diflupyr utilized in RQs :

Acute Freshwater Invertebrates (Pore Water):

Water Flea LC 50 = 85  g a.i./L (MRID No. 48604522) )

Acute Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (Pore Water):

Eastern Oyster EC 50 = 47  g a.i./L (MRID No. 48604535)

Chronic Freshwater Invertebrates (Pore Water) :

Freshwater Midge NOAEC = 69  g a.i./L (MRID No. 48604525 )

Chroni c Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (Pore Water):

Estuarine Amphipod NOAEC = 98  g a.i./L (MRID No. 48604583)

Chronic Freshwater Invertebrates (Sediment):

Freshwater Midge NOAEC = 2.8 mg/ kg dry wt. (MRID No. 48604525 )

Chronic Estuarine/Marine Inverteb rates (Sediment):

Freshwater Midge NOAEC = 4.1 mg /kg dry wt

. (MRID No. 48604583 )



###  Aquatic Plants

No exceedances with the levels of concern (LOCs) were identified wit h aquatic plants in the pr

mitigation risk assessment. Therefore, RQs for the terres trial pla nt exposure with

benzovindiflupyr is not re

- presented in this addendum since further reductions in loading

associated with the proposed mitigation wo uld result in the same conclusions.

4.1.2 Non

- Target Terrestrial Organisms

This section supersedes Sec tion 3.2.2 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment.

### 24

 Acute and Chronic Risk to Birds

Table 1 9 below provides the revised acute dose

- based RQs for birds for proposed use s of

benzovindiflupyr

. The chronic dietary

- based RQs for birds presented in Table 20 of the pr e

mitigation risk assessment indicates no exceedances in the LOCs . Therefore, Table 20 is not

re

- presented in this addendum since further reductions in loading associated with the proposed

mitigation would result in the same conclusions.

Table 19 (Revised) . Acute dose

- based RQs for birds due to exposure to proposed uses of benzovindiflupyr.

20 g ram "Small" Bird 100 gram "Medium" Bird 1000 gram "Large" Bird

Crop Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Gras s Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds

Blueberries 1.7 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 <0.1 0.3

<0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

<0.1 Canola 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.5 0. 2 0.3 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cereal 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Corn , Other 1.7 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.7 <0.1 0.7 0.3 0.4 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Corn, sweet 2.5 1.1 1.4 0.2 1.0 <0.1 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Cotton 2.5 1.1 1.4 0.2 1.0 <0.1 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Cucurbits 2.9 1.3 1.7 0.2 1.2 <0.1 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

Fruiting Vegetables 2.9 1.3 1.7 0.2 1.2 <0.1 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0. 2

Grapes, Peanuts 2.8 1.3 1.5 0.2 1.1 <0.1 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

Soybeans and

Legumes 2.0 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 <0.1 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Peanuts 2.9 1.3 1.6 0.2 1.1 <0.1 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

Pom e 2.0 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 <0.1 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Nursery Plants,

Tomato T ransplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cu cu r bit Transplant 4.6 2.1 2.6 0.3 1.8 0.1 2.1 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1

Turf grasses 3.6 1.6 2.0 0.2 1.4 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1

Potatoes 1 0.7 0.1 <0.1

** Bolded values indicate LOC exceedance greater than 1. As described in the pre

- mitigation assessment, the

LOC for birds was set at 1.0 due to usage of an endpoint that was not the LD50 per EFED g uidance

.

1 Calculation on LD 50 per square foot basis for pre

- plant soil application.



###  Acute and Chronic Risk to Mammals

Table 21 and Table 22 below provide the revised acute and chronic dose

- based RQs

, respectively, to mammals for all proposed use s of ben zovindiflupyr. The RQs presented in

Table 2 3 in the pr e

- mitigation assessment for the chronic dietary

- based RQs from the pre

mitigation assessment indicates no LOC exceedances. Therefore, Table 20 is not re

- presented in

### 25

this addendum since further reduct ions in loading associated with the proposed mitigation would

result in the same conclusions.

Table 21 (Revised)

. Acute dose

- based RQs for mammals due to exposure to proposed uses of benzovindiflupyr.

15 g ram "Small" Mammals 35 gram "Medium" Mammals 1 000 gram "Large" Mammals

Crop Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds

Blueberries 0. 1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

<0.1 <0.1

<0.1 Canola 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cereal 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Corn, Other 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Corn, sweet 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0. 1 <0.1 <0.1

Cotton 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cucurbits 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fruiting Vegetables 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Grapes, Peanuts 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Soybeans and

Legum es 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Peanuts 0.2 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Pome 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.0 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Nursery Plants,

Tomato T ransplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cu cu r bit Transplant 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Tu rf grasses 0.2 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0.1

Potatoes 1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Acute listed species LOC = 0.1;; Non

- listed animals acute LOC = 0.5

** Bolded values indicate LOC exceedance

.

1 Calculation on LD 50 per square foot basis for pre

- plant soil applicat ion.

### 26

Table 22 (Revised) . Chronic dose based RQs for mammals due to exposed to proposed uses of benzovindiflupyr.

15 gram "Small" Mammals 35 gram "Medium" Mammals 1000 gram "Large"Mammals

Crop Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants

F ruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf Plants Fruits/pods Arthropods Seeds

Blueberries 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3

< 0. 1 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3

<0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2

< 0. 1 Canola 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1

Cereal 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1

Corn, Other 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1

Corn, sweet 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0 .5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2

Cotton 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2

Cucurbits 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3

Fruiting Vegetables 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3

Grapes, Peanuts 1.4 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2

Soybeans and

Legumes 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2

Peanuts 1.4 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3

Pome 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2

Nursery Plants,

Tomato T ransplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cu cu r bit Transplant 2.3 1.1 1.3 0.1 0.9 2.0 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.4

Turf grasses 1.8 0.8 1.0 0.1 0.7 1.5 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.6 0. 8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3

Potatoes 1 N/A N/A N/A

Acute listed species LOC = 0.1;; Non

- listed animals acute LOC = 0.5

** Bolded values indicate LOC exceedance

.

1 Calculation on LD 50 per square foot basis for pre

- plant soil application is only compared to acute exp osure LOCs since

it is not computed with a chronic endpoint

.

### 27

 Terrestrial Invertebrates and Beneficial Insects

R efer to the pre

- mitigation risk assessment as risk findings and uncertainties for terrestrial

invertebrates have not changed.

 Terrestrial Pl

ants

The p re

- mitigation risk assessment identified no exceedances in the LOCs for terrestrial plants

associated with the benzovindiflupyr proposed uses based on the original labels. No changes in

risk conclusions are expected given further reductions in loading associat ed with the proposed

mitigation.

 Risks Resulting from Bioaccumulation in the Food Web

R evised r isk quotients estimated from KABAM evaluating the bioaccumulation pathway for

aquatic food items that may be consumed by birds are shown in Tab le 24 below

. As stated in

the pre

- mitigation risk assessment, there are no exceedances for piscivorous mammals.

Therefore, the KABAM analysis for piscivorous mammals is not presented in this addendum

since further reductions in loading associated with th e proposed mitigation would result in the

same conclusions.

Table 24 (Revised)

. Calculation of RQ values for birds consuming fish contaminated by benzovindiflupyr.



### Crop Use Dose Based Acute Avian RQs

sandpipers cranes rails herons small

osprey white

p elican

Sweet Corn 0.16 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.01

Other Corn 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01

Curcurbits 0.18 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.01

Grape 0.17 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.01

Ornamental 0.15 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.01

Peanuts 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.01

Potatoes 0.13 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01

Fruit ing Veg. 0.19 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.01

Turf 0.05 < 0.0 1 0.03 0.00 0.01 < 0.0 1

Cotton 0.13 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01

Blueberries 0.06 < 0.0 1 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Soybeans and

Legumes 0.08 <0.01 0.04 0.01 0 .01 <0.01

Cereal Crops 0.06 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01

### 28

Table 24 (Revised)

. Calculation of RQ values for birds consuming fish contaminated by benzovindiflupyr.



### Crop Use Dose Based Acute Avian RQs

sandpipers cranes rails herons small

osprey white

p elican

Canola 0.02 <0.01 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01

Pome Fruit 0.03 <0.01 0.01 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 <0.01

* Acute listed species LOC = 0.1;; Non

- listed animals acute LOC = 0.5

Chronic LOC = 1.0

** Bolded Red Values Indicate LOC exceedance



## 4.2 Risk Description

4.2.1 Non

- Target Aquatic Organisms

This section supplements Section 3.3.1 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment. In general, t he

proposed mitigation resolves some of the acute listed, acute non

- listed

, and chronic LO C

exceedances for some of the uses, or all risks with certain aquatic taxa in its entirety for other

us es. However, there are still broad risks of concern indicated for freshwater fish,

estuarine/marine fish, freshwater invertebrates (water column), and e stuarine/marine

invertebrates (water column and pore water) accounting for the proposed mitigation measure s

. Refer to Section 5 of this document for a comprehensive discussion on the risk conclusions

resulting from the proposed mitigation. Given the sc ope of LOC exceedances remaining after

the proposed mitigation , the characterization description provided Section 3.3.1 of the pre

mitigation risk assessment still applies.

It should be emphasized that both acute and chronic exposure in aquatic environm ents is driven

by the buildup of benzovindiflupyr in aquatic water bodies occurring predominately due to

runoff from treated fields 2 

### . While reductions in benzovindiflupyr loading in water bodies due to

spray drift buffers are considered in t his risk asses sment addendum, the spray drift mitigation

does not contribute to substantial reductions in exposure for many of the proposed uses which

are anticipated to occur in regions where runoff is substantial. Furthermore, while vegetative

buffer strips are also being proposed by the registra nt as a mitigation measure, their impacts are

not evaluated in the risk assessment addendum given the large uncertainties which exist related

to current maintenance practices of vegetative buffer strip s. Potential weathering with poorly

maintained vegetative buffer strips may largely diminish the effectiveness for vegetative buffer

strips to reduce benzovindiflupyr exposure resulting from runoff in aquatic environments. In

summary, given the overall concern expressed for benz ovindiflupyr’s tendency to bui l dup in

aquatic environments, a targeted monitoring study in water bodies nearby high benzovindiflupyr

usage areas is recommended to verify the exposure findings in this risk assessment.

2 Please refer to Section 6 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment (Aquatic Exposure Assessment subsection) for the

discussion and uncertainties on the persi stence of benzovindiflupyr in mesocosm

- type aquatic environments based

on registrant

- submitted studies.

### 29 4.2.2 Non

- Target Terrestrial Organisms

This section supplements Section 3.3. 2 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment. In general, the

proposed mitigation resolves some of the acute listed and chronic LOC exceedances for some of

the uses. However, there are still broad risks of concern indicated fo r mammals and birds

accounting for the proposed mitigation measure s . Refer to Section 5 of this document for a

comprehensive discussion on the risk conclusions resulting from the proposed mitigation.

Given the scope of LOC exceedances remaining after t he proposed mitigation, the

characterization description provided Section 3.3.2 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment still

applies.

The acute risks identified to birds via exposure to benzovindiflupyr residues in food items are

driven by conservative e ndpoints developed in response to uncertainties associated with

regurgitation issues in the passerine oral toxicity study. Refer to Section 3.3.2 and Section 6

(Terrestrial Exposure Assessment subsection) of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment for

further discussion.

Furthermore, acute and chronic d ietary risks to mammals to benzo vindiflupyr residues in food

items are indicated with exposure estimates based on steady dosage of benzovindiflupyr. Such a

scenario is most representative of foraging mammals which may be susceptible repeat exposure

from contaminated food items within treated fields.

For terrestrial invertebrates and beneficial insects, there are no LOCs were exceeded on the basis

of acute contact exposure . However, there are still uncertai nties which exist with acute oral and

chronic exposures mainly due to data gaps . Refer to Section 6 of the pre

- mitigation risk

assessment for a further description.

### 30



## 5. CONCLUSIONS

T h is section supersedes Section 6 of the pre

- mitigation risk assessment

. Th e overall revised

risk conclusions for each aquatic and terrestrial tax a

, broken down by each proposed use of

benzovindiflupyr

, are presented below in Table 26 and Table 27, respectively

. A summary of

the risk conclusions including mitigation measures proposed by the registrant as well as changes

to risk conclusions from the pre

- mitigation risk assessment are discussed below for aquatic and

terrestrial taxa:

Aquatic Organisms

 Freshwater Fish

A cute listed species LOCs exceed for all uses even after the proposed mitigation. All but five

uses exceed the non

- listed acute species LOCs even after the proposed mitigation. The

exceptions include cereal crops , canola, pome fruit, blueberries, and turf uses. Exceedances with

the non

- listed acute LOCs were resolved mitigation with cereal crops and blueberries uses.

Chronic LOCs exceed for a ll but two uses still after the proposed mitigation. The exceptions

include canola an d pome fruit, and both of these exceptions occurred as a result of resolution of

chr onic LOC exceedances due to the mitigation.

The revised acute RQs for freshwater fish range between 0.18

– 1.49. Revised chronic RQs

range between 0.7

– 5.3.

 Estuarine/Marine Fish

A cute listed species LOCs exceeds for all but two uses even after the pr oposed mitigation. The

exceptions include canola and pome fruit, and both of these exceptions occurred as a result of

resolution of acute listed species LOC exceedances due to the mitigation. Acute n on

- listed

LOCs are not exceeded with any use in the pre

- mitigation risk assessment or this addendum

. C hronic LOCs are not exceeded with any use after the proposed mitigation

. Chronic LOC

exce e dances were resolved with three uses including sweet corn, grapes, and potatoes due to the

proposed mitigation

.

The r evise d acute RQs for estuarine/marine fish range between 0.02

– 0.19 . Revised chronic

RQs ranged between 0.1

– 0.7

.

 Freshwater Invertebrates (Water Column)

A cute listed species LOCs are exceeded with only five uses ( fruiting vegetables, sweet corn,

cucu rbits, grapes, and nursery crops) after the proposed m itigation . Acute listed species LOC

exceedances were re s olved with peanuts, potatoes, and cotton uses after mitigation. A c ute non

listed LOCs are not exceeded with any uses in the pre

- mitigation risk assessment or this

addendum

. C hronic LOCs are not exceeded with any use after the proposed mitigation. The

### 31

t hree uses ( sweet corn, grapes, and potatoes ) that had RQs that exceeded the chronic LOC prior

to mitigation did not exceed the chronic LOC after mitigation.

The revised acute RQs for freshwater invertebrates (water column) range between 0.01

– 0.06

. Revised chronic RQs ranged between 0.1

– 0.7.

 Estuarine/Marine Inverte brates (Water Column)

A cute listed species LOCs are exceeded for all but six uses even after the proposed mitigation.

The exceptions include turf, blueberries, soybeans and legumes, cereal crops, canola, and pome

fruit. T he proposed mitigation re solved acute listed species LOC exceedances with blueberries,

soybeans and legumes, and the cereal crop uses. A cute non

- listed LOCs are not exceeded with

any use in pre

- mitigation risk assessment or this adde n dum

. Chronic LOCs are not exceeded

with any use after the proposed mitigation

. Chronic LOC exce e dances were resolved with the

potato use due to the proposed mitigation.

The revised acute RQs for estuarine/marine fish range between 0.01

– 0.06 . Revised chronic

RQs ranged between 0.1

– 0.7.

 Benthic Inverteb rates

A cute listed species LOCs for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates in porewater are

exceeded in seven uses after the proposed mitigation which include the sweet corn, cucurbits,

grapes, fruiting vegetables, nu rsery crops, peanuts, and potato uses . Acute listed species LOC

exceedances for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates were re s olved with cotton and blueberries

after mitigation. However, acute non

- listed LOCs for freshwater benthic invertebrates in

pore water are not e xceeded in any uses a fter the proposed mitigation

. Acute non

- listed LOC

exceedances for freshwater benthic invertebrates were resolved with five uses including sweet

corn, cucurbits, grapes, potatoes, and nursery crop uses

.

No chronic LOC exceedances were identified for bo th freshwater and estuarine/marine benth ic

invertebrates in pore water and sediment in the pre

- mitigation assessment or this addendum.

The revised acute RQs for freshwater and estuarine marine benthic invertebrates in pore water

range between 0.01

– 0.08

. Revised chronic RQs for freshwater and estuarine marine benthic

invertebrates in pore water and sediment ranged between < 0.1

– 0.2

.

 Aquatic Plants

No chronic LOC exceedances were identified in the pre

- mitigation assessment or this addendum.

### 32

Terrest rial Organisms

 Birds

A cute listed and non

- listed species LOCs with a combination of all possible food items still

exceed for all uses even after the proposed mitigation. Revised a cute RQs range between <0.1

– 2.9 for all food items. However, no chronic LOC exceedances were identified for any food items

in the pre

- mitigation assessment or this addendum.

 Mammals

A cute listed species LOCs with a combination of all possible food items still exceed for all uses

even after the proposed mitigation. Chroni c LOCs considering a combination of all possible

food items are exceeded in all but seven uses even after the proposed mitigation. The exceptions

include blueberries, canola, corn (other than sweet), cereal crops , soybeans and legumes, and

pome fruit . Ch ronic LOC exceedances for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates were resolved

with the blueberries, cereal crops , soybeans and legumes, and pome fruit uses due to the

proposed mitigation.

Revised acute and chronic RQs range between <0.1

– 0.2 and <0.1

– 1.5, respectively for all

food items.

 Piscivorous Birds

No LOC exceedances were identified in the pre

- mitigation assessment or this addendum.

 Piscivorous Mammals

Acute listed species LOCs considering a combination of all possible food items are exceede d in

all but five uses after the mitigation. The exceptions include the blueberries, cereal crops,

soybeans and legumes, and pome fruit uses. Acute listed species LOC exceedances were

resolved with three uses including blueberries, soybeans and legumes, and cereal crop uses due

to the proposed mitigation. Revised RQs range between <0.01

– 0.19 for all species considering

the full combination of possible food items.

 Terrestrial Invertebrates

While no LOCs were exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates on t he basis of acute contact

exposure, there are still uncertainties with acute oral and chronic exposures. Refer to the pre

mitigation risk assessment for a further description.

### 33

Table 26 (Revised) . Summary of adverse impacts for aquatic organisms expect ed from the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr.

Proposed Use Adverse Impacts Expected for Aquatic Organisms?

( No/Yes : A (L) = Acute Listed Species, A(NL)

- = Acute Non

- Listed Species , C=Chronic )

Freshwater

Fish Estuarine/Marine

Fish Freshwater

Invertebra tes

(Water

Column) Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrates

(Water

Column) Freshwater

and

Saltwater

Benthic

Invertebrates

(Sediment) Freshwater

Benthic

Invertebrates

(Pore water) Saltwater

Benthic

Invertebrates

(Pore water) Aquatic

Plants

Sweet Corn Yes

A(L),

A (NL), C Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L) No

Corn , Other than

Sweet Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) No Yes

A(L) No No No No

Cucurbits Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L) No

Tomatoes and

Fruiting Vegetables Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L) No

Grapes Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L) No

Tubers (Potatoes) Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) No Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L) No

Peanuts Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) No Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A( L) No

Nursery Plants,

Tomato Transplant,

Fruit Transplant,

Cucurbit Transplant Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L) No

### 34

Table 26 (Revised) . Summary of adverse impacts for aquatic organisms expect ed from the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr.

Proposed Use Adverse Impacts Expected for Aquatic Organisms?

( No/Yes : A (L) = Acute Listed Species, A(NL)

- = Acute Non

- Listed Species , C=Chronic )

Freshwater

Fish Estuarine/Marine

Fish Freshwater

Invertebra tes

(Water

Column) Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrates

(Water

Column) Freshwater

and

Saltwater

Benthic

Invertebrates

(Sediment) Freshwater

Benthic

Invertebrates

(Pore water) Saltwater

Benthic

Invertebrates

(Pore water) Aquatic

Plants

Turf Grass Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No No No No No

Cotton Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) No Yes

A(L) No No No No

Blueberries Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No No No No No

Soybeans & Legumes Yes

A(L),

A(NL), C Yes

A(L) No No No No No No

Cereal (Oats, Barley,

and Wheat) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No No No No No

Canola Yes

A(L) No No No No No No No

Pome fruit Yes

A(L) No No No No No No No

Mitigation Improvement Color Codes: Resolution of Acute Listed LOC exceedances Resolution of Acute Non

- Listed LOC exceedances

Resolution of Chronic LOC exceedances Resolution of Acute Listed and Chronic LOC

exceedances

### 35

Table 27 (Revised) . Summary of adverse impacts for terrestrial organisms expected from the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr

.

Proposed Use Adve rse Impacts Expected for Terrestrial Organisms?

(No/Yes: A (L) = Acute Listed Species, A(NL)

- = Acute Non

- Listed Species , C=Chronic)

Birds Mammals Piscivorous Birds Piscivorous

Mammals Terrestrial Plants Terretrial

Invertebrates 1

Sw eet Corn Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Corn , Other than Sweet Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L) Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Cucurbits Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Tomatoes and Fruiting

Vegeta bles Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Grapes Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Tubers (Potatoes) Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Peanuts Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Y es

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Nursery Plants, Tomato

Transplant, Fruit Transplant,

Cucurbit Transplant Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Turf Grass Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Cotton Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L), C Yes

A(L) No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

### 36

Table 27 (Revised) . Summary of adverse impacts for terrestrial organisms expected from the proposed uses of

benzovindiflupyr

.

Proposed Use Adve rse Impacts Expected for Terrestrial Organisms?

(No/Yes: A (L) = Acute Listed Species, A(NL)

- = Acute Non

- Listed Species , C=Chronic)

Birds Mammals Piscivorous Birds Piscivorous

Mammals Terrestrial Plants Terretrial

Invertebrates 1

Blueberries Yes

A(L ),

A(NL) Yes

A(L) No No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Soybeans & Legumes Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L) No No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Cereal (Oats, Barley, and

Wheat) Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L) No No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Canola Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L) No No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

Pome fruit Yes

A(L),

A(NL) Yes

A(L) No No No Yes

A(L), A(NL), C

1 Risk presumed in the absence of acute and chronic oral laraval

- stage bee toxicity studies and chr onic contact adult bee toxicity study.

Mitigation Improvement Color Codes: Resolution of Acute Listed LOC exceedances

Resolution of C hronic LOC exceedances

### 37



## Attachment 1 . Detailed Table of Proposed Mitigation for Each Crop Use

Provided by the Registrant

This table reflects the compilation of mitigation proposals presented by the registrant. The label “ C ” for current uses

reflected the rates that were u sed in the pre

- miti gation assessment. The labels “ P ” reflected the first i teration of

proposed mitigation measures

. T h e l a b e l “ NP ” for new proposed rates reflected the second iteration of mitigation

measures

. The label “ FP ” for final proposed was the last round of mitigation measures that was submitted . For uses

that have only C (turf and ornamentals) or only C and P (Blueberries for example) that indicates that no further

mitigation options were proposed. This addendum incorporated on ly the last round of mitigation for each use that

was proposed by the registrant. For ex ample

, for blueberries the last and f inal mitigation would fall under the “ P ”

label. For cu curbits the last and final mitigation would fall under the NP label and for sweet corn the last and final

mitigation would fall under the FP label.

C urrent

P roposed

N ew

P roposed

Final

Proposed g ai/ha x

number of

applications lb ai/A X

number of

applicat ions Total load

lb ai/A/yr re

- treatment

interval * REDUCTION

in lb ai/A and

percent

reduction

Blueberries C 76 X 2 0.068 X 2 0.136 10

P 76 X 1 0.068 X 1 0.068 na 0.068 (

- 50%)

Canola C 76 X 1 0.068 X 1 0.068 na

P 50 X 1 0.046 X 1 0.046 na 0.022 (

- 32%)

Cereal C 76 X 2 0.068 X 2 0.136 14

P 50 X 2 0.046 X 2 0.092 14 0.044 (

- 32%)

Corn C 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7

P 50 X 2 0.046 X 2 0.092 14 0.18 (

- 66%)

Corn, sweet C 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7

P 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7 fb* 14

NP 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7 fb* 14 removed

aerial

FP 76 x 2 0.068 x 2 0.136 14 0.136 (50%)

Cotton C 7 6 X 3 0.068 X 3 0.204 10

P 7 6 X 3 0.068 X 3 0.204 14

FP 76 x 2 0.068 x 2 0.136 14 0.0 68 (33%)

Cucurbits C 7 6 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7

P 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7 fb 14

NP 76 x 4 0.068 x4 0.272 7 fb 14 removed

aerial

Fruiting

Vegetables C 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7

P 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7 fb 14

N P 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7 fb 14 removed

aerial

### 38

### 39 C urrent

,

P roposed

,

N ew

P roposed

, Final

Proposed g ai/ha x

number of

applications lb ai/A X

number of

applications Total load

lb ai/A/yr re

- treatment

interval * REDUCTION

in lb ai/A and

percent

reduction

Grapes C 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 7

P 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 14

NP 76 X 4 0.068 X 4 0.272 14 removed

aerial

FP 76 x 3 0.068 x 3 0.204 14 0. 068 (25%)

Legumes C 76 X 2 0.068 X 2 0.136 14

P 62.5 X 2 0.056 X 2 0.112 14 0.024 (

- 18%)

Peanuts C 100 X 3/7 6 X 4 0.089 X 3 /

0.068 X 4 0.26 7

–

0.272 14

P 100 X 3 (and/or

7 6 X 3) 0.089 X 2 or

0.068 X 3 0.204 @ 0.089 lb, 21

day ; @ 0.068,

14 day 0.06 (

- 24%)

Pome C 50 X 4 0.046 X 4 0.184 7

P 50 X 4 0.046 X 4 0.184 7 fb 14

Soybeans C 7 6 X 2 0.068 X 2 0.136 7

P 50 X 2 0.046 X 2 0.092 14 0.044 (

- 32%)

Tuberous &

potato C 7 6 X 4 foliar

100 X 1 in

furrow 0.068 X 4 0.272 foliar

+ 0.089 soil

0.361 7 foliar 0

P 7 6 X 4 foliar

100 X 1 in

furrow 0.068 X 4 0.272 foliar

+ 0.089 soil

0.361 14 f oliar 0

NP (potato) 100 X 1 in

furrow 0.089 soil 14 foliar 0.272 (75%)

Removed

foliar spray

Turf C 76 X 4 0 .068 X 4 0.272

P No changes due to low acreage

Ornamentals P 7 6 /100 gal @

135 GPA 0 .089 X 3 0.267 7

C No changes due to low exposure

* “ 7 fb 14 ” means seven day retereatment interval after the first application followed by 14 day retreatment

interval for all subsequent applications.

Abbreviations:

C = Use information on original labels

P = Post

- mitigation proposed use information (fir st iteration for selected crops)

NP = Further post

- mitigation proposed use information (second iteration for selected crops)

FP = F inal proposed rates for that particular use.

### 40 

## Appendix C (Revised) . Sample SWCC Output File



# Summary of Water Modeling of Solatenol and the USEPA Standard

Pond

Estimated Environmental Concentrations for Solatenol are presented in Table 1 for the USEPA standard pond with

the FLtomatoSTD_V2 field scenario. A gra phical presentation of the year

- to

- year peaks is presented in Figure 1.

These values were generated with the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC Version 1.106). Critical

input values for the model are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.

This model estim ates that about 4.8% of Solatenol applied to the field eventually reaches the water body. The main

mechanism of transport from the field to the water body is by runoff (82.2% of the total transport), followed by

spray drift (12.9%) and erosion (4.97%).

In the water bo dy, pesticide dissipates with an effective water column half

- life of 1688.5 days. (This value does not

include dissipation by transport to the benthic region; it includes only processes that result in removal of pesticide

from the complete system.) The mai n source of dissipation in the water column is metabolism (effective average

half

- life = 2221 days) followed by photolysis (7045.7 days) and volatilization (1.84406E+07 days).

In the benthic region, pesticide dissipates very slowly (689.9 days). The main s ource of dissipation in the benthic

region is metabolism (effective average half

- life = 689.9 days). The vast majority of the pesticide in the benthic

region (99.79%) is sorbed to sediment rather than in the pore water.

Table 1. Estimated Environmental Co ncentrations (ppb) for Solatenol.

Peak (1

- in

- 10 yr) 5.35

4

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 4.98

21

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 4.38

60

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 4.02

365

- day Avg (1

- in

- 10 yr) 3.55

Entire Simulation Mean 2.95

Table 2. Summary of Model Inputs for Solatenol.

Scenario FLtomatoSTD_V2

Cropped Area Fraction 1

Koc (ml/g) 4478

Water Half

- Life (days) @ 20 °C 2920

Benthic Half

- Life (days) @ 20 °C 907

Photolysis Half

- Life (days) @ 45 °Lat 88.4

Hydrolysis Half

- Life (days) 0

Soil Half

- Life (days) @ 20 °C 1460

Fol iar Half

- Life (days) 0

Molecular Wt 398.2

Vapor Pressure (torr) 2.4e

- 11

### 41

Solubility (mg/l) 0.98

Table 3. Application Schedule for Solatenol.

Date (Mon/Day) Type Amount (kg/ha) Eff. Drift

5/1 Foliar 0.076 0.99 0.062

5/8 Foliar 0.076 0.99 0.062

5/22 F oliar 0.076 0.99 0.062

6/5 Foliar 0.076 0.99 0.062

Figure 1. Yearly Peak Concentrations