Risks of Za/raMa-Cyhalothrin Use to Federally
Threatened
Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha
bayensis), Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), California
Tiger Salamander (Amby stoma californiense) Central
California Distinct Population Segment, and Delta
Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus),
And the Federally Endangered
California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus),
California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncarispacificus),
California Tiger Salamander {Ambystoma
calif orniense) Sonoma County Distinct Population
Segment and Santa Barbara County Distinct
Population Segment, San Francisco Garter Snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), and Tidewater Goby
(Eucyclogobius newberryi)
Pesticide Effects Determinations
PC Code: 128897
CAS Number: 91465-08-6
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
September 30,2012
Primary Authors:
Meghan Radtke, Ph.D., Biologist
Christopher M. Koper, M.S., Chemist
1
-------
Secondary Review:
Edward Odenkirchen, Ph.D., Senior Scientist
Stephen Wente, Ph.D.,
Nancy Andrews, Ph.D., Branch Chief
Environmental Risk Assessment Branch 1
2
-------
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15
1.1. Purpose of Assessment 15
1.2. Scope of Assessment 16
1.2.1. Uses Assessed 16
1.2.2. Environmental Fate Properties of Lambda-Cyhalothrin 17
1.2.3. Evaluation of Degradates and Stressors of Concern 17
1.3. Assessment Procedures 188
1.3.1. Exposure Assessment 18
1.3.2. Toxicity Assessment 18
1.3.3. Measures of Ri sk 19
1.4. Summary of Conclusions 20
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION 41
2.1. Purpose 42
2.2. Scope 44
2.2.1. Evaluation of Degradates and Other Stressors of Concern 44
2.2.2. Evaluation of Mixtures 45
2.3. Previous Assessments 46
2.4. Environmental Fate Properties 47
2.4.1. Environmental Transport Mechanisms 53
2.4.2. Mechanism of Action 53
2.4.3. Use Characterization 54
2.5. Assessed Species 688
2.6. Designated Critical Habitat 811
2.7. Action Area and LAA Effects Determination Area 833
2.7.1. Action Area 833
2.7.2. LAA Effects Determination Area 844
2.8. Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect 855
2.8.1. Assessment Endpoints 855
2.8.2. Assessment Endpoints for Designated Critical Habitat 899
2.9. Conceptual Model 90
2.9.1. Risk Hypotheses 90
2.9.2. Diagram 90
2.10. Analysis Plan 922
2.10.1. Measures of Exposure 933
2.10.2. Measures of Effect 933
2.10.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects 944
2.10.4. Data Gaps 944
3. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 944
3.1. Label Application Rates and Intervals 944
3.2. Aquatic Exposure Assessment 100
3.2.1. Modeling Approach 100
3
-------
3.2.2. Model Inputs 1022
3.2.3. Results 1033
3.2.4. Existing Monitoring Data 1144
3.3. Terrestrial Aximai. Exposure Assessment 1144
3.3.1. Exposure to Residues in Terrestrial Food Items 1144
3.3.2. Exposure to Terrestrial Invertebrates Derived Using T-REX 1277
3.4. Terrestrial Plant Exposure Assessment 1411
4. EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 1411
4.1. Ecotoxicity Study Data Sources 1411
4.2. Toxicity of Z.4mao4-Cyhalothrin to Aquatic Organisms 1422
4.2.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 1455
4.2.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 1466
4.2.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish 1477
4.2.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 1477
4.2.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants 1488
4.3. Toxicity of Z.4mao4-Cyhalothrin to Terrestrial Organisms 1488
4.3.1. Toxicity to Birds 15050
4.3.2. Toxicity to Mammals 1511
4.3.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates 1511
4.3.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 1522
4.4. Incident Database Review 1522
4.4.1. Terrestrial Incidents 1522
4.4.2. Plant Incidents 1533
4.4.3. Aquatic Incidents 1533
5. RISK CHARACTERIZATION 1544
5.1. Risk Estimation 1544
5.1.1. Exposures in the Aquatic Habitat 154
5.1.2. Exposures in the Terrestrial Habitat 1833
5.2 bioaccumlation analysis results 197
5.3. Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures 1988
5.4. Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the
Endangered Species Levels of Concern 200
5.5 Ear Tag Assessment 201
5.1.3. Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat 2011
5.6. Risk Description 2011
5.6.1. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly 2077
5.6.2. California Clapper Rail 2099
5.6.3. California Freshwater Shrimp 2122
5.6.4. California Tiger Salamander (All DPS) 2144
5.6.5. Delta Smelt 2177
5.6.6. San Francisco Garter Snake 2199
5.6.7. Tidewater Goby 2222
5.6.8. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 2244
5.6.9. Spatial Extent of Potential Effects 2266
5.7. Effects Determinations 2355
4
-------
5.7.1. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly 2355
5.7.1. California Clapper Rail 2355
5.7.2. California Freshwater Shrimp 2355
5.7.3. California Tiger Salamander (All 3 DPS) 2366
5.7.4. Delta Smelt 2366
5.7.5. San Francisco Garter Snake 2376
5.7.6. Tidewater Goby 2377
5.7.7. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 2377
5.7.8. Addressing the Risk Hypotheses 2387
6. UNCERTAINTIES 2388
6.1. Exposure Assessment Uncertainties 2399
6.1.1. Maximum Use Scenario 2399
6.1.2. Usage Uncertainties 2399
6.1.3. Terrestrial Exposure Assessment Uncertainties 2399
6.1.4. Aquatic Exposure Modeling of Lambda-Cyhalothrin 2422
6.1.5. Exposure in Estuarine/Marine Environments 2433
6.1.6. Modeled Versus Monitoring Concentrations 2444
6.1.7. Degradate Modeling 245
6.2. Effects Assessment Uncertainties 2455
6.2.1. Data Gaps and Uncertainties 2455
6.2.2. Use of Surrogate Species Effects Data 2455
6.2.3. Sublethal Effects 2466
7. RISK CONCLUSIONS 2466
8. REFERENCES 27171
9. MRID LIST 2755
10. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE MRID LIST: 2777
Appendices
Appendix A. Multi-Active Ingredients Product Analysis
Appendix B. Verification Memo for Lambda-Cyhalothrin
Appendix C. Risk Quotient (RQ) Method and Levels of Concern (LOCs)
Appendix D. Example Output from PRZM/EXAMS
Appendix E. Example Output from T-REX and T-HERPS
Appendix F. Example Output from KABAM
Appendix G. Summary of Ecotoxicity Data
Appendix H. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature
Appendix I. Accepted ECOTOX Data Table (sorted by effect)
Appendix J. 2007 HED Risk Assessment for Lambda-Cyhalothrin
Appendix K. Incidents from EIIS Database
Appendix L. Incidents from IDS Database
Appendix M. Granular Risk Assessment Refinements for Mammals
5
-------
Appendix N. Probability of Individual Effects
Attachments
Attachment I. Supplemental Information on Standard Procedures for Threatened and
Endangered Species Risk Assessments on the San Francisco Bay Species
Attachment II. Status and Life History for the San Francisco Bay Species
Attachment III. Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the San Francisco Bay
Species
6
-------
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Iximbda-Cyhalothrin on the
BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB 20
Table 1-2. Effects Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact Analysis... 24
Table 1-3. Use Specific Summary of The Potential for Adverse Effects to Aquatic Taxa
26
Table 1-4. Use Specific Summary of The Potential for Adverse Effects to Terrestrial
Taxa 35
Table 2-1. Physical-Chemical Properties of Lambda-Cyhalothrin 49
Table 2-2. Summary of Lambda-Cyhalothrin Environmental Fate Properties 50
Table 2-3 Major Transformation Products of Lambda-Cyhalothrin 51
Table 2-4. Summary of Degradate Formation for Lambda-Cyhalothrin 52
Table 2-5. Lambda-Cyhalothrin Use Sites for Which No Risk Assessment Will Be
Performed 57
Table 2-6. Lambda-Cyhalothrin Uses Assessed for California 58
Table 2-7. Summary of California Department of Pesticide Registration (CDPR)
Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Data from 1999 to 2010 for Currently
Registered Lambda-Cyhalothrin Uses 65
Table 2-8. Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History
Information for the Assessed Listed Species 69
Table 2-9. Designated Critical Habitat PCEs for the BCB, VELB, DS, TG, CTS-CC, and
CTS-SB 81
Table 2-10. Taxa Used in the Analyses of Direct and Indirect Effects for the Assessed
Listed Species 85
Table 2-11. Taxa and Assessment Endpoints Used to Evaluate the Potential for Use of
Lambda-Cyhalothrin to Result in Direct and Indirect Effects to the Assessed
Listed Species or Modification of Critical Habitat 86
Table 3-1. Lambda-Cyhalothrin Uses, Scenarios, and Application Information for
Aquatic Scenarios 955
Table 3-2. Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic
Exposure Inputs for Lambda-Cyhalothrin Endangered Species Assessment
1022
Table 3-3. ZawMa-Cyhalothrin EECs ((J-g/L) for Surface Water in California 1044
Table 3-4. Lambda-Cyhalothrin EECs ((J-g/L) for Pore Water in California 109
Table 3-5. Input Parameters for Foliar, Trunk Drench, T-Banding, Soil In Furrow, Crack
and Crevice, Spot Treatment, Mound Treatment, Perimeter Treatment, Band
Treatment Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs for Lambda-
Cyhalothrin with T-REX and T-HERPS 115
Table 3-6. Upper-Bound Kenaga Nomogram EECs for Dietary- and Dose-Based
Exposures of Birds and Mammals Derived Using T-REX for Lambda-
Cyhalothrin 121
Table 3-7. Upper-Bound Kenaga Nomogram EECs for Dietary- and Dose-Based
Exposures of Amphibians Derived Using T-HERPS for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin
128
Table 3-8. Upper-Bound Kenaga Nomogram EECs for Dietary- and Dose-Based
7
-------
Exposures of Reptiles Derived Using T-HERPS for Lambda-Cyha\ othri n 134
Table 3-9. Bioaccumulation Model Input Values for Lambda-Cyhalothrin 134
Table 3-10. Predicted Concentrations of Lambda-Cyhalothrin in Aquatic Organism
Tissues at Different Trophic Levels 140
Table 4-1. Aquatic Toxicity Profile for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin 1433
Table 4-2. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates 1455
Table 4-3. Terrestrial Toxicity Profile for Lambda-CyhdXothrm 1499
Table 4-4. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Avian and Mammalian Studies 15050
Table 4-5. Plant Toxicity Data from the Open Literature for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin 152
Table 5-1. Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Fish (Based on Surface Water EECs)
1555
Table 5-2. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Aquatic Invertebrates (Based on
Surface Water EECs) 159
Table 5-3. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Benthic Invertebrates
(Based on Pore Water EECs) 164
Table 5-4. Summary of RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish (Based on Surface Water EECs)
169
Table 5-5. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
(Based on Surface Water EECs) 173
Table 5-6. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Benthic
Invertebrates (Based on Pore Water EECs) 178
Table 5-7. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-REX for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin and
Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians 184
Table 5-8. LD50/ft2 RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians for in Furrow/Soil
Treatments and Granular Applications 186
Table 5-9. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-HERPS for Lambda-CyhdXothrm
and Amphibians 187
Table 5-10. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-HERPS for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin
and Reptiles 189
Table 5-11. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-REX for Lambda-Cyhalothrin and
Mammals 192
Table 5-12. LD50/ft RQs for Mammals for in furrow/soil treatments and granular
applications 195
Table 5-13. Summary of RQs for Terrestrial Invertebrates 195
Table 5-14. Bioaccumulation Risk Quotients for Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and
Amphibians for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin 197
Table 5-15 EECs and RQs for Small Mammals (Consuming Short Grass) for Cobalt
Advanced 198
Table 5-16. Individual Effect Probabilities for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin Exposure at
Scenarios that Produce RQs that Exceed the LOC 200
Table 5-17. Risk Estimation Summary for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin - Direct and Indirect
Effects 202
Table 5-18. Terrestrial Organisms Buffers for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin Calculated with
AgDRII I 226
Table 5-19. Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Fish Buffers for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin
Calculated with AgDRIFT 229
8
-------
Table 5-20. Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Benthic and Non-Benthic Invertebrate
Buffers for ZawMa-Cyhalothrin Calculated with AgDRIFT 231
Table 5-21. EECs for Lambda-Cyhalothrin Buffer Mitigation Scenarios 234
Table 6-1. Percentage of EEC orRQ for the Specified Dietary Items and Size Classes as
Compared to the EEC or RQ for The Most Sensitive Dietary Items (Short
Grass) and Size Class (Small Bird or Small Mammal) 24040
Table 6-2. Percentage of EEC or RQ for the Specified Dietary Class as Compared to the
EEC or RQ for The Most Sensitive Dietary Class (Small Herbivore Mammals)
and Size Class (Medium Amphibian or Snake) 24141
Table 7-1. Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Lambda-Cyhalothrin on the
BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB 2477
Table 7-2. Effects Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact Analysis. 251
Table 7-3. Use Specific Summary of The Potential for Adverse Effects to Aquatic Taxa
2577
Table 7-4. Use Specific Summary of The Potential for Adverse Effects to Terrestrial
Taxa 2666
9
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. ZawMa-Cyhalothrin Use in Total Pounds per County (USDA 2006-2010,
NASS Crop Reporting Districts;
http://www.ers.usda.g0v/brief1ng/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#n
ass) 644
Figure 2-2. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections
Identified in Case No. 07-2794-JCS 733
Figure 2-3. California Clapper Rail Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified in Case
No. 07-294-JC 74
Figure 2-4. California Freshwater Shrimp Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified in
Case No. 07-294-JC 75
Figure 2-5. California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections
Identified in Case No. 07-2794-JCS 76
Figure 2-6. Delta Smelt Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified in Case No.
07-2794-JCS 77
Figure 2-7. San Francisco Garter Snake Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified in
Case No. 07-2794-JCS 78
Figure 2-8. Tidewater Goby Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified in Case
No. 07-2794-JCS 79
Figure 2-9. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections
Identified in Case No. 07-2794-JCS 80
Figure 2-10. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential
Effects to Aquatic Organisms from the Use of Lambda-Cyhalothrin 91
Figure 2-11. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential
Effects to Terrestrial Organisms from the Use of Lambda-Cyhalothrin... .92
10
-------
List of Commonly Used Abbreviations and Nomenclature
|ig/kg Symbol for "micrograms per kilogram"
|ig/L Symbol for "micrograms per liter"
°C Symbol for "degrees Celsius"
AAPCO Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
a.i. Active Ingredient
AIMS Avian Monitoring Information System
Acc# Accession Number
amu Atomic Mass Unit
BCB Bay Checkerspot Butterfly
BCF Bioconcentration Factor
BEAD Biological and Economic Analysis Division
bw Body Weight
CAM Chemical Application Method
CARB California Air Resources Board
AW Alameda Whipsnake
CBD Center for Biological Diversity
CCR California Clapper Rail
CDPR California Department of Pesticide Regulation
CDPR-PUR California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use
Reporting Database
CFWS California Freshwater Shrimp
CI Confidence Interval
CL Confidence Limit
CTS California Tiger Salamander
CTS-CC California Tiger Salamander Central California Distinct
Population Segment
CTS-SB California Tiger Salamander Santa Barbara County Distinct
Population Segment
CTS-SC California Tiger Salamander Sonoma County Distinct
Population Segment
DS Delta Smelt
EC Emulsifiable Concentrate
ECos 5% Effect Concentration
EC25 25% Effect Concentration
EC50 50% (or Median) Effect Concentration
11
-------
ECOTOX EPA managed database of Ecotoxicology data
EEC Estimated Environmental Concentration
EFED Environmental Fate and Effects Division
e.g. Latin exempli gratia ("for example")
EIM Environmental Information Management System
EPI Estimation Programs Interface
ESU Evolutionarily significant unit
et al. Latin et alii ("and others")
etc. Latin et cetera ("and the rest" or "and so forth")
EXAMS Exposure Analysis Modeling System
FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
ft Feet
GENEEC Generic Estimated Exposure Concentration model
HPLC High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
IC05 5% Inhibition Concentration
IC50 50% (or median) Inhibition Concentration
i.e. Latin for id est ("that is")
IECV1.1 Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1
KABAM K0w (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model
kg Kilogram(s)
kJ/mole Kilojoules per mole
km Kilometer(s)
Kaw Air-water Partition Coefficient
Kd Solid-water Distribution Coefficient
I
-------
LOEC Lowest Observable Effect Concentration
LOQ Level of Quantitation
m Meter(s)
MA May Affect
MATC Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration
m /day Square Meters per Days
ME Microencapsulated
mg Milligram(s)
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram (equivalent to ppm)
mg/L Milligrams per liter (equivalent to ppm)
mi Mile(s)
mmHg Millimeter of mercury
MRID Master Record Identification Number
MW Mol ecul ar W ei ght
n/a Not applicable
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NCOD National Contaminant Occurrence Database
NE No Effect
NLAA Not Likely to Adversely Affect
NLCD National Land Cover Dataset
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
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
ORD Office of Research and Development
PCE Primary Constituent Element
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
ppb Parts per Billion (equivalent to |ig/L or |ig/kg)
13
-------
ppm Parts per Million (equivalent to mg/L or mg/kg)
PRD Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division
PRZM Pesticide Root Zone Model
ROW Right of Way
RQ Risk Quotient
SFGS San Francisco Garter Snake
SJKF San Joaquin Kit Fox
SLN Special Local Need
SMHM Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
TG Tidewater Goby
T-HERPS Terrestrial Herpetofaunal Exposure Residue Program
Simulation
T-REX Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model
UCL Upper Confidence Limit
USD A United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VELB Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
WP Wettable Powder
wt Weight
14
-------
1. Executive Summary
1.1. Purpose of Assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate potential direct and indirect effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin (PC Code: 128897) on the bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis)
(BCB); delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) (DS); valley elderberry longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) (VELB); California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense) Central California Distinct Population Segment (CTS-CC), Sonoma County
Distinct Population Segment (CTS-SC), and Santa Barbara County Distinct Population Segment
(CTS-SB); California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) (CCR); California freshwater
shrimp (Syncarispacificus) (CFWS); San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis
tetrataenia) (SFGS); and the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) (TG); arising from
FIFRA regulatory actions regarding the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on agricultural and non-
agricultural sites. In addition, this assessment evaluates whether these actions can be expected to
result in modification of designated critical habitat for the BCB, VELB, CTS-CC, CTS-SB, TG,
and DS; the other assessed species do not have designated critical habitats. This assessment was
completed in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998),
procedures outlined in the Agency's Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), and consistent with a
suit in which lambda-cyhalothrin was alleged to be of concern to the BCB, DS, VELB, CTS-CC,
CCR, CFWS, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG (Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) vs. EPA
et al. (Case No. 07-2794-JCS).
Below are brief descriptions of when each San Francisco Bay species being assessed was listed
and a short description of their associated Primary Constituent Element (PCEs) (when
applicable).
The BCB was listed as threatened in 1987 by the USFWS. The species primarily inhabits native
grasslands on serpentine outcrops around the San Francisco Bay Area in California. The PCEs
for BCBs are areas on serpentinite-derived soils that support the primary larval host plant (i.e.,
dwarf plantain) and at least one of the species' secondary host plants. Additional BCB PCEs
include the presence of adult nectar sources, aquatic features that provide moisture during the
spring drought and areas that provide adequate shelter during the summer diapause.
The VELB was listed as threatened in 1980 by the USFWS. The species is found in areas with
elderberry shrubs throughout California's Central Valley and associated foothills on the east and
the watershed of the Central Valley on the west. The PCEs for the VELBs include areas that
contain its host plant (i.e., elderberry trees).
The DS was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12854) by the USFWS (USFWS,
2007). DS are mainly found in the Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary near San
Francisco Bay. During spawning DS move into freshwater. The PCEs for DSs are shallow fresh
or brackish backwater sloughs for egg hatching and larval viability, suitable water with adequate
river flow for larval and juvenile transport, suitable rearing habitat, and unrestricted access to
suitable spawning habitat.
15
-------
There are currently three CTS Distinct Population Segments (DPSs): the Sonoma County (SC)
DPS, the Santa Barbara (SB) DPS, and the Central California (CC) DPS. Each DPS is
considered separately in the risk assessment as they occupy different geographic areas. The
main difference in the assessment will be in the spatial analysis. The CTS-SB was listed by the
USFWS as endangered in 2000, the CTS-SC in 2002, and the CTS-CC as threatened in 2004.
The CTS-SB and CTS-SC were down listed from endangered to threatened in 2004 by the
USFWS, however, the down listing was vacated by the U.S. District Court. Therefore, the
Sonoma and Santa Barbara DPSs are currently listed as endangered while the CTS-CC is listed
as threatened. All CTS populations utilize vernal pools, semi-permanent ponds, and permanent
ponds, and the terrestrial environment in California. The aquatic environment is essential for
breeding and reproduction and mammal burrows are also important habitat for aestivation. The
PCEs for the CTS are standing bodies of freshwater sufficient for the species to complete the
aquatic portion of its life cycle that are adjacent to barrier-free uplands that contain small
mammal burrows. An additional PCE is upland areas between sites (as described above) that
allow for dispersal of the species.
The CCR was listed by the USFWS as an endangered species in 1970. The species is found only
in California in coastal wetlands along the San Francisco estuary and Suisun Bay.
The CFWS was listed as endangered in 1988 by the USFWS. The CFWS inhabits freshwater
streams in Central California in the lower Russian River drainage and westward to the Pacific
Ocean and coastal streams draining into Tomales Bay and southward into the San Pablo Bay.
The SFGS was listed as endangered in 1967 by the USFWS. The species is endemic to the San
Francisco Peninsula and San Mateo County in California in densely vegetated areas near
marshes and standing open water.
The TG was listed as endangered on March 7, 1994 (59 FR 5494) by the USFWS. The animals
are benthic in nature and all life stages are found in lagoons, estuaries, and marshes in areas of
low to moderate salinity1. The TG also occurs in freshwater streams up gradient and tributary to
brackish habitats (68920 FR Vol 71, No 228).
1.2. Scope of Assessment
1.2.1. Uses Assessed
ZawMa-cyhalothrin [(R)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)(methyl)(lS,3S)-re/-3-[(lZ)-2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoro-l-propenyl]-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate is a non-systemic Type II synthetic
pyrethroid insecticide that is currently registered for use on a variety of field, fruit, and vegetable
crops; in food handling establishments; non-agricultural areas (right-of-ways); on outdoor
ornamental plants (including lawns, turf, and cut flowers); and in and around the home. Targeted
pests include aphid, caterpillar, and beetle pests on a wide variety of crops and public health
pests such as mosquitoes and cockroaches. Formulation types registered include: dust,
emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, granular, impregnated collar/tag, impregnated
1 USFWS 2011. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/fish/Goby/goby.html
16
-------
material (e.g., tarps for building sites), liquid ready-to-use, microencapsulated, pelleted/tablet,
pressurized liquid, soluble concentrate/solid, and wettable powder. All pyrethroids act as axonic
poisons, affecting both the peripheral and central nervous systems and cause a rapid "knock
down," or paralysis, of insects. Although current registrations of lambda-cyhalothrin allow for
use nationwide, this ecological risk assessment and effects determination addresses currently
registered uses of lambda-cyhalothrin in California only. Uses in California comprise the full
range of agricultural and non-agricultural registrations and all types of formulations for lambda-
cyhalothrin. Applications to crops can be made aerially, with an attractant (e.g., pheromone
trap), by chemigation, to cracks and crevices, by dust, as an ear tag, by injection, by trunk
drench, by ground spray, by soil in furrow treatment, as a spot treatment, and by T-banding.
1.2.2. Environmental Fate Properties of LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Lambda-cyhalothrin is moderately persistent in the environment and degrades relatively slowly
through a combination of biotic and abiotic mechanisms. It tends to bind to organic matter (e.g.,
soils, sediments, or organic matter and particulates in water) and is not expected to be very
mobile; leaching into groundwater is not expected to be an important environmental fate process.
Lambda-cyhalothrin could reach adjacent surface waters via spray drift and/or runoff events
accompanied by erosion. In aquatic environments, it partitions with the sediment and is expected
to persist for long periods of time (several months). The sediments could serve as repositories of
/awMa-cyhalothrin in dynamic equilibrium with the pore water and with the surface water.
Lambda-cyhalothrin is highly bioaccumulative in fish (4,600x in the whole body), and its
depuration rate is considered moderately slow (half-depuration time of around 9 days). More
information regarding the fate of lambda-cyhalothrin can be found in Section 2.4.
1.2.3. Evaluation of Degradates and Stressors of Concern
Major degradation products of lambda-cyhalothrin include Compounds la and lb, Compound IV,
Compound V and Compound XV (for structures see Table 2-3). Degradate toxicity data are not
available for this assessment. However, Compounds la and lb, Compound IV, Compound V
occur as a result of the ester bond breakage of the parent molecule resulting in significantly
decreased toxicity of those degradates relative to the parent compound. Compound XV,
however, is structurally similar to the parent compound, and QSAR-based (Quantitative
Structure Activity Relationship) modeling in the program ECOSAR (version 1.0) (Ecological
Structure Activity Relationships) supports similar toxicity. Within the pyrethroid ECOSAR
class, toxicity values were in the same order of magnitude for fish, daphnids, and green algae
[Parent EC/LC50 = 0.002 mg/L, Compound XV EC/LC50 = 0.004 mg/L, for all three organisms].
This assessment was performed on the parent lambda-cyhalothrin only because 1) there were
little data for the degradate of concern (Compound XV) which would have contributed
uncertainty to the conclusions of the risk assessment; and 2) evaluating the parent only was
sufficient to identify risk to all of the assessed species and resulted in much greater certainty in
those conclusions. The degradate of concern (Compound XV) and uncertainties associated with
this approach are discussed in Section 6.1.8.
17
-------
1.3. Assessment Procedures
A description of routine procedures for evaluating risk to the San Francisco Bay Species is
provided in Attachment I.
1.3.1. Exposure Assessment
1.3.1.a. Aquatic Exposures
Tier-II aquatic exposure models are used to estimate high-end exposures of lambda-cyhalothrin
in aquatic habitats resulting from runoff and spray drift from different uses. The models used to
predict aquatic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) are Pesticide Root Zone Model
(PRZM) coupled with the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS). The AgDRIFT
model is also used to estimate deposition of lambda-cyhalothrin on aquatic habitats from spray
drift. Peak model-estimated environmental concentrations resulting from different lambda-
cyhalothrin uses ranged from 0.0008 to 15.89 |ig ai/L. These estimates are supplemented with
an analysis of available California surface water monitoring data from the U. S. Geological
Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program and the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation. Concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin reported by NAWQA for
California surface waters with agricultural watersheds are less than the limit of quantitation
(LOQ), which ranged from 0.004 to 0.018 |ig ai/L. However, the maximum concentration of
lambda-cyhalothrin reported by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation surface water
database (0.14 |ig/L) is roughly two orders of magnitude lower than the peak EEC, but within the
range of modeled concentrations. It should be noted that the majority (93%) of the peak surface
water EEC values were < 1 jug ai/L which were in line with the monitoring values. In addition,
the maximum detected sediment concentration of 0.315 |ig/g (-0.024 |ig/L) was also within the
range of the calculated pore water concentrations. It should be understood monitoring sampling
may not have been frequent enough to capture peak concentrations, or in vulnerable watersheds,
or during the time when the pesticide had recently been applied.
1.3.1.b. Terrestrial Exposures
To estimate lambda-cyhalothrin exposures to terrestrial species, the Terrestrial Reside Exposure
(T-REX) model is used for foliar, granular, and soil in-furrow uses. The Terrestrial
Herpetofaunal Exposure Residue Program Simulation (T-HERPS) model is used to allow for
further characterization of dietary exposures of reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians relative
to birds. The AgDRIFT model is used to estimate deposition of lambda-cyhalothrin on
terrestrial habitats from spray drift. The K0w-based Aquatic Bioaccumulation Model (KABAM)
v.1.0 is used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of lambda-cyhalothrin residues in an aquatic
food web and the subsequent risks these residues pose to organisms consuming aquatic species.
1.3.2. Toxicity Assessment
The assessment endpoints include direct toxic effects on survival, reproduction, and growth of
individuals, as well as indirect effects, such as reduction of the food source and/or modification
of habitat. Federally-designated critical habitat has been established for the BCB, VELB, CTS-
18
-------
CC, CTS-SB, TG, and DS. Primary constituent elements (PCEs) were used to evaluate whether
lambda-cyhalothrin has the potential to modify designated critical habitat. The Agency
evaluated registrant-submitted studies and data from the open literature to characterize the
toxicity of lambda-cyhalothrin. The most sensitive toxicity value available from acceptable or
supplemental studies for each taxon relevant for estimating potential risks to the assessed species
and/or their designated critical habitat was used.
Section 4 summarizes the ecotoxicity data available for lambda-cyhalothrin. Lambda-
cyhalothrin is highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, very highly toxic to
freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians), and highly toxic to estuarine/marine
fish on an acute exposure basis. The chronic NOAECs for freshwater and estuarine/marine
invertebrates are 0.00198 |ig ai/L (based on number of young per female and adult survival) and
0.00022 |ig ai/L (based on reproduction), respectively. The chronic NOAECs for freshwater and
estuarine/marine fish are 0.031 |ig ai/L (based on Fi survival at 28 days, F0 length at 56 days,
male length and weigh at 300 days, and Fi weight and length at 31 days) and 0.25 |ig ai/L (based
on weight), respectively.
Lambda-cyhalothrin is practically non-toxic to avian species (surrogate for terrestrial-phase
amphibians and reptiles) on an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis, and moderately
toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. The avian reproductive NOAEL is 5 mg
ai/kg-diet (based on residues in the egg, liver and fat, number of eggs laid and set, egg fertility,
and early embryonic mortalities) and the mammalian two-generation reproductive NOAEL is 1.5
mg ai/kg-day (30 mg ai/kg-diet) (based on decreased parental and pup body weight and body
weight gain). It is classified as highly toxic to terrestrial invertebrates on an acute contact
exposure basis (LD50 = 0.038|ig ai/bee).
Aquatic non-vascular plants exposed to lambda-cyhalothrin have an EC50 of >300 mg ai/L. No
ecotoxicity information is available for terrestrial plants, although efficacy studies from the open
literature suggest it is not toxic to plants at field application rates of up to 0.02 lb a.i./A. These
rates are at the lower end of registered agricultural uses and well below some of the residential
uses (up to 2 lb ai/A).
1.3.3. Measures of Risk
Acute and chronic risk quotients (RQs) are compared to the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs)
to identify instances where lambda-cyhalothrin use has the potential to adversely affect the
assessed species or adversely modify their designated critical habitat. When RQs for a particular
type of effect are below the LOCs, the pesticide is considered to have "no effect" on the species
and its designated critical habitat. Where RQs exceed the LOCs, a potential to cause adverse
effects or habitat modification is identified, leading to a conclusion of "may affect". If lambda-
cyhalothrin use "may affect" the assessed species, and/or may cause effects to designated critical
habitat, the best available additional information is considered to refine the potential for exposure
and effects, and distinguish actions that are Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) from those
that are Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA).
19
-------
1.4. Summary of Conclusions
Based on the best available information, the Agency makes a Likely to Adversely Affect
determination for the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB, from the
use of lambda-cyhalothrin. Additionally, the Agency has determined that there is the potential
for modification of the designated critical habitat for the BCB, CTS-CC and CTS-SB, DS, TG,
and VELB from the use of the chemical. A description of the baseline status and cumulative
effects for San Francisco Bay listed species is provided in Attachment III.
A summary of the risk conclusions and effects determinations for each listed species assessed
here and their designated critical habitat is presented in Table 1-1 and
Table 1-2. Use-specific determinations are provided in Table 1-3 and Table 1-4.
Table 1-1. Effects Determination Summary for Effects of LamMa-Cyhalothrin on the
BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
Potential for Direct Effects
Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
(Euphydryas editha
bayensis)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the BCB based on
the RQs exceeding the interim listed species terrestrial invertebrate LOC (acute)
for all uses. Four major incidents were reported for terrestrial invertebrates. The
probability of an individual effect is 1.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial food items, habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects to plant food and habitat sources
because quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. Several
plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for other pyrethroids, thus
extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Valley Elderberry
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Longhorn Beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the VELB based
on RQs exceeding the interim listed terrestrial invertebrate LOC (acute) for all
uses. Four major incidents were reported for terrestrial invertebrates. The
probability of an individual effect is 1.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial food items, habitat
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to result in adverse effects to non-
target terrestrial invertebrates, thus native pollinators of the elderberry also are
likely to be negatively affected by /cwM/«/fl-cyhalothrin use and result in impaired
plant reproduction. The elderberry plant serves as an obligate host for the
VELB.
There is the potential for indirect effects to plant food and habitat sources
because quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. Several
20
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for other pyrethroids, thus
extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not possible.
California Tiger
Salamander
(All 3 DPS)
(Ambystoma
californiense)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic-phase (eggs, larvae, and adults) and terrestrial-phase (juveniles and
adults)
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CTS based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial-phase
amphibians (using avian surrogate species data) and based on RQs exceeding the
listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for aquatic-phase amphibians (using
freshwater fish surrogate species data). There were no major incidents reported
for amphibians. The probability of an individual effect is between 491 and 1710.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding listed and non-listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial
invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, and freshwater fish.
Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible because the RQs exceed the
listed and non-listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for small mammals which
could affect burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food, shelter,
and protection from the elements and predation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
California Clapper
Rail
(Rallus longirostris
obsoletus)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CCR based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for avian species.
There were no major incidents reported for birds. The probability of an
individual effect is between 11 and 22.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs (acute and chronic) for birds,
mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, and
freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
21
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
California
Freshwater Shrimp
(Syncaris pacifica)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CFWS based
on RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates on an
acute and chronic basis. There were three major incidents reported for
freshwater invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect is between 1 and
7.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, habitat, cover, and primary productivity and terrestrial prey
items, riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Delta Smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the DS based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish
on an acute and chronic basis. There were four major incidents reported for
freshwater fish. The probability of an individual effect is between 1 and 58,500
for freshwater fish and 1 and 265,000,000 for estuarine/marine fish.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, habitat, cover, and primary productivity and terrestrial
riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs (acute and
chronic) exceeding the listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
22
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
San Francisco
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Garter Snake
(Thamnophis
sirtalis tetrataenia)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the SFGS based
on RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for reptiles (using avian surrogate
species data), on an acute and chronic basis. There were no major incidents
reported for reptiles. The probability of an individual effect is between 648 and
2490.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial-phase
amphibians and reptiles (using avian surrogate species data), mammals,
terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater fish/aquatic-phase amphibians, and
freshwater invertebrates. Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible
because the RQs exceeded the listed and non-listed species LOCs for mammals,
for burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that CTS depend upon for shelter, and aestivation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Tidewater Goby
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
(Eucyclogobius
new berryi)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the TG based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for freshwater and
estuarine/marine fish on an acute and chronic basis. There were four major
incidents reported for freshwater fish. The probability of an individual effect is
between 1 and 58,500 for freshwater fish and 1 and 265,000,000 for
estuarine/marine fish.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
Terrestrial riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
23
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Table 1-2. Effects Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact Analysis
Designated
Critical Habitat
for:
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Habitat effects are possible because the RQs exceeded the LOCs for
mammal burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food,
shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.
California Tiger
Salamander Central
California Distinct
Population
Segment
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Habitat effects are possible because the RQs exceeded the LOCs for
mammal burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food,
shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.
California Tiger
Salamander Santa
Barbara County
Distinct Population
Segment
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Delta Smelt
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects to the DS because of a reduction in
the food supply, based on direct and indirect effects to aquatic invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
24
-------
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Tidewater Goby
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects to the DS because of a reduction in
the food supply, based on direct and indirect effects to aquatic invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
The VELB has an obligate relationship with the elderberry. Indirect effects
may occur because of the direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates, which
may affect pollination and seed dispersal of the elderberry.
Based on the information provided in the VELB Status and Life History
document prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Services, any human
disturbance that adversely affects the beetle results in modification of critical
habitat (1980 Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 155).
25
-------
Table 1-3. Use Specific Summary of the Potential for Adverse Effects to Aquatic Taxa
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Agricultural/
farm premises
(crack and
crevice)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Alfalfa (aerial)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Alfalfa
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Almond
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Almond (trunk
drench)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Apple, cherry,
crabapple,
nectarine,
peach, pear,
plum, prune,
trees (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nectarine,
peach, cherry
trees trunk
drench (trunk
drench)
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
No
No
Apple trees
(trunk drench)
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes7
No
No
No
No
Animal housing
premises,
paths/patios
(crack and
crevice)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Household/
domestic
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
26
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatie Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Aeute
Chronie
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
dwellings,
outdoor
premises (crack
and crevice)
Apricot, loquat,
mayhaw, plum,
quince (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Bean,
groundcherry,
pea, pepino,
pepper (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Eggplant
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Beech nut,
Brazil nut,
butternut,
cashew,
chestnut,
chinquapin,
hickory nut,
macadamia nut
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Barley (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Barley (G)/ 2
app @ 0.031 lb
ai/A (7-days)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Bell pepper,
catjang
(Jerusalem/mar
ble pea) (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Bell pepper,
catjang
(Jerusalem/
marble
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
27
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG
and
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
CFWS
and
Freshwater
Estuarinc/Marinc
Estuarine/
Vascular
Estuarine/ Marine
SC, and SB DPS,
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Marine Bcnthic
and non-
Vcrtcbr
ites
and Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Invertebrates'
Invertebrates4
vascular
Vertebrates2
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
pea)(ground)
Mustard
cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi)
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brassica (head
and stem)
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brassica (head
and stem)
vegetables
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Tomato,
tomatillo
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(ground)
Broccoli,
cauliflower
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(ground)
Cabbage,
kohlrabi
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(ground)
Mustard
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brussels sprouts
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brussels sprouts
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Buckwheat, oat,
rye (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Buckwheat, oat,
rye (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Canola/rape
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
28
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
(aerial)
Canola/rape
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Grass
forage/fodder
/hay, pastures,
rangeland
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Grass
forage/fodder
/hay, pastures,
rangeland
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Cereal grains,
triticale, wheat
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cereal grains,
triticale, wheat
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Cole crops
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cole crops
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Onion (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Onion (ground)
No
No
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Commercial/
industrial
lawns,
ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area
lawns (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Commercial/
industrial
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
29
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatie Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Aeute
Chronie
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
lawns,
ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area
lawns (spot
treatment)
Conifers
(plantations/
nurseries)
(ground)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Conifers (seed
orchard)
(ground)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (field)
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (field)
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (field,
pop) (in-
furrow)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (sweet)
(in-furrow)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (sweet)
(dust)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (sweet)
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cotton (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cotton (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Cucurbit
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cucurbit
vegetables
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
30
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
(ground)
Ear tags
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Filbert, pecan,
walnut (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Filbert, pecan,
walnut (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Filbert, pecan,
walnut (dust)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Forest plantings
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Fruiting
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Fruiting
vegetables
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Garlic (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Golf course
turf, ornamental
sod farm
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(ground)
Golf course
turf, ornamental
sod farm
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(mound)
Grasses grown
for seed
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Legume
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Legume
vegetables
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
31
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG
and
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
CFWS
and
Freshwater
Estuarinc/Marinc
Estuarine/
Vascular
Estuarine/ Marine
SC, and SB DPS,
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Marine Bcnthic
and non-
Vcrtcbr
ites
and Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Invertebrates'
Invertebrates4
vascular
Vertebrates2
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
(ground)
Peanuts, root
and tuber
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Peanuts, root
and tuber
vegetables
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Lettuce (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Lettuce
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soils
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(aerial)
Ornamental
and/or shade
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
trees (ground)
Ornamental
and/or shade
trees, ground
cover,
herbaceous
plants, non-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
flowering
plants, woody
shrubs and
vines, rose
(dust)
Paved areas
(private roads/
sidewalks
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(ground)
32
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Pome and stone
fruit (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pome and stone
fruit (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Potato (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Potato (ground)
No
No
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Recreational
areas (banding)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Recreational
areas (crack and
crevice/spot
treatment)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Residential
lawns (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Residential
lawns (mound)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Rice (ground)
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Seed orchard
trees (ground)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Sorghum
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Sorghum
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Soybean
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Soybean
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Tree nuts
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Tree nuts
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Sunflower
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
33
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Sunflower
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Right-of-way
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Airports/
landing fields
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Golf course
turf, ornamental
sod farm
(granular spot
treatment)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Grasses grown
for seed
(granular spot
treatment)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soil
(granular
band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot
treatment)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soil
(granular
mound
treatment)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to DS and TG and indirect effects to CCR.
2 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to DS, TG and indirect effects to SFGS, and CCR. A yes also indicates a potential for direct
and indirect effects for the CTS-CC, CTS-SC, and CTS-SB.
3 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to the CFWS and indirect effects to the CFWS, SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SB, CTS-SC, TG,
andDS.
4 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to CCR, TG, and DS.
34
-------
5 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, TG, DS, and CFWS.
6 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to CFWS, SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SB, CTS-SC, TG, and DS.
7 No indirect effects are expected (prey or habitat).
Table 1-4. Use Specific Summary of the Potential for Adverse Effects to Terrestrial Taxa
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-
SB and Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)"1
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Agricultural/farm
premises, crack and
crevice/surface
spray/perimeter
treatment
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Almond, ground dust
and spray
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust and
spray
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Almond, nectarine,
peach, cherry, trunk
drench
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apple, trunk drench
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Animal housing
premises, paths/patios,
barrier treatment/crack
and crevice
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Household/domestic
dwellings outdoor
premises, barrier
treatment/crack and
crevice
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apricot, bean,
eggplant, groundcherry,
loquat, mayhaw, pea,
pepino, pepper, plum,
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
35
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-
SB and Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)"1
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
quince, ground
spray/dust
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia
nut, ground spray/dust
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Barley, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
(aerial/ground
spray/dust)
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mustard cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi), ground
spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brassica (head and
stem) vegetables,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tomato, tomatillo,
ground spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cabbage, kohlrabi,
ground spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mustard
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brussels sprouts,
ground spray
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brussels sprouts, dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Canola/rape,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grass forage/fodder
/hay, pastures,
rangeland,
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
36
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-
SB and Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)"1
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
aerial/ground
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cole crops,
aerial/ground/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Onion,
aerial/ground/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Commercial/ industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Commercial/ industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Conifers (plantations/
nurseries), ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Conifers (seed orchard),
ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (field),
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (field, pop), soil
in furrow/T -banding
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (sweet), soil in
furrow/T -banding
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (sweet), dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (sweet), spray
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cotton, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cucurbit vegetables,
aerial/ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ear tags
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial/ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
37
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-
SB and Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)"1
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Forest plantings,
ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fruiting vegetables,
aerial/ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Garlic
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
mound
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grasses grown for seed,
ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Legume vegetables,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lettuce, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soils,
aerial
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
cover, herbaceous
plants, non flowering
plants, woody shrubs
and vines, rose,
ground/dust/
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks),
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
38
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-
SB and Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)"1
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
barrier/perimeter
treatment
Pome and stone fruit,
aerial/ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potato, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recreational areas,
band treatment
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recreational areas,
crack and crevice/spot
treatment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rice, ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seed orchard trees,
ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sorghum, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soybean, aerial/ground
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sunflower,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Right-of-way, ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Airports/landing fields,
ground granular
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
granular spot treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Grasses grown for seed,
granular spot treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soil,
granular
band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot
treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soil,
granular mound
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
39
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-
SB and Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)"1
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
treatment
Residential lawns,
granular ground
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Residential lawns,
granular mound
treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
1 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS, and CTS-SB.
2 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to CCR and indirect effects to the CCR, SFGS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, and CTS-SB.
3 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, and indirect effects to CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and
CCR.
4 A yes in this column indicates the potential for direct and indirect effects to SFGS, and other reptiles.
5 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effect to BCB and VELB and indirect effects to SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, and CTS-SB.
6 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to BCB, VELB, SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, TG, DS, and CFWS. For the BCB
and VELB this is based on the listed species LOC because of the obligate relationship with terrestrial monocots and dicots. For other species, the LOC
exceedances are evaluated based on the LOC for non-listed species.
7 No indirect effects are expected (prey and habitat).
40
-------
Based on the conclusions of this assessment, a formal consultation with the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act should be initiated. When
evaluating the significance of this risk assessment's direct/indirect and adverse habitat
modification effects determinations, it is important to note that pesticide exposures and predicted
risks to the listed species and its resources {i.e., food and habitat) are not expected to be uniform
across the action area. In fact, given the assumptions of drift, pesticide exposure and associated
risks to the species and its resources are expected to decrease with increasing distance away from
the treated field or site of application. Evaluation of the implication of this non-uniform
distribution of risk to the species would require information and assessment techniques that are
not currently available. Examples of such information and methodology required for this type of
analysis would include the following:
• Enhanced information on the density and distribution of federally threatened
BCB, DS, VELB, and CTS-CC, and federally endangered CCR, CFWS, CTS-SC,
CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG life stages within the action area and/or applicable
designated critical habitat. This information would allow for quantitative
extrapolation of the present risk assessment's predictions of individual effects to
the proportion of the population extant within geographical areas where those
effects are predicted. Furthermore, such population information would allow for
a more comprehensive evaluation of the significance of potential resource
impairment to individuals of the assessed species.
• Quantitative information on prey base requirements for the assessed species.
While existing information provides a preliminary picture of the types of food
sources utilized by the assessed species, it does not establish minimal
requirements to sustain healthy individuals at varying life stages. Such
information could be used to establish biologically relevant thresholds of effects
on the prey base, and ultimately establish geographical limits to those effects.
This information could be used together with the density data discussed above to
characterize the likelihood of adverse effects to individuals.
• Information on population responses of prey base organisms to the pesticide.
Currently, methodologies are limited to predicting exposures and likely levels of
direct mortality, growth or reproductive impairment immediately following
exposure to the pesticide. The degree to which repeated exposure events and the
inherent demographic characteristics of the prey population play into the extent to
which prey resources may recover is not predictable. An enhanced understanding
of long-term prey responses to pesticide exposure would allow for a more refined
determination of the magnitude and duration of resource impairment, and together
with the information described above, a more complete prediction of effects to
individual species and potential modification to critical habitat.
2. Problem Formulation
Problem formulation provides a strategic framework for the risk assessment. By identifying the
important components of the problem, it focuses the assessment on the most relevant life history
stages, habitat components, chemical properties, exposure routes, and endpoints. The structure
of this risk assessment is based on guidance contained in U.S. EPA's Guidance for Ecological
41
-------
Risk Assessment (USEPA, 1998), the Services' Endangered Species Consultation Handbook
(USFWS/NMFS, 1998) and is consistent with procedures and methodology outlined in the
Overview Document (USEPA, 2004) and reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS/NOAA, 2004).
2.1. Purpose
The purpose of this endangered species assessment is to evaluate potential direct and indirect
effects on individuals of the federally threatened BCB, DS, VELB, and CTS-CC, and federally
endangered CCR, CFWS, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG arising from FIFRA regulatory
actions regarding agricultural and non-agricultural uses of lambda-cyhalothrin. This ecological
risk assessment has been prepared consistent with a stipulated injunction in the case Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD) vs. EPA et al. (Case No. 07-2794-JCS) entered in Federal District
Court for the Northern District of California on May 17, 2010.
In this assessment, direct and indirect effects to the BCB, DS, VELB, CTS-CC, CCR, CFWS,
CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG and potential modification to designated critical habitat for the
BCB, DS, VELB, CTS-CC, CTS-SB, and TG are evaluated in accordance with the methods
described in the Agency's Overview Document (USEPA, 2004).
The BCB was listed as threatened in 1987 by the USFWS. The species primarily inhabits native
grasslands on serpentine outcrops around the San Francisco Bay Area in California. The PCEs
for BCBs are areas on serpentinite-derived soils that support the primary larval host plant {i.e.,
dwarf plantain) and at least one of the species' secondary host plants. Additional BCB PCE's
include the presence of adult nectar sources, aquatic features that provide moisture during the
spring drought and areas that provide adequate shelter during the summer diapause.
The VELB was listed as threatened in 1980 by the USFWS. The species is found in areas with
elderberry shrubs throughout California's Central Valley and associated foothills on the east and
the watershed of the Central Valley on the west. The PCEs for the VELBs include areas that
contain its host plant {i.e., elderberry trees).
The DS was listed as threatened on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12854) by the USFWS (USFWS,
2007). DS are mainly found in the Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary near San
Francisco Bay. During spawning DS move into freshwater. The PCEs for DSs are shallow fresh
or brackish backwater sloughs for egg hatching and larval viability, suitable water with adequate
river flow for larval and juvenile transport, suitable rearing habitat, and unrestricted access to
suitable spawning habitat.
There are currently three CTS Distinct Population Segments (DPSs): the Sonoma County (SC)
DPS, the Santa Barbara (SB) DPS, and the Central California (CC) DPS. Each DPS is
considered separately in the risk assessment as they occupy different geographic areas. The
main difference in the assessment will be in the spatial analysis. The CTS-SB was listed by the
USFWS as endangered in 2000, the CTS-SC in 2002, and the CTS-CC as threatened in 2004.
The CTS-SB and CTS-SC were down listed from endangered to threatened in 2004 by the
USFWS, however, the down listing was vacated by the U.S. District Court. Therefore, the
42
-------
Sonoma and Santa Barbara DPSs are currently listed as endangered while the CTS-CC is listed
as threatened. All CTS populations utilize vernal pools, semi-permanent and permanent ponds,
and the terrestrial environment in California. The aquatic environment is essential for breeding
and reproduction and mammal burrows are also important habitat for aestivation. The PCEs for
CTSs are standing bodies of freshwater sufficient for the species to complete the aquatic portion
of its life cycle that are adjacent to barrier-free uplands that contain small mammal burrows. An
additional PCE is upland areas between sites (as described above) that allow for dispersal of the
species.
The CCR was listed by the USFWS as an endangered species in 1970. The species is found only
in California in coastal wetlands along the San Francisco estuary and Suisun Bay.
The CFWS was listed as endangered in 1988 by the USFWS. The CFWS inhabits freshwater
streams in Central California in the lower Russian River drainage and westward to the Pacific
Ocean and coastal streams draining into Tomales Bay and southward into the San Pablo Bay.
The SFGS was listed as endangered in 1967 by the USFWS. The species is endemic to the San
Francisco Peninsula and San Mateo County in California in densely vegetated areas near
marshes and standing open water.
The TG was listed as endangered on March 7, 1994 (59 FR 5494) by the USFWS. The animals
are benthic in nature and all life stages are found in lagoons, estuaries, and marshes in areas of
low to moderate salinity2. The TG also occurs in freshwater streams up gradient and tributary to
brackish habitats (68920 FR Vol 71, No 228).
In accordance with the Overview Document, provisions of the ESA, and the Services'
Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, the assessment of effects associated with
registrations of lambda-cyhalothrin is based on an action area. The action area is the area
directly or indirectly affected by the federal action, as indicated by the exceedance of the
Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs). It is acknowledged that the action area for a national-level
FIFRA regulatory decision associated with a use of lambda-cyhalothrin may potentially involve
numerous areas throughout the United States and its Territories. However, for the purposes of
this assessment, attention will be focused on relevant sections of the action area including those
geographic areas associated with locations of the BCB, DS, VELB, CTS-CC, CCR, CFWS,
CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG and their designated critical habitat within the state of
California. As part of the "effects determination," one of the following three conclusions will be
reached separately for each of the assessed species in the lawsuits regarding the potential use of
lambda-cyhalothrin in accordance with current labels:
• "No effect";
• "May affect, but not likely to adversely affect"; or
• "May affect and likely to adversely affect".
Additionally, for habitat and PCEs, a "No Effect" or a "Habitat Modification" determination is
made.
2 USFWS 2011. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/fish/Goby/goby.html
43
-------
A description of routine procedures for evaluating risk to the San Francisco Bay Species is
provided in Attachment I.
2.2. Scope
The end result of the EPA pesticide registration process (i.e., the FIFRA regulatory action) is an
approved product label. The label is a legal document that stipulates how and where a given
pesticide may be used. Product labels (also known as end-use labels) describe the formulation
type (e.g., liquid or granular), acceptable methods of application, approved use sites, and any
restrictions on how applications may be conducted. Thus, the use or potential use of lambda-
cyhalothrin in accordance with the approved product labels for California is "the action" relevant
to this ecological risk assessment.
Lambda-cyhalothrin is a non-systemic insecticide that is applied to numerous field and orchard
crops; non-cultivated land; turf and other ornamentals; building exteriors; and other non-
agricultural uses. Applications include ground and aerial spray, dust, and chemigation
applications to agricultural crops; outdoor crack and crevice treatments; sprays to lawns and
ornamentals, trunk drenches to orchard crops; spot treatments to ant mounds; tree injections; and
perimeter applications. Common pests are aphids, caterpillars, and beetles on a wide variety of
crops, and mosquitoes and cockroaches in public health settings.
Although current registrations of lambda-cyhalothrin allow for use nationwide, this ecological
risk assessment and effects determination addresses currently registered uses of lambda-
cyhalothrin in portions of the action area that are reasonably assumed to be biologically relevant
to the BCB, DS, VELB, CTS-CC, CCR, CFWS, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG and their
designated critical habitat. Further discussion of the action area for the BCB, DS, VELB, CTS-
CC, CCR, CFWS, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and TG and their critical habitat is provided in
Section 2.7.
2.2.1. Evaluation of Degradates and Other Stressors of Concern
Major degradation products of lambda-cyhalothrin include Compounds la and lb, Compound IV,
Compound V and Compound XV (for structures see Table 2-3). Degradate toxicity data are not
available for this assessment. However, Compounds la and lb, Compound IV, Compound V
occur as a result of the ester bond breakage of the parent molecule resulting in significantly
decreased toxicity of those degradates relative to the parent compound. Compound XV,
however, is structurally similar to the parent compound, and QSAR-based (Quantitative
Structure Activity Relationship) modeling in the program ECOSAR (version 1.0) (Ecological
Structure Activity Relationships) supports similar toxicity. Within the pyrethroid ECOSAR
class, toxicity values were in the same order of magnitude for fish, daphnids, and green algae
[Parent EC/LC50 = 0.002 mg/L, Compound XV EC/LC50 = 0.004 mg/L, for all three organisms].
This assessment was performed on the parent lambda-cyhalothrin only because 1) there were
little data for the degradate of concern (Compound XV) which would have contributed
uncertainty to the conclusions of the risk assessment; and 2) evaluating the parent only was
sufficient to identify risk to all of the assessed species and resulted in much greater certainty in
44
-------
those conclusions. The degradate of concern (Compound XV) and uncertainties associated with
this approach are discussed in Section 6.1.8.
2.2.2. Evaluation of Mixtures
The Agency does not routinely include an evaluation of mixtures of active ingredients, either
those mixtures of multiple active ingredients in product formulations or those in the applicator's
tank, in its risk assessments. In the case of the product formulations of active ingredients (that is,
a registered product containing more than one active ingredient), each active ingredient is subject
to an individual risk assessment for a regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on a
particular use site. If effects data are available for a formulated product containing more than
one active ingredient, they may be used qualitatively or quantitatively in accordance with the
Agency's Overview Document and the Services' Evaluation Memorandum (USEPA, 2004;
USF W S/NMF S/N OA A, 2004).
Lambda-cyhalothrin has 31 registered products that contain multiple active ingredients. Analysis
of the available open literature and acute oral mammalian LD50 data for multiple active
ingredient products relative to the single active ingredient is provided in Appendix A. This data
set is limited and a qualitative analysis does not support any broad conclusions about the
interactive nature of lambda-cyhalothrin in combination with other pesticides.
In the case of lambda-cyhalothrin, a very simple analysis of potential enhanced toxicity of the
active ingredient in the presence of other chemicals was conducted by simply evaluating
statistical differences between the LD50 values based on 95% confidence intervals. Differences
in the LD50 values via this comparison were noted; however, a conclusive analysis of the nature
of the interaction (e.g., additivity, synergism) would require a much more extensive analysis.
More specifically, lambda-cyhalothrin is co-formulated with piperonyl butoxide, a known
synergist when combined with pyrethroids, in three of the products (ear tags and pour ons).
When all of the 31 registered product LD50S, and associated confidence intervals, are adjusted for
the percent lambda-cyhalothrin (a conservative assumption that attributes all of the observed
toxicity of the formulated product to lambda-cyhalothrin), the adjusted 95% confidence intervals
of the formulated product do not overlap with the TGAI lambda-cyhalothrin LD50 in eight
instances (registration numbers: 100-1276, 100-1320, 100-1334, 100-1336, 100-1366, 100-
1367, 100-1402, and 62719-615) indicating that the products may be more toxic than lambda-
cyhalothrin technical. In two instances, the adjusted 95% confidence intervals for the formulated
product overlap with the lambda-cyhalothrin technical toxicity values, indicating they are likely
the same. For all other formulated products, the LD50 was non-definitive, thus there are no
confidence intervals and the toxicity values cannot be compared (Appendix A).
In contrast, one open literature study (Wang et al. 2005) examined the effects of a number of
chemicals mixed with abamectin, a known synergist for many chemicals; it was found that there
were no significant increases in toxicological effects when lambda-cyhalothrin and abamectin
were mixed. Another open literature study (Hardke et al. 2005) found that lambda-cyhalothrin
(insecticide) mixed with glyphosate (herbicide) resulted in significantly lower phytotoxicity
damage than glyphosate alone. Although the target organisms (insects versus plants) are not the
same, this study documents an instance where mixing lambda-cyhalothrin with another chemical
45
-------
decreases the efficacy of the other chemical. Measurements of lambda-cyhalothrin's efficacy
were not performed in this study. Given the limited data that are available for lambda-
cyhalothrin mixtures, this assessment is based on the toxicity of lambda-cyhalothrin only;
however, acute toxicity to mammals will be analyzed for the product with the highest mammal
oral toxicity - Cobalt Advanced (adjusted LD50 = 2.6 mg ai/kg-bw versus lambda-cyhalothrin
technical LD50 = 56 mg ai/kg-bw) in Section 5.3.
2.3. Previous Assessments
The most recent comprehensive EPA review of lambda-cyhalothrin was issued in November
2010, with the development of the Problem Formulation Scoping Document (D379543) in
support of Registration Review for lambda-cyhalothrin and gamma-cyhalothrin. Lambda-
cyhalothrin is very highly toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and terrestrial invertebrates
(including beneficial insects and pollinators). The document identified several data gaps
including uncertainties about the ecological risks to benthic aquatic organisms via sediment
exposure, aquatic invertebrates via water column exposure, and chronic exposures to fish and
aquatic plants. Data were also not available for passerine birds and terrestrial plants.
Uncertainties were identified for several fate properties including anaerobic soil and anaerobic
aquatic metabolism and the persistence of lambda-cyhalothrin in the environment. The
bioconcentration factor for lambda-cyhalothrin is 4600x in fish with moderate depuration.
A number of new use risk assessments were performed between 2002 and 2008. Most notable
was a risk assessment in 2002 for several new uses of lambda-cyhalothrin (peas and beans
(succulent and dried), fruiting vegetables, canola, sugarcane, sorghum, wheat, wheat hay and
other small grains, peanut, pome fruits, stone fruits, tree nuts, tobacco, termite barrier, non-
cropland, and conifers and deciduous trees (plantations, nurseries, and seed orchards) (USEPA
2002 -D262918+). Listed and non-listed species LOCs were exceeded for freshwater fish and
invertebrates, and estuarine invertebrates. Listed species LOCs were exceeded for
estuarine/marine fish. Chronic listed and non-listed species LOCs were exceeded for birds, but
acute risks were not identified. Lambda-cyhalothrin presented acute and chronic risks to
mammals, in addition to being highly toxic to honeybees.
In 2006, a risk assessment on cereal grains, cucurbit vegetables, grass forage, fodder and hay,
wild rice, and tuberous and corm vegetables was performed (USEPA 2006 -D324224+). The
terrestrial assessment resulted in similar conclusions to the 2002 assessment; however, the
aquatic assessment yielded higher EECs and highlighted particular risks towards benthic
communities and aquatic invertebrates via water column exposure. For aquatic plants, the RQs
were well below the LOC.
In November of 2008, the Agency issued an incremental assessment for the use of lambda-
cyhalothrin on non-bearing citrus orchards (USEPA 2008 -D355940). It relied extensively on
the 2002 and 2006 risk assessments for the chemical.
Other reviews were issued for lambda-cyhalothrin prior to 2002. These included uses on rice,
cotton, turf and ornamentals, uses in and around buildings, soybeans, and sunflowers.
46
-------
A FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in 1999
(http//www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/1999/022399_mtg.htm#materials) examined the
sediment toxicity and fate of synthetic pyrethroids. The Panel supported the method of using
data from a few pyrethroids to extrapolate information on the toxicity of other pyrethroids. The
SAP recommended that the Agency reconsider Koc as a measure of the binding potential of
synthetic pyrethroids to sediment and soil because the use of Kd alone limits extrapolation to
experimental conditions while Koc "allows one to estimate partitioning across a wide variety of
soil/sediment types" (USEPA 1999). The Panel indicated that the bioconcentration data for
Daphnia and Hyalella should be sufficient to predict bioconcentration of pyrethroids in lieu of
the biota-sediment accumulation factor. Finally, the SAP indicated that use of a solid phase
micro extraction (SPME) method to determine the dissolved concentration in water could be
used to account for sorption of pyrethroids to organic carbon and colloids present in the water
column in the measurement of bioconcentration factors.
In 2009, OPP presented a "Proposed Common Mechanism Grouping for the Pyrethrins and
Synthetic Pyrethroids" to a FIFRA SAP, relative to human health effects. OPP proposed two
subgroups based on Type I or Type II effects related to sodium current tails and neurobehavioral
impact, with esfenvalerate and fenpropathrin showing symptoms of both types. The Panel
indicated that substances with mixed characteristics could be included in both groups (see p. 18
of SAP minutes, USEPA 2009). Lambda-cyhalothrin is a Type II synthetic pyrethroid; it is
cyano substituted in the alpha position. Information on the SAP is available in the docket (with
non-copyright material available at http://www.regulations.gov) under EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0489.
2.4. Environmental Fate Properties
Table 2-1 lists the physical-chemical properties of lambda-cyhalothrin. Table 2-2 lists the other
environmental fate properties of lambda-cyhalothrin.
For background, lambda-cyhalothrin is a mixture of isomers of cyhalothrin. Lambda-
cyhalothrin's structure has three rings, two phenyl rings attached to each other by an oxygen
atom (phenyl and phenoxy), and a cyclopropyl ring. The chemistry of cyhalothrin may be
dictated by its ester moiety. The structure of the molecule has three chiral centers and a double
bond which raise the number of possible isomers to 24 = 16. However, /ambda-cyhalothrin
consists only of two of these isomers. Lambda-cyhalothrin has a 2-chloro-3,3,3-
trifluoropropenyl group and it is 2,2-dimethyl substituted in the cyclopropane ring. Chemically,
it is the (S)-alcohol (Z)-( l R)-c/.s acid and the (R)-alcohol (Z)-( l S)-c/.s acid out of 16 isomeric
esters. Gamma-cyhalothrin is a single isomer out of 16 possibilities of its structure, and one of
the two isomers in lambda-cyhalothrin. Chemically, it is the (S)-alcohol (Z)-( l R)-c/.s acid out of
16 isomeric esters. Cyhalothrin consists of four of the 16 possible isomers in its structure, of
which two of them appear in lambda-cyhalothrin and one appears in gamma-cyhalothrin.
Cyhalothrin is not a registered pesticide in the U.S. In general, the physicochemical and
environmental fate properties of cyhalothrin, lambda-cyhalothrin and gamma-cyhalothrin may be
expected to be similar to each other.
47
-------
Lambda-cyhalothrin has a molecular weight of 449.9 g/mol. It has a low water solubility (5
|ig/L) and a high octanol/water partition coefficient (log Kow ~ 7). Based on the latter, it
appears that lambda-cyhalothrin has the potential to bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic
organisms. With a vapor pressure of 9.98 x 10"7 mmHg, it is considered non-volatile under field
conditions and is unlikely to volatilize from dry or wet surfaces. The potential to volatilize may
be further attenuated in the environment by its tendency to bind to organic matter (e.g., soils,
sediments, or organic matter and particulate in natural water).
Lambda-cyhalothrin is moderately persistent in the environment and degrades slowly through a
combination of biotic and abiotic mechanisms. It is stable to relatively stable in acidic and
neutral water, but hydrolyzes in a matter of several days to weeks under alkaline conditions
(half-life 13 days at pH 9). Lambda-cyhalothrin has very little degradation in soil (-13% applied
radioactivity degraded over 35 days), biodegrading at moderate rates (half-live of several weeks)
in both aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions. In aquatic conditions, lambda-cyhalothrin may
biodegrade at moderate rates under aerobic conditions (half-life on the order of about 21-53
days), but more slowly under anaerobic conditions (half-life of 142 days). Half-lives of 12-33
days were observed in the field for lambda-cyhalothrin with the majority of the residues
remaining in the uppermost soil layer. Given the low mobility observed in laboratory studies and
in the field, it is expected to have little mobility in the environment and, therefore, leaching into
groundwater is not expected to be an important environmental fate process. Nevertheless,
/awMa-cyhalothrin could reach adjacent surface waters via spray drift or runoff events
accompanied by erosion. In aquatic environments, it partitions to sediment and is expected to be
persistent for long periods of time (several months). The sediments could serve as repositories of
/awMa-cyhalothrin in dynamic equilibrium with the pore water and with the surface water.
To serve as a surrogate for lambda-cyhalothrin, cyhalothrin was found to have a high
bioconcentration factor in fish (4,600x in the whole body), and its depuration rate is considered
moderately slow (half-depuration time of around 9 days). It is noted that its predicted depuration
rate based on Kow alone would be much longer (i.e., 30 to > 300 days), thus suggesting that
biological metabolism processes occurring in fish tissue may be contributing to its faster
depuration. Depuration rate will vary by organism; fish are expected to have a greater
metabolism than invertebrates and mussels. Biotransformation in biota is typical for synthetic
pyrethroids. Considering the log Koa, the log Kow ranging from 5 to 7, the moderate rate of
transformation in the environment and in fish, the high bioconcentration factors and a moderately
low rate of depuration, it appears that lambda-cyhalothrin may have some potential to
biomagnify in terrestrial food chains under certain circumstances (i.e., if biotransformation rates
are sufficiently slow), based on the presumption made by Gobas et al. (2003) and Armitage and
Gobas (2007) as they relate to poorly metabolized chemicals. Even though EFED has not
adopted an official reference or guideline to distinguish chemicals that biomagnify, Gobas et al.
(2003) and Armitage and Gobas' (2007) presumption was utilized here as a general or broad
reference to establish the potential for biomagnification in terrestrial food chains for these
chemicals.
Although various degradates were observed in the laboratory studies, the majority of degradates
resulted from the rupture of the ester bond of the parent molecule. It is believed that the
resulting molecules are not as toxic as the parent because they presumably have lost the
48
-------
neurotoxic mode of action. Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 show the chemical structures of lambda-
cyhalothrin's major degradation products along with the major and minor degradates detected in
the submitted environmental fate and transport studies, respectively.
Table 2-1. Physical-Chemical Properties of LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Property
Parent Compound
Value and units
MRID or Sourec
Molecular Weight
449.86 g/mole
TOXNET/HSDB1
Molecular Formula
c23h19cif3no3
TOXNET/HSDB1
Vapor Pressure
1.56 X 10"9mmHg at 20°C
Non-volatile under field conditions
(<9.98 x 10-7 mmHg)
Laskowski 20022
F, p (S) -alcohol (Z) - (1R) - els - a c i d
V H O
F' >~< c„>"°, .C™ /—N
C1 \ M"'C>—N W
¦ 11 < ; o
Chemical Structure
\ /
H H (,R)-alcohoI (z)-(1S)-cis-acid
P-v. h ^ o ,,.c;
/ "F H- \ /
i •) o'
\ /
Henry's Law Constant
1.9 X 10"7 atm-m3/mole at 20°C
Laskowski 20022
Water Solubility
0.005 mg/L at pH 6.5 and 20°C
MRID 00151580
Octanol - water partition
coefficient (Kow)
1 x 107 @ 25°C
Laskowski 20022
Air-water partition coefficient
(Kaw)
Kaw = Cair/Cwater = HLC/RT
7.9 x 10"6 (-5.1)
6.05 x 10"5 (-4.22); EPIWEB v. 4.0 estimate
'Non-volatile'
Calculated Values
EPIWEB v.4.0
Octanol-air partition coefficient
(Koa) (log Koa)
v _ Kow _ KowRT
Kaw Henry's Law Constant
1.3 x 1012 (12.1) (/araMa-cyhalothrin)
1.282 x 1010- 1.043 x 1011 (10.108-11.018);
EPIWEB estimate
Calculated Values
EPIWEB v.4.0 Estimate
Hazardous Substances Data Bank at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
2
Laskowski, D.A., 2002. Physical and chemical properties of pyrethroids. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2002;
174:49-170.
49
-------
Table 2-2. Summary of LamMa-Cyhalothrin Environmental Fate Properties
Parameters
Parent Compound
Value
Source/MRID
Hydrolysis Tr/2
pH 5 stable
pH 7 stable
pH 9 13 days
00151604 (S)
Aqueous Photolysis
(pH5) Tr/2
Reviewer calculated linear half-lives:
29.5 days* (phenyl label)
36.9 days* (cyclopropyl)
44861501
*Half-lives are uncertain.
Lest substance did not
remain in solution
throughout the study.
Soil Photolysis Tr/2
Fairly stable loam, only 13-16% degraded after ca. 35 days.
Compound II was a minor product.
40052405 (A)
Aerobic Soil Metabolism T1/2
Reported DT50 31, 55,26 days sandy loam
102 days loamy sand
*12.2 days loam
14.5 days silt loam
00151607(A)
44861504(A)
45447410(S)
Anaerobic Soil Metabolism T,/2
flooded DT50 110 days for cyhalothrin
107 days for faraMa-cyhalothrin
00151607(A)
44861504(A)
Aerobic aquatic metabolism T,/2
21.1 days sand
34.1 days sandy loam
52.9 days loam
44861506 (A)
44367402 (S)
Anaerobic aquatic metabolism
T) n
142 days silty clay
44367401 (S)
Soil-Water Distribution
Coefficient
(K(l in mL/g)
Mean K,| (/rt/zi/x/d-cy halothrin) =
4,350 mL/g
Sandy Loam 3810
Loamy Sand 1970
Silty Clay Loam 5880
Loamy Sand 2100
Silty Clay Loam 4490
Sandy Loam 6890
Sandy Loam 7610
Loamy Sand 3470
Sand 2400
Sandy Loam 4870
44861503(A)
Organic Carbon Normalised
Soil-Water Distribution
Coefficient
(K0( in mL/«(M )
Mean K()(. (/«»iA97.6% of the applied
radioactivity remained adsorbed after 24 hr of equilibration.
However, it was >80%) for soil incubated under ambient light
and subject to wet/ dry cycles.
44861509(S)
Column Leaching
Lhe aged (30 days) residues of cyhalothrin and lambda-
cyhalothrin were immobile in two soil columns (loamy sand and
sandy loam). All residues were within the upper 0-5 cm soil
depth.
00151608(A)
Terrestrial Field Dissipation Tr/2
1L Clay Loam 33 days (~18-21 % AR remained at 279 days)
MS Silty Loam 12 days
In IL & MS most of the AR in the 0-5 & 5-10 cm depth (1
lb/gal EC 14C-PP321, 2 labels).
40052407(A)
50
-------
Parameters
Parent Compound
Value
Source/MRID
Aquatic Field Dissipation Tl;,
MS (rice) 0.4-1.8 days
CA (rice) 1.0-1.8 days
(T1/2 from water, no data on soil/ sediment)
44367403(S)
44367404 (S)
Artificial pond
Dissipation in Aquatic
Microcosm T1/2
17 hours water layer,
34 hours total system
44861508(S)
(water pH 9.83)
Bioconccntration in Fish
Cyhalothrin: 4600x whole fish (carp); DT50 ~9 days depuration.
77-79% of the radioactivity eliminated after 28 days. -50-70%
of the residues were cyhalothrin and -10-19%) was Compound
la.
00152744(A)
00152745(A)
Half-lives based on single first order equation.
A = Acceptable Study Classification
S = Supplemental Study Classification
Table 2-3. Major Transformation Products of LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Common
Name
Chemical Name
Structure
Lambda-
Cyhalothrin
ci
P (yj-alcohol (Z)-(1R)-c)s-acid
H o.
\ CH,/ %. J-
Ab\
H
H' \
:h3
Parent
ci
r-i (R)-alcohol (Z)-(1S)-c/s-acid
s. CHj /
F,
AA
H CH:j (3
\ \
H'"'
-------
L
Compound V
3-Phenoxybenzoic acid
o
o
Compound VI
3 -Phenoxybenzenemethanol
Compound XV
la(S*),3a(Z)-(±)-cyano-[3-(4'-
hydroxyphenoxy)phenylmethyl] -3 -(2-
chloro-3,3,3 -trifluoro-1 -propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclo-propanecarboxylate
V/
€ i
T
1 '
'"OH;
TTX'ji
"'OH
Table 2-4. Summary of Degradate Formation for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
STUDY TYTIi
DEGRADATK and MAXIMUM C ONC KN IRA HON (% of the applied)
Compound hf and/
or Compound lb"
Compound IV
Compound Vs
Metabolite XV"
Hydrolysis (1)
at pH 9, la 68% at 30
days
Aqueous Photolysis (1)
(la 13.7% at 31 days)
(cyclopropane ring)
(lb 7.1% at 31 days)
(cyclopropane ring)
Minor product
25.0% at 31 days
Soil Photolysis
Minor product
Aerobic Soil Metabolism (2)
Minor product
12.5%) at 63 days
Anaerobic Soil Metabolism
la 10.8%) at 30 days
post flooding.
11.1%) at time of
flooding (30 days)
52
-------
STUDY TYTK
DKURADATK and MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (% of the applied)
Compound hr and/
or Compound lb"
Compound IV
Compound Vs
Metabolite XV"
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism
la 11.4% in the water
and 10.6% in the
sediment of the SL
sediment system at 30
days (total 22.0%).
Minor product
Minor product.
Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism
Ia 0.023 ppm at 365
days water; 0.008
ppm at 182 days soil
(information was not
provided as percent of
the applied)
0.010 ppm at 91 days in
water; 0.039 ppm at 120
days in soil (information
was not provided as
percent of the applied)
Minor product.
Degradation in Aquatic
Microcosm (3)
Ia 40.6% at 4 days in
water; it was minor in
the sediment
Bioaccumulation in Fish
Ia 22% in muscle and
viscera
(1). Hydrolysis: Isomerization was rapid in the pH 9 solution and moderate in pH 7 solution. It did not occur in the pH 5 solution.
Isomerization also occurred in the aqueous photolysis study.
(2). 3-(4-Hydroxyphenoxy)-benzaldehyde was a major product in the sandy loam (12.2% at 17 days, gararaa-cyhalothrin study).
(3). In the TFD study conducted with lambda-cyhalothrin, transformation products monitored at the two sites were reported to be at
low levels (<7%).
5 (l/^,S')-cis-3 (Z£)-2-chloro-3,3,3 -trifluro-1 -propenyl)-2,2-dimethylcylopropanecarboxylate.
6 (l/^S')-trans-3-(//'.')-2-chloro-3.3.3-trinuoroprop-l-cnyl)-2.2-diinctln lc\ clopropanc-carbo\\ lic acid.
7 3-phenoxybenzaldehyde
8 3-PBA or 3-phenoxybenzoic acid
9 (1.R) cis a-(.S') cis a-(R) a-cyano-3-(4-hydroxyphenoxy) benzyl 3-(Z-2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-l-enyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate
2.4.1. Environmental Transport Mechanisms
Potential transport mechanisms include pesticide surface water runoff, spray drift, and secondary
drift of volatilized or soil-bound residues leading to deposition onto nearby or more distant
ecosystems. Furthermore, soil-bound lambda-cyhalothrin may undergo secondary drift with dust
storms, that may cause its deposit in nearby or distant ecosystems. Surface water runoff, runoff
events accompanied with erosion and spray drift are expected to be the major routes of exposure
for /awMa-cyhalothrin. Given its high tendency to sorb to soil (as evidenced by its high Kd/Koc
values), lambda-cyhalothrin is expected to reach water bodies primarily sorbed to sediment.
With its relative persistence, lambda-cyhalothrin may accumulate in sediment with repeated
applications, where it may be a reservoir for exposure for benthic organisms. Lambda-
cyhalothrin has a low vapor pressure (1.56 X 10"9mmHg at 20°C) and Henry's Law constant (1.9
X 10"7 atm-m3/mole at 20°C); thus, volatilization from water and soil surfaces is expected to be
very low. Lambda-cyhalothrin's potential for volatilization is also reduced significantly because
it adsorbs strongly to soils and suspended solids or sediment in the water column.
2.4.2. Mechanism of Action
Lambda-cyhalothrin is a neurotoxin that acts through direct contact and ingestion. The
insecticidal effect of pyrethroids is characterized by a rapid "knock down," or paralysis, of
insects. All pyrethroids act as axonic poisons, affecting both the peripheral and central nervous
systems, and share similar modes of action. The primary biological effects of lambda-
53
-------
cyhalothrin on insects and vertebrates reflect an inhibition of the correct firing of
neurotransmitter delivery signals from one cell to another. Specifically, this involves nerve
2+
membrane inhibition of the voltage-gated Ca (calcium ion) channels coupled with a stimulatory
effect on the voltage-gated Na+ (sodium ion) channels (Matsumura, 1985).
2.4.3. Use Characterization
Analysis of labeled use information is the critical first step in evaluating the federal action. The
current labels for lambda-cyhalothrin represent the FIFRA regulatory action; therefore, labeled
use and application rates specified on the label form the basis of this assessment. The
assessment of use information is critical to the development of the action area and selection of
appropriate modeling scenarios and inputs.
Lambda-cyhalothrin is a pyrethroid insecticide that is currently registered on numerous field and
orchard crops; non-cultivated land; turf and other ornamentals; building exteriors; and other non-
agricultural uses. Applications include ground and aerial spray, dust, and chemigation
applications to agricultural crops; outdoor crack and crevice treatments; sprays to lawns and
ornamentals, trunk drenches to orchard crops; spot treatments to ant mounds; tree injections; and
perimeter applications. The use profile is based on the current, federally registered uses (Section
3). There are several hundred registered labels for lambda-cyhalothrin and, as a representative
sample, only labels from the major data providers ("data doers") were reviewed. Information
was collected on the maximum one time application rate, number of applications allowed per
year, the minimum time between treatments, and the application type. A summary of the
registered use patterns, target pests, formulation types, and application methods is provided
below.
Food (Vegetative) : Lambda-cyhalothrin is registered for use on almond, apple, apricot, barley,
beans (asparagus, moth, mung, rice, scarlet runner, lima, snap, tepary, urd), beech nut, bell
pepper, brassica (head and stem) vegetables, Brazil nut, broccoli (Chinese), brussels sprouts,
buckwheat, butternut, cabbage (Chinese), canola/rape, cashew, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea),
cauliflower, cereal grains, cherry, chestnut, chinquapin, cole crops, corn (pop, sweet), crabapple,
cucurbit vegetables, eggplant, filbert (hazelnut), fruiting vegetables, garlic, groundcherry
(strawberry tomato/tomatillo), hickory nut, Japanese plum, kohlrabi, legume vegetables, lettuce
(head and leaf), loquat, macadamia nut (bushnut), mayhaw, mustard, mustard cabbage (gai choy,
pak-choi), nectarine, oat, olive, onion, pea, peach, peanuts, pear, pecan, pepino (melon pear),
pepper, plum, pome fruit, potato (white/Irish), prune, quince, root and tuber vegetables, rice
(domestic and wild), rye, sorghum, soybean, stone fruit, sugarcane, sunflower, tomatillo, tomato,
tree nuts, triticale, walnut (English/black), and wheat.
Food (AnimalProducts): Lambda-cyhalothrin is registered for use on beef/range/feeder cattle,
calves, and dairy cattle (non-lactating).
Other Agriculture, Non-food: Lambda-cyhalothrin is registered for use on agricultural/farm
premises, alfalfa, corn (field), cotton, grasses grown for seed, grass forage/fodder/hay,
ornamental sod farm (turf), pastures, rangeland, seed orchard trees, tobacco, and dairy farm milk
handling facilities/equipment.
54
-------
Residential: Lambda-cyhalothrin is registered for household/domestic dwellings outdoor
premises, indoor premises, contents; ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous
plants, lawns and turf, non-flowering plants, woody shrubs and vines; paths/patios; paved areas
(private roads/sidewalks); pet living/sleeping quarters; rose; and residential lawns.
Public Health. Lambda-cyhalothrin is registered for use animal housing premises (outdoor,
indoor), animal kennels/sleeping quarters (commercial), commercial/institution/industrial
premise/equipment (indoor, outdoor), commercial storages/warehouses premises, commercial
transportation facilities (non-feed/non-food), drainage systems, eating establishments, eating
establishments food handling areas (non-food contact), food processing plant premises (non-food
contact), food stores/markets/supermarkets premises, hospitals/medical institutions premises
(human/veterinary), meat processing plant premises, and refuse/solid waste containers (garbage
cans, indoor).
Other Nonfood. Lambda-cyhalothrin is registered for use on airports/landing fields,
commercial/industrial lawns, conifers (plantations/nurseries), conifers (seed orchard),
fencerows/hedgerows, forest plantings (reforestation programs, tree farms, tree plantations, etc.),
golf course turf, greenhouse (empty), industrial/construction areas (outdoors), non-agricultural
outdoor buildings/structures, non-agricultural rights-of-way/fencerows/hedgerow, non-
agricultural areas/soils, non-feed/non-food storage areas (empty), recreational areas, recreation
area lawns, utilities, utility poles/rights-of-way), and wood protection treatment to
buildings/products (indoors, outdoors).
Target pests: Lambda-cyhalothrin is a broad-spectrum, insecticide registered for use on most
major aphid, caterpillar, and beetle pests on a wide variety of crops and for public health pests
such as mosquitoes and cockroaches in non-agricultural uses (USEPA, 2010).
Formulation types: Dust, emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, granular, impregnated
collar/tag, impregnated material, liquid-ready to use, microencapsulated, pelleted/tablet,
pressurized liquid, soluble concentrate/solid, and wettable powder.
Method. Lambda-cyhalothrin may be applied in the following ways: crack and crevice, outdoor
surface spray, perimeter treatment, soil broadcast, broadcast, chemigation, dust, spray, trunk
drench, barrier treatment, ear tag, mound treatment, spot treatment, soil in-furrow treatment, T-
banding, injection treatment, impregnated covering, band treatment, attractant, tree injection, and
wood surface treatment.
The following uses are not being considered in this assessment (Table 2-5). These uses have
been excluded because no outdoor exposure is expected that could affect listed (threatened or
endangered) species.
55
-------
Table 2-5. LamMa-Cyhalothrin Use Sites for Which No Risk Assessment Will Be
Performed
I se Site
Justification
Animal housing premises (indoor)
Indoor use
Animal kennels/sleeping quarters (commercial)
Indoor use
Black-eyed pea/cow pea
Crop not grown in CA
Commercial/institution/industrial premise/equipment (indoor)
Indoor use
Commercial/institution/industrial premise/equipment (outdoor)
Negligible environmental
exposure - pesticide is
applied to machinery and in
industrial/commercial settings
that are not routinely expected
to come into contact with
non-target species
Commercial storages/warehouses premises
Indoor use
Dairy farm milk handling facilities/equipment
Indoor use
Drainage systems
Negligible environmental
exposure - applied to dry
sewers and other drainage
systems that are contained and
water is not present
Eating establishments
Indoor use
Eating establishments food handling areas (nonfood contact)
Indoor use
F encerows/hedgerows
Negligible environmental
exposure - injection into
fencerow/hedgerow via spray
can (drill hole and spray);
chemical is not mobile
Food processing plant premises (nonfood contact)
Indoor use
Food stores/markets/supermarkets premises
Indoor use
Greenhouse-empty
Indoor use
Hospitals/medical institutions premises (human/veterinary)
Indoor use
Household/domestic dwellings
Indoor use
Household/domestic dwellings contents
Indoor use
Household/domestic dwellings indoor premises
Indoor use
Industrial/construction areas (outdoor)
Negligible environmental
exposure - applications in
voids, trenches, or under tarps
as part of a construction site
Meat processing plant premises (nonfood contact)
Indoor use
Nonagricultural outdoor buildings/structures
Indoor use
Non feed/nonfood storage areas-empty
Indoor use
Olive
Negligible environmental
exposure - pheromone bait
that is specific to one olive fly
pest (non-listed)
56
-------
I se Site
Justification
Pet living/sleeping quarters
Indoor use
Refuse/solid waste sites (indoor)
Indoor use
Sugarcane
Crop not grown in CA
Tobacco
Crop not grown in CA
Utilities
Negligible environmental
exposure - injections into
poles via spray can; chemical
is not mobile
Utility poles
Negligible environmental
exposure; injections into poles
via spray can (drill hole and
spray); chemical is not mobile
Wood protection treatment to buildings/products
Negligible environmental
exposure; injections into
wood (drill hole and apply);
chemical is not mobile
Wood protection treatment to buildings/products indoors
Indoor use
Table 2-6 presents the uses and corresponding application rates and methods of application
considered in this assessment. In some instances, labels presented ambiguous information
regarding application rates and timing. For these gaps, information was taken from other similar
labels or uses, or conservative estimates (see footnotes in table).
Table 2-6. LamMa-Cyhalothrin Uses Assessed for California
I se
Max
Max crop cycle
N il in her of
Application
application
application rale
crop cycles
method
Kate
(application interval)
per year
0.2212 lb ai/A1
Crack and crevice
Agricultural/ farm
0.5187 lb ai/A2
1
Outdoor surface
premises
0.2212 lb ai/A
7 days3
spray (ground)
Perimeter treatment
Airports/landing fields
0.08 lb ai/A
4 lb ai/A4
7 days3
1
Soil broadcast
(ground)
Alfalfa
0.038 lb ai/A
0.119 lb ai/A (10 days)
9
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Almond
Apple
Cherry
Crabapple
0.1 lb ai/A5
6 apps per year (almond) -
0.6 lb ai/A6
9 apps per year (apple,
cherry, crabapple,
nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune) - 0.9 lb ai/A7
Dust (ground)
Nectarine
Peach
Pear
Plum
Prune
0.1 lb ai/A
0.1 lb ai/A (1 app per year
- almond) (10 days -
cherry, nectarine, peach,
pear, plum, prune)
1
Spray (ground)
0.15361b
ai/100 gal
(5 days - almond,
nectarine, peach) 0.18 lb
Trunk drench
57
-------
I so
Msix
:ipplic;ilion
U:ile
Msix crop cycle
;ipplicnlion rsile
(;ipplic;ilion inlcrv;il)
N il in her »l'
crop cycles
per yesir
Application
method
0.06 lb ai/A8
ai/Ay
3 apps per year (5 days-
cherry) 0.18 lb ai/A9
0.04161b
ai/100 gal
(apple only)
0.06 lb ai/A8
1 app per year
Animal housing premises
(outdoor)
Paths/patios
Household/domestic
dwellings outdoor
premises
0.2762 lb ai/A
(all uses)
4 lb ai/A4
(21 days)
1
Barrier treatment
Crack and crevice
(household
only)
2 lb ai/A4
4 lb ai/A4
7 days3
Crack and crevice
Injection treatment
Apricot
Beans (asparagus,
succulent)
Beech nut
Brazil nut
Butternut
Cashew
Chestnut
Chinquapin
Eggplant
Groundcherry (strawberry
tomato/tomatillo)
Hickory nut
Loquat
Macadamia nut (bushnut)
Mayhaw (hawthorn)
Pea
Pepino (melon pear)
Pepper
Plum, Japanese
Quince
0.0239 lb ai/A
9 apps per year (apricot,
beans, eggplant,
groundcherry, loquat,
mayhaw, pea, pepino,
pepper, plum, quince) -
0.2151 lb ai/A11
6 apps per year (beech nut,
brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut,
chinquapin, hickory nut,
macadamia nut) - 0.1434
lb ai/A12
1
Broadcast (ground)
0.0239 lb
ai/A10
Dust
Barley
0.031 lb ai/A
0.062 lb ai/A
1
Spray (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Beef/range/feeder cattle
(meat)
Calves (meat)
Dairy cattle (non-
lactating)
0.0042 lb
ai/animal
N/A (when needed)
N/A
Ear tag
Bell pepper
Catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
Mustard cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi)
0.03 lb ai/A13
Bell pepper - 12 apps per
year - 0.36 lb ai/A13
Mustard - 8 apps per year
- 0.24 lb ai/A13
1
Broadcast
(ground), aerial,
chemigation
0.03 lb ai/A13
Dust (bell pepper
only)
Brassica (head and stem)
0.031 lb ai/A
8 apps per year
3
Spray(aerial,
58
-------
I so
Msix
:ipplic;ilion
U:ile
Msix crop cycle
;ipplicnlion rsile
(;ipplic;ilion inlcrv;il)
N il in her »l'
crop cycles
per yesir
Application
method
\ egetables
(3 per crop cycle) - 0.24 lb
ai/A (7 days)
ground)
Chemigation
Broccoli (Chinese)
0.0294 lb ai/A
1 (tomato,
Broadcast (ground)
Cabbage (Chinese)
Cauliflower
Kohlrabi
Mustard
Tomatillo
Tomato
0.0294 lb
ai/A14
9 apps per year - 0.2646 lb
ai/A15
tomatillo)
2 (broccoli,
cauliflower)
3 (cabbage,
kohlrabi)
4 (mustard)
Dust
0.038 lb ai/A
(10 days) 3 apps per year
Broadcast (ground)
Brussels sprouts
0.038 lb ai/A16
9 apps per year - 0.342 lb
ai/A17
1
Dust
Buckwheat
Oat
Rye
0.03 lb ai/A
0.06 lb ai/A (3 days)
1
Spray (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Canola/rape
Grass forage/fodder/hay
Pastures
Rangeland
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.0934 lb ai/A
(5 days-canola/rape)
(N/A- grass forage)
(30 days- pastures,
rangeland)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Cereal grains
Triticale
Wheat
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.0622 lb ai/A (3 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Cole crops
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.249 lb ai/A
3
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Onion
Onion
0.0311 lb
ai/A18
9 apps per year - 0.2799 lb
ai/A19
Dust
0.1585 lb ai/A
Broadcast (ground)
Commercial/ industrial
lawns
Ornamental lawns and turf
Recreation area lawns
0.004 lb ai/2.5
gal
(commercial
only)
0.06 lb ai/A8
0.4153 lb ai/A (7 days)
1
Mound treatment
0.004 lb ai/gal
(commercial
only)
0.06 lb ai/A8
Spot treatment
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries)
0.0401 lb ai/A
0.24 lb ai/A
1
Broadcast (ground)
Conifers (seed orchard)
0.156 lb ai/A
0.504 lb ai/A
1
Spray (ground)
Corn (field)
0.042 lb ai/A
0.129 lb ai/A (10 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Corn (field, pop)
0.0934 lb ai/A
0.1245 lb ai/A
1
Soil in furrow
59
-------
I so
Msix
:ipplic;ilion
U:ile
Msix crop cycle
;ipplicnlion rsile
(;ipplic;ilion inlcrv;il)
Nil ill her »r
crop cycles
per yesir
Application
method
0.498 lb ai/A (4 days)
treatment
T-banding (soil
treatment)
Corn (sweet)
0.042 lb ai/A20
5 apps per crop cycle -
0.21 lb ai/A21
3
Dust
0.03 lb ai/A13
16 apps per year (6 per
crop cycle) - 0.48 lb ai/A13
Spray (aerial,
ground,
chemigation)
Cotton
0.042 lb ai/A
0.126 lb ai/A (10 days) 3
apps per year
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Cucurbit vegetables
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.1864 lb ai/A (5 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Filbert (hazelnut)
Pecan
Walnut (English/black)
0.057 lb ai/A
0.158 lb ai/A (10 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial)
Spray (ground)
0.057 lb ai/A22
6 apps per year - 0.342 lb
ai/A23
Dust
Forest plantings
(reforestation
programs)(tree farms, tree
plantations, etc.)
0.0511 lb ai/A
0.2381 lb ai/A (7 days)
1
Broadcast (ground)
Forest trees (all or
unspecified)
Nonagricultural rights-of-
way
2 lb ai/A4
4 lb ai/A4
7 days3
1
Injection treatment
Fruiting vegetables
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.3735 lb ai/A (5 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Garlic
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.246 lb ai/A
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
0.068 lb ai/A13
0.068 lb ai/A
Broadcast (ground)
0.0025 lb
ai/2.5 gal
Golf course turf
Ornamental sod farm
(except
ornamental)
0.0688 lb
ai/A13
0.3542 lb ai/A (7 days)
1
Mound treatment
(turf)
0.00000703 lb
ai/anthill
(except
ornamental)
0.06 lb ai/A8
0.36 lb ai/A
Spot treatment
0.1306 lb ai/A
0.3423 lb ai/A (7 days)
1
Broadcast (ground)
Grasses grown for seed
0.00000703 lb
ai/anthill
0.06 lb ai/A8
0.36 lb ai/A (7 days)
1
Spot treatment
Legume vegetables
0.0311 lb ai/A
0.1245 lb ai/A (5 days-
1
Broadcast (aerial,
60
-------
I so
Msix
:ipplic;ilion
U:ile
Msix crop cycle
;ipplicnlion rsile
(;ipplic;ilion inlcrv;il)
N il in her »l'
crop cycles
per yesir
Application
method
Peanuts
Root and tuber vegetables
legume)
(7 days- peanuts, root and
tubers)
ground)
Chemigation
Lettuce
0.0311 lbai/A
0.3112 lb ai/A (5 days)
2
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
0.0792 lb
ai/A24
0.2075 lb ai/A
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Nonagricultural
0.0792 lb ai/A
1
Band treatment
Broadcast (ground)
Perimeter treatment
uncultivated areas/soils
0.0001 lb
ai/mound
0.06 lb ai/A8
0.36 lb ai/A
7 days3
Mound treatment
0.00000928 lb
ai/anthill
0.06 lb ai/A8
Spot treatment
0.0396 lb
ai/100 gal
0.162 lb ai/A2
0.4153 lb ai/A (7 days)
Broadcast (ground)
Ornamental and/or shade
trees
1.3 lb ai/A
4 lb ai/A4
1
Spray (ground)
N/A
7 days25
Tree injection
Ornamental groundcover
Ornamental herbaceous
1.2 lb ai/A
(except
groundcover,
rose, and non
flowering)26
Dust
plants
Ornamental non flowering
plants
3.6 lb ai/A13
7 days3
1
Spray (ground)
Ornamental woody shrubs
and vines
Rose
1.2 lb ai/A
Broadcast (ground)
(rose only)
Paved areas (private
roads/ sidewalks)
0.069 lb ai/A4
0.36 lb ai/A13
7 days3
(preconstruction)
1
Barrier treatment
Perimeter treatment
Pome fruits
Stone fruits
0.0415 lb ai/A
0.2075 lb ai/A
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
61
-------
I so
Msix
:ipplic;ilion
U:ile
Msix crop cycle
;ipplicnlion rsile
(;ipplic;ilion inlcrv;il)
N il in her »l'
crop cycles
per yesir
Application
method
Potato, white/Irish
0.0239 lb ai/A
0.0879 lb ai/A (7 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Recreational areas
0.0291 lb ai/A
4 lb ai/A4
7 days3
1
Band treatment
2 lb ai/A4
Crack and crevice
Spot treatment
Injection treatment
Residential lawns
0.078 lb ai/A27
6 apps per year - 0.468 lb
ai/A27
1
Broadcast (granular
ground)
1.9 lb ai/A13
1.9 lb ai/A13
Mound treatment
(granular)
Rice
Rice (wild)
0.0415 lb ai/A
0.1245 lb ai/A (5 days)
1
Broadcast (ground)
Chemigation
Seed orchard trees
0.162 lb ai/A
0.5187 lb ai/A
1
Spray (ground)
Sorghum
0.038 lb ai/A
0.077 lb ai/A (10 days
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Soybean
0.038 lb ai/A
0.059 lb ai/A (14 days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Conservation
tillage (ground)
Tree nuts
0.0415 lb ai/A
0.166 lb ai/A (5days)
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Chemigation
Sunflower
0.038 lb ai/A
0.114 lb ai/A (10 days) 3
apps per year
1
Broadcast (aerial,
ground)
Right-of-ways
0.06 lb ai/A28
0.36 lb ai/A28
7 days3
1
Soil treatment
used perimeter treatment rate; used seed orchard trees rate (100-1097); used golf course turf application interval
(100-1088); 4used residential lawn rate (9688-274); 5used spray application rate; 6used 6 times 0.1 lb ai/A; 7used 9
times 0.11b ai/A; 8used rate fromPRD Verification Memo; 9used 3 times 0.06 lb ai/A; 10used broadcast application
rate; nused 9 time 0.0239 lb ai/A; 12used 6 times 0.0239 lb ai/A; 13personal communication from registrant; 14used
broadcast application rate; 15used 9 times 0.0294 lb ai/A; 16used broadcast application rate; 17used 9 times 0.038 lb
ai/A; 18used broadcast application rate; 19used 9 times 0.0311 lb ai/A; 20used broadcast application rate; 21used 5
times 0.042 lb ai/A; 22used broadcast application rate; 23used 6 times 0.057 lb ai/A; 24used band/broadcast treatment
rate; 25used broadcast application interval; 26used spray/broadcast application rate; 27used application rate from 100-
1239; used 2 times 21b ai/A; 28used spot treatment application rate from nonagricultural;
Many lambda-cyhalothrin product labels specify application rates on a per crop cycle basis (not
on a per year basis). Information from the Agency's Biological and Economic Analysis Division
(BEAD) indicates that many crops can be grown more than one time per year in California
(USEPA, 2007a). Examples of crops that may be grown multiple times in a calendar year that
can be treated by lambda-cyhalothrin include alfalfa, brassica, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower,
cole crops, corn (sweet), kohlrabi, lettuce, mustard, and onion (USEPA 2007a). The cropping
62
-------
seasons range between two and nine cycles per year. Multiple crop cycles were considered using
multiple applications with a 120-day retreatment interval, except for alfalfa and mustard, in
which a 40-day and 90-day retreatment interval was assumed, respectively. For all other labeled
uses, it was assumed that a maximum seasonal application specified on the label was equivalent
to a maximum annual application.
The following map (Figure 2-1) depicts agricultural pesticide usage at the Crop Reporting
District (CRD) level (USEPA 2012b). CRDs are boundaries created by USDA National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) that are aggregates of counties. Pesticide usage is
displayed as average pounds (for the years 2006-2010) per 1000 acres of farmland in a CRD to
normalize for the variation in farmland between CRDs. Usage is based on private market
surveys of pesticide use in agriculture and the survey data are limited to the states that represent
the top 80-90% of acreage for the individual crops. Therefore, use may be occurring in regions
outside the scope of the survey. CRDs showing no usage of pesticides may be from a lack of
pesticide use in that region or non-participation in the agricultural surveys. In addition, across
the years, there may be variations in the specific crops included in the CRD survey. This may
result in a lower annual average for the CRD. The map shows that use in reporting counties in
California range from < 0.4 to 2.6 lb ai/1000 acres of farmland.
63
-------
Figure 2-1. Lfl»iMfl-Cyhalothrin Use in Total Pounds per County (USDA 2006-2010,
NASS Crop Reporting Districts;
http://www.ers.usda.gOv/briefmg/arms/resourceregions/resourceregions.htm#nass)
BEAD (USEPA 2012a) provided an analysis of California usage, which was derived from
California's Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting (CDPR PUR)
database. CDPR PUR is considered a more comprehensive source of usage data than USDA-
NASS or EPA proprietary databases, and thus the usage data reported for lambda-cyhalothrin by
county in this California-specific assessment were generated using CDPR PUR data. Twelve
years (1999-2010) of usage data were included in this analysis. Data from CDPR PUR were
obtained for every agricultural pesticide application made on every use site at the section level
(approximately one square mile) of the public land survey system.1 BEAD summarized these
data to the county level by site, pesticide, and unit treated. Calculating county-level usage
involved summarizing across all applications made within a section and then across all sections
3 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reporting database provides a census of
pesticide applications in the state. See http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.
4 Most pesticide applications to parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad
rights of way, and postharvest treatments of agricultural commodities are reported in the database. The primary
exceptions to the reporting requirement are heme-and-garden use and most industrial and institutional uses
(http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm).
64
-------
within a county for each use site and for each pesticide. The county level usage data that were
calculated include: average annual pounds applied, average annual area treated, and average and
maximum application rate across all twelve years. The units of area treated are also provided
where available. Between 1999 and 2010, annual use of lambda-cyhalothrin in California
ranged from approximately 22,000 to 49,000 pounds active ingredient per year.
A summary of lambda-cyhalothrin usage for all California use sites is provided below in Table
2-7. Structural pest control, tomato (processing), rice, lettuce (leaf), lettuce (head), almond, and
alfalfa had the highest usage with greater than 1000 lb ai/year.
Table 2-7. Summary of California Department of Pesticide Registration (CDPR) Pesticide
Use Reporting (PUR) Data from 1999 to 2010 for Currently Registered Lambda-
Cyhalothrin Uses1
Average
Average Application
Maximum
Site Name
Annual Pounds
Rate
Application Rate
Applied
(lbs a.i./A)
(lbs a.i./A)
Alfalfa
3554
0.028
N/A
Almond
1557
0.03
4.2
Animal premise
5.3
1
10.1
Apple
130
0.046
0.3
Apricot
82
0.03
0.25
Artichoke, globe
0.65
0.063
0.1
Avocado
0.1
0.023
0.023
Barley
0.64
0.027
0.03
Bean, dried
575
0.029
3.9
Bean, succulent
128
0.029
0.5
Bean, unspecified
156
0.035
0.1
Bermudagrass
1.7
0.028
0.03
Beverage crop
0.0004
0.000007
0.00001
Bok choy
2.1
0.029
0.07
Broccoli
363
0.029
0.5
Brussels sprout
32
0.029
0.3
Buildings/non-ag outdoor
0.00004
0.0005
0.0005
Cabbage
106
0.027
0.4
Canola (rape)
1.84
0.029
0.03
Cantaloupe
2.7
0.024
0.07
Cauliflower
148
0.027
0.88
Celery
3.14
0.28
0.09
Cherry
191
0.044
5
Chicory
0.01
0.03
0.03
Chinese cabbage
28
0.028
0.4
Chinese greens
0.105
0.026
0.03
Christmas tree
0.01
0.033
0.033
Commodity fumigation
0.13
N/A
N/A
Corn (forage, fodder)
183
0.03
0.47
65
-------
Site Name
Average Average Application
Annual Pounds Rate
Applied (lbs a.i./A)
Maximum
Application Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Corn (human consumption)
862
0.034
3.7
Cotton
538
0.034
0.6
County ag comm
0.14
N/A
N/A
Cucumber
2.4
0.028
0.03
Dairy equipment
0.86
0.068
0.1
Eggplant
0.52
0.027
0.03
Endive (escarole)
0.83
0.097
0.3
Food processing plant
0.021
0.0003
0.001
Forage hay/silage
0.8
0.03
0.03
Fumigation (other)
0.16
N/A
N/A
Gai choy
0.24
0.03
0.04
Gai Ion
10
0.028
0.46
Garbanzos
0.2
0.03
0.03
Garlic
30
0.033
0.27
Grape, wine
0.14
0.08
0.15
Grass, seed
0.02
0.023
0.023
Greenhouse flower
6.8
0.048
0.65
Greenhouse transplants
0.56
0.05
0.65
Household
0.03
0.000003
0.000003
Industrial site
0.034
0.012
0.003
Kale
3.4
2
7.9
Kohlrabi
0.09
0.026
0.03
Landscape maintenance
118
0.013
0.034
Lettuce, head
2265
0.04
4
Lettuce, leaf
1782
0.03
4
Melon
2.3
0.029
0.06
Mustard
0.10
0.13
0.3
Nectarine
12
0.038
0.35
Oat (forage/fodder)
0.77
0.05
0.15
Olive
0.0056
0.0006
0.002
Onion, dry
500
0.033
6.3
Onion, green
28
6.63
32.8
Orchard floor
1.09
0.5
0.6
Outdoor flower
6.0
0.062
0.47
Outdoor plants (containers)
37
0.044
1.5
Outdoor transplants
24
0.055
3
Pastureland
1.5
0.026
0.03
Peach
281
0.031
3.4
Pear
28
0.034
0.25
Peas
25
0.027
0.033
Pecan
1.5
0.033
0.04
66
-------
Average
Average Application
Maximum
Site Name
Annual Pounds
Rate
Application Rate
Applied
(lbs a.i./A)
(lbs a.i./A)
Pepper, fruiting
53
0.029
2.4
Pepper, spice
5.8
0.028
0.03
Pistachio
952
0.064
4.2
Plants in containers (greenhouse)
5.7
0.048
1.6
Plum
12
0.029
0.08
Potato
18
0.036
0.067
Prune
42
0.028
0.48
Public health
2.6
N/A
N/A
Pumpkin
1.9
0.031
0.15
Quince
1.01
0.035
0.065
Radish
0.09
0.047
0.065
Rappini
0.09
0.027
0.03
Regulatory pest control
6.4
0.002
0.002
Research commodity
4.5
0.042
0.046
Rice
2121
0.031
3.9
Rice, wild
21
0.029
0.05
Rights-of-way
9.9
0.22
1.7
Rye
0.12
0.03
0.03
Ryegrass
0.39
0.031
0.031
Shallot
0.001
0.03
0.03
Shingi ku
0.04
0.014
0.014
Soil fumigation/preplant
1.45
0.028
0.026
Sorghum (forage/fodder)
23
0.028
0.21
Sorghum/milo
3.01
0.03
0.03
Soybean
3.72
0.03
0.04
Soybean grain
0.03
0.03
0.03
Spinach
7.72
0.25
3
Squash
1.26
0.098
0.07
Squash, summer
2.2
0.19
2.9
Squash, winter
0.04
0.031
0.031
Stone fruit
0.02
0.031
0.031
Strawberry
1.45
0.075
0.1
Structural pest control
10312
0.031
0.033
Sudangrass
47
0.03
3.6
Sugar beet
0.16
0.02
0.03
Sunflower
166
0.028
0.5
Sweet potato
1.43
0.027
0.03
Tomatillo
13
0.062
3.1
Tomato
132
0.029
0.48
Tomato (processing)
1783
0.03
3.9
Turf/sod
29
0.039
0.2
67
-------
Site Name
Average Average Application
Annual Pounds Rate
Applied (lbs a.i./A)
Maximum
Application Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Uncultivated ag
4.9
0.03
0.06
Uncultivated non-ag
0.2
0.036
0.078
Unknown
4.01
0.029
0.1
Vegetable
0.01
0.063
0.063
Vegetables, leafy
0.1
0.023
0.024
Vertebrate control
0.8
0.029
0.032
Walnut
343
0.032
3.3
Watermelon
2.94
0.03
0.04
Wheat
47
0.032
0.28
Wheat (forage, fodder)
4.7
0.026
0.03
1- Based on data supplied by BEAD (USEPA 2012a).
2.5. Assessed Species
Table 2-8 provides a summary of the current distribution, habitat requirements, and life history
parameters for the listed species being assessed. More detailed life-history and distribution
information can be found in Attachment II. See Figure 2-2 through 2-9 for maps of the current
range and designated critical habitat, if applicable, of the assessed listed species. See Section 2.1
for information on when each species was listed and a general description of their ranges.
68
-------
Table 2-8. Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History Information for the Assessed Listed
Species1
Assessed Species
Si/e
( IIITCIII RilllliO
lliihiliil l\|H'
Ik'siliiiiik'd
( riliciil
lliihiliil?
Kc|>m(lucli\c
( \cle
Did
San Francisco
Garter Snake
(SFGS)
(Thamnophis
sirtalis
tetrataenia)
Adult
(46-131 cm in
length),
Females - 227
g,
Males -
113 g;
Juveniles - 2 g
(Cover Jr. and
Boyer, 1988)
(18-20 cm in
length)
San Mateo County
Densely vegetated
freshwater ponds
near open grassy
hillsides; emergent
vegetation; rodent
burrows
No
Oviparous
Reproduction2
Breedins: Sorina (Mar.
and Apr.) and Fall (Sept.
to Nov.)
Ovulation and
Preenancv: Late sorina
and early summer
Youne: Born 3-4 months
after mating
Juveniles: froes
(Pacific tree frog,
CRLF, and bullfrogs
depending on size)
and insects
Adults: Drimarilv
frogs (mainly CRLFs;
also bullfrogs, toads);
to a lesser extent
newts; freshwater fish
and invertebrates;
insects and small
mammals
California
Clapper Rail
(CCR)
(Rallus
longirostris
obsoletus)
250 - 350 g
Juveniles ~50
g3
Alameda, Contra Costa,
Marin, Napa, San Francisco,
San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Solano, and Sonoma counties
Tidal marsh habitat
No
Breedins: Feb. - Aueust
Nestine: mid-March-
Aug.
Lav Esss: March - Julv
Incubation: 23 to 29
days;
Leave nest: 35 to 42
days after hatch;
Juveniles fledge at ten
weeks and can breed
during the spring after
they hatch
Opportunistic feeders:
freshwater and
estuarine
invertebrates, seeds,
worms, mussels,
snails, clams, crabs,
insects, and spiders;
occasionally consume
small birds and
mammals, dead fish,
up to 15% plant
material
Tidewater goby
(Eucyclogobius
newberryi)
Up to 50 mm in
length
Lagoons, estuaries and salt
marshes along the coast of
California, 5 km south of the
California/ Oregon border
and 71 km north of the
California/Mexico border
Shallow (0.1-2 m),
still-to-slow moving,
aquatic habitat most
commonly ranging
in salinity from 0.5
to 10 ppt.
Yes
They spawn in slightly
brackish water between
2 and 27 ppt. They have
been observed spawning
in every month of the
year except December;
reproduction peaks in
late April to July
They feed mainly on
macroinvertebrates
such as mysid shrimp,
gammarid amphipods,
ostracods and aquatic
insects such as
chironomid larvae.
Small TG (four to
eight mm SL)
probably feed on
69
-------
Assessed Species
Si/c
( iiitciH Kiin^c
Ihihiliil Tjpe
Desi^iiiiled
( rilic.il
Ihihiliil?
Kcpmriiicli\c
( \clc
Diel
unicellular
phytoplankton or
zooplankton similar to
many other early stage
larval fishes.
Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly (BCB)
(Euphydryas
editha bayensis)
Adult butterfly
- 5 cm in length
Santa Clara and San Mateo
Counties [the BCB
distribution is considered a
metapopulation, thus any site
with appropriate habitat in
the vicinity of its historic
range (Alameda, Contra
Costa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara
counties) should be
considered potentially
occupied by the butterfly
(USFWS 1998, p. 11-177)].
1) Primary habitat -
native grasslands on
large serpentine
outcrops;
2) Secondary habitat
- 'islands' of
smaller serpentine
outcrops with native
grassland;
3) Tertiary habitat -
non-serpentine areas
where larval food
plants occur
Yes
Larvae hatch in March -
May and grow to the 4th
instar in about two
weeks. The larvae enter
into a period of
dormancy (diapause)
that lasts through the
summer. The larvae
resume activity with the
start of the rainy season.
Larvae pupate once they
reach a weight of 300 -
500 milligrams. Adults
emerge within 15 to 30
days depending on
thermal conditions, feed
on nectar, mate and lay
eggs during a flight
season that lasts 4 to 6
weeks from late
February to early May
Obligate with dwarf
plantain. Primary diet
is dwarf plantain
plants (may also feed
on purple owl's-clover
or exerted paintbrush
if the dwarf plantains
senesce before the
larvae pupate). Adults
feed on the nectar of a
variety of plants found
in association with
serpentine grasslands
Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
(VELB)
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
Males: 1.25-
2.5 cm length
Females:
1.9-2.5 cm
length
Central Valley of California
(from Shasta County to
Fresno County in the San
Joaquin Valley)
Completely
dependent on its
host plant,
elderberry
(Sambucus species),
which is a common
component of the
remaining riparian
forests and adjacent
upland habitats of
Yes
The larval stage may last
2 years living within the
stems of an elderberry
plant. Then larvae enter
the pupa stage and
transform into adults.
Adults emerge and are
active from March to
June feeding and mating,
when the elderberry
Obligates with
elderberry trees
(.Sambucus sp).
Adults eat the
elderberry foliage
until about June when
they mate. Upon
hatching the larvae
tunnel into the tree
where they will spend
70
-------
Assessed Species
Si/e
( IIITCIll RilllliC
Ihihiliil Tjpe
Desi^iiiiled
( rilic.il
Ihihiliil?
Kcpmriiicli\c
( \clc
Diel
California's Cculinl
Valley
produces flowers.
£ /:¦ _¦ W-ctKs
interior wood which is
their sole food source.
Delta Smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
Up to 120 mm
in length
Suisun Bay and the
Sacramento-San Joaquin
estuary (known as the Delta)
near San Francisco Bay, CA
The species is
adapted to living in
fresh and brackish
water. They
typically occupy
estuarine areas with
salinities below 2
parts per thousand
(although they have
been found in areas
up to 18 parts per
thousand). They
live along the
freshwater edge of
the mixing zone
(saltwater-
freshwater
interface).
Yes
They spawn in fresh or
slightly brackish water
upstream of the mixing
zone. Spawning season
usually takes place from
late March through mid-
May, although it may
occur from late winter
(Dec.) to early summer
(July-August). Eggs
hatch in 9 - 14 days.
They primarily eat
copepods,
cladocerans,
amphipods, and insect
larvae. Larvae feed
on phytoplankton;
juveniles feed on
zooplankton.
California Tiger
Salamander
(CTS)
(Ambystoma
californiense)
Adult
14.2-80.5 g4
CTS-SC are primarily found
on the Santa Rosa Plain in
Sonoma County.
CTS-CC occupies the Bay
Area (central and southern
Alameda, Santa Clara,
western Stanislaus, western
Merced, and the majority of
San Benito Counties), Central
Valley (Yolo, Sacramento,
Solano, eastern Contra Costa,
northeast Alameda, San
Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced,
and northwestern Madera
Counties), southern San
Freshwater pools or
ponds (natural or
man-made, vernal
pools, ranch stock
ponds, other Ashless
ponds); Grassland or
oak savannah
communities, in low
foothill regions;
Small mammal
burrows
Yes
Emeree from burrows
and breed: fall and
winter rains
Esss: laid in oond Dec.
- Feb., hatch: after 10 to
14 days
Larval staee: 3-6
months, until the ponds
dry out, metamorphose
late spring or early
summer, migrate to
small mammal burrows
Aauatic Phase: aleae.
snails, zooplankton,
small crustaceans, and
aquatic larvae and
invertebrates, smaller
tadpoles of Pacific
tree frogs, CRLF,
toads;
Terrestrial Phase:
terrestrial
invertebrates, insects,
frogs, and worms
71
-------
Assessed Species
Si/e
( IIITCIII RilllliO
lliihiliil l\|H'
Desi^iiiiled
( riliciil
lliihiliil?
Kc|>m(lucli\c
( \cle
Did
Joaquin Valley (portions of
Madera, central Fresno, and
northern Tulare and Kings
Counties), and the Central
Coast Range (southern Santa
Cruz, Monterey, northern San
Luis Obispo, and portions of
western San Benito, Fresno,
and Kern Counties).
CTS-SB are found in Santa
Barbara County.
California
Freshwater
Shrimp (CFWS)
(Syncaris
pacified)
Up to 50 mm
postorbital
length (from
the eye orbit to
tip of tail)
Marin, Napa, and Sonoma
Counties, CA
Freshwater,
perennial streams;
they prefer quiet
portions of tree-
lined streams with
underwater
vegetation and
exposed tree roots
No
Breed once a year,
typically in Sept. Eggs
adhere to the pleopods
and are cared for 8 - 9
months; embryos emerge
during May or early
June.
Feed on detritus
(algae, aquatic
macrophyte
fragments,
zooplankton, and
aufwuchs)
Oviparous = eggs hatch within the female's body and young are born live.
3 No data on juvenile CCR body weights are available at this time. As a surrogate for CCR juveniles, data on captive 21-day king rails were averaged for the
juvenile body weight. King rails make an appropriate proxy for the CCR in the absence of information. The birds were once considered the same species by
taxonomists, are members of the same genus (Rallus), and occasionally interbreed where habitats overlap.
4 See Page 369 of Trenham el al. (Trenham el al., 2000).
72
-------
Figure 2-2. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified
in Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat
Legend
a Bay Checkerspot Butterfly RP
| Bay Checkerspot Butterfly CH
Bay Checkerspot Btfly sections
NHD waterbody
CAStreams and Rivers
CAcounties
i Kilometers
01,53 6 9 1 2
1:517,774
\
Map created by US EPA on 1 (¥7/2009. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS, North American Datum of 1 983 (NAD 1983).
County boundaries and streams from ESRI (2002), Water bodies
from NHDPius (2006). Occurrence section data obtained from
Case No. 07-2794-JCS, critical habitat data obtained from
http://crithab.fws.gov/, point data obtained from USFWS Recover/
Plan (RP) 1 998. Landccwerfrom USDA Gap Analysis Program
Orchard/Vineyard, National Land Cover Database (MRLC, 2001)
and derivative products.
Costa a
Alameda
/ ^
,,;" San Benito
Santa Crtjz
73
-------
Figure 2-3. California Clapper Rail Habitat and Occurrence Sections Identified in Case
No. 07-2794-JCS.
California Clapper Rail Habitat
( Sanfa Jgu?
O Calif Clapper Rail from RP
~\ Calif Clapper Rail (sections)
NHD water bodies
Streams and Rivers
1:459,989 /
10/2009
CA counties
iKilometers
01.53 6 9 12
San Mateo
Map created by US EPA on 1 KS'2009. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS, North American Datum of 1983 (WAD 1983).
River data from 2004 ESRI data, county boundaries from 2002 ESRI data.
CA Clapper Rail section information obtained from Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
Point habitat data obtained from USFWS Recovery Plan, 1984.
Contra Costa
/
Legend
Alameda
Clara
74
-------
Figure 2-4. California Freshwater Shrimp Habitat and Occurrence Sections identified in
Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
California Freshwater Shrimp Habitat
iKilometers
0 2 4 8 12 16
1:490,782
Map created by US EPA on 1 OfEJ2009. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983).
County boundaries and streams from ESRI (2002). Water bodies
from NHDPIus (2006).
CA Freshwater Shrimp section information from Case No. 07-2794-JCS,
river habitat segments obtained from USFWS Recovery Plan (RP) 1 998.
/
Legend
I | CAFreshwater Shrimp sections
CAFreshwater Shrimp habitat (RP)
NHD Area
CA Streams and Rivers
~ CA counties
75
-------
Figure 2-5. California Tiger Salamander Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections
identified in Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
Son oma
County
DPS
O
•P
rt
*
O
>
¦P
f *
Legend
| CATiger Salamander CH
~ CA Tiger Salamander sections
Counties
<5
'S'
I Kilometers
0 10 20
40 BO 80
1:1,934,159
Santa
Baibara
DPS
Map Created by USEPA on 2/17/2010. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Coriic USGS, North American Datum 1983.
Compiled from ESRI county boundaries and streams (2002).
CTS occurrence section data from Case No. 07-2794-JCS,
critical habitat data from http://crithab.fws.gov.
'
76
-------
Figure 2-6. Delta Smelt Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections identified in Case No.
07-2794-JCS.
Delta Smelt Habitat
Legend
10/2009
Delta smelt critical habitat
Delta smelt occurrence sections
NHD water bodies
Streams and Rivers
OA counties
¦ " ;
* Sutter
Stanislaus
iansa vyvz.
Map created by US EPA on 1Q/6/2009. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983).
River data from ESRI (2004), county boundariesfrom ESRI (2002),
water bo dies from NHDPIus (2006).
Delta Smelt section information obtained from Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
Critical habitat data obtained from http:/crithab.1ws.gtw/.
77
-------
Figure 2-7. San Francisco Garter Snake Habitat and Occurrence Sections identified in
Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
SF Garter Snake Habitat
San Francisco
San Mateo
Legend
SF Garter Snake distribution from RP
| SF Garter Snake occurrence sections
NHD waterbody
CAStrearns and Rivers
CAcounties
l Kilometers
0 1 2
4 6 8
1:282,367
k
Map created by US EPA on 10(7/2009. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983).
County boundaries and streams from ESRI (2002). Water bodies
from NHDPIus (2006), section data obtained from Case No.
07-2794-JCS, SFGS distribution data oMained from USFWS
Recovery Plan (RP) 1985.
Santa Clara
/
J
Santa Cruz
78
-------
Figure 2-8. Tidewater Goby Critical Habitat identified in Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
Tidewater Goby Critical Habitat Areas
North Coast
Greater Bay Area
Legend
I Critical Habitat buffered
Counties
0 2040 80 120 160
Kilometers
1:4,963,525
%
Conception/ 'fli
1
ir v
Map created by US EPA on 5 £012. Projection: Alb ere Equal
Area Conic LEGS, North American Datum of 1983 [NAD 1983).
County boundaries from ESR (2002). Land cover from National
and Cover Database (NLCD, 2001). Occurrence sections from
Case N:i. 07-2794-JCS, critical habitat data obtained from
httpi.tttfhab.fwsxjov/. Critical habitat was enlarged to improve
visibility; larger scale reference maps to follow pro vide more
accurate re prese ntation.
LWentura
\
\
T
79
-------
Figure 2-9. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Critical Habitat and Occurrence Sections
Identified in Case No. 07-2794-JCS.
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Habitat
Sacramento
Sacrarnen o
10/2009
^Legend
Valley Elderberry Btl sections
Valley Elderberry Btl CH
NHD waterbody
Contra Costa
CAStreams and Rivers
CA counties
i Kilometers
Q .255 5 7.5 10
Map created by US EPA on 1117/2009. Projection: Albers Equal
Area Conic USGS, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 1983).
County boundaries and streams from ESRI (2002). Occurrence
section data from Case No. 07-2794-JCS, critical habitat
data from http:/crithab.fws.gov/.
Placer
1:464,452
80
-------
2.6. Designated Critical Habitat
Critical habitat has been designated for the BCB, VELB, DS, TG, CTS-CC, and CTS-SB. Risk
to critical habitat is evaluated separately from risk to effects on the species. 'Critical habitat' is
defined in the ESA as the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of the listing where
the physical and biological features necessary for the conservation of the species exist, and there
is a need for special management to protect the listed species. It may also include areas outside
the occupied area at the time of listing if such areas are 'essential to the conservation of the
species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and
commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species or
areas that contain certain primary constituent elements (PCEs) (as defined in 50 CFR 414.12(b)).
Table 2-9 describes the PCEs for the critical habitats designated for the BCB, VELB, DS, TG,
CTS-CC, and CTS-SB.
Table 2-9. Designated Critical Habitat PCEs for the BCB, VELB, DS, TG, CTS-CC, and
CTS-SB1.
Species
PCEs
Reference
California tiger
salamander
Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other
ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become
inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length
of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species to complete the
aquatic (egg and larval) portion of its life cycle2
FR Vol. 69 No. 226
CTS, 68584, 2004
Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small
mammal burrows. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult California tiger
salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation
Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with
small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such
sites
Valley
Elderberry
Longhorn
Beetle
Areas that contain the host plant of this species [i.e., elderberry trees
(Sambucus sp.)] (a dicot)
43 FR 35636 35643,
1978
Bay
Checkerspot
Butterfly
The presence of annual or perennial grasslands with little to no over
story that provide north/south and east/west slopes with a tilt of more
than 7 degrees for larval host plant survival during periods
of atypical weather (e.g., drought).
66 FR 21449 21489,
2001
The presence of the primary larval host plant, dwarf plantain
(Plantago erecta) (a dicot) and at least one of the secondary host
plants, purple owl's-clover or exerted paintbrush, are required for
reproduction, feeding, and larval development.
The presence of adult nectar sources for feeding.
Aquatic features such as wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, lakes, and
ponds and their associated banks, that provide moisture during
periods of spring drought; these features can be ephemeral, seasonal,
or permanent.
Soils derived from serpentinite ultramafic rock (Montara, Climara,
Henneke, Hentine, and Obispo soil series) or similar soils
(Inks, Candlestick, Los Gatos, Fagan, and Barnabe soil series)
that provide areas with fewer aggressive, normative plant species for
81
-------
Species
PCEs
Reference
larval host plant and adult nectar plant survival and reproduction.
The presence of stable holes and cracks in the soil, and surface rock
outcrops that provide shelter for the larval stage of the bay
checkerspot butterfly during summer diapause.2
Tidewater Goby
Persistent, shallow (in the range of about 0.1-2 m), still-to-slow-
moving, aquatic habitat most commonly ranging in salinity from less
than 0.5 ppt to about 10-12 ppt, which provides adequate space for
normal behavior and individual and population growth
65 FR 69693 69717,
2000
Substrates (e.g., sand, silt, mud) suitable for the construction of
burrows for reproduction
Submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, such as Potamogeton
pectinatus and Ruppia maritima, that provides protection from
predators
Presence of a sandbar(s) across the mouth of a lagoon or estuary
during the late spring, summer, and fall that closes or partially closes
the lagoon or estuary, thereby providing relatively stable water levels
and salinity.
Delta Smelt
Spawning Habitat—shallow, fresh or slightly brackish backwater
sloughs and edge waters to ensure egg hatching and larval viability.
Spawning areas also must provide suitable water quality (i.e., low
"concentrations of pollutants) and substrates for egg attachment
(e.g., submerged tree roots and branches and emergent vegetation).
59 FR 65256 65279,
1994
Larval and Juvenile Transport—Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
and their tributary channels must be protected from physical
disturbance and flow disruption. Adequate river flow_is necessary to
transport larvae from upstream spawning areas to rearing habitat in
Suisun Bay. Suitable water quality must be provided so that
maturation is not impaired by pollutant concentrations.
Rearing Habitat—Maintenance of the 2 ppt isohaline and suitable
water quality (low concentrations of pollutants) within the Estuary is
necessary to provide delta smelt larvae and juveniles a shallow
protective, food-rich environment in which to mature to adulthood.
Adult Migration— Unrestricted access to suitable spawning habitat
in a period that may extend from December to July. Adequate flow
and suitable water quality_may need to be maintained to
attract migrating adults in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
channels and their associated tributaries. These areas also should be
protected from physical disturbance and flow disruption during
migratory periods.
These PCEs are in addition to more general requirements for habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of
the species such as, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction,
rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
2 PCEs that are abiotic, including, physical-chemical water quality parameters such as salinity, pH, and hardness are
not evaluated.
More detail on the designated critical habitat applicable to this assessment can be found in
Attachment II. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that
alter the PCEs and jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Evaluation of actions
related to use of lambda-cyhalothrin that may alter the PCEs of the designated critical habitat for
the BCB, VELB, DS, TG, CTS-CC, and CTS-SB form the basis of the critical habitat impact
analysis.
82
-------
As previously noted in Section 2.1, the Agency believes that the analysis of direct and indirect
effects to listed species provides the basis for an analysis of potential effects on the designated
critical habitat. Since lambda-cyhalothrin is expected to directly affect living organisms within
the action area, critical habitat analysis for lambda-cyhalothrin is limited in a practical sense to
those PCEs of critical habitat that are biological or that can be reasonably linked to biologically
mediated processes.
2.7. Action Area and LAA Effects Determination Area
2.7.1. Action Area
The action area is used to identify areas that could be affected by the Federal action. The Federal
action is the authorization or registration of pesticide use or uses as described on the label(s) of
pesticide products containing a particular active ingredient. The action area is defined by the
Endangered Species Act as, "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action" (50 CFR §402.2). Based on an
analysis of the Federal action, the action area is defined by the actual and potential use of the
pesticide and areas where that use could result in effects. Specific measures of ecological effect
for the assessed species that define the action area include any direct and indirect toxic effect to
the assessed species and any potential modification of its critical habitat, including reduction in
survival, growth, and fecundity as well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in the
effects literature. It is recognized that the overall action area for the national registration of
lambda-cyhalothrin is likely to encompass considerable portions of the United States based on
the large array of agricultural and non-agricultural uses. However, the scope of this assessment
limits consideration of the overall action area to those portions that may be applicable to the
protection of the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB
and their designated critical habitat within the state of California. For this assessment, the entire
state of California is considered the action area. The purpose of defining the action area as the
entire state of California is to ensure that the initial area of consideration encompasses all areas
where the pesticide may be used now and in the future, including the potential for off-site
transport via spray drift and downstream dilution that could influence the San Francisco Bay
Species. Additionally, the concept of a state-wide action area takes into account the potential for
direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat based 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 state-wide action area does not imply that direct and/or indirect
effects and/or critical habitat modification are expected to or are likely to occur over the full
extent of the action area, but rather to identify all areas that may potentially be affected by the
action. The Agency uses more rigorous analysis including consideration of available land cover
data, toxicity data, and exposure information to determine areas where BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-
CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB and designated critical habitat may be
affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or reproduction.
83
-------
2.7.2. LAA Effects Determination Area
A stepwise approach is used to define the Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) Effects
Determination Area. An LAA effects determination applies to those areas where it is expected
that the pesticide's use will directly or indirectly affect the species and/or modify its designated
critical habitat using EFED's standard assessment procedures (see Attachment I) and effects
endpoints related to survival, growth, and reproduction. This is the area where the "Potential
Area of LAA Effects" (initial area of concern + drift distance or downstream dilution distance)
overlaps with the range and/or designated critical habitat for the species being assessed. If there
is no overlap between the potential area of LAA effects and the habitat or occurrence areas, a no
effect determination is made. The first step in defining the LAA Effects Determination Area is
to understand the federal action. The federal action is defined by the currently labeled uses for
lambda-cyhalothrin. An analysis of labeled uses and review of available product labels was
completed. In addition, a distinction has been made between food use crops and those that are
non-food/non-agricultural uses. For those uses relevant to the assessed species, the analysis
indicates that, for lambda-cyhalothrin, the following agricultural uses are considered as part of
the federal action evaluated in this assessment:
• Brassicas
• Cereal grains
• Corn
• Cucurbits
• Fruiting vegetables
• Legume vegetables
• Leafy vegetables
• Livestock
• Orchard crops (fruits and nuts)
• Potato/root crops
• Sunflower
(see Table 2-6 for more detail)
In addition, the following non-food and non-agricultural uses are considered:
• Forestry
• Lawns and turf (commercial, golf course, recreational, residential)
• Ornamental plants
• Outdoor residential settings
• Rights-of-way
• Uncultivated ag areas
• Uncultivated non-ag areas
(see Table 2-6 for more detail)
Following a determination of the assessed uses, an evaluation of the potential "footprint" of
lambda-cyhalothrin use patterns (i.e., the area where pesticide application may occur) is
determined. This "footprint" represents the initial area of concern, based on an analysis of
84
-------
available land cover data for the state of California. The initial area of concern is defined as all
land cover types and the stream reaches within the land cover areas that represent the labeled
uses described above. Given the diverse uses of lambda-cyhalothrin (residential, commercial,
agricultural, and forestry), the "footprint" covers the entire state of California, thus mapping
specific use sites does not provide information that is critical for this risk assessment.
Once the initial area of concern is defined, the next step is to define the potential boundaries of
the Potential Area of LAA Effects by determining the extent of offsite transport via spray drift
and runoff where exposure of one or more taxonomic groups to the pesticide will result in
exceedances of the listed species LOCs.
The AgDRIFT model (Version 2.1) is used to define how far from the initial area of concern an
effect to a given species may be expected via spray drift (e.g., the drift distance). The spray drift
analysis for lambda-cyhalothrin uses the most sensitive endpoint of invertebrates in both
terrestrial (honeybee) and aquatic systems (Hyalella). Further detail on the spray drift analysis is
provided in Section 5.6.9.a.
An evaluation of usage information was conducted to determine the area where use of lambda-
cyhalothrin may affect the assessed species. This analysis is used to characterize where
predicted exposures are most likely to occur, but does not preclude use in other portions of the
action area.
2.8. Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect
For more information on the assessment endpoints, measures of ecological effect, see
Attachment I.
2.8.1. Assessment Endpoints
A complete discussion of all the toxicity data available for this risk assessment, including
resulting measures of ecological effect selected for each taxonomic group of concern, is included
in Section 4 of this document. Table 2-10 identifies the taxa used to assess the potential for
direct and indirect effects from the uses of lambda-cyhalothrin for each listed species assessed
here. The specific assessment endpoints used to assess the potential for direct and indirect
effects to each listed species are provided in Table 2-11.
Table 2-10. Taxa Used in the Analyses of Direct and Indirect Effects for the Assessed Listed
Species
Listed Species
Birds
Mammals
Terr.
Plants
Terr.
Inverts.
FW Fish
FW
Inverts.
Estuarinc
/Marine
Fish
Estuarinc
/Marine
Inverts.
Aquatic
Plants
San Francisco
garter snake**
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey /
habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(habitat)
California
clapper rail**
Direct
Indirect
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
85
-------
Listed Species
Birds
Mammals
Terr.
Plants
Terr.
Inverts.
FW Fish
FW
Inverts.
Estuarinc
/Marine
Fish
Estuarinc
/Marine
Inverts.
Aquatic
Plants
(prey)
Bay
checkerspot
butterfly
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
*
Direct
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
*
Direct
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
California
tiger
salamander
Direct
Indirect
(prey /
habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Tidewater
goby
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(habitat)
n/a
Direct***
Indirect
(prey)
Direct***
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(habitat)
Delta smelt
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(habitat)
n/a
Direct***
Indirect
(prey)
Direct***
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
California
freshwater
shrimp
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
n/a
n/a
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
n/a
n/a
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Abbreviations: n/a = Not applicable; Terr. = Terrestrial; Invert. = Invertebrate; FW = Freshwater
* obligate relationship
** Consumption of residues of /cwM/«/fl-cyhalothrin in aquatic organisms may result in direct effects to the San
Francisco Garter Snake and the California Clapper Rail.
***The most sensitive fish species across freshwater and estuarine/marine environments is used to assess effects for
these species because they may be found in freshwater or estuarine/marine environments.
Table 2-11. Taxa and Assessment Endpoints Used to Evaluate the Potential for Use of
LamMa-Cyhalothrin to Result in Direct and Indirect Effects to the Assessed Listed Species
or Modification of Critical Habitat
Ta\a I sed (o Assess
Dirccl and Indirccl
EITccls Ki Assessed
Species and/or
Modification lo
( rilical 1 lahilat or
llahilal
Assessed l.isled
Species
Measures of Ecological EITccls
1. Freshwater Fish
and Aquatic-Phase
Amphibians
Direct Effect -
-CA Tiger
Salamander
-Delta Smelt
-Tidewater Goby
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
la. Most sensitive fish acute LC50
(guideline or ECOTOX)
lb. Most sensitive fish chronic
NOAEC (guideline or ECOTOX)
lc. Most sensitive aquatic-phase
amphibian acute LC50 (guideline or
ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect (orev)
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of habitat
via indirect effects on
86
-------
1 ;i\;i I scd (o Assess
Dirccl iind Indirect
I.IIVcls Ki Assessed
Species iind/or
Modil'ic;i 1 icin l<>
( I'ilieid llidiiliil or
llidiiliil
Assessed l.isled
Species
Measures of l-'.colo^icid l-llTccls
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., fish and aquatic-
phase amphibians)
2. Freshwater
Invertebrates
Direct Effect -
-CA FW Shrimp
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
2a. Most sensitive freshwater
invertebrate EC50 (guideline or
ECOTOX)
2b. Most sensitive freshwater
invertebrate chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect (orcy)
-CA FW shrimp
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
-CA Tiger
Salamander
-Delta Smelt
-Tidewater Goby
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of critical
habitat/habitat via
indirect effects on aquatic
prey food supply (i.e.,
freshwater invertebrates)
3. Estuarine/Marine
Fish
Direct Effect -
-Delta Smelt
-Tidewater Goby
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
3a. Most sensitive estuarine/marine
fish EC50 (guideline or ECOTOX)
3b. Most sensitive estuarine/marine
fish chronic NOAEC (guideline or
ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect (orcy)
-CA Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of habitat
via indirect effects on
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., estuarine/marine
fish)
4. Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates
Direct Effect -
None
NA
4a. Most sensitive estuarine/marine
invertebrate EC50 (guideline or
ECOTOX)
4b. Most sensitive estuarine/marine
invertebrate chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect (orcy)
-CA Clapper Rail
-Delta Smelt
-Tidewater Goby
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of habitat
via indirect effects on
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., estuarine/marine
invertebrates)
5. Aquatic Plants
(freshwater/marine)
Direct Effect -
None
NA
5a. Vascular plant acute EC50
(duckweed guideline test or
ECOTOX vascular plant)
5b. Non-vascular plant acute EC50
87
-------
1 ;i\;i I scd (o Assess
Dirccl iind Indirect
I.IIVcls Ki Assessed
Species iind/or
Modil'ic;i 1 icin l<>
( I'ilieid llidiiliil or
llidiiliil
Assessed l.isled
Species
Measures of l-'.colo^icid l-llTccls
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat)
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
-CA Tiger
Salamander
-CA FW Shrimp
-Delta Smelt
-Tidewater Goby
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of critical
habitat/habitat via
indirect effects on
habitat, cover, food
supply, and/or primary
productivity (i.e., aquatic
plant community)
(freshwater algae or diatom, or
ECOTOX non-vascular)
6. Birds
Direct Effect
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
-CA Tiger
Salamander
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
6a. Most sensitive bird* or terrestrial-
phase amphibian acute LC50 or LD50
(guideline or ECOTOX)
6b. Most sensitive bird* or terrestrial-
phase amphibian chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect
(Drcv/rcarina sites)
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of habitat
via indirect effects on
terrestrial prey (birds)
7. Mammals
Direct Effect -
None
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
7a. Most sensitive laboratory
mammalian acute LC50 or LD50
(guideline or ECOTOX)
7b. Most sensitive laboratory
mammalian chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect
(d rev/habitat from
burrows/rearine sites)
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
-CA Tiger
Salamander
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of critical
habitat/habitat via
indirect effects on
terrestrial prey
(mammals) and/or
burrows/rearing sites
8. Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Direct Effect
-Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
-Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
8a. Most sensitive terrestrial
invertebrate acute EC50 or LC50
(guideline or ECOTOX)
8b. Most sensitive terrestrial
invertebrate chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect (orcy)
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
-CA Tiger
Salamander
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals or
modification of critical
habitat/habitat via
indirect effects on
terrestrial prey (terrestrial
invertebrates)
88
-------
1 ;i\;i I scd (o Assess
Dirccl iind Indirect
1.1'lecls Ki Assessed
Species iind/or
Modil'iciilion ><»
( I'ilicid lliihiliil or
lliihiliil
Assessed l.isled
Species
Measures of r.cnlniiiciil l-llTccls
9. Terrestrial Plants
Direct Effect -
None
NA
9a. Distribution of EC25 for
monocots (seedling emergence,
vegetative vigor, or ECOTOX
9b. Distribution of EC25 (ECo5 or
NOAEC for the BCB and the VELB)
for dicots (seedling emergence,
vegetative vigor, or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat) (non-
oblisate relationship)
-SF Garter Snake
-CA Clapper Rail
-CA Tiger
Salamander
-Delta Smelt
-Tidewater Goby
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat)
(obligate rclationshiD)
-Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
-Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
Abbreviations: SF=San Francisco; NA=Not Applicable
* Birds are used as a surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. Fish are used as a surrogate for aquatic-
phase amphibians.
2.8.2. Assessment Endpoints for Designated Critical Habitat
As previously discussed, designated critical habitat is assessed to evaluate actions related to the
use of lambda-cyhalothrin that may alter the PCEs of the assessed species' designated critical
habitat. PCEs for the assessed species were previously described in Section 2.6. Actions that
may modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs and jeopardize the continued existence
of the assessed species. Therefore, these actions are identified as assessment endpoints. It
should be noted that evaluation of PCEs as assessment endpoints is limited to those of a
biological nature {i.e., the biological resource requirements for the listed species associated with
the critical habitat) and those for which lambda-cyhalothrin effects data are available.
Assessment endpoints used to evaluate potential for direct and indirect effects are equivalent to
the assessment endpoints used to evaluate potential effects to designated critical habitat. If a
potential for direct or indirect effects is found, then there is also a potential for effects to critical
habitat. Some components of these PCEs are associated with physical abiotic features {e.g.,
presence and/or depth of a water body, or distance between two sites), which are not expected to
be measurably altered by use of pesticides.
89
-------
2.9. Conceptual Model
2.9.1. Risk Hypotheses
Risk hypotheses are specific assumptions about potential adverse effects {i.e., changes in
assessment endpoints) and may be based on theory and logic, empirical data, mathematical
models, or probability models (USEPA, 1998). For this assessment, the risk is stressor-linked,
where the stressor is the release of lambda-cyhalothrin to the environment. The following risk
hypotheses are presumed in this assessment:
The labeled use of lambda-cyhalothrin within the action area may:
• directly affect BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and
VELB by causing mortality or by adversely affecting growth or fecundity;
• indirectly affect BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and
VELB and/or modify their designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the
composition of food supply;
• indirectly affect CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, and TG and/or modify their
designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the composition of the aquatic plant
community in the species' current range, thus affecting primary productivity and/or
cover;
• indirectly affect BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB and/or
modify their designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the composition of the
terrestrial plant community in the species' current range;
• indirectly affect CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, and TG and/or modify their
designated critical habitat by reducing or changing aquatic habitat in their current range
(via modification of water quality parameters, habitat morphology, and/or
sedimentation);
• indirectly affect CTS (all DPS) and SFGS and/or modify their designated critical habitat
by reducing or changing terrestrial habitat in their current range (via reduction in small
burrowing mammals leading to reduction in underground refugia/cover).
2.9.2. Diagram
The conceptual model is a graphic representation of the structure of the risk assessment. It
specifies the lambda-cyhalothrin release mechanisms, biological receptor types, and effects
endpoints of potential concern. The conceptual models for BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-
SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB and the conceptual models for the aquatic and
terrestrial PCE components of critical habitat are shown in Figure 2-10 and Figure 2-11.
Although the conceptual models for direct/indirect effects and modification of designated critical
habitat PCEs are shown on the same diagrams, the potential for direct/indirect effects and
modification of PCEs will be evaluated separately in this assessment. Exposure routes shown in
dashed lines are not quantitatively considered because the contribution of those exposure routes
to potential risks to BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB
and modification to designated critical habitat is expected to be negligible.
90
-------
Figure 2-10. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential
Effects to Aquatic Organisms from the Use of LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of contributing to ecological risk.
91
-------
Figure 2-11. Conceptual Model Depicting Stressors, Exposure Pathways, and Potential
Effects to Terrestrial Organisms from the Use of Lambda-Cyhalothrin
Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of contributing to ecological risk.
In addition to the traditional exposure pathways identified in Figure 2-10 and, Figure 2-11, the
ear tag pathway is considered separately. Ear tags may fall off of animals directly into aquatic
habitats. Birds may be exposed to lambda-cyhalothrin via ear tags through dermal contact with
the animal or by ingestion as the active ingredient disperses from the ear tag to the animal's skin.
2.10. Analysis Plan
To address the risk hypothesis, the potential for direct and indirect effects to the assessed species,
prey items, and habitat is estimated based on a taxon-level approach. In the following sections,
the use, environmental fate, and ecological effects of lambda-cyhalothrin are characterized and
integrated to assess the risks. This is accomplished using a risk quotient (ratio of exposure
concentration to effects concentration) approach. Although risk is often defined as the likelihood
and magnitude of adverse ecological effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a
quantitative estimate of likelihood and/or magnitude of an adverse effect. However, as outlined
in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the likelihood of effects to individual organisms
92
-------
from particular uses of lambda-cyhalothrin is estimated using the probit dose-response slope and
either the level of concern (discussed below) or actual calculated risk quotient value.
Descriptions of routine procedures for evaluating risk to the San Francisco Bay Species are
provided in Attachment I.
2.10.1. Measures of Exposure
The environmental fate properties of lambda-cyhalothrin along with available monitoring data
indicate that water and sediment runoff and spray drift are the principle potential transport
mechanisms of lambda-cyhalothrin to the aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Lambda-cyhalothrin is
a non-systemic chemical and applications via injection or drench also pose likely exposure
pathways. Exposure via bioaccumulation is considered as studies have indicated a high
bioaccumulation factor for lambda-cyhalothrin (MRIDs 00152744, 00152745). In this
assessment, transport of lambda-cyhalothrin through runoff and spray drift and direct spray onto
the food items of birds, mammals, and insects is considered in deriving quantitative estimates of
lambda-cyhalothrin exposure to BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS,
TG, and VELB, their prey and habitats. Given \ambda-cy\\&\othrin' s low vapor pressure and
Henry's Law constants, atmospheric and long-range transport in the vapor phase is unlikely. In
addition, the chemical's high sorption coefficient's indicate that movement into groundwater is
not a significant exposure pathway.
Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that predict estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of lambda-cyhalothrin using maximum labeled application
rates and methods of application. Aquatic EECs are predicted using the Pesticide Root Zone
Model coupled with the Exposure Analysis Model System (PRZM/EXAMS). In addition, the
Tier I Rice Model was utilized to model rice. The model used to predict terrestrial EECs on food
items is the Terrestrial Residue Exposure (T-REX) model. The Terrestrial Herpetofaunal
Exposure Residue Program Simulation (T-HERPS) model is used to allow for further
characterization of dietary exposures of terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles relative to
birds. The Kow (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model (KABAM) is used to estimate
potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic food webs and
subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of contaminated aquatic prey. These
models are parameterized using relevant reviewed registrant-submitted environmental fate data.
More information on these models is available in Attachment I.
2.10.2. Measures of Effect
Data identified in Section 2.8 are used as measures of effect for direct and indirect effects. Data
were obtained from registrant submitted studies or from literature studies identified by
ECOTOX. More information on the ECOTOXicology (ECOTOX) database and how
toxicological data is used in assessments is available in Attachment I.
93
-------
2.10.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects
Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effects characterization to
determine the potential ecological risk from agricultural and non-agricultural uses of lambda-
cyhalothrin, and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to the assessed species in aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks of
adverse ecological effects on non-target species. The risk quotient (RQ) method is used to
compare exposure 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)
(USEPA, 2004)(see Appendix C). More information on standard assessment procedures is
available in Attachment I.
2.10.4. Data Gaps
There are no terrestrial plant toxicity data available from registrant-submitted studies. Open
literature sources were consulted, but plant data were mainly included as part of insect control
efficacy studies. At best, these studies can be used to provide qualitative information about the
effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. There are a number of plant incidents in OPP's Incident
Data System (IDS) and Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS). Few details are provided
about the incidents, making the likelihood that they were caused by lambda-cyhalothrin unclear.
In addition, plant data for other pyrethroids are not available. Plant data were requested in the
2010 Problem Formulation (USEPA 2010) to reduce the uncertainty of lambda-cyhalothrin
effects on plants.
There are no benthic invertebrate sediment toxicity data available for lambda-cyhalothrin. In
lieu of this, data from freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates are used as surrogate
toxicity values for benthic invertebrates. Benthic organisms may be more or less sensitive to
lambda-cyhalothrin than non-benthic invertebrates, thus using non-benthic invertebrates as a
surrogate may over- or under-estimate risk. The 2010 Problem Formulation (USEPA 2010)
requested data on benthic invertebrates in an effort to reduce this uncertainty.
3. Exposure Assessment
Risks from ground sprayers and aerial applications are considered in this assessment because
they are expected to result in the highest off-target levels of lambda-cyhalothrin given
generally higher spray drift levels. Ground and aerial modes of application tend to use lower
volumes of application applied in finer sprays than applications coincident with sprayers and
spreaders and thus have a higher potential for off-target movement via spray drift. Ear tags
(impregnated material), drenches, dust, and band sprayers (T-banding, soil in-furrow
treatments) are also assessed as these methods of application result in complete
environmental exposure pathways.
3.1. Label Application Rates and Intervals
Lambda-cyhalothrin labels may be categorized into two types: labels for manufacturing uses
(including technical grade lambda-cyhalothrin and its formulated products) and end-use
94
-------
products. While technical products, which contain lambda-cyhalothrin of high purity, are not
used directly in the environment, they are used to make formulated products, which can be
applied in specific areas to control a wide variety of arthropods (e.g., one label lists the
following target pests: ants, armyworms, beetles, centipedes, cockroaches, crickets,
cutworms, earwigs, European crane flies, firebrats, fleas, grasshoppers, green june beetles,
Japanese beetle, leafhoppers, millipedes, mites, palmetto bugs, pillbugs, silverfish, sod
webworms, sowbugs, spider mites, spittle bugs, springtails, ticks, waterbugs, billbugs, chinch
bugs, dung beetles, hyperodes weevils, and mole crickets). The formulated product labels
legally limit lambda-cyhalothrin's potential use to only those sites that are specified on the
labels.
Many lambda-cyhalothrin labels include an environmental hazard statement about its toxicity
towards fish, aquatic invertebrates, and honeybees. For terrestrial uses, lambda-cyhalothrin
should not be applied directly to water or to areas where surface water is present or to
intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. It should not be applied when weather
conditions favor drift from treated areas. It should not be applied in a manner that allows it
to come into contact with blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.
Some labels also contain information about lambda-cyhalothrin's toxicity to mammals. In
2008, registrants were required to add aquatic buffer zones to all lambda-cyhalothrin labels.
Buffers are 10 to 25 feet, depending on the label. However, based on a cursorary review of
labels, it was found that not all labels contained the buffer language. Consequently, buffers
were not incorporated into the aquatic analyses, as a conservative approach. As a mitigation
option, buffers were modeled, (10 and 25 ft, as specified on the labels) for a subset of uses.
These results are described in Section 5.
Currently registered agricultural and non-agricultural uses of lambda-cyhalothrin within
California include a wide array of fruiting and leafy vegetable crops, orchard crops (fruits
and nuts), corn, grains, root crops, uncultivated agricultural areas, commercial and residential
lawn and building perimeter uses, and ornamentals (trees, bushes, woody vines. The uses
being assessed are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. LamMa-Cyhalothrin Uses, Scenarios, and Application Information for Aquatic
Scenarios
Proposed I.iiIk'I I so
PK/.M/I.WMS
Scenario1
(first ;i|)|) (hilo)
Method1
Application K;itc
(inlcr\;il heUu'en ;ipplk';ilions)
Agricultural/farm premises
CA Residential3
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
2 app @ 0.2212 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0763 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Alfalfa
CA Alfalfa
(Dec 10 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.38 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
G
Almond
CA Almond
(July 26 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.1 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
CA Almond
(Aug 20 - trunk drench)
T
3 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
95
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I so
PK/.M/I.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;i|)|) diilc)
Method1
Application Ksili*
(iiKciMil IkMnccii iippliciilions)
Apple, cherry, crabapple,
nectarine, peach, pear, plum,
prune, trees
CA Fruit
(May 23 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.1 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees
trunk drench
CA Fruit
(July 8- trunk drench)
T
3 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
Apple Trees
CA Fruit
(July 18- trunk drench)
T
1 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
Animal housing premises,
Paths/patios
CA Residential3
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
14 app @ 0.0762 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.1132 lb a.i./acre
(21-day interval)
Household/domestic dwellings,
outdoor premises
CA Residential3
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
cc
2 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum,
quince
CA Fruit
(May 23 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Bean, groundcherry, pea,
pepino, pepper
CA Row Crop
(Jan 15 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Eggplant
CA Melons
(June 06 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia nut
CA Almond
(July 26 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Barley
CA Wheat
(May25 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.031 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
G
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
CA Row Crop
(Jan 22 - foliar, dust)
A
12 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
D
Mustard cabbage (gai choy,
pak-choi)
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 25- dust)
D
8 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
Brassica (head and stem)
vegetables
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 01-foliar)
A
8 app @ 0.031 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle)
G
Tomato, tomatillo
CA Tomato
(July 2- dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground
spray/dust
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1- dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle)
Cabbage, kohlrabi
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle; max. 26
apps./year)2
Mustard
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(4 crop cycles of 90 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle; max. 26
apps./year)2
96
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I so
PK/.M/I.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;i|)|) diilc)
Method1
Application Ksili*
(iiKciMil IkMnccii iippliciilions)
Brussels sprouts
CA Lettuce
(April 21 - foliar, dust)
G
3 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
D
9 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
Buckwheat, oat, rye
CA Wheat
(May29 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(3-day interval)
G
Canola/rape
CA Wheat
(May 22 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
G
Grass forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland
CA Range land and Hay
(Feb 24 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(30-day interval)
G
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat
CA Wheat
(May 29 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(3-day interval)
G
Cole crops
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 11 - foliar, dust)
A
8 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
D
Onion
CA Onion
(April 19 - foliar, dust)
A
9 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
D
Commercial/industrial lawns,
ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns
CATurf
(Dec 23 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.1585 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0983 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Commercial/industrial lawns,
ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns
CATurf
(Nov 18 - spot trt)
ST
7 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Conifers (plantations/nurseries)
CA Nursery
(Sept 26 - foliar)
G
6 app @ 0.0401 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Conifers
(seed orchard)
CA Nursery
(Oct 10 - foliar)
G
3 app @ 0.156 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.036 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Corn
(field)
CA Corn
(Aug 18 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
G
Corn
(field, pop)
CA Corn
(Sept 3 - band, furrow)
B,F
2 app @ 0.0934 lb a.i./acre
(4-day interval)
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(Aug 18-band, furrow)
B,F
6 app @ 0.0934 lb a.i./acre
(4-day interval)
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(April 20 - dust)
D
5 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
10-day interval per crop cycle)
97
-------
Proposed l.iihol I so
PK/M/I.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application K;iic
(ink'r\;il IkMnocii iippliciilions)
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(April 10 - foliar)
A
6 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 90 days;
10-day interval per crop cycle; max. 16
apps./ year)
Cotton
CA Cotton
(Oct 1 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
G
Cucurbit vegetables
CA Melon
(July 7- foliar)
A
6 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
G
Filbert, pecan, walnut
CA Almond
(August 10 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.057 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.044 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
G
Filbert, pecan, walnut
CA Almond
(July 11 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.057 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
Forest plantings
CA Forestry
(Nov 3 - foliar)
G
4 app @ 0.0511 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0337 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Fruiting vegetables
CA Row Crop
(Jan 23 - foliar)
A
12 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
G
Garlic
CA Garlic
(May 28 - foliar)
A
8 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Golf course turf, ornamental
sod farm
CATurf
(Dec 30 - foliar)
G
1 app @ 0.068 lb a.i./acre
Golf course turf, ornamental
sod farm
CATurf
(Nov 25 - mound)
M
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Grasses grown for seed
CATurf
(Dec 16 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.1306 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0811 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Legume vegetables
CA Row Crop
(March 3 - foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
G
Peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables
CA Row Crop
(Feb 26 - foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
G
Lettuce
CA Lettuce
(Feb 6 - foliar)
A
10 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of 120 days;
5-day interval per crop cycle)
G
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soils
CA Right of Way3
(Oct 18 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.0792 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0432 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Ornamental and/or shade trees
CA Nursery
(Oct 17 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.162 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0913 lb a.i./acre
98
-------
Proposed l.iihol I so
PK/M/I.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application K;iic
(ink'r\;il IkMnocii iippliciilions)
(7-day interval)
Ornamental and/or shade trees,
ground cover, herbaceous
plants, non-flowering plants,
woody shrubs and vines, rose
CA Nursery
(Oct 17 - dust)
D
3 app @ 1.2 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Paved areas
(private roads/sidewalks)
CA Impervious
(Nov 25 - barrier/perimeter trt)
PT
6 app @ 0.069 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Pome and stone fruit
CA Fruit
(June 20 - foliar)
A
5 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
G
Potato
CA Potato
(May 11 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0162 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
G
Recreational areas
CATurf
(Jan 1 - band)
B
26 app @ 0.033 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Recreational areas
CATurf
(Dec 23 -surface spray)
CC
ST
2 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Residential lawns
CA Residential3
(Nov 25 - granular)
0
6 app @ 0.078 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Residential lawns
CA Residential3
(Dec 30 - mound)
M
1 app @ 1.9 lb a.i./acre
Rice
Tier 1 Rice Model
R
3 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
Seed orchard trees
CA Nursery
(Oct 10 - foliar)
G
3 app @ 0.162 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0327 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Sorghum
CA Wheat
(May 22 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
G
Soybean
CA Row Crop
(March 4- foliar)
A
1 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.021 lb a.i./acre
(14-day interval)
G
Tree nuts
CA Almond
(Aug 15- foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
G
Sunflower
CA Corn
(Aug 18- foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
G
Right-of-Way
CA Right of Way3
(Sept 27- foliar)
G
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Airports/landing fields
CA Impervious
(Jan 22 - granular)
0
26 app @ 0.08 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
99
-------
Proposed l.iihol I so
PK/M/I.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application K;iic
(ink'r\;il IkMnocii iippliciilions)
Golf course turf, ornamental
sod farm
(granular spot treatment)
CATurf
(Nov 25 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.0688 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Grasses grown for seed
(granular spot treatment)
CATurf
(Nov 25 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soil
(granular band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot treatment)
CA Right of Way3
(Oct 4 - granular)
0
5 app @ 0.0792 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soil (granular mound
treatment)
CA Right of Way3
(Sept 27 - granular)
0
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
1 A = foliar aerial application modeled as 95% application efficiency, 5% spray drift; G = foliar ground application modeled as
99% application efficiency, 1% spray drift; C = chemigation modeled as 100% application efficiency, 0% spray drift; D = dust
modeled as ground application 99% application efficiency, 1% spray drift; M = mound application modeled as 100%
application efficiency and 0% spray drift; T = trunk drench modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; CC =
crack and crevice modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; ST = spot treatment modeled as 100%
application efficiency and 0% spray drift; B = Banded applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift;
F = Furrow applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; PT = perimeter treatment modeled as
100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; O = Granular applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0%
spray drift; R = Tier 1 Rice Model was utilized.
2 Due to the PRZM/EXAMS model restriction of 26 total applications allowed, the maximum of 26 applications was modeled.
3 Spreadsheet post-processing was utilized for the Right of Way (ROW) and Residential Scenarios.
3.2. Aquatic Exposure Assessment
3.2.1. Modeling Approach
The EECs (Estimated Environmental Concentrations) are calculated using the EPA Tier II
PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model) and EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System) with
the EFED Standard Pond environment. PRZM is used to simulate pesticide transport as a result
of runoff and erosion from an agricultural field, and EXAMS estimates environmental fate and
transport of pesticides in surface water. Aquatic exposure is modeled for the parent lambda-
cyhalothrin. The most recent PRZM/EXAMS linkage program (PE5, PE Version 5, dated Nov.
15, 2006) was used for all surface water simulations. Linked crop-specific scenarios and
meteorological data were used to estimate exposure resulting from use on crops and turf. In
addition, lambda-cyhalothrin labels include a number of non-agricultural uses. These uses are
represented by the residential, turf, rights-of-way, and impervious surface scenarios.
Residential and rights-of-way (ROW) scenarios were developed specifically for the San
Francisco Bay region using the conceptual approach developed for the Barton Springs
salamander atrazine endangered species risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 2006). The San Francisco
area was selected to be representative of urbanized areas with California Red Legged Frog
(CRLF) habitat present in the general vicinity. The conceptual model for both scenarios
100
-------
integrates simultaneous modeling of the individual use scenario with an impervious scenario.
This approach assumes that no watershed is completely covered by either the Vi acre lot (the
basis for the residential scenario) or undeveloped land (the basis for the ROW scenario) for
residential and ROW use patterns; therefore, differential amounts of runoff will occur within the
watershed. The impervious scenario was developed to represent the paved areas within a
watershed not including roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings outside the Vi acre lot (the
Vi acre lot scenario accounts for impervious surfaces such as buildings within the represented
area). By modeling a separate scenario for impervious surfaces, it is also possible to estimate
that amount of exposure that could occur when the pesticide is over sprayed onto this surface. In
previous endangered species risk assessments, the amount of modeled overspray was assumed to
be 1% of the labeled application rate. Further details on how this value was derived and
characterization of alternative assumptions are provided in the Barton Springs salamander
endangered species risk assessment for atrazine (U.S. EPA, 2006).
In general, the majority of occupied areas [including core areas, designated critical habitat, and
occurrence data from California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)] are located in areas
where the percentage of impervious surface is less than 20%. However, a few selected areas
with higher percentages of impervious surface (e.g., San Francisco Bay region) were evaluated to
determine a representative value for residential settings. The conceptual model for the ROW
scenario assumes that the watershed is represented by equal portions of impervious and pervious
surface (50%). Based on geospatial data, it is evident that the occupied areas with the highest
percentage of impervious cover are urban areas outside the occupied areas, and, in general, the
occupied areas have impervious surface of less than 50%. Therefore, for purposes of modeling,
it is assumed that a representative percentage of impervious cover is 50%. In general, as the
percentage of impervious surface increases, the overall exposure resulting from applications to
the pervious surface decreases because less mass is applied within the watershed. Additional
information on the impact of this assumption has been previously characterized in the Barton
Springs salamander endangered species risk assessment for atrazine (U.S. EPA, 2006).
Use-specific management practices for all of the assessed uses of lambda-cyhalothrin were used
for modeling, including application rates, number of applications per year, application intervals,
buffer widths, and resulting spray drift values modeled from AgDRIFT and the first application
date for each use. The date of first application was developed based on several sources of
information including data provided by BEAD, a summary of individual applications from the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting (CDPR PUR) data, and
Crop Profiles maintained by the USD A.
To estimate aquatic exposure values from rice use patterns, the Tier I Rice Model was employed.
The model relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide conservative estimates of
EECs resulting from application of pesticides to rice paddies. When a pesticide is applied to a
rice paddy, the model assumes that it will instantaneously partition between a water phase and a
sediment phase. The model does not account for pesticide degradation, mass transfer between
the aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, dilution, or other dissipation processes.
For the crack and crevice applications, the standard post-processing of the residential and
impervious scenarios was utilized along with previously established fractions for percent lot
101
-------
treated (3.3% housing perimeter; 3.4% building perimeter). These fractions were utilized in
previous litigation (fipronil, dicofol) assessments.
For the perimeter treatment application, 100% of the application rate was modeled to generate
EECs then multiplied by 5.68% which represents the fraction of treated impervious surface in an
urban watershed. This fraction was utilized in a previous (carbaryl) litigation assessment.
Exposures from ear tags were analyzed without PRZM/EXAMS. See Section 5 for a description
of the risk analysis.
3.2.2. Model Inputs
The appropriate PRZM and EXAMS input parameters for lambda-cyhalothrin and related
compounds were selected from the environmental fate data submitted by the registrant and in
accordance with US EPA-OPP EFED water model parameter selection guidelines, Guidance for
Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides.
Version 2.7, October 22, 2009 and PE5 User's Manual. (P)RZM (E)XAMS Model Shell, Version
(5), November 15, 2006. Input parameters can be grouped by physical-chemical properties and
other environmental fate data, application information, and use scenarios. Physical and chemical
properties relevant to assess the behavior of lambda-cyhalothrin and related compounds in the
environment are presented in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 and application information from the label
in Table 2-6 and Table 3-1. The input parameters for PRZM and EXAMS are in Table 3-2.
Appendix D contains an example model output file and table showing the data used to calculate
input values.
Table 3-2. Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic
Parameter (units)
Value(s)
Sou recs
Comments
Scenario
Refer to Table 3-1
—
—
Application Rate
Refer to Table 3-1
—
Rate in lb a.i./A
l)ay of Application (day-
month)
Refer to Table 3-1
—
Based on BEAD information
Number of Applications
Allowed
Refer to Table 3-1
—
Based on BEAD information
Interval between
Applications (days)
Refer to Table 3-1
—
Based on BEAD information
K„c (inl/goc)
Koc = 333,200
MRID: 44861503
Mean of 8 values available (346000, 200000,
298000, 724000,209000,270000, 305000,
352000, 518000,110000). The Koc model was
utilized as per the 1999 SAP recommendation.
Aerobic Soil Metabolism
(days)
" (^O.B-1-5)
tinput ~ hi2 +
%npu, = 60.6 days
MRID: 00151607
MRID: 44861504
MRID: 45447410
Represents the 90th percentile of the upper confidence
bound on the mean of 6 /amMa-cyhalothrin half-life
values of 31, 55, 26, 102, 12.2, and 14.5 days.
Method of Application
Aerial (foliar)
Ground (foliar)
Chemigation, Ground Spray
Application ICfficiency
(traction)
0.95 (aerial)
0.99 (ground, dust)
1.00 (chemigation, ground
spray apps, granular)
Input Parameter Guidance v.2.1, dated October 22,
2009
102
-------
Parameter (units)
Value(s)
Sources
Comments
Spray Drift (fraction)
0.05 (aerial)
0.01 (ground, dust)
0.00 (chemigation, ground
spray apps, granular)
Input Parameter Guidance v.2.1, dated October 22,
2009
Solubility in Water (mg/L)
5.00 x 10"3
Laskowski 2002
—
Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism (days)
— (W15)
t input ~ ' 1 2
W= 53.4 days
MRID: 44861506
MRID: 44367402
Represents the 90th percentile of the upper confidence
bound on the mean of 3 /amMa-cyhalothrin half-life
values of 21.1, 34.1 and 52.9 days.
Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism (days)
426
MRID: 44367401
3x the single available anaerobic aquatic
metabolism half-life value of 142 days (lambda-
cyhalothrin).
Hydrolysis at pll 7
0
MRID: 00151604 &
45447409
Relatively stable at pH 7
Aqueous Photolysis (days)
13
MRID: 46394702
Environmental photo transformation half-life for
gararaa-cyhalothrin was utilized since the lambda-
cyhalothrin half-life values were uncertain due to
solubility issues with the compound.
Molecular Weight (g/inole)
449.86
TOXNET/HSDB2
—
Va por Pressure
(torr at 20"(,')
1.56 xlO"9
Laskowski 2002
—
Henry's Law ( (instant
(atm-m'/mol at 20"(.')
1.9 xlO"7
Laskowski 2002
—
(,'hemical Application
Method (CAM)
2 (aerial)
2 (ground)
1 (chemigation, ground
spray)
foliar applied
foliar applied
soil applied
IPSC ,'ND, C 'ondition for
disposition of pesticide
remaining on foliage after
harvest
Varied on type of crop
PRZM-3 manual3
Page 5-14 for details
'Data were selected according to EFED Guidance on Input Parameters v.2.1, dated October 22, 2009.
2TOXNET/ HSDB at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen7HSDB (accessed 7/9/10)
3 PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0.
May 2005.
3.2.3. Results
The aquatic EECs for the various scenarios and application practices are listed in Table 3-3 and
Table 3-4. The example output from PRZM-EXAMS is provided in Appendix D. EECs were
calculated for surface water (used in RQ calculations for fish and invertebrates) and pore water
(used in RQ calculations for benthic invertebrates). Peak EECs ranged from 0.0008 to 15.89 |ig
ai/L for surface water and 0.00002 to 121.0 |ig ai/L for pore water. In instances where the
solubility limit was exceeded (5 |ig ai/L), the solubility limit was used for RQ calculation in lieu
of the EEC.
103
-------
Table 3-3. LamMa-Cyhalothrin EECs (iig/L) for Surface Water in California
Proposed l.iihol I so
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) d;Mc)
Method1
Application R;i(c
(in(or\;il hcmccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
Ml-d«i\
r.r.r
iiig/l.)
Surface Water Concentrations
Agricultural/farm premises
CA Residential
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
2 app @ 0.2212 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0763 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.058
0.007
0.004
Alfalfa
CA Alfalfa
(Dec 10 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.38 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.66
0.14
0.08
G
0.14
0.03
0.02
Almond
CA Almond
(July 26 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.1 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.07
0.02
0.02
CA Almond
(Aug 20 - trunk drench)
T
3 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.008
0.003
0.002
Apple, cherry, crabapple,
nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, trees
CA Fruit
(May 23 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.1 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.05
0.02
0.02
Nectarine, peach, cherry
trees trunk drench
CA Fruit
(July 8- trunk drench)
T
3 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.0023
0.0003
0.0002
Apple Trees
CA Fruit
(July 18- trunk drench)
T
1 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
Animal housing premises,
Paths/patios
CA Residential
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
14 app @ 0.0762 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.1132 lb a.i./acre
(21-day interval)
0.050
0.009
0.006
Household/domestic
dwellings, outdoor
premises
CA Residential
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
2 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.831
0.099
0.062
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw,
plum, quince
CA Fruit
(May 23 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.012
0.004
0.004
Bean, groundcherry, pea,
pepino, pepper
CA Row Crop
(Jan 15 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.05
0.01
0.01
Eggplant
CA Melons
(June 06 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.010
0.004
0.003
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia
nut
CA Almond
(July 26 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.018
0.005
0.004
Barley
CA Wheat
(May25 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.031 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.070
0.016
0.011
G
0.029
0.010
0.007
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
CA Row Crop
(Jan 22 - foliar, dust)
A
12 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.098
0.042
0.040
D
0.073
0.016
0.015
Mustard cabbage (gai choy,
pak-choi)
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 25- dust)
D
8 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.121
0.028
0.026
Brassica (head and stem)
vegetables
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 01-foliar)
A
8 app @ 0.031 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
0.090
0.036
0.031
104
-------
Proposed l.iihol I so
PRZM/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) d;Mc)
Method1
Application Ksiic
(inlcr\;d hcmccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
iiig/1.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
Wl-dsij
r.r.r
iiig/l.)
G
7-day interval per crop cycle)
0.082
0.020
0.017
Tomato, tomatillo
CA Tomato
(July 2- dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.018
0.005
0.005
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1- dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle)
0.181
0.044
0.044
Cabbage, kohlrabi
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle;
max. 26 apps./year)2
0.157
0.055
0.051
Mustard
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(4 crop cycles of 90 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle;
max. 26 apps./year)2
0.144
0.048
0.046
Brussels sprouts
CA Lettuce
(April 21 - foliar, dust)
G
3 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.135
0.021
0.018
D
9 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.213
0.036
0.033
Buckwheat, oat, rye
CA Wheat
(May29 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(3-day interval)
0.069
0.015
0.010
G
0.028
0.009
0.007
Canola/rape
CA Wheat
(May 22 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.082
0.023
0.017
G
0.042
0.015
0.012
Grass forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland
CA Rangeland and Hay
(Feb 24 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(30-day interval)
0.055
0.009
0.008
G
0.011
0.002
0.002
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat
CA Wheat
(May 29 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(3-day interval)
0.071
0.016
0.011
G
0.029
0.010
0.007
Cole crops
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 11 - foliar, dust)
A
8 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.127
0.047
0.042
D
0.117
0.029
0.027
Onion
CA Onion
(April 19 - foliar, dust)
A
9 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.064
0.021
0.020
D
0.015
0.005
0.005
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area
lawns
CATurf
(Dec 23 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.1585 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0983 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.054
0.008
0.006
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area
CATurf
(Nov 18 - spot trt)
ST
7 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.019
0.004
0.003
105
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I so
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(firsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application Rule
(inlcr\;il hclwccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
tug/I.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
Wl-dsij
r.r.r
(iig/l.i
lawns
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries)
CA Nursery
(Sept 26 - foliar)
G
6 app @ 0.0401 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.468
0.069
0.052
Conifers
(seed orchard)
CA Nursery
(Oct 10 - foliar)
G
3 app @ 0.156 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.036 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
1.00
0.148
0.111
Corn
(field)
CA Corn
A
3 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
0.078
0.020
0.016
(Aug 18 - foliar)
G
(10-day interval)
0.056
0.011
0.009
Corn
(field, pop)
CA Corn
(Sept 3 - band, furrow)
B,F
2 app @ 0.0934 lb a.i./acre
(4-day interval)
0.080
0.014
0.011
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(Aug 18-band, furrow)
B,F
6 app @ 0.0934 lb a.i./acre
(4-day interval)
0.219
0.039
0.031
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(April 20 - dust)
D
5 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.357
0.067
0.054
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(April 10 - foliar)
A
6 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 90 days;
10-day interval per crop
cycle; max. 16 apps./year)
0.197
0.058
0.053
Cotton
CA Cotton
A
3 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
0.073
0.015
0.011
(Oct 1 - foliar)
G
(10-day interval)
0.018
0.004
0.004
Cucurbit vegetables
CA Melon
A
6 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
0.059
0.020
0.014
(July 7- foliar)
G
(5-day interval)
0.012
0.004
0.003
Filbert, pecan, walnut
CA Almond
A
2 app @ 0.057 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.044 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.098
0.020
0.014
(August 10 - foliar)
G
0.021
0.005
0.004
Filbert, pecan, walnut
CA Almond
(July 11 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.057 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.027
0.009
0.009
Forest plantings
CA Forestry
(Nov 3 - foliar)
G
4 app @ 0.0511 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0337 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.298
0.064
0.053
Fruiting vegetables
CA Row Crop
A
12 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
0.111
0.047
0.043
(Jan 23 - foliar)
G
(5-day interval)
0.087
0.018
0.017
Garlic
CA Garlic
(May 28 - foliar)
A
8 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.070
0.026
0.024
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
CATurf
(Dec 30 - foliar)
G
1 app @ 0.068 lb a.i./acre
0.022
0.002
0.002
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
CATurf
(Nov 25 - mound)
M
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.017
0.004
0.003
106
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I si-
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application Rule
(inlcr\;il hclwccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i:c
2l-d;i\
i:i:c
Wl-dsij
i:i:c
Grasses grown for seed
CATurf
(Dec 16 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.1306 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0811 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.050
0.012
0.008
Legume vegetables
CA Row Crop
(March 3 - foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.060
0.020
0.015
G
0.035
0.006
0.005
Peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables
CA Row Crop
(Feb 26 - foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.060
0.018
0.015
G
0.034
0.006
0.005
Lettuce
CA Lettuce
(Feb 6 - foliar)
A
10 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of 120 days;
5-day interval per crop cycle)
0.245
0.086
0.081
G
0.223
0.048
0.044
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soils
CA Right of Way
(Oct 18 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.0792 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0432 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
0.048
0.014
0.009
Ornamental and/or shade
trees
CA Nursery
(Oct 17 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.162 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0913 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.062
0.018
0.015
Ornamental and/or shade
trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-
flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose
CA Nursery
(Oct 17 - dust)
D
3 app @ 1.2 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
7.42
1.08
0.81
Paved areas
(private roads/sidewalks)
CA Impervious
(Nov 25 -
barrier/perimeter trt)
PT
6 app @ 0.069 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.812
0.069
0.043
Pome and stone fruit
CA Fruit
(June 20 - foliar)
A
5 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.077
0.020
0.016
G
0.016
0.005
0.004
Potato
CA Potato
(May 11 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0162 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.042
0.009
0.007
G
0.009
0.002
0.002
Recreational areas
CATurf
(Jan 1 - band)
B
26 app @ 0.033 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.010
0.002
0.002
Recreational areas
CATurf
(Dec 23 -surface spray)
CC
ST
2 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.218
0.045
0.037
Residential lawns
CA Residential
(Nov 25 - granular)
0
6 app @ 0.078 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
0.071
0.010
0.007
Residential lawns
CA Residential
(Dec 30 - mound)
M
1 app @ 1.9 lb a.i./acre3
0.400
0.061
0.031
Rice
Tier 1 Rice Model
R
3 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.360
0.360
0.360
Seed orchard trees
CA Nursery
(Oct 10 - foliar)
G
3 app @ 0.162 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0327 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
1.210
0.175
0.128
107
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I so
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(firsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application Rule
(inlcr\;il hclwccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
tug/I.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
Wl-dsij
r.r.r
(iig/l.i
Sorghum
CA Wheat
(May 22 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.085
0.019
0.014
G
0.036
0.012
0.009
Soybean
CA Row Crop
(March 4- foliar)
A
1 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.021 lb a.i./acre
(14-day interval)
0.064
0.010
0.007
G
0.016
0.003
0.003
Tree nuts
CA Almond
(Aug 15- foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.077
0.023
0.015
G
0.017
0.006
0.004
Sunflower
CA Corn
(Aug 18- foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.071
0.019
0.015
G
0.051
0.010
0.008
Right-of-Way
CA Right of Way
(Sept 27- foliar)
G
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
0.054
0.009
0.007
Airports/landing fields
CA Impervious
(Jan 22 - granular)
O
26 app @ 0.08 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
15.894
2.11
1.74
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
(granular spot treatment)
CATurf
(Nov 25 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.0688 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.019
0.004
0.003
Grasses grown for seed
(granular spot treatment)
CATurf
(Nov 25 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.017
0.004
0.003
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soil
(granular band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot treatment)
CA Right of Way
(Oct 4 - granular)
O
5 app @ 0.0792 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
0.059
0.009
0.006
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soil
(granular mound treatment)
CA Right of Way
(Sept 27 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
0.009
0.002
0.002
1 A = foliar aerial application modeled as 95% application efficiency, 5% spray drift; G = foliar ground application modeled as
99% application efficiency, 1% spray drift; C = chemigation modeled as 100% application efficiency, 0% spray drift; D = dust
modeled as ground application 99% application efficiency, 1% spray drift; M = mound application modeled as 100% application
efficiency and 0% spray drift; T = trunk drench modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; CC = crack and
crevice modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; ST = spot treatment modeled as 100% application efficiency
and 0% spray drift; B = Banded applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; F = Furrow applications
modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; PT = perimeter treatment modeled as 100% application efficiency and
0% spray drift; 0 = Granular applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; R = Tier 1 Rice Model was
utilized.
2 Due to the PRZM/EXAMS model restriction of 26 total applications allowed, the maximum of 26 applications was modeled.
3 Spreadsheet post-processing was utilized for the Right of Way (ROW) and Residential Scenarios.
4Solubility limit will be used in the calculation of RQs because the EEC exceeded the solubility limit (5 |ig ai/L).
108
-------
Table 3-4. Lambda-Cyhalothrin EECs (iig/L) for Pore Water in California
Proposed l.iihol I so
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) d;Mc)
Method1
Application R;i(c
(in(or\;il hcmccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
Ml-d«i\
r.r.r
iiig/l.)
Pore Water Concentrations
Agricultural/farm premises
CA Residential
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
2 app @ 0.2212 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0763 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
9.134
9.10
9.01
Alfalfa
CA Alfalfa
(Dec 10 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.38 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.023
0.023
0.022
G
0.007
0.007
0.007
Almond
CA Almond
(July 26 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.1 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.005
0.005
0.005
CA Almond
(Aug 20 - trunk drench)
T
3 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Apple, cherry, crabapple,
nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, trees
CA Fruit
(May 23 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.1 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
Nectarine, peach, cherry
trees trunk drench
CA Fruit
(July 8- trunk drench)
T
3 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
6.56E-5
6.52E-5
6.49E-5
Apple Trees
CA Fruit
(July 18- trunk drench)
T
1 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
2.00E-5
2.00E-5
2.00E-5
Animal housing premises,
Paths/patios
CA Residential
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
14 app @ 0.0762 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.1132 lb a.i./acre
(21-day interval)
18.094
17.97
17.80
Household/domestic
dwellings, outdoor
premises
CA Residential
CA Impervious
(Jan 02 - surface spray)
CC
2 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
121.04
121.0
120.0
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw,
plum, quince
CA Fruit
(May 23 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Bean, groundcherry, pea,
pepino, pepper
CA Row Crop
(Jan 15 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.003
Eggplant
CA Melons
(June 06 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia
nut
CA Almond
(July 26 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Barley
CA Wheat
(May25 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.031 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.003
G
0.002
0.002
0.002
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
CA Row Crop
(Jan 22 - foliar, dust)
A
12 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.011
0.011
0.011
D
0.004
0.004
0.004
Mustard cabbage (gai choy,
pak-choi)
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 25- dust)
D
8 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.007
0.007
0.007
Brassica (head and stem)
vegetables
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 01-foliar)
A
8 app @ 0.031 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
0.009
0.009
0.009
109
-------
Proposed l.iihol I so
PRZM/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) d;Mc)
Method1
Application Ksiic
(inlcr\;d hcmccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
iiig/1.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
Wl-dsij
r.r.r
iiig/l.)
G
7-day interval per crop cycle)
0.005
0.005
0.005
Tomato, tomatillo
CA Tomato
(July 2- dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1- dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle)
0.011
0.011
0.011
Cabbage, kohlrabi
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle;
max. 26 apps./year)2
0.015
0.015
0.015
Mustard
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 1 - dust)
D
9 app @ 0.0294 lb a.i./acre
(4 crop cycles of 90 days;
7-day interval per crop cycle;
max. 26 apps./year)2
0.013
0.013
0.013
Brussels sprouts
CA Lettuce
(April 21 - foliar, dust)
G
3 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.005
0.005
0.005
D
9 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.010
0.010
0.010
Buckwheat, oat, rye
CA Wheat
(May29 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(3-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.002
G
0.002
0.002
0.002
Canola/rape
CA Wheat
(May 22 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
G
0.003
0.003
0.003
Grass forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland
CA Rangeland and Hay
(Feb 24 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(30-day interval)
0.002
0.002
0.002
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat
CA Wheat
(May 29 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(3-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.003
G
0.002
0.002
0.002
Cole crops
CA Cole Crop
(Jan 11 - foliar, dust)
A
8 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.012
0.012
0.011
D
0.007
0.007
0.007
Onion
CA Onion
(April 19 - foliar, dust)
A
9 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.005
0.005
0.004
D
0.001
0.001
0.001
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area
lawns
CATurf
(Dec 23 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.1585 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0983 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.002
0.002
0.002
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area
CATurf
(Nov 18 - spot trt)
ST
7 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
110
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I so
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(firsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application Rule
(inlcr\;il hclwccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
tug/I.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
iiig/l.)
Wl-dsij
r.r.r
(iig/l.i
lawns
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries)
CA Nursery
(Sept 26 - foliar)
G
6 app @ 0.0401 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.014
0.014
0.014
Conifers
(seed orchard)
CA Nursery
(Oct 10 - foliar)
G
3 app @ 0.156 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.036 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.031
0.031
0.031
Corn
(field)
CA Corn
A
3 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
0.005
0.005
0.004
(Aug 18 - foliar)
G
(10-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.003
Corn
(field, pop)
CA Corn
(Sept 3 - band, furrow)
B,F
2 app @ 0.0934 lb a.i./acre
(4-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.003
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(Aug 18-band, furrow)
B,F
6 app @ 0.0934 lb a.i./acre
(4-day interval)
0.009
0.009
0.009
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(April 20 - dust)
D
5 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 120 days;
10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.016
0.016
0.016
Corn
(sweet)
CA Corn
(April 10 - foliar)
A
6 app @ 0.03 lb a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of 90 days;
10-day interval per crop
cycle; max. 16 apps./year)
0.016
0.016
0.016
Cotton
CA Cotton
A
3 app @ 0.042 lb a.i./acre
0.003
0.003
0.003
(Oct 1 - foliar)
G
(10-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Cucurbit vegetables
CA Melon
A
6 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
0.003
0.003
0.003
(July 7- foliar)
G
(5-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Filbert, pecan, walnut
CA Almond
A
2 app @ 0.057 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.044 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.003
0.003
0.003
(August 10 - foliar)
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Filbert, pecan, walnut
CA Almond
(July 11 - dust)
D
6 app @ 0.057 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.002
0.002
0.002
Forest plantings
CA Forestry
(Nov 3 - foliar)
G
4 app @ 0.0511 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0337 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.016
0.016
0.016
Fruiting vegetables
CA Row Crop
A
12 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
0.011
0.011
0.011
(Jan 23 - foliar)
G
(5-day interval)
0.005
0.005
0.005
Garlic
CA Garlic
(May 28 - foliar)
A
8 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.006
0.006
0.006
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
CATurf
(Dec 30 - foliar)
G
1 app @ 0.068 lb a.i./acre
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
CATurf
(Nov 25 - mound)
M
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Ill
-------
Proposed l.iihcl I si-
I'K/.M/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) diiio)
Method1
Application Rule
(inlcr\;il hclwccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i:c
2l-d;i\
i:i:c
Wl-dsij
i:i:c
Grasses grown for seed
CATurf
(Dec 16 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.1306 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0811 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.003
0.002
0.002
Legume vegetables
CA Row Crop
(March 3 - foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables
CA Row Crop
(Feb 26 - foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Lettuce
CA Lettuce
(Feb 6 - foliar)
A
10 app @ 0.0311 lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of 120 days;
5-day interval per crop cycle)
0.023
0.023
0.023
G
0.013
0.013
0.013
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soils
CA Right of Way
(Oct 18 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.0792 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0432 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
21.594
21.484
21.424
Ornamental and/or shade
trees
CA Nursery
(Oct 17 - foliar)
G
2 app @ 0.162 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0913 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
Ornamental and/or shade
trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-
flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose
CA Nursery
(Oct 17 - dust)
D
3 app @ 1.2 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.227
0.226
0.211
Paved areas
(private roads/sidewalks)
CA Impervious
(Nov 25 -
barrier/perimeter trt)
PT
6 app @ 0.069 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.012
0.012
0.012
Pome and stone fruit
CA Fruit
(June 20 - foliar)
A
5 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Potato
CA Potato
(May 11 - foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.0239 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0162 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
G
0.0004
0.0004
0.0003
Recreational areas
CATurf
(Jan 1 - band)
B
26 app @ 0.033 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
Recreational areas
CATurf
(Dec 23 -surface spray)
CC
ST
2 app @ 2.0 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.010
0.010
0.010
Residential lawns
CA Residential
(Nov 25 - granular)
0
6 app @ 0.078 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
14.124
14.084
13.964
Residential lawns
CA Residential
(Dec 30 - mound)
M
1 app @ 1.9 lb a.i./acre3
61.144
59.554
13.964
Rice
Tier 1 Rice Model
R
3 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.360
0.360
0.360
Seed orchard trees
CA Nursery
(Oct 10 - foliar)
G
3 app @ 0.162 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.0327 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.036
0.036
0.034
112
-------
Proposed l.iihol I so
PRZM/r.WMS
Scenario1
(I'irsl ;ip|) d;Mc)
Method1
Application Ksiic
(inlcr\;d hcmccn
iippliciilions)
IV;ik
i:i.(
iiig/1.)
2l-d;i\
i:i.(
Wl-dsij
r.r.r
iiig/l.)
Sorghum
CA Wheat
(May 22 - foliar)
A
2 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.004
0.003
0.003
G
0.003
0.003
0.002
Soybean
CA Row Crop
(March 4- foliar)
A
1 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
1 app @ 0.021 lb a.i./acre
(14-day interval)
0.002
0.002
0.002
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Tree nuts
CA Almond
(Aug 15- foliar)
A
4 app @ 0.0415 lb a.i./acre
(5-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.003
G
0.001
0.001
0.001
Sunflower
CA Corn
(Aug 18- foliar)
A
3 app @ 0.038 lb a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.004
0.004
0.004
G
0.003
0.003
0.003
Right-of-Way
CA Right of Way
(Sept 27- foliar)
G
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
18.II4
18.034
17.944
Airports/landing fields
CA Impervious
(Jan 22 - granular)
O
26 app @ 0.08 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.450
0.447
0.445
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
(granular spot treatment)
CATurf
(Nov 25 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.0688 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Grasses grown for seed
(granular spot treatment)
CATurf
(Nov 25 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.001
0.001
0.001
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soil
(granular band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot treatment)
CA Right of Way
(Oct 4 - granular)
O
5 app @ 0.0792 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
15.594
15.484
15.394
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soil
(granular mound treatment)
CA Right of Way
(Sept 27 - granular)
O
6 app @ 0.06 lb a.i./acre
(7-day interval)3
5.134
5.124
5.II4
1 A = foliar aerial application modeled as 95% application efficiency, 5% spray drift; G = foliar ground application modeled as
99% application efficiency, 1% spray drift; C = chemigation modeled as 100% application efficiency, 0% spray drift; D = dust
modeled as ground application 99% application efficiency, 1% spray drift; M = mound application modeled as 100% application
efficiency and 0% spray drift; T = trunk drench modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; CC = crack and
crevice modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; ST = spot treatment modeled as 100% application efficiency
and 0% spray drift; B = Banded applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; F = Furrow applications
modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; PT = perimeter treatment modeled as 100% application efficiency and
0% spray drift; 0 = Granular applications modeled as 100% application efficiency and 0% spray drift; R = Tier 1 Rice Model was
utilized.
2 Due to the PRZM/EXAMS model restriction of 26 total applications allowed, the maximum of 26 applications was modeled.
3 Spreadsheet post-processing was utilized for the Right of Way (ROW) and Residential Scenarios.
4Solubility limit will be used in the calculation of RQs because the EEC exceeded the solubility limit (5 |ig ai/L).
113
-------
3.2.4. Existing Monitoring Data
A critical step in the process of characterizing EECs is comparing the modeled estimates with
available surface water monitoring data. Included in this assessment are lambda-cyhalothrin
data from the USGS NAWQA program (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa) and data from the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).
3.2.4.a. USGS NAWQA Surface Water Data
Surface water monitoring data from the USGS NAWQA program was accessed on August 01,
2012, and all data for California were evaluated. A total of 516 surface water samples were
analyzed for lambda-cyhalothrin. There were no detects above the limit of quantitation (LOQ),
which ranged from 0.004 to 0.018 jug ai/L.
3.2.4.b. USGS NAWQA Groundwater Data
Groundwater monitoring data from the USGS NAWQA program was accessed on August 01,
2012 and all data for California were evaluated. A total of 406 groundwater samples were
analyzed for lambda-cyhalothrin. Concentrations are less than the limit of quantitation (LOQ),
which ranged from 0.004 to 0.014 jug ai/L.
3.2.4.C. California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Data
Surface water and groundwater monitoring data from the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR) program were accessed on August 01, 2012. A total of 259 sediment and
1777 surface water samples were analyzed for lambda-cyhalothrin. Of these samples, 24 (9.3%)
sediment samples had positive detections located in Imperial, Stanislaus, and Placer counties.
The maximum sediment concentration detected was 0.315 jj,g ai/g located in Imperial County.
In addition, 8 (0.5%) surface water samples had positive detections of lambda-cyhalothrin. The
maximum surface water concentration detected was 0.14 jj,g/L located Del Puerto Creek at
Vineyard Avenue, which is a tributary to the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County.
3.2.4.d. Atmospheric Monitoring Data
The Western Contaminants Assessment Project publication and Western Canada Reports were
searched for lawMa-cyhalothrin; however, no data were available. Given \amhda-cy\\?i\othrin's
low vapor pressure and Henry's Law constants, atmospheric and long-range transport is unlikely.
3.3. Terrestrial Animal Exposure Assessment
3.3.1. Exposure to Residues in Terrestrial Food Items
T-REX (Version 1.5) is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs of lambda-cyhalothrin for
birds (including terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles), mammals, and terrestrial
invertebrates. T-REX simulates a 1-year time period. T-HERPS may be used as a refinement of
114
-------
dietary and dose-based EECs for snakes and amphibians when risk quotients from T-REX are
higher than LOCs. T-HERPS was also set up to simulate a 1-year time period. For this
assessment, spray and granular applications of lambda-cyhalothrin are considered. Trunk
drench, dust, crack and crevice, spot treatments, perimeter treatments, and mound applications
were modeled by T-REX as well in cases where application rates were reported in pounds of
active ingredient per acre.
T-REX was used to evaluate the risks from all uses except ear tags (see Section 5 for a
description of the risk analysis). Evaluation of aerial/ground spray applications and T-
banding/in-furrow treatments is straightforward and no special considerations were necessary.
Granular formulations are assessed based on the exposure expected in a square foot (LD5o/ft).
Dust applications are applied in a manner similar to foliar applications; lambda-cyhalothrin is
"dusted" onto the crop. Trunk drenches are applications of lambda-cyhalothrin that are applied
directly to the trunk of tree to control insects; no translocation occurs. Consequently, trunk
drenches were treated as a normal "foliar application" in T-REX, although the applications are
made to tree trunks. Spot treatments, crack and crevice, band treatments, and perimeter
treatments were lumped together for analysis, also using T-REX. Risks from these uses are
limited to the areas that receive treatment (these treatments usually encompass a small area and
are not applied on a per acre basis). Finally, mound treatments for ants were assessed separately
from the other "spot treatments" because anthills may be distributed more uniformly in a
landscape, making it possible that lambda-cyhalothrin would be applied on a per acre basis.
Terrestrial EECs were derived for the uses previously summarized in Table 2-6. Exposure
estimates generated using T-REX and T-HERPS are for the parent alone.
Terrestrial EECs for foliar formulations of lambda-cyhalothrin were derived for the uses
summarized in Table 3-5. Given that no data on interception and subsequent dissipation from
foliar surfaces are available for lambda-cyhalothrin, a default foliar dissipation half-life of 35
days is used, based on the work of Willis and McDowell (1987). Use specific input values,
including number of applications, application rate, foliar half-life and application interval are
provided in Table 3-5. An example output from T-REX and T-HERPS is available in Appendix
E.
Table 3-5. Input Parameters for Foliar, Trunk Drench, T-Banding, Soil In Furrow, Crack
and Crevice, Spot Treatment, Mound Treatment, Perimeter Treatment, Band Treatment
Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs for LamMa-Cyhalothrin with T-REX and T-
HERPS
Use (Application method)
Application
Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Number of
Applications
Application
Interval
Foliar Dissipation
Half-Life
Agricultural/farm premises
(crack and crevice, outdoor
surface spray, perimeter
treatment)
0.2212
2 at 0.2212 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.0763 lb
ai/A
7 days
35 days
Airports/landing fields
(soil broadcast - granular)
0.08
50
7 days
35 days
Alfalfa (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.038
3
10 days
35 days
Almond, apple, cherry,
Dust and
Almonds - 6
7 days
35 days
115
-------
Use (Application method)
Application
Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Number of
Applications
Application
Interval
Foliar Dissipation
Half-Life
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum, prune
(dust, spray, trunk drench)
spray
0.1
Others - 9
Trunk
drench
0.06
Almond,
nectarine, peach,
cherry - 3
5 days
Apple -1
n/a
Animal housing premises
(outdoor), paths/patios,
household/domestic
dwellings outdoor premises
(barrier treatment, crack
and crevice)
Animal/paths
0.2762
14 at 0.2762 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.1332
21 days
35 days
Household
2
2
7 days
Apricot, beans, eggplant,
ground cherry (strawberry
tomato/tomatillo), loquat,
mayhaw, pea, pepino,
pepper, Japanese plum,
quince (ground spray, dust)
0.0239
9
7 days
35 days
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia
nut (ground spray, dust)
6
Barley (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.031
2
7 days
35 days
Beef/range/feeder cattle,
calves, dairy cattle (ear tag)
0.0042 lb
ai/animal
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea),
mustard cabbage (gai choy,
pak-choi)(ground spray,
dust)
0.03
Bell pepper
(catjang,
Jerusalem/marble
pea) -12
7 days
35 days
Mustard
cabbage- 8
Brassica (head and stem)
vegetables (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.031
3 per crop cycle
- 3 crop cycles
per year, max of
8 per year
7 days
35 days
Broccoli, cabbage,
cauliflower, kohlrabi,
mustard, tomatillo, tomato
(ground spray, dust)
0.0294
9 per crop cycle
- 1 crop cycle
(tomato,
tomatillo), 2 crop
cycles (broccoli,
cauliflower), 3
crop cycles
(cabbage,
kohlrabi), 4 crop
cycles (mustard)
7 days
35 days
Brussels sprouts (ground
spray, dust)
0.038
Spray - 3
10 days
35 days
Dust - 9
116
-------
Use (Application method)
Application
Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Number of
Applications
Application
Interval
Foliar Dissipation
Half-Life
Buckwheat, oat, rye
(aerial/ground spray,
chemigation)
0.03
2
3 days
35 days
Canola/rape, grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland
(aerial/ground spray,
chemigation)
Canola/rape -
5 days
0.0311
3
Pastures,
rangeland,
grass forage -
30 days
35 days
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat (aerial/ground spray,
chemigation)
0.0311
2
3 days
35 days
Cole crops, onion
(aerial/ground spray,
chemigation, dust)
0.0311
Cole crops - 8
7 days
25 days
Onion - 9
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental lawns
Spray -
0.1585
2 at 0.1585 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.0983 lb
and turf, recreation area
ai/A
7 days
35 days
lawns (ground spray,
mound treatment, spot
Mound -
0.06
7
treatment)
Spot - 0.06
7
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries)
(ground spray)
0.0401
6
7 days
35 days
Conifers (seed orchard)
(ground spray)
0.156
3 at 0.156 lb ai/A
1 at 0.036 lb ai/A
7 days
35 days
Corn (field) (aerial/ground
spray)
0.042
3
10 days
35 days
1 at 0.0934 lb
Corn (field, pop) (soil in
furrow, T-banding)
0.0934
ai/A
1 at 0.0311 lb
ai/A
4 days
35 days
5 at 0.0934 lb
Soil - 0.0934
ai/A
1 at 0.031 lb ai/A
4 days
Corn (sweet) (soil in
furrow, T-banding, dust,
spray)
Dust - 0.042
5
Spray - 0.03
6 apps per crop
cycle
3 crop cycles per
year
Max of 16 apps
per year
10 days
35 days
Cotton (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.042
3
10 days
35 days
Cucurbit vegetables
(aerial/ground spray,
chemigation)
0.0311
6
5 days
35 days
Filbert, pecan, walnut
(aerial/ground spray, dust)
0.057
Spray
2 at 0.057 lb ai/A
1 at 0.044 lb ai/A
10 days
35 days
117
-------
Use (Application method)
Application
Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Number of
Applications
Application
Interval
Foliar Dissipation
Half-Life
Dust - 6
Forest plantings (ground
spray)
0.0511
4 at 0.0511
1 at 0.0337
7 days
35 days
Fruiting vegetables
(aerial/ground spray,
chemigation)
0.0311
12
5 days
35 days
Garlic
0.0311
8
7 days
35 days
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm
(ground spray, mound
treatment, granular spot
treatment)
Spray -
0.068
1
7 days
35 days
Mound -
0.06
6
Granular -
0.0688
6
Grasses grown for seed
(ground spray, granular
spot treatment)
Spray -
0.1306
2 at 0.1306 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.0811 lb
ai/A
7 days
35 days
Granular -
0.06
6
Legume vegetables,
peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.0311
4
Legumes - 5
days
35 days
Peanuts, roots
and tubers - 7
days
Lettuce (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.0311
10 per crop cycle
- 2 crop cycles
per year
5 days
35 days
Nonagricultural
uncultivated areas/soils
(aerial/ground spray,
chemigation; granular -
band treatment, ground
broadcast, perimeter,
mound, spot)
Spray -
0.0792
2 at 0.0792 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.0491 lb
ai/A
7 days
35 days
Granular
band,
broadcast,
perimeter -
0.0792
4 at 0.0792 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.0432 lb
ai/A
Granular
spot and
mound -
0.06
6
Ornamental and/or shade
trees (ground spray and
broadcast)
Spray -
0.162
2 at 0.162 lb ai/A
1 at 0.0913 lb
ai/A
7 days
35 days
Broadcast -
1.2
3
Ornamental ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non
flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose
(dust, ground spray); dust
only for herbaceous plants
and woody shrubs/vines
1.2
3
7 days
35 days
118
-------
Use (Application method)
Application
Rate
(lbs a.i./A)
Number of
Applications
Application
Interval
Foliar Dissipation
Half-Life
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks) (barrier,
perimeter treatment)
0.069
5
7 days
35 days
Pome and stone fruit
(aerial/ground spray)
0.0415
5
7 days
35 days
Potato (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.0239
3 at 0.0239 lb
ai/A
1 at 0.0162 lb
ai/A
7 days
35 days
Recreational areas (band
treatment, crack and
crevice, spot treatment)
Band -
0.0291
52
7 days
35 days
Others - 2
2
Residential lawns (granular
broadcast, granular mound)
Broadcast -
0.078
6
7 days
35 days
Mound- 1.9
1
Rice (ground spray,
chemigation)
0.0415
3
5 days
35 days
Seed orchard trees (ground
spray)
0.162
3 at 0.162 lb ai/A
1 at 0.0327
7 days
35 days
Sorghum (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.038
2
10 days
35 days
Soybean (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.038
1 at 0.038 lb ai/A
1 at 0.021 lb
ai/A
14 days
35 days
Tree nuts (aerial/ground
spray, chemigation)
0.0415
4
Tree nuts - 5
days
35 days
Sunflower (aerial/ground
spray)
0.038
3
10 days
35 days
Right-of-way (soil
treatment)
0.06
6
7 days
35 days
n/a = Not applicable
Organisms consume a variety of dietary items and may exist in a variety of sizes at different life
stages. T-REX estimates exposure for the following dietary items: short grass, tall grass,
broadleaf plants/small insects, and fruits/pods/seeds/large insects, and seeds for granivores.
Birds, including the CCR, and mammals consume all of these items. The size classes of birds
represented in T-REX are small (20 g), medium (100 g), and large (1000 g). The size classes for
mammals are small (15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g). EECs are calculated for the most
sensitive dietary item and size class for birds (surrogate for amphibians and reptiles) and
mammals. For mammals and birds, the most sensitive EECs are for the smallest size class
consuming short grass.
For foliar applications of liquid formulations, T-HERPS estimates exposure for the following
dietary items: broadleaf plants/small insects, fruits/pods/seeds/large insects, small herbivore
mammals, small insectivore mammals, and small amphibians. Snakes and amphibians may
consume all of these items. The default size classes of amphibians represented in T-HERPS are
small (2 g), medium (20 g), and large (200 g). The default vertebrate prey size that the medium
119
-------
and large amphibians can consume is 13 g and 133 g, respectively (small amphibians are not
expected to eat vertebrate prey). The default size classes for snakes are small (2 g), medium (20
g), and large (800 g). The default vertebrate prey size that medium and large snakes can
consume is 25 g and 291 g, respectively (small snakes are not expected to eat vertebrate prey).
EECs are calculated for the most sensitive dietary item and size class for amphibians and snakes.
For both amphibians and reptiles, the most sensitive EECs and RQs are for a 20-gram animal
that consumes small herbivore mammals. If dietary RQs are more sensitive than acute dose
based RQs for acute exposures, they are shown as well. Dietary based EECs and RQs are used
to characterize risk from chronic exposure. The percentages of the EECs for the different dietary
items are discussed in the discussion on uncertainties (see Section 6.1.3.b).
3.3.1.a. Dietary Exposure to Mammals, Birds, and Amphibians
Derived Using T-REX
Upper-bound Kenaga nomogram values reported by T-REX are used for derivation of dietary
EECs for the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB, and
their potential prey (
Table 3-6). EECs in T-REX that are applicable to direct effects to the CCR are for small (20 g,
juveniles) and medium (100 g, adult) birds consuming a variety of dietary items. The most
sensitive EEC for the CCR is for the small bird consuming short grass. EECs in T-REX that are
applicable to assess direct effect to the terrestrial-phase CTS and SFGS are for small birds (20g)
consuming short grass5.
For birds (surrogates for amphibians and reptiles), EECs and RQs are calculated for acute dose
based, and sub-chronic and chronic dietary based exposure. For mammals, EECs and RQs for
acute dose based, dietary-based, and chronic dose based exposure are calculated. The most
sensitive RQs are used in the assessment.
Granular formulations of lambda-cyhalothrin are assessed separately in T-REX and yield RQs
based on the exposure expected in a square foot (LD50/ft2).
5 Short grass EECs and RQs are used for reptiles and amphibians to represent a conservative screen. It is not being
assumed that amphibians and snakes eat short grass. Rather, the result of modeling the 20 gram bird consuming
short grass is more conservative than modeling an alternative diet for amphibians and snakes and is, therefore, a
valid conservative screen and is protective of these species. If the short grass assessment does not result in LOC
exceedances, there is a high confidence that effects are unlikely to occur.
120
-------
Table 3-6. Upper-bound Kenaga Nomogram EECs for Dietary- and Dose-Based Exposures
of Birds, Mammals, and Terrestrial Invertebrates Derived Using T-REX for Lambda-
1 ^yhalothrin
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
and
Interval
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
Dictarv-
bascd EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
dict)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
Agricultural/farm
premises, crack and
crevice/surface
spray/perimeter
treatment
2 at
0.2212,
1 at 0.0763
7 days
104.76
119.31
104.76
99.88
41.03
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
3 at 0.038
10 days
22.74
25.90
22.74
21.68
8.91
Almond, ground dust
and spray
6 at 0.1
7 days
104.70
119.24
104.70
99.82
41.01
Apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust
and spray
9 at 0.1
7 days
132.16
150.52
132.16
126.00
51.76
Almond, nectarine,
peach, cherry, trunk
drench
3 at 0.06
5 days
39.26
44.71
39.26
37.43
15.37
Apple, trunk drench
1 at 0.06
n/a
14.40
16.40
14.40
13.73
5.64
Animal housing
premises, paths/patios,
barrier treatment/crack
and crevice
14 at
0.2762,
1 at 0.1332
21 days
194.25
221.23
194.25
185.20
76.08
Household/domestic
dwellings outdoor
premises, barrier
treatment/crack and
crevice
2 at 2
7 days
897.86
1022.58
897.86
856.04
351.66
Apricot, bean,
eggplant,
groundcherry, loquat,
mayhaw, pea, pepino,
pepper, plum, quince,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.0239
7 days
31.59
35.97
31.59
30.11
12.37
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut,
macadamia nut,
6 at 0.0239
7 days
25.02
28.50
25.02
23.86
9.80
121
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
and
Interval
Dietary-
based EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-lm)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
ground spray/dust
Barley, aerial/ground
2 at 0.031
7 days
13.92
15.85
13.92
13.27
5.45
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea) (aerial/ground
spray/dust)
12 at 0.03
7 days
45.08
51.34
45.08
42.98
17.66
Mustard cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi),
ground spray/dust
8 at 0.03
37.27
42.45
37.27
35.54
14.60
3 crop
cycles of
120 days;
Brassica (head and
stem) vegetables,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.031
per crop
cycle; max
8 apps per
year
7 days
20.26
23.07
20.26
19.31
8.20
Tomato, tomatillo,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.0294
7 days
38.85
44.25
38.85
37.04
15.22
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
2 crop
cycles of
120 days;
9 at 0.0294
7 days
39.89
45.43
39.89
38.03
15.68
Cabbage, kohlrabi,
ground spray/dust
3 crop
cycles of
120 days1
9 at 0.0294
7 days
43.15
49.15
43.15
41.14
16.90
Mustard
4 crop
cycles of
90 days2
9 at 0.0294
7 days
47.22
53.78
47.22
45.02
18.49
122
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
and
Interval
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
Dietary-
based EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-lm)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
Brussels sprouts,
ground spray
3 at 0.038
10 days
22.74
25.90
22.74
21.68
8.91
Brussels sprouts, dust
9 at 0.038
10 days
42.22
48.09
42.22
40.25
16.54
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.03
3 days
13.98
15.93
13.98
13.33
5.48
Canola/rape,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0311
5 days
20.35
23.17
20.35
19.40
7.97
Grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0311
30 days
13.86
15.78
13.86
13.21
5.43
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, aerial/ground
2 at 0.0311
3 days
14.50
16.51
14.50
13.82
5.68
Cole crops,
aerial/ground/dust
8 at 0.0311
7 days
38.64
44.01
38.64
36.84
15.13
Onion,
aerial/ground/dust
9 at 0.0311
7 days
41.10
46.81
41.10
39.19
16.10
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
ground
2 at
0.1585,
1 at 0.0983
7 days
85.54
97.42
85.54
81.55
33.50
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment
7 at 0.06
7 days
69.09
78.68
69.09
65.87
27.06
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries),
ground
6 at 0.0401
7 days
41.98
47.82
41.98
40.03
16.44
Conifers (seed
orchard), ground
3 at 0.156,
1 at 0.036
7 days
98.41
112.08
98.41
93.82
38.54
Corn (field),
aerial/ground
3 at 0.042
10 days
25.13
28.62
25.13
23.96
9.84
Corn (field, pop), soil
2 at
43.12
49.11
43.12
41.12
No exposure
123
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
and
Interval
Dietary-
based EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-lm)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
in furrow/T -banding3
0.0934,
4 days
Rows 30
inches
apart;
banding 7
inches
6 at
0.0934,
Corn (sweet), soil in
furrow/T -banding3
4 days
Rows 40
inches
apart4;
banding 7
inches
111.34
126.81
111.34
106.16
No exposure
3 crop
cycles per
year
Corn (sweet), dust
5 apps at
0.042 per
crop cycle
10 days
36.81
41.92
36.81
35.09
10.30
3 crop
cycles per
year5
Corn (sweet), spray
6 apps of
0.03 per
crop cycle;
max 16
apps per
year
10 days
29.60
33.72
29.60
28.22
11.59
Cotton, aerial/ground
3 at 0.042
10 days
25.13
28.62
25.13
23.96
9.84
Cucurbit vegetables,
aerial/ground
6 at 0.0311
35.47
40.39
35.47
33.81
13.89
124
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
and
Interval
Dietary-
based EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-lm)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
5 days
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.057,
1 at 0.044
10 days
30.99
35.29
30.99
29.54
12.14
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
dust
6 at 0.057
10 days
52.94
60.29
52.94
50.47
20.73
Forest plantings,
ground
4 at
0.0511,
1 at 0.0337
43.19
49.19
43.19
41.18
16.92
7 days
Fruiting vegetables,
aerial/ground
12 at
0.0311
5 days
55.04
62.69
55.04
52.48
21.56
Garlic
8 at 0.0311
7 days
38.64
44.01
38.64
36.84
15.13
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
ground
1 at 0.068,
16.32
18.59
16.32
15.56
6.39
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
mound
6 at 0.06
7 days
62.82
71.55
62.82
59.89
24.60
2 at
Grasses grown for
seed, ground
0.1306,
1 at 0.0811
7 days
70.50
80.30
70.50
67.22
27.61
Legume vegetables,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0311
5 days
25.89
29.49
25.89
24.69
10.14
Peanuts, root and
tuber vegetables,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0311
7 days
24.54
27.95
24.54
23.40
9.61
2 crop
cycles of
120 days
Lettuce, aerial/ground
10 at
0.0311
5 days
51.65
58.83
51.65
49.25
20.23
Nonagricultural
2 at
41.32
47.06
41.32
39.40
16.18
125
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
and
Interval
Dietary-
based EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-lm)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
uncultivated
areas/soils, aerial
0.0792,
1 at 0.0432
7 days
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
2 at 0.162,
1 at 0.0913
7 days
85.22
97.06
85.22
81.26
33.38
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
cover, herbaceous
plants, non flowering
plants, woody shrubs
and vines, rose,
ground/dust/
3 at 1.2
7 days
756.98
862.13
756.98
721.72
296.48
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks),
barrier/perimeter
treatment
6 at 0.069
7 days
72.24
82.28
72.24
68.88
28.30
Pome and stone fruit,
aerial/ground
5 at 0.0415
7 days
38.47
43.81
38.47
36.68
15.07
Potato, aerial/ground
3 at
0.0239,
1 at 0.0162
7 days
17.01
19.38
17.01
16.22
6.66
Recreational areas,
band treatment
52 at
0.0291
7 days
53.91
61.40
53.91
51.40
21.12
Recreational areas,
crack and crevice/spot
treatment
2 at 2
7 days
897.86
1022.58
897.86
856.04
351.66
Rice, ground
3 at 0.0415
5 days
27.15
30.92
27.15
25.89
10.63
Seed orchard trees,
ground
3 at 0.162,
1 at 0.0327
102.19
116.39
102.19
97.43
40.03
7 days
Sorghum,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.038
10 days
16.60
18.91
16.60
15.83
6.50
Soybean,
aerial/ground
1 at 0.038,
1 at 0.021
11.95
13.61
11.95
11.39
4.68
126
-------
Usc(s),
Tvpc of Application
App Rate
(lb ai/A)
and
Interval
EECs for CCR, CTS (all
DPS), SFGS, and Birds
(small birds consuming
short grass)
EECs for Mammals
(small mammals
consuming short grass)
EECs for
Arthropods
Dictarv-
based EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-lm)
EEC (mg
ai/kg-bw)
14 days
Tree nuts,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0415
5 days
34.55
39.35
34.55
32.94
13.53
Sunflower,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.038
10 days
22.74
25.90
22.74
21.68
8.91
Right-of-way, ground
6 at 0.06
7 days
62.82
71.55
62.82
59.89
24.60
n/a = not applicable
1 An interval of 60 days was used between crop cycles
2Only 30 applications were modeled because of limitations with T-REX; an interval of 30 days was used between
crop cycles
3 Application exceeds the seasonal maximum because of limitations on T-REX
4University of California and USD A 2004
5An interval of 90 days was used between crop cycles
3.3.2. Exposure to Terrestrial Invertebrates Derived Using T-REX
T-REX is also used to calculate EECs for terrestrial invertebrates exposed to lambda-cyhalothrin
(Table 3-6). Available acute contact toxicity data for bees exposed to lambda-cyhalothrin (in
units of |ig a.i./bee), are converted to |ig a.i./g (of bee) by multiplying by 1 bee/0.128 g. Dietary-
based EECs calculated by T-REX for arthropods (units of |ig a.i./g-bw) are used to estimate
exposure to terrestrial invertebrates. The EECs are later compared to the adjusted acute contact
toxicity data for bees in order to derive RQs.
Arthropods are applicable to the VELB and BCB and in estimating indirect effects based on
reduction in prey to the CCR and CTS. An example output from T-REX v. 1.5 is available in
Appendix E.
3.3.2.a. Dietary Exposure to Amphibians and Reptiles Derived Using T-
HERPS
Birds are used as surrogate species for terrestrial-phase CTS and SFGS. Terrestrial-phase
amphibians and reptiles are poikilotherms indicating that their body temperature varies with
environmental temperature. Birds are homeotherms indicating that their temperature is
regulated, constant, and largely independent of environmental temperatures). As a consequence,
the caloric requirements of terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles are markedly lower than
birds. Therefore, on a daily dietary intake basis, birds consume more food than terrestrial-phase
amphibians. This can be seen when comparing the caloric requirements for free living iguanid
127
-------
lizards (used in this case as a surrogate for terrestrial phase amphibians) to song birds (USEPA,
1993):
iguanid FMR (kcal/day) = 0.0535 (bw g)0'7"
passerine FMR (kcal/day) = 2.123 (bw g)0'749
With relatively comparable slopes to the allometric functions, given a comparable body weight,
the free-living metabolic rate (FMR) of birds can be 40 times higher than reptiles, though the
requirement differences narrow with high body weights.
Given that the existing risk assessment process is driven by the dietary route of exposure, a
finding of safety for birds, with their much higher feeding rates and, therefore, higher potential
dietary exposure is reasoned to be protective of terrestrial-phase amphibians consuming similar
dietary items. For this not to be the case, terrestrial-phase amphibians would have to be 40 times
more sensitive than birds for the differences in dietary uptake to be negated. However, existing
dietary toxicity studies in terrestrial-phase amphibians for lambda-cyhalothrin are lacking. To
quantify the potential differences in food intake between birds and terrestrial-phase CTS and
amphibians, food intake equations for the iguanid lizard were used to replace the food intake
equation in T-REX for birds, and additional food items of the CTS and amphibians were
evaluated. These functions were encompassed in a model called T-HERPS. T-HERPS is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/terrestrial/index.htm. EECs calculated using
T-HERPS are shown in this section and potential risk is further discussed in the risk
characterization.
EECs in T-HERPS that are applicable to the CTS are small (2 g, juveniles) amphibians
consuming small and large insects and medium (20 g) amphibians consuming small and large
insects, small herbivorous and insectivorous mammals, and amphibians. The dietary item that
results in the highest EEC for CTS (all DPS) is the small herbivore mammal. EECs were only
calculated for amphibians in cases where the bird EECs resulted in RQs that exceeded the LOC.
In cases where this did not occur, the bird EECs were considered conservative and protective of
amphibians. EECs calculated using T-HERPS for the CTS are shown in
Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Upper-Bound Kenaga Nomogram EECs for Dietary- and Dose-Based
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate (lb
a.i./A, # App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Medium CTS
(medium amphibian consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary-based EEC
(mg/kg-diet)
Agricultural/farm
premises, crack and
crevice/surface
spray/perimeter
treatment
2 at 0.22122
7 days
n/a
272
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
3 at 0.038
n/a
62
128
-------
EEC for Medium CTS
Usc(s),
App Rate (lb
a.i./A, # App,
(medium amphibian consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Type of Application
Interval
(days)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietarv-bascd EEC
(mg/kg-diet)
10 days
Almond, ground dust
and spray
6 at 0.1
7 days
n/a
287
Apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust
and spray
9 at 0.1
7 days
n/a
362
Almond, nectarine,
3 at 0.06
peach, cherry, trunk
drench
5 days
n/a
108
1 at 0.06
Apple, trunk drench
n/a
n/a
39
Animal housing
premises, paths/patios,
barrier treatment/crack
and crevice
14 at 0.27622
21 days
130
532
Household/domestic
dwellings outdoor
premises, barrier
treatment/crack and
2 at 2
7 days
601
2459
crevice
Apricot, bean,
eggplant,
groundcherry, loquat,
mayhaw, pea, pepino,
pepper, plum, quince,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.0239
7 days
n/a
87
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
6 at 0.0239
7 days
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut,
macadamia nut,
n/a
69
ground spray/dust
2 at 0.031
Barley, aerial/ground
7 days
n/a
38
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea) (aerial/ground
spray/dust)
12 at 0.03
7 days
n/a
123
Mustard cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi),
ground spray/dust
8 at 0.03
7 days
n/a
102
Brassica (head and
3 at 0.0313
stem) vegetables,
aerial/ground
7 days
n/a
54
129
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate (lb
a.i./A, # App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Medium CTS
(medium amphibian consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietarv-bascd EEC
(mg/kg-diet)
Tomato, tomatillo,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.0294
7 days
n/a
106
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.02943
7 days
n/a
106
Cabbage, kohlrabi,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.02943
7 days
n/a
106
Mustard
9 at 0.02943
7 days
n/a
106
Brussels sprouts,
ground spray
3 at 0.038
10 days
n/a
62
Brussels sprouts, dust
9 at 0.038
10 days
n/a
116
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.03
3 days
n/a
38
Canola/rape,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0311
5 days
n/a
56
Grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0311
30 days
n/a
38
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, aerial/ground
2 at 0.0311
3 days
n/a
40
Cole crops,
aerial/ground/dust
8 at 0.0311
7 days
n/a
106
Onion,
aerial/ground/dust
9 at 0.0311
7 days
n/a
113
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
ground
3 at 0.15851
7 days
n/a
274
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment
7 at 0.06
7 days
n/a
189
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries),
6 at 0.0401
n/a
115
130
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate (lb
a.i./A, # App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Medium CTS
(medium amphibian consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietarv-bascd EEC
(mg/kg-diet)
ground
7 days
Conifers (seed
orchard), ground
3 at 0.1562
7 days
n/a
270
Corn (field),
aerial/ground
3 at 0.042
10 days
n/a
69
Corn (sweet), dust
5 apps at
0.0423
10 days
n/a
97
Corn (sweet), spray
6 apps of
0.033
10 days
n/a
76
Cotton, aerial/ground
3 at 0.042
10 days
n/a
69
Cucurbit vegetables,
aerial/ground
6 at 0.0311
5 days
n/a
97
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0571
10 days
n/a
93
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
dust
6 at 0.057
10 days
n/a
145
Forest plantings,
ground
5 at 0.05111
7 days
n/a
130
Fruiting vegetables,
aerial/ground
12 at 0.0311
5 days
n/a
151
Garlic
8 at 0.0311
7 days
n/a
106
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
ground
1 at 0.068
n/a
45
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
mound
6 at 0.06
7 days
n/a
172
Grasses grown for
seed, ground
3 at 0.1306
7 days
n/a
226
Legume vegetables,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0311
5 days
n/a
71
Peanuts, root and
4 at 0.0311
n/a
67
131
-------
EEC for Medium CTS
Usc(s),
App Rate (lb
a.i./A, # App,
(medium amphibian consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Type of Application
Interval
(days)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietarv-bascd EEC
(mg/kg-diet)
tuber vegetables,
aerial/ground
7 days
10 at 0.03 ll3
Lettuce, aerial/ground
5 days
n/a
136
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
3 at 0.07921
n/a
137
areas/soils, aerial
7 days
Ornamental and/or
3 at 0.1621
n/a
280
shade trees, ground
7 days
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
cover, herbaceous
3 at 1.2
plants, non flowering
plants, woody shrubs
7 days
507
2073
and vines, rose,
ground/dust
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks),
barrier/perimeter
treatment
6 at 0.069
7 days
n/a
198
Pome and stone fruit,
5 at 0.0415
n/a
105
aerial/ground
7 days
4 at 0.02391
Potato, aerial/ground
7 days
n/a
52
Recreational areas,
52 at 0.0291
n/a
148
band treatment
7 days
Recreational areas,
2 at 2
crack and crevice/spot
600
2459
treatment
7 days
3 at 0.0415
Rice, ground
5 days
n/a
74
Seed orchard trees,
3 at 0.1622
n/a
280
ground
7 days
Sorghum,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.038
10 days
n/a
45
Soybean,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.0381
14 days
n/a
44
Tree nuts,
4 at 0.0415
n/a
95
aerial/ground
5 days
132
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate (lb
a.i./A, # App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Medium CTS
(medium amphibian consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary-based EEC
(mg/kg-diet)
Sunflower,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.038
10 days
n/a
62
Right-of-way, ground
6 at 0.06
7 days
n/a
172
n/a = not applicable because the RQ did not exceed the LOC for the screening-level T-REX analysis
App=Application
1 Seasonal maximum is slightly exceeded because T-HERPS cannot accommodate variable application rates
2Seasonal maximum is slightly under-represented because T-HERPS cannot accommodate variable application rates
3Only one crop cycle was modeled because T-HERPS cannot accommodate variable application intervals
T-REX may underestimate exposure to snakes when birds are used as a surrogate and are
assumed to eat similar dietary items because of the large meal size a snake may consume on a
single day.6 Thus, birds consuming short grass in T-REX are used as the screen to determine
whether further refinement in T-HERPS is needed for snakes. T-HERPS was modified (version
1.1) to estimate exposure to snakes based on the maximum size prey item they could consume
and is used to refine a risk estimate when LOCs are exceeded for small birds consuming short
grass based on RQs estimated in T-REX. The following allometric equation developed by King
2002 was used to estimate the maximum size prey items for snakes (King, 2002).
Prey Size = Snake Mass1015
The 95% confidence limits on the coefficient are 0.959 and 1.071 (King, 2002). The upper limit
was used in T-HERPS to estimate exposure to snakes.
EECs in T-HERPS that are applicable to the SFGS are small (2 g, juveniles) snakes consuming
small and large insects and medium (20 g) snakes consuming small and large insects, small
herbivorous and insectivorous mammals, and amphibians (USEPA, 1993). The most sensitive
EECs and RQs for SFGS are for the medium animal consuming small herbivorous mammals.
EECs were only calculated for reptiles in cases where the bird EECs resulted in RQs that
exceeded the LOC. In cases where this did not occur, the bird EECs were considered
conservative and protective of reptiles. EECs calculated using T-HERPS for the SFGS are
shown in Table 3-8.
6 When examining the same application rates and types, RQs calculated in T-REX for small birds consuming short
grass are higher than or equal to the highest RQs estimated in T-HERPs for medium snakes consuming small
herbivore mammals. Therefore, RQs calculated in T-REX for the small birds consuming short grass may be used as
a screen for examining risk to snakes.
133
-------
Table 3-8. Upper-Bound Kenaga Nomogram EECs for Dietary- and Dose-Based
EEC for Small SFGS
EEC for Medium SFGS
(small reptile consuming
(medium reptile birds
App Rate
small
insects)
consuming small
Usc(s),
Type of Application
(lb a.i./A,
herbivorous mammals)
# App,
Interval
Dictarv-
bascd EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
Dietary-
based
Dose-
based
(days)
EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Agricultural/farm
premises, crack and
crevice/surface
2 at
0.22122
223
n/a
76
n/a
spray/perimeter
treatment
7 days
3 at 0.038
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
10 days
51
n/a
17
n/a
Almond, ground dust
and spray
6 at 0.1
7 days
235
n/a
80
n/a
Apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust
and spray
9 at 0.1
7 days
297
n/a
101
n/a
Almond, nectarine,
3 at 0.06
peach, cherry, trunk
drench
5 days
88
n/a
30
n/a
1 at 0.06
Apple, trunk drench
n/a
32
n/a
11
n/a
Animal housing
premises, paths/patios,
barrier treatment/crack
14 at
0.27622
436
458
149
184
and crevice
21 days
Household/domestic
dwellings outdoor
premises, barrier
treatment/crack and
2 at 2
7 days
2017
2119
688
851
crevice
Apricot, bean,
eggplant,
groundcherry, loquat,
mayhaw, pea, pepino,
pepper, plum, quince,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.0239
7 days
71
n/a
24
n/a
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
6 at 0.0239
7 days
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut,
macadamia nut,
56
n/a
7
n/a
ground spray/dust
Barley, aerial/ground
2 at 0.031
31
n/a
11
n/a
134
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb a.i./A,
# App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Small SFGS
(small reptile consuming
small insects)
EEC for Medium SFGS
(medium reptile birds
consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dictarv-
bascd EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
7 days
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea) (aerial/ground
spray/dust)
12 at 0.03
7 days
101
n/a
35
n/a
Mustard cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi),
ground spray /dust
8 at 0.03
7 days
84
n/a
29
n/a
Brassica (head and
stem) vegetables,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0313
7 days
44
n/a
15
n/a
Tomato, tomatillo,
ground spray/dust
9 at 0.0294
7 days
87
n/a
30
n/a
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
9 at
0.02943
7 days
87
n/a
30
n/a
Cabbage, kohlrabi,
ground spray/dust
9 at
0.02943
7 days
87
n/a
30
n/a
Mustard
9 at
0.02943
7 days
87
n/a
30
n/a
Brussels sprouts,
ground spray
3 at 0.038
10 days
51
n/a
17
n/a
Brussels sprouts, dust
9 at 0.038
10 days
95
n/a
32
n/a
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.03
3 days
31
n/a
11
n/a
Canola/rape,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0311
5 days
46
n/a
16
n/a
Grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0311
30 days
31
n/a
11
n/a
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, aerial/ground
2 at 0.0311
3 days
33
n/a
11
n/a
135
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb a.i./A,
# App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Small SFGS
(small reptile consuming
small insects)
EEC for Medium SFGS
(medium reptile birds
consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dictarv-
bascd EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
Cole crops,
aerial/ground/dust
8 at 0.0311
7 days
87
n/a
30
n/a
Onion,
aerial/ground/dust
9 at 0.0311
7 days
92
n/a
32
n/a
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
ground
3 at
0.15851
7 days
224
n/a
77
n/a
Commercial/industrial
lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment
7 at 0.06
7 days
155
n/a
53
n/a
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries),
ground
6 at 0.0401
7 days
94
n/a
32
n/a
Conifers (seed
orchard), ground
3 at 0.1562
7 days
221
n/a
75
n/a
Corn (field),
aerial/ground
3 at 0.042
10 days
56
n/a
19
n/a
Corn (sweet), dust
5 apps at
0.0423
10 days
79
n/a
27
n/a
Corn (sweet), spray
6 apps of
0.033
10 days
63
n/a
21
n/a
Cotton, aerial/ground
3 at 0.042
10 days
56
n/a
19
n/a
Cucurbit vegetables,
aerial/ground
6 at 0.0311
5 days
80
n/a
27
n/a
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.0571
10 days
77
n/a
26
n/a
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
dust
6 at 0.057
10 days
119
n/a
41
n/a
Forest plantings,
5 at
106
n/a
36
n/a
136
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb a.i./A,
# App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Small SFGS
(small reptile consuming
small insects)
EEC for Medium SFGS
(medium reptile birds
consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dictarv-
bascd EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
ground
0.05111
7 days
Fruiting vegetables,
aerial/ground
12 at
0.0311
5 days
124
n/a
42
n/a
Garlic
8 at 0.0311
7 days
87
n/a
30
n/a
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
ground
1 at 0.068
37
n/a
13
n/a
Golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm,
mound
6 at 0.06
7 days
141
n/a
48
n/a
Grasses grown for
seed, ground
3 at 0.1306
7 days
185
n/a
63
n/a
Legume vegetables,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0311
5 days
58
n/a
20
n/a
Peanuts, root and
tuber vegetables,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0311
7 days
55
n/a
6
n/a
Lettuce, aerial/ground
10 at
0.03 ll3
5 days
112
n/a
38
n/a
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soils, aerial
3 at
0.07921
7 days
112
n/a
38
n/a
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
3 at 0.1621
7 days
230
n/a
78
n/a
Ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground
cover, herbaceous
plants, non flowering
plants, woody shrubs
and vines, rose,
ground/dust
3 at 1.2
7 days
1701
1786
580
718
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks),
barrier/perimeter
6 at 0.069
7 days
162
n/a
55
n/a
137
-------
Usc(s),
Type of Application
App Rate
(lb a.i./A,
# App,
Interval
(days)
EEC for Small SFGS
(small reptile consuming
small insects)
EEC for Medium SFGS
(medium reptile birds
consuming small
herbivorous mammals)
Dictarv-
bascd EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
diet)
Dose-
based
EEC
(mg/kg-
bw)
treatment
Pome and stone fruit,
aerial/ground
5 at 0.0415
7 days
86
n/a
29
n/a
Potato, aerial/ground
4 at
0.02391
7 days
42
n/a
14
n/a
Recreational areas,
band treatment
52 at
0.0291
7 days
121
n/a
41
n/a
Recreational areas,
crack and crevice/spot
treatment
2 at 2
7 days
2017
2119
688
851
Rice, ground
3 at 0.0415
5 days
61
n/a
21
n/a
Seed orchard trees,
ground
3 at 0.1622
7 days
230
n/a
78
n/a
Sorghum,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.038
10 days
37
n/a
13
n/a
Soybean,
aerial/ground
2 at 0.0381
14 days
36
n/a
12
n/a
Tree nuts,
aerial/ground
4 at 0.0415
5 days
78
n/a
26
n/a
Sunflower,
aerial/ground
3 at 0.038
10 days
51
n/a
17
n/a
Right-of-way, ground
6 at 0.06
7 days
141
n/a
48
n/a
n/a = not applicable because the RQ did not exceed the LOC for the screening-level T-REX analysis
App=Application
1 Seasonal maximum is slightly exceeded because T-HERPS cannot accommodate variable application rates
2Seasonal maximum is slightly under-represented because T-HERPS cannot accommodate variable application rates
3Only the first crop cycle was modeled because T-HERPS cannot accommodate variable application intervals
3.3.2.b. Terrestrial Organism Exposure to Residues in Aquatic Food
Items (KABAM)
138
-------
The KABAM model (Kow (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model) version 1.0 was used to
evaluate the potential exposure and risk of direct effects to the SFGS and CCR via
bioaccumulation and biomagnification in aquatic food webs. KABAM is used to estimate
potential bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides in freshwater aquatic ecosystems
and risks to mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms which have bioaccumulated these
pesticides. The bioaccumulation portion of KABAM is based upon work by Arnot and Gobas
(2004) who parameterized a bioaccumulation model based on PCBs and some pesticides (e.g.,
lindane, DDT) in freshwater aquatic ecosystems (Arnot and Gobas, 2004). KABAM relies on a
chemical's octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) to estimate uptake and elimination constants
through respiration and diet of organisms in different trophic levels. Pesticide tissue residues are
calculated for different levels of an aquatic food web. The model then uses pesticide tissue
concentrations in aquatic animals to estimate dose- and dietary-based exposures and associated
risks to mammals and birds (surrogate for amphibians and reptiles) consuming aquatic
organisms. Seven different trophic levels including phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic
invertebrates, filter feeders, small-sized (juvenile) forage fish, medium-sized forage fish, and
larger piscivorous fish, are used to represent an aquatic food web.
As a pyrethroid, lambda-cyhalothrin is known to be metabolized extensively by fish and
invertebrates. Consequently, the depuration rate constant value (k2) available from the fish
bioaccumulation study (BCF = 4600x; k2 = 0.0765) was used in the model (fish only) rather than
the values automatically calculated by KABAM. A BCF for invertebrates (Chironomus riparius
BCF = 2000x) based on exposure in the water column was available from the open literature
(Hamer et al. 1999) and used to calculate a k2 for invertebrates (k2 = 3.8) filter feeders, and
zooplankton. Parameters for phytoplankton were not modified.
For both the CCR and SFGS, it was conservatively assumed that the diet consisted of 50% fish
and 50% aquatic invertebrates. In addition, the fog and water shrews were considered as
components of the SFGS' diet; these are the only two possible mammalian prey for this species.
These assumptions may result in an overestimation of exposure because both species consume
other food items in addition to fish and aquatic invertebrates (for the CCR) and shrews (for the
SFGS). Example output from the bioaccumulation model is provided in Appendix F.
Four pesticide-specific inputs are required to estimate lambda-cyhalothrin residue concentrations
in aquatic organism tissues: 1) log K0w, 2) K0c, 3) aqueous concentration of lambda-
cyhalothrin, and 4) sediment pore water concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin. The Koc and Log
K0w are based on registrant-submitted studies (see Section 2.4). Lambda-cyhalothrin
concentrations in pore water and the water column were based on PRZM/EXAMS scenarios
adapted specifically for California (Table 3-9). The 21-day EECs are used based on the time to
steady state as indicated in MRID 00152744. Additional model input parameters related to
aquatic organisms (including body weight, and food and water intake) and environmental
characteristics (e.g., temperature, organic carbon content) are identified and explained in
Attachment I.
Two scenarios were modeled: the highest EECs that result from any of the assessed uses of
/awMa-cyhalothrin (airports/landing fields granular application), and a scenario that resulted in
139
-------
EECs typical of many of the agricultural lambda-cyhalothrin uses that were assessed in this
document (almond dust application).
Table 3-9. Bioaccumulation Model Input Values for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Piinimrlrr
Inpul Ysilur
Sourer
IVsiiade Name
/ ,iiii/',!n-c\ lialnllinii
l.nuk
n
1 .asknwski. 2<)()2
k
v, ;.:<><>
\lkll)44S(.|5(r.
I'isli k
(IJased mi fish IHT'i
i) t)~
\lkll) no|52~44
ln\ eilehiale k
' S das
1 hniicrcl al ll)'N
Ueiilhic iii\eilehmles k
(hased mi in\eilehiale I3( l i
() 84'^ da\
1 lamer el al. I'JW
/.nnplanklnii k2 (based nil
m\ eilehiale I'.CI'i
2 1 da>
1 lamer el al I'm
Use patterns
Airports/landing
fields (granular) (50
app @ 0.08 lb ai/A -
7-days)
Almond dust
(ground) (6 app @
0.1 lb ai/A - 10-days)
Concentration in sediment
pore water (ppb)
0.447
0.005
Total pesticide concentration
in water (ppb)
2.11
0.02
Based on the bioaccumulation model, estimated concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin residues
in the tissue of organisms in the different trophic levels following application on airport/landing
fields and almond groves range from 10 to 106 |ig/kg (Table 3-10). Phytoplankton values are
high because chemical specific bioaccumulation information was not available for lambda-
cyhalothrin and phytoplankton. Overall, the model indicates that there is the potential for some
bioaccumulation in fish and aquatic invertebrates. The results are relatively consistent as
compared with the bioaccumulation studies of lambda-cyhalothrin on fish and Chironomus
riparius.
Table 3-10. Predicted Concentrations of LamMa-Cyhalothrin in Aquatic Organism
Trophic l.r\rl
I'.sliiiiiilrd l oiiil ( (iiirrnli'iilioii (im/kul
\irpnris laiidmu liekK i( )i
5o app a i) us Ih ai \ (~-
da\ si
Almond dusl (ground) ((>
;ipp a 0.1 Ih ;ii/A - 10-
d;i\s)
Phytoplankton
259,267
2,458
Zooplankton
5,775
55
Benthic Invertebrates
13,479
128
Filter Feeders
1,348
13
Small Forage Fish
21,852
208
Medium Forage Fish
12,086
115
Large Forage Fish
5,738
54
140
-------
3.4. Terrestrial Plant Exposure Assessment
Terrestrial plant exposure is not assessed because toxicity data are not available. See Section 5
for characterization of the risk.
4. Effects Assessment
This assessment evaluates the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly or indirectly affect
BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB or modify their
designated critical habitat. Assessment endpoints for the effects determination for each assessed
species include direct toxic effects on the survival, reproduction, and growth, as well as indirect
effects, such as reduction of the prey base or modification of its habitat. In addition, potential
modification of critical habitat is assessed by evaluating effects to the PCEs, which are
components of the critical habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of each assessed
species. Direct effects to the aquatic-phase tiger salamander are based on toxicity information
for freshwater fish, while terrestrial-phase amphibian effects (tiger salamander) and reptiles (San
Francisco garter snake) are based on avian toxicity data, given that birds are generally used as a
surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.
As described in the Agency's Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the most sensitive endpoint
for each taxon is used for risk estimation. For this assessment, evaluated taxa include freshwater
fish (used as a surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians), freshwater invertebrates,
estuarine/marine fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds (used as a surrogate
for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles), mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, and terrestrial
plants. Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity information is characterized based on
registrant-submitted studies and a comprehensive review of the open literature on lambda-
cyhalothrin.
4.1. Ecotoxicity Study Data Sources
Toxicity endpoints are established based on data generated from guideline studies submitted by
the registrant, and from open literature studies that meet the criteria for inclusion into the
ECOTOX database maintained by EPA/Office of Research and Development (ORD) (USEPA,
2004). Open literature data presented in this assessment were obtained from ECOTOX
information (March 2012). To be included in the ECOTOX database, papers must meet the
following minimum criteria:
(1) the toxic effects are related to single chemical exposure;
(2) the toxic effects are on an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species;
(3) there is a biological effect on live, whole organisms;
(4) a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate is
reported; and
(5) there is an explicit duration of exposure.
Open literature toxicity data for other 'target' insect species (not including bees, butterflies,
beetles, and non-insect invertebrates including soil arthropods and worms), which include
141
-------
efficacy studies, are not currently considered in deriving the most sensitive endpoint for
terrestrial insects. Efficacy studies do not typically provide endpoint values that are useful for
risk assessment (e.g., NOAEC, EC50, etc.), but rather are intended to identify a dose that
maximizes a particular effect (e.g., EC 100). Therefore, efficacy data and non-efficacy
toxicological target insect data are not included in the ECOTOX open literature summary table
provided in Appendix I. For the purposes of this assessment, 'target' insect species are defined
as all terrestrial insects with the exception of bees, butterflies, beetles, and non-insect
invertebrates (i.e., soil arthropods, worms, etc.) which are included in the ECOTOX data
presented in Appendix I. The list of citations including toxicological and/or efficacy data on
target insect species not considered in this assessment is provided in Appendix H.
Data that pass the ECOTOX screen are evaluated along with the registrant-submitted data, and
may be incorporated qualitatively or quantitatively into this endangered species assessment. In
general, effects data in the open literature that are more conservative than the registrant-
submitted data are considered. The degree to which open literature data are quantitatively or
qualitatively characterized for the effects determination is dependent on whether the information
is relevant to the assessment endpoints (i.e., survival, reproduction, and growth) identified in
Section 2.8. For example, endpoints such as behavior modifications are likely to be qualitatively
evaluated, because quantitative relationships between modifications and reduction in species
survival, reproduction, and/or growth are not available. Although the effects determination relies
on endpoints that are relevant to the assessment endpoints of survival, growth, or reproduction, it
is important to note that the full suite of sublethal endpoints potentially available in the effects
literature (regardless of their significance to the assessment endpoints) are considered, as they are
relevant to the understanding of the area with potential effects, as defined for the action area.
Citations of all open literature not considered as part of this assessment because they were either
rejected by the ECOTOX screen or accepted by ECOTOX but not used (e.g., the endpoint is less
sensitive) are included in Appendix H. Appendix H also includes a rationale for rejection of
those studies that did not pass the ECOTOX screen and those that were not evaluated as part of
this endangered species risk assessment.
A detailed spreadsheet of the available ECOTOX open literature data, including the full suite of
lethal and sublethal endpoints is presented in Appendix I. Appendix J includes a summary of the
human health effects data for lambda-cyhalothrin.
In addition to registrant-submitted and open literature toxicity information, other sources of
information, including use of the acute probit dose response relationship to establish the
probability of an individual effect and reviews of ecological incident data, are considered to
further refine the characterization of potential ecological effects associated with exposure to
lambda-cyhalothrin. A summary of the available aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity information
and the incident information for lambda-cyhalothrin are provided in Sections 4.2 through 4.5.
4.2. Toxicity of LamMa-Cyhalothrin to Aquatic Organisms
Table 4-1 summarizes the most sensitive aquatic toxicity endpoints, based on an evaluation of
both the submitted studies and the open literature, as previously discussed. A brief summary of
142
-------
submitted and open literature data considered relevant to this ecological risk assessment for the
BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB is presented below.
Additional information is provided in Appendix G. All endpoints are expressed in terms of the
active ingredient (a.i.) unless otherwise specified. For freshwater fish and freshwater
invertebrates, the most sensitive species for acute exposures (fish - golden orfe; invertebrate -
Hyalella) differed from the most sensitive species for chronic exposures. This is an artifact of
chronic studies not being available for the golden orfe and Hyalella. Thus, an acute-to-chronic
ratio (ACR) was employed to estimate the chronic toxicity value, based on the acute-chronic
toxicity relationship for a pair of less sensitive species.
ACR — LC50 species x / NOAECspecies x — LC50 species y / NOAEC species y
The ACR for freshwater fish is based on sheepshead minnow. An estuarine/marine fish was
used because acute and chronic data for a single freshwater fish species were unavailable. All
units are in |ig ai/L.
0.807(sheepshead minnow) / 0.2 5 (sheepshead minnow) — 0.078(gOlden orfe) / NOAEC (golden orfe) — 0.024
The ACR for freshwater invertebrates is based on Daphnia; all units are in |ig ai/L.
0.36(Daphnia) / 0.00198(/)a;,/2raa) - 0.00\\Hyalella) / NOAEC(//j;a/e//a) - 0.000008
Table 4-1. Aquatic Toxicity Profile for LamMa-Cyhalot
irin
Assessment
Endpoint
Acute/
Chronic
Species
TGAI/TEP %
a.i.
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment
Citation or
IMRID #
(Author,
Date)1
Comment
Freshwater
fish
(surrogate for
aquatic-phase
amphibians)
Acute
Golden orfe
(Leuciscus ictus)
TGAI - 87.7%
96-hr LC50 = 0.078
|ig ai/L
44584001
Supplemental because the fish
was not a typical guideline
species
Sub-lethal effects:
quiescence, sounding, erratic
swimming, spiraling, loss of
balance, rapid respiration, and
gulping air
Chronic
Golden orfe
(.Leuciscus idus)
NOAEC = 0.024
|ig ai/L
N/A
Calculated based on the ACR
method
Fathead minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
TGAI - 97%
NOAEC = 0.031
|ig ai/L
41519001
Supplemental because of some
minor methodological
problems (including some
slight contamination of the
controls)
LOAEC = 0.062 ng ai/L
143
-------
Assessment
Endpoint
Acute/
Chronic
Species
TGAI/TEP %
a.i.
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment
Citation or
MRID#
(Author,
Date)1
Comment
Endpoints based on: F,
survival at 28 days, F0 length
at 56 days, male length and
weight at 300 days, and Fi
weight and length at 31 days
Freshwater
invertebrates
Acute
Scud (Hyalella
azteca)
TEP- 13.1%
EC50 = 0.0014 ng
ai/L
48911001,
E74235
Acceptable for quantitative
use. Lambda-cyhalothrin was
the sole active ingredient in
the formulation.
No sub-lethal effects were
reported.
Chronic
Scud (Hyalella
azteca)
NOEL = 0.000008
Hg ai/L3
N/A
Calculated based on the ACR
method
Waterflea
(Daphnia
magna)
TGAI - 96.6%
NOEL = 0.00198
|ig ai/L
41217501
Supplemental because only
one vessel per treatment level
was sampled to verify
concentrations.
LOEL = 0.0035 ng ai/L
Endpoints based on the
number of young per female
and adult survival
Estuarine/
marine fish
Acute
Sheepshead
minnow
(Cyprinodon
variegatus)
TGAI - 96%
96-hr LC50 =
0.807 ng ai/L
00153506
Acceptable
Sub-lethal effects:
quiescence, loss of balance,
weakness, hyper excitability,
and rapid respiration
Chronic
Sheepshead
minnow
(Cyprinodon
variegatus)
TGAI - 96.6%
NOEC = 0.25 ng
ai/L
00152732
Acceptable
LOEC = 0.38 ng ai/L
Endpoints based on weight
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
Acute
Mysid shrimp
(Americamysis
bahia)
TGAI - 97%
96-hr LC50 =
0.0049 ng ai/L4
00152729
Acceptable
No sub-lethal effects were
reported.
Chronic
Mysid shrimp
(Americamysis
bahia)
TGAI - 97%
NOEL = 0.00022
Hg ai/L4
073989
Supplemental because
reproductive success could
not be calculated
LOEL = 0.49 ng ai/L
144
-------
Assessment
Endpoint
Acute/
Chronic
Species
TGAI/TEP %
a.i.
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment
Citation or
MRID#
(Author,
Date)1
Comment
Endpoints based on
reproduction.
Aquatic
plants
Vascular
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Non-
vascular
Green algae
(Pseudokirchneri
ella subcapitata)
TGAI - 96.5%
EC50 >310 |ig
ai/L2
00152731
Supplemental because of low
recovery rates of lambda-
cyhalothrin in the extraction
from water at the end of the
experiment
Endpoint based on growth rate
of the algae
1-ECOTOX references are designated with an E followed by the ECOTOX reference number.
2Endpoint is above the limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L)
3Used as a surrogate for freshwater benthic invertebrates
4Used as a surrogate for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates
Toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates is categorized using the system shown in Table 4-2
(USEPA, 2004). Toxicity categories for aquatic plants have not been defined.
Table 4-2. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates
¦LCSo (mjj/L)
Toxicity Category
<0.1
Very highly toxic
>0.1 - 1
Highly toxic
>1-10
Moderately toxic
> 10 - 100
Slightly toxic
> 100
Practically nontoxic
4.2.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish
A summary of acute and chronic freshwater fish data is provided below in Sections 4.2.1 .a
through 4.2.l.b.
4.2.1.a. Freshwater Fish: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
The most sensitive freshwater fish species was the golden orfe (Leuciscus idus); the LC50 was
0.078 jug ai/L, making lambda-cyhalothrin very highly toxic to freshwater fish (MRID
44584001). Sub-lethal effects included quiescence, sounding, erratic swimming, spiraling, loss
of balance, rapid respiration, labored respiration, swimming cessation, light discoloration,
surfacing, irregular respiration, and gulping air. Similar sub-lethal effects were documented in
the other studies as well. For rainbow trout (3 studies), sub-lethal effects included: loss of
equilibrium, quiescence, change in color, spiraling, rapid respiration, weakness, surfacing,
coughing, and sounding. Sub-lethal effects to the bluegill sunfish (3 studies) included:
sounding, loss of balance, quiescence, darkening of color, spiraling, and rapid and irregular
respiration.
145
-------
4.2.1.b. Freshwater Fish: Chronic Exposure (Growth/Reproduction)
Studies
There is one acceptable chronic toxicity study for fish that is available. The study was
performed as a full life cycle test with the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas) and yielded a
NOEL ofO.031 |ig ai/L (MRID 41519001). The NOEL was based on Fi survival at 28 days, F0
length at 56 days, male length and weigh at 300 days, and Fi weight and length at 31 days.
There was some slight contamination of the controls when measurements were performed, but
this was thought to have been minor and not to have affected the experiment. Given that the
most sensitive acute toxicity value is for the golden orfe, the ACR method was used to calculate
a NOEL of 0.024 |ig ai/L, which is used in the assessment.
4.2.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates
A summary of acute and chronic freshwater invertebrate data, including data published in the
open literature, is provided below in Sections 4.2.2.a through 4.2.2.C. All data are based on
water column exposures. Sediment exposure data are not available and are considered a data
gap-
4.2.2.a. Freshwater Invertebrates: Acute Exposure Studies
The most sensitive freshwater invertebrate that was tested was an amphipod (Gammarus pulex)
using surface water. The LC50 was 0.00668 |ig ai/L, making lambda-cyhalothrin very highly
toxic to amphipods (MRID 00152730). The waterflea {Daphnia magna) is the most commonly
tested freshwater invertebrate. Three waterflea studies were available with LC50S ranging from
0.09 to 0.36 jug ai/L. This places lambda-cyhalothrin in the toxicity category of "very highly
toxic" to the waterflea. No sub-lethal effects were documented for any of the freshwater
invertebrates that were tested.
Acute toxicity data are available for benthic invertebrates (scud) from the open literature (see
4.2.2.C).
4.2.2.b. Freshwater Invertebrates: Chronic Exposure Studies
One chronic study with the waterflea (Daphnia magna) was available for freshwater
invertebrates. The full life cycle test yielded a NOEL of 0.00198|ig ai/L and a LOEL of 0.0035
|ig ai/L. The toxicity endpoints were based on the number young per female (60% decrease at
the LOEL) and adult survival (7% decrease at the LOEL) (MRID 41217501). However, given
that the most sensitive acute value was based on the amphipod, the ACR method was used to
derive a NOEC of 0.000008 |ig ai/L, which is used in the assessment.
No data are available for the chronic effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on freshwater benthic
invertebrates. In lieu of this, the ACR for the scud chronic value is used as a surrogate for
freshwater benthic species.
146
-------
4.2.2.C. Freshwater Invertebrates: Open Literature Data
A search of the open literature produced one study with an acute freshwater invertebrate
endpoint that was lower than those submitted to EPA in support of pesticide registration. The
study investigated the toxicity of Karate™, a typical end-use product of which lambda-
cyhalothrin is the sole active ingredient, on an array of freshwater invertebrates that are
commonly found in ditches (MRID 48911001). The most sensitive freshwater invertebrate in
this study was the scud (Hyalella azteca) with an EC50 of 1.4 ng ai/L. This categorizes lambda-
cyhalothrin as very highly toxic to scuds (a freshwater benthic invertebrate). All other organisms
in the study (e.g., waterflea, common backswimmer, amphipod, flatworm) yielded EC50S that
warranted this classification as well. No sub-lethal effects were reported.
4.2.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish
A summary of acute and chronic estuarine/marine fish data is provided below in Sections 4.2.3.a
through 4.2.3.b.
4.2.3.a. Estuarine/Marine Fish: Acute Exposure Studies
There is one study with the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) that tests the acute
toxicity of lambda-cyhalothrin to marine/estuarine fish. Based on the study, lambda-cyhalothrin
is very highly toxic to estuarine/marine fish, with an LC50 of 0.807 jug ai/L (MRID 00153506).
Sub-lethal effects included quiescence, loss of balance, weakness, hyper excitability, and rapid
respiration. Many of these same effects were also documented for freshwater fish.
4.2.3.b. Estuarine/Marine Fish: Chronic Exposure Studies
The sheepshead minnow was used to test the chronic toxicity of lambda-cyhalothrin to
estuarine/marine fish. The NOEC derived from this study was 0.25 |ig ai/L and was based on the
endpoint of "weight" (9% decrease at the LOEL) (MRID 00152732). No other sub-lethal effects
were documented.
4.2.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
A summary of acute and chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate data is provided below in Sections
4.2.4.a through 4.2.4.b.
4.2.4.a. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates: Acute Exposure Studies
The most sensitive endpoint for acute toxicity was a study with the mysid shrimp (Americamysis
bahia). The LC50 was 0.0049 jug ai/L, indicating that lambda-cyhalothrin is very highly toxic to
the mysid shrimp (MRID 00152729). No sub-lethal effects were reported. A second study was
performed with larvae of the Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas). This study reported no
mortality or sub-lethal effects. The resulting LC50 was > 0.59 mg ai/L indicating that lambda-
cyhalothrin is far less toxic to Pacific oyster larvae than mysid shrimp (MRID 00152728).
147
-------
However, the LC50 is still low enough to place lambda-cyhalothrin in the "highly toxic"
category.
No data are available for the acute effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on estuarine/marine benthic
invertebrates. In lieu of this, the mysid shrimp acute endpoint is used a surrogate for benthic
species.
4.2.4.b. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates: Chronic Exposure Studies
A chronic life cycle toxicity study evaluated the effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on the mysid
shrimp. The study yielded a NOEL of 0.22 ng ai/L (Accession Number 073989). The endpoint
was based on reproduction effects; however, the "reproductive" endpoint could not be
determined because raw data were not included with the study's report.
No data are available for the chronic effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on estuarine/marine benthic
invertebrates. In lieu of this, the mysid shrimp chronic value is used as a surrogate.
4.2.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants
Aquatic plant toxicity studies are used as one of the measures of effect to evaluate whether
/awMa-cyhalothrin may affect primary production. Aquatic plants may also serve as dietary
items of CCR, CTS (all DPS), CFWS, DS, and TG and habitat components for the SFGS, CCR,
CTS (all DPS), CFWS, DS and TG. In addition, freshwater vascular and non-vascular plant data
are used to evaluate a number of the PCEs associated with the critical habitat impact.
One study is available for aquatic plants. The study focuses on green algae (Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata), a non-vascular aquatic plant. The EC50 was determined to be > 310 |ig ai/L, the
highest concentration tested. The endpoint was based on the growth rate of the algae, and no
other sub-lethal effects were noted (MRID 00152731). Data are available for two non-vascular
plant studies with gamma-cyhalothrin. Both studies were conducted with green algae and
yielded toxicity values of EC50 > 2850 and EC50 = 15000 |ig ai/L (MRIDs 45447406 and
454477407, respectively).
Other pyrethroids were reviewed to determine the level of toxicity from related chemicals. Only
two pyrethroids, in addition to lambda-cyhalothrin, were found to have aquatic plant toxicity
data. Fenvalerate had data for two marine algae and two diatoms. The EC50S were > 1000 |ig
ai/L, indicating low toxicity. Permethrin had an EC50 of 92 |ig ai/L for a marine diatom. This
value is more sensitive than lambda-cyhalothrin; however, permethrin is a Class I pyrethroid
whereas lambda-cyhalothrin and fenvalerate are Class II pyrethroids and thus expected to be
more similar in their toxicological effects.
4.3. Toxicity of LamMa-Cyhalothrin to Terrestrial Organisms
Table 4-3 summarizes the most sensitive terrestrial toxicity endpoints, based on an evaluation of
both the submitted studies and the open literature. A brief summary of submitted and open
148
-------
literature data considered relevant to this ecological risk assessment is presented below.
Additional information is provided in Appendix G.
Table 4-3. 1
"errestria
Toxicity Profile for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Endpoint
Acute/
Chronic
Species
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment
Citation
M RID/ ECOTOX
reference No.
Comment
Birds
(surrogate for
terrestrial-
phase
amphibians
and reptiles)
Acute
Mallard duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
TGAI - 96%
LD50 = 3950 mg
ai/kg-bw
00151594
Acceptable
Sub-lethal effects:
slight loss of weight on
the first days after
dosing
Acute
Northern
bobwhite quail
(Colinus
virginianus)
TGAI - 89.2%
LC50 = 2354 mg
ai/kg-diet
00151118
Supplemental because
EPA's re-calculated
LC50 did not match that
of the registrant
Sub-lethal effects:
slight weigh loss
Chronic
Mallard duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
TGAI - 96.3%
NOEL = 5 mg
ai/kg-diet
LOEL =15 mg
ai/kg-diet
41512101
Acceptable
Endpoint based on:
chemical residues in the
egg, liver and fat,
number of eggs laid
and set, egg fertility,
and early embryonic
mortalities
Mammals
Acute
Rat (Rattus
norvegicus)
TGAI
LD50 = 56 mg
ai/kg-bw
Accession Number
259805
Acceptable
Chronic
Rat (Rattus
norvegicus)
TGAI
NOAEL = 30
ppm (1.5 mg
ai/kg-bw/day
LOAEL - 100
ppm (5 mg
ai/kg-bw/day)
00154802
Acceptable
Endpoints based on
decreased mean body
weight to parents and
their offspring
Terrestrial
invertebrates
Acute
Contact
Honeybee (Apis
mellifera)
TGAI - 96%
LD50 = 0.038ng
ai/bee
Accession Number
40052409
Acceptable
No sub-lethal effects
were reported.
Terrestrial
plants
n/a
Seedlins
Emersence
Monocots
Not available
Not available
Not available
n/a
Seedlins
Emersence
Dicots
Not available
Not available
Not available
n/a
Vesetative Visor
Not available
Not available
Not available
149
-------
Endpoint
Acute/
Chronic
Species
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment
Citation
MRID/ ECOTOX
reference No.
Comment
Monocots
n/a
Vesetative Visor
Dicots
Not available
Not available
Not available
n/a: not applicable; ND = not determined; bw = body weight
Acute toxicity to terrestrial animals is categorized using the classification system shown in Table
4-4 (USEPA, 2004). Toxicity categories for terrestrial plants have not been defined.
Table 4-4. Categories of Acute Toxicity for Avian and Mammalian Studies
Toxicity Category
Oral LD50
Dietary LC50
Very highly toxic
<10 mg/kg
< 50 mg/kg-diet
Hishlv toxic
10-50 me/ke
50 - 500 me/ke-diet
Moderately toxic
51 - 500 mg/kg
501 - 1000 mg/kg-diet
Slightly toxic
501 - 2000 mg/kg
1001 - 5000 mg/kg-diet
Practically non-toxic
> 2000 mg/kg
> 5000 mg/kg-diet
4.3.1. Toxicity to Birds
As specified in the Overview Document, the Agency uses birds as a surrogate for reptiles and
terrestrial-phase amphibians when toxicity data for each specific taxon are not available
(USEPA, 2004). A summary of acute and chronic bird data is provided below in Sections 4.3.1.a
through 4.3.l.b.
4.3.1.a. Birds: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
Two mallard duck (Anasplatyrhynchos) studies have been performed to evaluate the acute
toxicity of lambda-cyhalothrin to birds. One study yielded an LD50 of 3950 mg ai/kg-bw (MRID
0015194). This places lambda-cyhalothrin in the "slightly toxic" to birds toxicity category. The
other study found lambda-cyhalothrin to be practically non-toxic (LD50 > 5000 mg ai/kg-bw),
but noted a sub-lethal effect of a slight loss in weight for the first days after dosing (MRID
00150854).
Subacute dietary studies were also performed to establish a dietary toxicity for lambda-
cyhalothrin. The most sensitive endpoint was derived from a northern bobwhite quail (Colinus
virginianus) study. The LC50 from the study was found to be 2354 mg ai/kg-diet (MRID
00151118). A slight weight loss was observed as a sub-lethal effect. There were three other
dietary studies that were performed: one additional study with the bobwhite quail and two
studies with the mallard duck (Anasplatyrhynchos). The latter included subdued behavior,
unsteadiness, and a decrease in body weight as sub-lethal effects.
4.3.1.b. Birds: Chronic Exposure (Growth, Reproduction) Studies
150
-------
A chronic reproductive study with the mallard duck {Anasplatyrhynchos) produced the most
sensitive endpoint. The NOEL was determined to be 5 mg ai/kg-diet and was based on lambda-
cyhalothrin residues that were detected in the eggs (MRID 41512101). Other effects in the
mallard duck were residues in the liver and fat, number of eggs laid and set, egg fertility, and
early embryonic mortalities. The bobwhite quail study exhibited no effects up to 50 mg ai/kg-
diet (MRID 00153505).
4.3.2. Toxicity to Mammals
A summary of acute and chronic mammalian data, including data published in the open
literature, is provided below in Sections 4.3.2.a through 4.3.2.b. A more complete analysis of
toxicity data to mammals is available in Appendix J, which is a copy of the most recent risk
assessment conducted by the Health Effects Division (HED) (USEPA 2007b).
4.3.2.a. Mammals: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
The oral toxicity of lambda-cyhalothrin was determined to be LD50 = 56 mg ai/kg-bw in the rat
(Rattus norvegicus). This categorizes lambda-cyhalothrin as moderately toxic to mammals on an
acute oral basis.
4.3.2.b. Mammals: Chronic Exposure (Growth, Reproduction) Studies
In the 90-day reproduction study with the rat (.Rattus norvegicus), lambda-cyhalothrin yielded a
NOAEL of 1.5 mg ai/kg-bw/day (30 mg ai/kg-diet), LOAEL of 5 mg ai/kg-bw/day (100 mg
ai/kg-diet) for systemic effects in the parent/offspring. Specifically, these effects were a
decrease in body weight. Reproductive effects (decreased body weight gain, food consumption
and food efficiency) were also observed, but these were at a higher concentration (NOAEL =100
mg ai/kg-diet; LOAEL >100 mg ai/kg-diet.
4.3.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates
A summary of acute terrestrial invertebrate data is provided below in Section 4.3.3.a.
4.3.3.a. Terrestrial Invertebrates: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
The acute contact toxicity to insects was measured with honeybees (Apis mellifera). The 48-
hour contact LD50 was determined to be 0.038 |ig ai/bee (Accession number 40052409). This
categorizes lambda-cyhalothrin as highly toxic to honeybees. The same study also calculated an
oral LD50 of 0.909 |ig ai/bee. A non-guideline study (MRID 40436303) documented possible
repellency effects of /cw??/^/-cyhalothrin to honeybees through treat and non-treated simulated
honeydew. A honeybee foliage acute toxicity test (MRID 4043602) established that it would be
safe for honeybees to re-enter the field from 24 to 96 hours after application of lambda-
cyhalothrin, depending on the application rate. Application rates were 0.013 and 0.031 lb ai/A.
151
-------
4.3.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants
No registrant-submitted plant toxicity data were available for this assessment. In lieu of
registrant-submitted studies, the body of open literature was reviewed for relevant plant toxicity
data. Two product efficacy studies were evaluated (Table 4-5). Both tested the formulation
Karate™ and neither documented any adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and
groundnuts). Application rates up to 0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were
tested. These studies can be used to provide qualitative information for the risk assessment
(e.g., they cannot be used to calculate RQs).
In addition, the EPA's inventory of ecotoxicity studies for other pyrethroids was searched to
identify terrestrial plant studies that could be used as surrogates for lambda-cyhalothrin data.
Both Class I and Class II pyrethroids were searched; however, terrestrial plant data were not
available for any of the chemicals.
Table 4-5. Plant Toxicity Data from the Open Literature for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
l!( ()T()\ Number
Crop
NOr.Clll) iii/.\)
( l;issil'ic;iIicin
K88129
Wheat (Triticum
aestivum)
0.025
Qualitative
E89623
Groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea)
0.004
Qualitative
4.4. Incident Database Review
A review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1.1), the 'Aggregate
Incident Reports' (v. 1.0) database, and the Avian Monitoring Information System (AIMS) for
ecological incidents involving lambda-cyhalothrin was completed on July 10, 2012. The results
of this review for terrestrial, plant, and aquatic incidents are discussed below in Sections 4.4.1
through 4.4.3. A complete list of the incidents involving lambda-cyhalothrin including
associated uncertainties is included in Appendices K and L.
4.4.1. Terrestrial Animal Incidents
The EIIS database had records for four terrestrial incidents. All incidents involved honeybees.
The first incident (probable certainty) occurred in Canada in June of 2010. The incident was
classified as a misuse of the chemical on canola/rapeseed. Four to seven million bees were killed
when applications took place during the middle of the day. A second incident occurred in July of
2011 in California. It was classified with "possible" certainty to have caused mortality in 92
hives that were adjacent to pistachio, nut, and cotton fields treated with lambda-cyhalothrin.
Dimethoate and methoxyfenozide were also applied during a similar time frame, thus they may
have contributed to the incident. A third incident occurred in April 2011 in Slovenia. It was
classified with "possible" certainty to have caused mortality (by ingestion) in bees in the vicinity
of a /awMa-cyhalothrin-treated area. Approximately 2500 bees were affected; a number of
other pesticides were detected in bee tissue samples: coumaphos, pendimethalin, clothianidin, 2-
phenylphenol, methiocarb, and thiacloprid; lambda-cyhalothrin was not detected. A fourth
incident took place in June 2012 in New York. The incident was listed with "possible" certainty
152
-------
to have been caused by the application of lambda-cyhalothrin to wheat fields. Twenty-two
colonies were reported to have experienced mortality. Twenty-two minor incidents to fish and
wildlife were reported in the IDS database; it is uncertain how many of these affected terrestrial
wildlife versus fish. No incidents were reported in the AIMS database.
4.4.2. Plant Incidents
The EIIS database had records for three terrestrial plant incidents. The first incident occurred in
May of 2003 in Iowa. It was classified with "possible" certainty to have been caused by the
application of lambda-cyhalothrin on cotton. Plant damage was reported on 78 acres of cotton,
caused by direct treatment of lambda-cyhalothrin. The second incident occurred in June 2003 in
Kentucky. It was a misuse on tobacco that was classified as "possible" to have been caused by
lambda-cyhalothrin. Plant damage occurred on 200 acres of tobacco. The third incident
(1016036-006) occurred in June 2004 in California. It was classified with "possible" certainty as
to have been caused by the application of lambda-cyhalothrin on almonds. Lambda-cyhalothrin
reportedly drifted to a nearby basil field causing crop damage. Residue testing revealed
concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin from 0.07 to 0.27 ppm on foliage. Bifenazate was also
being sprayed on almond orchards in the vicinity of the incident. The IDS database reported 77
minor incidents to plants.
4.4.3. Aquatic Incidents
The EIIS database had records for nine aquatic organism incidents. The first incident occurred in
August 1991 in Georgia. It was classified with "probable" certainty to have been caused by the
application of lambda-cyhalothrin to cotton. Lambda-cyhalothrin spray affected an adjacent
pond in a residential area and caused mortality in an unknown number of fish (species not
specified). A second incident occurred in July of 1991 in Georgia. The incident was classified
with "possible" certainty to have been caused by the aerial application of lambda-cyhalothrin on
cotton near a pond. Runoff entered a pond approximately 20 to 50 yards from the field and
killed 250 catfish, hundreds of bream, and many large-mouthed bass. The pesticide, dicrotophos,
was also used on the field. A third incident occurred in August 1994 in North Carolina. It was
classified with "possible" certainty to have caused the death of 200 bass in a pond near a cotton
field. A fourth incident occurred in January 1997 in Indiana. A pond was affected after a
rainstorm and it was suspected that turnover in the pond caused the mortalities. The number of
species, magnitude of the incident, and details about the application of lambda-cyhalothrin were
not available. Tefluthrin, in addition to lambda-cyhalothrin, was involved in the incident. A
fifth incident occurred in May 1998 in Louisiana. It was classified with "probable" certainty to
have been caused by the aerial application of lambda-cyhalothrin to corn. Drift contaminated a
pond/canal and causing mortality in 90 to 100 acres of crayfish farming. A sixth incident
occurred in June 1998 in Missouri. Lambda-cyhalothrin was accidentally applied to a zoo fish
tank and caused ("probable" certainty) the death of 16 fish (unknown species). A seventh
incident occurred in May 1998 in Louisiana. Lambda-cyhalothrin was intentionally (misuse)
applied to a pond resulting (with "probable" certainty) the mortality of an unknown number of
crayfish in a 4 acre and 35 acre pond. Samples confirmed the presence of lambda-cyahlothin in
pond water at 0.04 to 0.93 ppb. An eighth incident occurred in May of 1997 in Indiana. It was
classified with "possible" certainty to have been caused turnover in a pond. Lambda-cyhalothrin
153
-------
and tefluthrin were involved. Dead fish were reported three days after a 3-inch rain. A nineth
incident was listed as "highly probable" to have occurred as the result of lambda-cyhalothrin
exposure. This incident involved the aerial application (registered use) of Karate to cotton in
Wilson County, Texas in 2004. An unreported number of crayfish were observed to be dead.
The listed route of exposure was through spray drift. Twenty-two minor incidents to fish and
wildlife were reported in the IDS database; it is uncertain how many of these affected fish versus
terrestrial wildlife.
5. Risk Characterization
Risk characterization is the integration of the exposure and effects characterizations. Risk
characterization is used to determine the potential for direct and/or indirect effects to the BCB,
CCR, CFWS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB or for modification to
their designated critical habitat from the use of lambda-cyhalothrin in California. The risk
characterization provides an estimation (Section 5.1) and a description (Section 5.6) of the
likelihood of adverse effects; articulates risk assessment assumptions, limitations, and
uncertainties; and synthesizes an overall conclusion regarding the likelihood of adverse effects to
the assessed species or their designated critical habitat {i.e., "no effect," "likely to adversely
affect," or "may affect, but not likely to adversely affect"). In the risk estimation section, risk
quotients are calculated using standard EFED procedures and models. In the risk description
section, additional analyses may be conducted to help characterize the potential for risk.
5.1. Risk Estimation
Risk is estimated by calculating the ratio of exposure to toxicity. This ratio is the risk quotient
(RQ), which is then compared to pre-established acute and chronic levels of concern (LOCs) for
each category evaluated (Appendix C). For acute exposures to the listed aquatic animals, as well
as terrestrial invertebrates, the LOC is 0.05. For acute exposures to the listed birds (and, thus,
reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) and mammals, the LOC is 0.1. The LOC for chronic
exposures to animals, as well as exposures to plants is 1.0.
Acute and chronic risks to aquatic organisms are estimated by calculating the ratio of exposure to
toxicity using l-in-10 year EECs in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 based on the label-recommended
lambda-cyhalothrin usage scenarios summarized in Table 3-1 and the appropriate aquatic
toxicity endpoint from Table 4-1. Acute and chronic risks to terrestrial animals are estimated
based on exposures resulting from applications of lambda-cyhalothrin (
Table 3-6 through Table 3-8) and the appropriate toxicity endpoint from Table 4-3.
5.1.1. Exposures in the Aquatic Habitat
5.1.1.a. Freshwater Fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibians
Acute risk to fish and aquatic-phase amphibians is based on l-in-10 year peak EECs in the
standard pond and the lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater fish. Chronic risk is based on
the l-in-10 year 60-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for freshwater fish. Risk
quotients for freshwater fish are shown in Table 5-1. Acute RQs ranged from 0.0103 to 64 and
154
-------
chronic RQs ranged from 0.004 to 208. Ninety-eight percent of the lambda-cyhalothrin uses
exceeded the acute risk to listed species LOC (0.05) and 29% exceeded the chronic risk to listed
species LOC (1). Therefore, lambda-cyhalothrin has the potential to directly affect the CTS, TG,
and DS. Additionally, since 69% of the uses exceeded the acute non-listed species RQs (0.5)
and chronic RQs are exceeded, there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that
rely on fish (and/or aquatic-phase amphibians) during at least some portion of their life-cycle
(i.e., SFGS, CCR, and CTS).
Table 5-1. Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Fish (Based on Surface Water EECs)
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
60-day
EEC
(Hg/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises (CC)/ 2 app @
0.2212 and 1 app @ 0.0763 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.058
0.004
0.74*
0.17
Alfalfa (A)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.66
0.08
8.5*
3.3*
Alfalfa (G)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10 days)
0.14
0.02
1.8*
0.83
Almond (G)/ 6 app @0.1 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.07
0.02
0.90*
0.83
Almond (T)/ 3 app 0.06 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.008
0.002
0.10*
0.08
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, trees (G)/ 9 app @ 0.1 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.05
0.02
0.64*
0.83
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees trunk drench (T)/
3 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (5 days)
0.0023
0.0002
0.0295
0.008
Apple trees (T)/1 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A
0.0008
0.0001
0.0103
0.004
Animal housing premises, paths/patios (CC)/14
app @ 0.0762 and 1 app @ 0.1132 lb ai/A (21-
days)
0.050
0.006
0.64*
0.25
Household/domestic dwellings, outdoor
premises (CC)/ 2 app a, 2.0 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.831
0.062
11*
2.6*
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum, quince (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.004
0.15*
0.17
Bean, groundcherry, pea, pepino, pepper (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.05
0.01
0.64*
0.42
Eggplant (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.010
0.003
0.13*
0.13
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut (G)/ 6 app a, 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.018
0.004
0.23*
0.17
Barley (A)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.011
0.90*
0.46
Barley (G)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.029
0.007
0.37*
0.29
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea) (A)/
12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.098
0.040
1.3*
1.7*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)(G)/
12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.073
0.015
0.94*
0.63
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi) (G)/ 8 app
@ 0.03 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.121
0.026
1.6*
1.1*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (A)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.090
0.031
1.2*
1.3*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (G)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days;
0.082
0.017
0.94*
0.71
155
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
60-day
EEC
(Hg/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
7-day interval within crop cycle)
Tomato, tomatillo (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.018
0.005
0.23*
0.21
Broccoli, cauliflower (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (2 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval
within crop cycle)
0.181
0.044
2.3*
1.8*
Cabbage, kohlrabi (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval within
crop cycle)
0.157
0.051
2.0*
2.1*
Mustard (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (4 crop
cycles of 90 days; 7-day interval within crop
cycle)
0.144
0.046
1.8*
1.9*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.135
0.018
1.7*
0.75
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 9 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.213
0.033
2.7*
1.4*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (A)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.069
0.010
0.88*
0.42
Buckwheat, oat, rye (G)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.028
0.007
0.36*
0.29
Canola/rape (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.082
0.017
1.1*
0.71
Canola/rape (g)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.042
0.012
0.54*
0.50
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(A)/ 3 app @0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.055
0.008
0.71*
0.33
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(G)/ 3 app a, 0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.011
0.002
0.14*
0.08
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (A)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.071
0.011
0.91*
0.46
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (G)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.029
0.007
0.37*
0.29
Cole crops (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.127
0.042
1.6*
1.8*
Cole crops (G)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.117
0.027
1.5*
1.1*
Onion (A)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.064
0.020
0.82*
0.83
Onion (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.015
0.005
0.19*
0.21
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (G)/ 2 app @
0.1585, 1 app (a), 0.0983 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.054
0.006
0.69*
0.25
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (ST)/ 7 app @
0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.019
0.003
0.24*
0.13
Conifers (plantations/nurseries) (G)/ 6 app @
0.0401 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.468
0.052
6*
2.2*
Conifers (seed orchard) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.156 and
1 app a, 0.036 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.00
0.111
13*
4.6*
Corn (field) (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.078
0.016
1*
0.67
Corn (field) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.056
0.009
0.72*
0.38
156
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
60-day
EEC
(Hg/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Corn (field, pop) (B,F)/ 2 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A
(4-days)
0.080
0.011
1.0*
0.46
Corn (sweet) (B, F)/ 6 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A (4-
days)
0.219
0.031
2.8*
1.3*
Corn (sweet) (D)/ 5 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.357
0.054
4.6*
2.3*
Corn (sweet) (A)/ 6 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.197
0.053
2.5*
2.2*
Cotton (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.073
0.011
0.94*
0.46
Cotton (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.018
0.004
0.23*
0.17
Cucurbit vegetables (A)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.059
0.014
0.76*
0.58
Cucurbit vegetables (G)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.012
0.003
0.15*
0.13
Filbert, pecan, walnut (A)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.098
0.020
1.3*
0.83
Filbert, pecan, walnut (G)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.021
0.004
0.27*
0.17
Filbert, pecan, walnut (D)/ 6 app @ 0.057 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.027
0.009
0.35*
0.38
Forest plantings (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0511 and 1 app
a 0.0337 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.298
0.053
3.8*
2.2*
Fruiting vegetables (A)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.111
0.043
1.4*
1.8*
Fruiting vegetables (G)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.087
0.017
1.1*
0.71
Garlic (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.024
0.90*
1*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (G)/1 app
@ 0.068 lb ai/A
0.022
0.002
0.28*
0.08
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (M)/ 6 app
@ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.003
0.22*
0.13
Grasses grown for seed (G)/ 2 app @ 0.1306 and
1 app a, 0.0811 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.050
0.008
0.57*
0.33
Legume vegetables (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.060
0.015
0.77*
0.63
Legume vegetables (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.035
0.005
0.45*
0.21
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (A)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.060
0.015
0.77*
0.63
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (G)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.034
0.005
0.44*
0.21
Lettuce (A)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.245
0.081
3.1*
3.4*
Lettuce (G)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.223
0.044
2.9*
1.8*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils (A)/ 2
0.048
0.009
0.62*
0.38
157
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
60-day
EEC
(Hg/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
app @ 0.0792 and 1 app @ 0.0432 lb ai/A (7-
days)
Ornamental and/or shade trees (G)/ 2 app @
0.162 and 1 app @ 0.0913 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.062
0.015
0.79*
0.63
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose (D)/ 3 app @ 1.2 lb ai/A
(7-days)
5.0 (7.42)1
0.81
64*
34*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (PT)/ 6
app a, 0.069 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.812
0.043
10*
1.8*
Pome and stone fruit (A)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.077
0.016
1.0*
0.67
Pome and stone fruit (G)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.016
0.004
0.21*
0.17
Potato (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.042
0.007
0.54*
0.29
Potato (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.009
0.002
0.12*
0.08
Recreational areas (B)/ 26 app@ 0.033 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.010
0.002
0.13*
0.08
Recreational areas (CC, ST)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.218
0.037
2.79*
1.5*
Residential lawns (O)/ 6 app @ 0.078 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.071
0.007
0.91*
0.29
Residential lawns (M)/1 app @ 1.9 lb ai/A
0.400
0.031
5.1*
1.3*
Rice ®/ 3 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.36
0.36
4.62*
15*
Seed orchard trees (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0162 and 1
app @ 0.0327 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.21
0.128
15.51*
5.3*
Sorghum (A)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.085
0.014
1.09*
0.58
Sorghum (G)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.036
0.009
0.46*
0.38
Soybean (A)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021
lb ai/A (14-days)
0.064
0.007
0.82*
0.29
Soybean (G)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021
lb ai/A (14-days)
0.016
0.003
0.21*
0.13
Tree nuts (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.077
0.015
0.99*
0.63
Tree nuts (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.017
0.004
0.22*
0.17
Sunflower (A)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.071
0.015
0.91*
0.63
Sunflower (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.051
0.008
0.65*
0.33
Right-of-way (G)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.054
0.007
0.69*
0.29
Airports/landing fields (O)/ 26 app @ 0.08 lb
ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (15.89)1
1.74
64*
73*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (granular
spot treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.019
0.003
0.24*
0.13
Grasses grown for seed (granular spot treatment)
(O)/ 6 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.003
0.22*
0.13
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil (granular
band/broadcast/perimeter/spot treatment) (O)/ 5
0.059
0.006
0.76*
0.25
158
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
60-dav
EEC
(Hg/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
app @ 0.0792 lb ai/A (7-days)
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil (granular
mound treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.009
0.002
0.12*
0.08
* = LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC /
0.078 |ig ai/L (golden orfe). Chronic RQ = use-specific 60-day EEC / 0.024 |ig ai/L (ACR based on
sheepshead minnow).
Calculated EEC exceeded limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L), thus limit of solubility was used instead.
A = foliar aerial application
G = foliar ground application
C = chemigation
D = dust application
M = mound application
T = trunk drench
CC = crack and crevice
ST = spot treatment
B = banded applications
F = furrow applications
PT = perimeter treatment
O = granular applications
R = rice
5.1.l.b. Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute risk to freshwater invertebrates is based on l-in-10 year peak EECs in the standard pond
and the lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater invertebrates. Chronic risk is based on l-in-10
year 21-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for freshwater invertebrates. Risk
quotients for freshwater invertebrates ranged from 0.57 to 3571 (acute) and from 13 to 263,750
(chronic). Acute listed (LOC = 0.05), non-listed (LOC = 0.5) and chronic (LOC = 1) LOCs were
exceeded for all lambda-cyhalothrin uses. Therefore, there is the potential for lambda-
cyhalothrin to directly affect the CFWS and indirectly affect listed species that rely on freshwater
invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle {i.e., SFGS, CCR, CTS, TG, DS, and
CFWS) (Table 5-2).
Table 5-2. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Aquatic Invertebrates (Based on
Surface Water EECs)
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Acute RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises (CC)/ 2 app @
0.2212 and 1 app @ 0.0763 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.058
0.007
41*
875*
Alfalfa (A)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.66
0.14
471*
17500*
Alfalfa (G)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10 days)
0.14
0.03
100*
3750*
Almond (G)/ 6 app @0.1 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.07
0.02
50*
2500*
Almond (T)/ 3 app 0.06 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.008
0.003
5.7*
375*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach,
pear, plum, prune, trees (G)/ 9 app a 0,1 lb
0.05
0.02
36*
2500*
159
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
ai/A (7-days)
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees trunk drench
(T)/ 3 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (5 days)
0.0023
0.0003
1.64*
38*
Apple trees (T)/1 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A
0.0008
0.0001
0.57*
13*
Animal housing premises, paths/patios (CC)/
14 app @ 0.0762 and 1 app @ 0.1132 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.050
0.009
36*
1125*
Household/domestic dwellings, outdoor
premises (CC)/ 2 app a, 2.0 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.831
0.099
594*
12375*
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum, quince (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.004
8.6*
500*
Bean, groundcherry, pea, pepino, pepper (G)/
9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.05
0.01
36*
1250*
Eggplant (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.010
0.004
7.1*
500*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut (G)/ 6 app a, 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.018
0.005
13*
625*
Barley (A)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.016
50*
2000*
Barley (G)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.029
0.010
21*
1250*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)
(A)/12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.098
0.042
70*
5250*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble
pea)(G)/12 app a, 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.073
0.016
52*
2000*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi) (G)/ 8
app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.121
0.028
86*
3500*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (A)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120
days; 7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.090
0.036
64*
4500*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (G)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120
days; 7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.082
0.020
59*
2500*
Tomato, tomatillo (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.018
0.005
13*
625*
Broccoli, cauliflower (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (2 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval
within crop cycle)
0.181
0.044
129*
5500*
Cabbage, kohlrabi (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval
within crop cycle)
0.157
0.055
112*
6875*
Mustard (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (4 crop
cycles of 90 days; 7-day interval within crop
cycle)
0.144
0.046
103*
5750*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.135
0.021
96*
2625*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 9 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.213
0.036
152*
4500*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (A)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.069
0.015
49*
1875*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (G)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
0.028
0.009
20*
1125*
160
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
(3-days)
Canola/rape (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.082
0.023
59*
2875*
Canola/rape (g)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.042
0.015
30*
1875*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(A)/ 3 app @0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.055
0.009
39*
1125*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(G)/ 3 app a, 0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.011
0.002
7.9*
250*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (A)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.071
0.016
51*
2000*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (G)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.029
0.010
21*
1250*
Cole crops (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.127
0.047
91*
5875*
Cole crops (G)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.117
0.029
84*
3625*
Onion (A)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.064
0.021
46*
2625*
Onion (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.015
0.005
11*
625*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf, recreation area lawns (G)/ 2
app @ 0.1585, 1 app @ 0.0983 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.054
0.008
39*
1000*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf, recreation area lawns (ST)/ 7
app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.019
0.004
14*
500*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries) (G)/ 6 app @
0.0401 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.468
0.069
334*
8625*
Conifers (seed orchard) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.156
and 1 app a, 0.036 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.00
0.148
714*
18500*
Corn (field) (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.078
0.020
56*
2500*
Corn (field) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.056
0.011
40*
1375*
Corn (field, pop) (B,F)/ 2 app @ 0.0934 lb
ai/A (4-days)
0.080
0.014
57*
1750*
Corn (sweet) (B, F)/ 6 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A
(4-days)
0.219
0.039
156*
4875*
Corn (sweet) (D)/ 5 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (3
crop cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per
crop cycle)
0.357
0.067
255*
8375*
Corn (sweet) (A)/ 6 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3
crop cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per
crop cycle)
0.197
0.058
141*
7250*
Cotton (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.073
0.015
52*
1875*
Cotton (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.018
0.004
13*
500*
Cucurbit vegetables (A)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.059
0.020
42*
2500*
Cucurbit vegetables (G)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.012
0.004
8.6*
500*
161
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (A)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and
1 app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.098
0.020
70*
2500*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (G)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and
1 app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.021
0.005
15*
625*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (D)/ 6 app @ 0.057 lb
ai/A (10-days)
0.027
0.009
19*
1125*
Forest plantings (G)/ 4 app @0.0511 and 1
app @ 0.0337 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.298
0.064
213*
8000*
Fruiting vegetables (A)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.111
0.047
79*
5875*
Fruiting vegetables (G)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.087
0.018
62*
2250*
Garlic (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.026
50*
3250*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (G)/1
app @ 0.068 lb ai/A
0.022
0.002
16*
250*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (M)/ 6
app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.004
12*
500*
Grasses grown for seed (G)/ 2 app @ 0.1306
and 1 app a, 0.0811 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.050
0.012
36*
1500*
Legume vegetables (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.060
0.020
43*
2500*
Legume vegetables (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.035
0.006
25*
750*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (A)/ 4 app
a 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.060
0.018
43*
2250*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (G)/ 4 app
@ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.034
0.006
24*
750*
Lettuce (A)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.245
0.086
175*
10750*
Lettuce (G)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.223
0.048
159*
6000*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils (A)/ 2
app @ 0.0792 and 1 app @ 0.0432 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.048
0.014
34*
1750*
Ornamental and/or shade trees (G)/ 2 app @
0.162 and 1 app @ 0.0913 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.062
0.018
44*
2250*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants,
woody shrubs and vines, rose (D)/ 3 app @
1.2 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (7.42)1
1.08
3574*
135000*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (PT)/ 6
app a, 0.069 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.812
0.069
580*
8625*
Pome and stone fruit (A)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.077
0.020
55*
2500*
Pome and stone fruit (G)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.016
0.005
11*
625*
Potato (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @
0.0162 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.042
0.009
30*
1125*
Potato (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @
0.009
0.002
6.4*
250*
162
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
0.0162 lb ai/A (7-days)
Recreational areas (B)/ 26 app@ 0.033 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.010
0.002
7.1*
250*
Recreational areas (CC, ST)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.218
0.045
155.71*
5625*
Residential lawns (0)/ 6 app @ 0.078 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.071
0.010
51*
1250*
Residential lawns (M)/1 app @ 1.9 lb ai/A
0.400
0.061
286*
7625*
Rice ®/ 3 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.36
0.36
257.14*
45000*
Seed orchard trees (G)/ 3 app @0.0162 and 1
app @ 0.0327 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.21
0.175
864.29*
21875*
Sorghum (A)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.085
0.019
60.71*
2375*
Sorghum (G)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.036
0.012
25.71*
1500*
Soybean (A)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @
0.021 lb ai/A (14-days)
0.064
0.01
45.71*
1250*
Soybean (G)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @
0.021 lb ai/A (14-days)
0.016
0.003
11.43*
375*
Tree nuts (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.077
0.023
55.00*
2875*
Tree nuts (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.017
0.006
12.14*
750*
Sunflower (A)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.071
0.019
50.71*
2375*
Sunflower (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.051
0.01
36.43*
1250*
Right-of-way (G)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.054
0.009
39*
1125*
Airports/landing fields (O)/ 50 app @ 0.08 lb
ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (15.89)1
2.11
3571*
263750*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm
(granular spot treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.019
0.004
25.00*
500*
Grasses grown for seed (granular spot
treatment) (O)/ 6 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.004
155.71*
500*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil
(granular band/broadcast/perimeter/spot
treatment) (O)/ 5 app @ 0.0792 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.059
0.009
42*
1125*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil
(granular mound treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.009
0.002
6.4*
250*
* = LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC /
0.0014 |ig ai/L (scud). Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.000008 |ig ai/L (ACR based on waterflea).
Calculated EEC exceeded limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L), thus limit of solubility was used instead.
A = foliar aerial application
G = foliar ground application
C = chemigation
163
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
D = dust application
M = mound application
T = trunk drench
CC = crack and crevice
ST = spot treatment
B = banded applications
F = furrow applications
PT = perimeter treatment
O = granular applications
R = rice
5.1.I.e. Freshwater Benthie Invertebrates
Acute risk to freshwater benthie invertebrates is based on l-in-10 year peak pore water EECs in
the standard pond and the lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater invertebrates. Chronic risk
is based on l-in-10 year 21-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for freshwater
invertebrates (surrogate for benthie invertebrates). Risk quotients for freshwater benthie
invertebrates ranged from 0.014 to 3571 (acute) and 2.5 to 625,000. Ninety-eight percent of the
lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceeded the acute LOC (0.05) and all of the uses exceeded the chronic
LOC (1). Consequently, lambda-cyhalothrin has the potential to directly affect the CFWS.
Additionally, since 95% of the uses exceeded the acute non-listed species LOC (0.5), lambda-
cyhalothrin uses also have the potential to indirectly affect listed species that rely on freshwater
invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle {i.e., SFGS, CCR, CTS, TG, DS,
CFWS) (Table 5-3).
Table 5-3. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Freshwater Benthie Invertebrates
(Based on Pore Water EECs)
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC (ji«/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises (CC)/ 2 app @
0.2212 and 1 app @ 0.0763 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (9.13)4
5.0 (9.10)4
3571*
625000*
Alfalfa (A)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.023
0.023
16*
2875*
Alfalfa (G)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10 days)
0.007
0.007
5.0*
875*
Almond (G)/ 6 app @0.1 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.005
0.005
3.6*
625*
Almond (T)/ 3 app 0.06 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, trees (G)/ 9 app @ 0.1 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees trunk drench (T)/
3 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (5 days)
0.0000656
0.0000652
0.047
8.2*
Apple trees (T)/1 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A
0.00002
0.00002
0.014
2.5*
Animal housing premises, paths/patios (CC)/14
app @ 0.0762 and 1 app @ 0.1132 lb ai/A (5-
days)
5.0 (18.09)4
5.0
(17.97)4
3571*
625000*
Household/domestic dwellings, outdoor
5.0 (121.0)4
5.0
3571*
625000*
164
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC (n«/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
premises (CC)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb ai/A (7-days)
(121.0)4
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum, quince (G)/ 9
app a, 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Bean, groundcherry, pea, pepino, pepper (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Eggplant (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut (G)/ 6 app a, 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Barley (A)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Barley (G)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.002
0.002
1.4*
250*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)
(A)/12 app a, 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.011
0.011
7.9*
1375*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)(G)/
12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi) (G)/ 8
app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.007
0.007
5*
875*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (A)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.009
0.009
6.4*
1125*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (G)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.005
0.005
3.6*
625*
Tomato, tomatillo (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Broccoli, cauliflower (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (2 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval
within crop cycle)
0.011
0.011
7.9*
1375*
Cabbage, kohlrabi (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval within
crop cycle)
0.015
0.015
11*
1875*
Mustard (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (4 crop
cycles of 90 days; 7-day interval within crop
cycle)
0.013
0.013
9.3*
1625*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.005
0.005
3.6*
625*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 9 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.010
0.010
7.1*
1250*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (A)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (G)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.002
0.002
1.4*
250*
Canola/rape (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Canola/rape (g)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(A)/ 3 app @0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.002
0.002
1.4*
250*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(G)/ 3 app a, 0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
165
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC (n«/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (A)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (G)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.002
0.002
1.4*
250*
Cole crops (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.012
8.6*
1500*
Cole crops (G)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.007
0.007
5.0*
875*
Onion (A)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.005
0.005
3.6*
625*
Onion (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (G)/ 2 app @
0.1585, 1 app (a), 0.0983 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.002
0.002
1.4*
250*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (ST)/ 7 app @
0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries) (G)/ 6 app @
0.0401 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.014
0.014
10*
1750*
Conifers (seed orchard) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.156 and
1 app @ 0.036 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.031
0.031
22*
3875*
Corn (field) (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.005
0.005
3.6*
625*
Corn (field) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Corn (field, pop) (B,F)/ 2 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A
(4-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Corn (sweet) (B, F)/ 6 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A (4-
days)
0.009
0.009
6.4*
1125*
Corn (sweet) (D)/ 5 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.016
0.016
11*
2000*
Corn (sweet) (A)/ 6 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.016
0.016
11*
2000*
Cotton (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Cotton (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Cucurbit vegetables (A)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Cucurbit vegetables (G)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (A)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
2.1*
375*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (G)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (D)/ 6 app @ 0.057 lb
ai/A (10-days)
0.002
0.002
1.4*
250*
Forest plantings (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0511 and 1 app
0.0337 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.016
0.016
11*
2000*
Fruiting vegetables (A)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.011
0.011
7.9*
1375*
Fruiting vegetables (G)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
0.005
0.005
3.6*
625*
166
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC (n«/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
ai/A (5-days)
Garlic (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.006
0.006
4.3*
750*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (G)/1
app @ 0.068 lb ai/A
0.0005
0.0005
0.36*
63*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (M)/ 6
app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Grasses grown for seed (G)/ 2 app @ 0.1306
and 1 app a, 0.0811 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.003
0.002
1.4*
250*
Legume vegetables (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Legume vegetables (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (A)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (G)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Lettuce (A)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.023
0.023
16*
2875*
Lettuce (G)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.013
0.013
9.3*
1625*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils (A)/ 2
app @ 0.0792 and 1 app @ 0.0432 lb ai/A (7-
days)
5.0 (21.59)1
5.0
(21.48)1
3571*
625000*
Ornamental and/or shade trees (G)/ 2 app @
0.162 and 1 app @ 0.0913 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose (D)/ 3 app @ 1.2 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.227
0.226
162*
28250*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (PT)/ 6
app a, 0.069 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.012
8.6*
1500*
Pome and stone fruit (A)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
2.9*
500*
Pome and stone fruit (G)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Potato (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.77*
125*
Potato (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.0004
0.0004
0.29*
50*
Recreational areas (B)/ 26 app@ 0.033 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.0005
0.0005
0.36*
63*
Recreational areas (CC, ST)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.010
0.010
7.14*
1250*
Residential lawns (O)/ 6 app @ 0.078 lb ai/A
(7-days)
5.0 (14.12)1
5.0
(14.08)1
3571*
625000*
Residential lawns (M)/1 app @ 1.9 lb ai/A
5.0 (61.14)1
5.0
(59.55)1
3571*
625000*
Rice ®/ 3 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.360
0.360
257.14*
45000*
167
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC (n«/L)
21-day
EEC
Oig/L)
Aeutc
RQ*
Chronic
RQ*
Seed orchard trees (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0162 and 1
app @ 0.0327 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.036
0.036
25.71*
4500*
Sorghum (A)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.004
0.003
2.86*
375*
Sorghum (G)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
2.14*
375*
Soybean (A)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021
lb ai/A (14-days)
0.002
0.002
1.43*
250*
Soybean (G)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021
lb ai/A (14-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Tree nuts (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.004
0.004
2.86*
500*
Tree nuts (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Sunflower (A)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.004
0.004
2.86*
500*
Sunflower (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
2.14*
375*
Right-of-way (G)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
5.0 (18.II)1
(18.03)1
3571*
625000*
Airports/landing fields (O)/ 26 app @ 0.08 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.450
0.447
321*
55875*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (granular
spot treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Grasses grown for seed (granular spot
treatment) (O)/ 6 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.71*
125*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil
(granular band/broadcast/perimeter/spot
treatment) (O)/ 5 app a, 0.0792 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (15.59)1
5.0
(15.48)1
3571*
625000*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil
(granular mound treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06
lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (5.13)1
5.0 (5.12)1
3571*
625000*
* = LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC /
0.0014 |ig ai/L (scud). Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.000008 |ig ai/L (ACR based on waterflea).
Calculated EEC exceeded limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L), thus limit of solubility was used instead.
A = foliar aerial application
G = foliar ground application
C = chemigation
D = dust application
M = mound application
T = trunk drench
CC = crack and crevice
ST = spot treatment
B = banded applications
F = furrow applications
PT = perimeter treatment
O = granular applications
R = rice
5.1.l.d. Estuarine/Marine Fish
Acute risk to estuarine/marine fish is based on l-in-10 year peak EECs in the standard pond and
the lowest acute toxicity value for estuarine/marine fish. Chronic risk is based on l-in-10 year
168
-------
60-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for estuarine/marine fish is used. Risk
quotients ranged from 0.0010 to 6.2 (acute) and 0.0004 to 3.2 (chronic). Sixty-eight percent of
the lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the acute LOC (0.05) and 2% exceed the chronic LOC (1).
Thus, lambda-cyhalothrin has the potential to directly affect TG and DS. Additionally, since 7%
of the uses exceeded the acute non-listed species LOC (0.5), there is a potential for indirect
effects to listed species that rely on estuarine/marine fish during at least some portion of their
life-cycle (i.e., CCR) (Table 5-4).
Table 5-4. Summary of RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish (Based on Surface Water EECs)
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
fag/L)
60-day
EEC
(fig/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chrome RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises (CC)/ 2 app @
0.2212 and 1 app @ 0.0763 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.058
0.004
0.07*
0.016
Alfalfa (A)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.66
0.08
0.82*
0.32
Alfalfa (G)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10 days)
0.14
0.02
0.17*
0.50
Almond (G)/ 6 app @0.1 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.07
0.02
0.09*
0.08
Almond (T)/ 3 app 0.06 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.008
0.002
0.01
0.008
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, trees (G)/ 9 app @ 0.1 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.05
0.02
0.06*
0.08
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees trunk drench (T)/
3 app (i 0.06 lb ai/A (5 days)
0.0023
0.0002
0.0029
0.0008
Apple trees (T)/1 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A
0.0008
0.0001
0.0010
0.0004
Animal housing premises, paths/patios (CC)/14
app @ 0.0762 and 1 app @ 0.1132 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.050
0.006
0.06*
0.024
Household/domestic dwellings, outdoor
premises (CC)/ 2 app a, 2.0 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.831
0.062
1.0*
0.25
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum, quince (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.004
0.015
0.016
Bean, groundcherry, pea, pepino, pepper (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.05
0.01
0.062*
0.04
Eggplant (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.010
0.003
0.012
0.012
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut (G)/ 6 app a, 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.018
0.004
0.022
0.016
Barley (A)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.011
0.087*
0.044
Barley (G)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.029
0.007
0.036
0.028
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea) (A)/
12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.098
0.040
0.12*
0.16
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)(G)/
12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.073
0.015
0.09*
0.06
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi) (G)/ 8 app
@ 0.03 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.121
0.026
0.15*
0.10
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (A)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days;
7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.090
0.031
0.11*
0.12
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (G)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days;
0.082
0.017
0.10*
0.07
169
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
fag/L)
60-day
EEC
(fig/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chrome RQ*
7-day interval within crop cycle)
Tomato, tomatillo (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.018
0.005
0.022
0.02
Broccoli, cauliflower (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (2 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval
within crop cycle)
0.181
0.044
0.22*
0.18
Cabbage, kohlrabi (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval within
crop cycle)
0.157
0.051
0.19*
0.20
Mustard (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (4 crop
cycles of 90 days; 7-day interval within crop
cycle)
0.144
0.046
0.18*
0.18
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.135
0.018
0.17*
0.072
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 9 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.213
0.033
0.26*
0.13
Buckwheat, oat, rye (A)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.069
0.010
0.086*
0.04
Buckwheat, oat, rye (G)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.028
0.007
0.035
0.028
Canola/rape (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.082
0.017
0.10*
0.068
Canola/rape (g)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.042
0.012
0.052*
0.048
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(A)/ 3 app @0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.055
0.008
0.068*
0.032
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(G)/ 3 app a, 0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.011
0.002
0.014
0.008
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (A)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.071
0.011
0.088*
0.044
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (G)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.029
0.007
0.036
0.028
Cole crops (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.127
0.042
0.16*
0.17
Cole crops (G)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.117
0.027
0.14*
0.11
Onion (A)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.064
0.020
0.079*
0.08
Onion (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.015
0.005
0.019
0.02
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (G)/ 2 app @
0.1585, 1 app (a), 0.0983 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.054
0.006
0.07*
0.02
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (ST)/ 7 app @
0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.019
0.003
0.024
0.012
Conifers (plantations/nurseries) (G)/ 6 app @
0.0401 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.468
0.052
0.58*
0.21
Conifers (seed orchard) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.156 and
1 app @ 0.036 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.00
0.111
1.24*
0.44
Corn (field) (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.078
0.016
0.10*
0.06
Corn (field) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.056
0.009
0.07*
0.04
170
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
fag/L)
60-day
EEC
(fig/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chrome RQ*
Corn (field, pop) (B,F)/ 2 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A
(4-days)
0.080
0.011
0.10*
0.04
Corn (sweet) (B, F)/ 6 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A (4-
days)
0.219
0.031
0.27*
0.12
Corn (sweet) (D)/ 5 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.357
0.054
0.44*
0.22
Corn (sweet) (A)/ 6 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.197
0.053
0.24*
0.21
Cotton (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.073
0.011
0.09*
0.04
Cotton (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.018
0.004
0.02
0.02
Cucurbit vegetables (A)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.059
0.014
0.07*
0.06
Cucurbit vegetables (G)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.012
0.003
0.015
0.012
Filbert, pecan, walnut (A)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.098
0.020
0.121*
0.080
Filbert, pecan, walnut (G)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.021
0.004
0.026
0.016
Filbert, pecan, walnut (D)/ 6 app @ 0.057 lb
ai/A (10-days)
0.027
0.009
0.033
0.036
Forest plantings (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0511 and 1 app
(a), 0.0337 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.298
0.053
0.369*
0.212
Fruiting vegetables (A)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.111
0.043
0.138*
0.172
Fruiting vegetables (G)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.087
0.017
0.108*
0.068
Garlic (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.024
0.087*
0.096
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (G)/1 app
@ 0.068 lb ai/A
0.022
0.002
0.027
0.008
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (M)/ 6
app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.003
0.021
0.012
Grasses grown for seed (G)/ 2 app @ 0.1306 and
1 app a, 0.0811 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.050
0.008
0.062*
0.032
Legume vegetables (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.060
0.015
0.074*
0.060
Legume vegetables (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.035
0.005
0.043
0.020
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (A)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.060
0.015
0.074*
0.060
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (G)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.034
0.005
0.042
0.020
Lettuce (A)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.245
0.081
0.304*
0.324
Lettuce (G)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.223
0.044
0.276*
0.176
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils (A)/ 2
0.048
0.009
0.06*
0.04
171
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
fag/L)
60-day
EEC
(fig/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chrome RQ*
app @ 0.0792 and 1 app @ 0.0432 lb ai/A (7-
days)
Ornamental and/or shade trees (G)/ 2 app @
0.162 and 1 app @ 0.0913 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.062
0.015
0.077*
0.060
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose (D)/ 3 app @ 1.2 lb ai/A
(7-days)
5.0 (7.42)1
0.81
6.2*
3.240*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (PT)/ 6
app a, 0.069 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.812
0.043
1.0*
0.17
Pome and stone fruit (A)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.077
0.016
0.095*
0.064
Pome and stone fruit (G)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.016
0.004
0.020
0.016
Potato (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.042
0.007
0.052*
0.028
Potato (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.009
0.002
0.011
0.008
Recreational areas (B)/ 26 app@ 0.033 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.010
0.002
0.01
0.008
Recreational areas (CC, ST)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.218
0.037
0.270*
0.148
Residential lawns (O)/ 6 app @ 0.078 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.071
0.010
0.09*
0.04
Residential lawns (M)/1 app @ 1.9 lb ai/A
0.400
0.031
0.50*
0.12
Rice ®/ 3 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.360
0.360
0.446*
1.440*
Seed orchard trees (G)/ 3 app @0.0162 and 1
app @ 0.0327 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.210
0.128
1.499*
0.512
Sorghum (A)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.085
0.014
0.105*
0.056
Sorghum (G)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.036
0.009
0.045
0.036
Soybean (A)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021
lb ai/A (14-days)
0.064
0.007
0.079*
0.028
Soybean (G)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021
lb ai/A (14-days)
0.016
0.003
0.020
0.012
Tree nuts (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.077
0.015
0.095*
0.060
Tree nuts (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.017
0.004
0.021
0.016
Sunflower (A)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.071
0.015
0.088*
0.060
Sunflower (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.051
0.008
0.063*
0.032
Right-of-way (G)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.054
0.007
0.07*
0.03
Airports/landing fields (O)/ 26 app @ 0.08 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.009
0.002
0.01
0.008
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (granular
spot treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.019
0.003
0.024
0.012
Grasses grown for seed (granular spot treatment)
(O)/ 6 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.003
0.021
0.012
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil (granular
band/broadcast/perimeter/spot treatment) (O)/ 5
0.059
0.006
0.073*
0.024
172
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
fag/L)
60-dav
EEC
(fig/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chrome RQ*
app @ 0.0792 lb ai/A (7-days)
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil (granular
mound treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.009
0.002
0.01
0.008
* = LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC /
0.807 |ig ai/L (sheepshead minnow). Chronic RQ = use-specific 60-day EEC / 0.25 |ig ai/L (sheepshead
minnow).
Calculated EEC exceeded limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L), thus limit of solubility was used instead.
A = foliar aerial application
G = foliar ground application
C = chemigation
D = dust application
M = mound application
T = trunk drench
CC = crack and crevice
ST = spot treatment
B = banded applications
F = furrow applications
PT = perimeter treatment
O = granular applications
R = rice
5.1.I.e. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Acute risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates is based on peak EECs in the standard pond and the
lowest acute toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates. Chronic risk is based on 21-day
EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates. Risk quotients
ranged from 0.16 to 1020 (acute) and 0.45 to 9591 (chronic). All of the lambda-cyhalothrin uses
exceed the acute listed LOC (0.05) and 99% of the uses exceed the chronic LOC (1). In
addition, 98% of the uses exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5); therefore, lambda-cyhalothrin
uses have the potential to indirectly affect listed species that rely on estuarine/marine
invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle {i.e., CCR, TG, and DS) (Table 5-5).
Table 5-5. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Uses/Applieation Rate
Peak EEC
Oig/L)
21-day
EEC
fag/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chronie RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises (CC)/ 2 app @
0.2212 and 1 app @ 0.0763 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.058
0.007
12*
32*
Alfalfa (A)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.66
0.14
135*
636*
Alfalfa (G)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10 days)
0.14
0.03
29*
136*
Almond (G)/ 6 app @0.1 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.07
0.02
14*
91*
Almond (T)/ 3 app 0.06 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.008
0.003
1.6*
14*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach,
pear, plum, prune, trees (G)/ 9 app @ 0.1 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.05
0.02
10*
91*
173
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
Oig/L)
21-day
EEC
fag/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chronie RQ*
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees trunk drench
(T)/ 3 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (5 days)
0.0023
0.0003
0.47*
1.36*
Apple trees (T)/1 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A
0.0008
0.0001
0.16*
0.45
Animal housing premises, paths/patios (CC)/
14 app @ 0.0762 and 1 app @ 0.1132 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.050
0.009
10*
41*
Household/domestic dwellings, outdoor
premises (CC)/ 2 app a, 2.0 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.831
0.099
170*
450*
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum, quince (G)/ 9
app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.004
2.4*
18*
Bean, groundcherry, pea, pepino, pepper (G)/
9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.05
0.01
10*
45*
Eggplant (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.010
0.004
2.0*
18*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut (G)/ 6 app a, 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.018
0.005
3.7*
23*
Barley (A)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.016
14*
73*
Barley (G)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.029
0.010
5.9*
45*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)
(A)/12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.098
0.042
20*
191*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble
pea)(G)/12 app a, 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.073
0.016
15*
73*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi) (G)/ 8
app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.121
0.028
25*
127*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (A)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120
days; 7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.090
0.036
18*
164*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (G)/ 8
app@ 0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120
days; 7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.082
0.020
17*
91*
Tomato, tomatillo (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.018
0.005
3.7*
23*
Broccoli, cauliflower (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (2 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day
interval within crop cycle)
0.181
0.044
37*
200*
Cabbage, kohlrabi (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb
ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day
interval within crop cycle)
0.157
0.055
32*
250*
Mustard (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (4 crop
cycles of 90 days; 7-day interval within crop
cycle)
0.144
0.048
29*
218*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.135
0.021
28*
95*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 9 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.213
0.036
43*
164*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (A)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.069
0.015
14*
68*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (G)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A
(3-days)
0.028
0.009
5.7*
41*
174
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
Oig/L)
21-day
EEC
fag/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chronie RQ*
Canola/rape (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.082
0.023
17*
105*
Canola/rape (g)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.042
0.015
8.6*
68*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(A)/ 3 app @0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.055
0.009
11*
41*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland
(G)/ 3 app a, 0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.011
0.002
2.2*
9.1*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (A)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.071
0.016
14*
73*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (G)/ 2 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (3-days)
0.029
0.010
5.9*
45*
Cole crops (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.127
0.047
26*
214*
Cole crops (G)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.117
0.029
24*
132*
Onion (A)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.064
0.021
13*
95*
Onion (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.015
0.005
3.1*
23*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf, recreation area lawns (G)/ 2
app @ 0.1585, 1 app @ 0.0983 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.054
0.008
11*
36*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf, recreation area lawns (ST)/ 7
app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.019
0.004
3.9*
18*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries) (G)/ 6 app @
0.0401 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.468
0.069
96*
314*
Conifers (seed orchard) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.156
and 1 app a, 0.036 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.00
0.148
204*
673*
Corn (field) (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.078
0.020
16*
91*
Corn (field) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.056
0.011
11*
50*
Corn (field, pop) (B,F)/ 2 app @ 0.0934 lb
ai/A (4-days)
0.080
0.014
16*
64*
Corn (sweet) (B, F)/ 6 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A
(4-days)
0.219
0.039
45*
177*
Corn (sweet) (D)/ 5 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (3
crop cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per
crop cycle)
0.357
0.067
73*
305*
Corn (sweet) (A)/ 6 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3
crop cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per
crop cycle)
0.197
0.058
40*
264*
Cotton (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.073
0.015
15*
68*
Cotton (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.018
0.004
4*
18*
Cucurbit vegetables (A)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.059
0.020
12*
91*
Cucurbit vegetables (G)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.012
0.004
2*
18*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (A)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and
0.098
0.020
20*
91*
175
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
Oig/L)
21-day
EEC
fag/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chronie RQ*
1 app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
Filbert, pecan, walnut (G)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and
1 app a, 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.021
0.005
4*
23*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (D)/ 6 app @ 0.057 lb
ai/A (10-days)
0.027
0.009
6*
41*
Forest plantings (G)/ 4 app @0.0511 and 1
app @ 0.0337 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.298
0.064
61*
291*
Fruiting vegetables (A)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.111
0.047
23*
214*
Fruiting vegetables (G)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.087
0.018
18*
82*
Garlic (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.070
0.026
14*
118*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (G)/1
app @ 0.068 lb ai/A
0.022
0.002
4*
9*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (M)/ 6
app @0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.004
3*
18*
Grasses grown for seed (G)/ 2 app @ 0.1306
and 1 app @ 0.0811 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.050
0.012
10*
55*
Legume vegetables (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.060
0.020
12*
91*
Legume vegetables (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb
ai/A (5-days)
0.035
0.006
J*
27*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (A)/ 4 app
@ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.060
0.018
12*
82*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (G)/ 4 app
@ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.034
0.006
J*
27*
Lettuce (A)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.245
0.086
50*
391*
Lettuce (G)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop
cycle)
0.223
0.048
46*
218*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils (A)/
2 app @ 0.0792 and 1 app @ 0.0432 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.048
0.014
9.8*
64*
Ornamental and/or shade trees (G)/ 2 app @
0.162 and 1.081 app @ 0.0913 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.062
0.018
13*
82*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants,
woody shrubs and vines, rose (D)/ 3 app @
1.2 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (7.42)1
1.08
1020*
4909*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (PT)/ 6
app a, 0.069 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.812
0.069
166*
314*
Pome and stone fruit (A)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.077
0.020
16*
91*
Pome and stone fruit (G)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.016
0.005
3*
23*
Potato (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @
0.0162 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.042
0.009
9*
41*
176
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
Oig/L)
21-day
EEC
fag/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chronie RQ*
Potato (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @
0.0162 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.009
0.002
2*
9*
Recreational areas (B)/ 26 app@ 0.033 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.010
0.002
2.0*
9.1*
Recreational areas (CC, ST)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.218
0.045
44.5*
204.5*
Residential lawns (O)/ 6 app @ 0.078 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.071
0.010
14*
45*
Residential lawns (M)/1 app @ 1.9 lb ai/A
0.400
0.061
82*
277*
Rice ®/ 3 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.360
0.360
73.5*
1636.4*
Seed orchard trees (G)/ 3 app @0.0162 and 1
app @ 0.0327 lb ai/A (7-days)
1.210
0.175
246.9*
795.5*
Sorghum (A)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.085
0.019
17.3*
86.4*
Sorghum (G)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.036
0.012
7.3*
54.5*
Soybean (A)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @
0.021 lb ai/A (14-days)
0.064
0.010
13.1*
45.5*
Soybean (G)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @
0.021 lb ai/A (14-days)
0.016
0.003
3.3*
13.6*
Tree nuts (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.077
0.023
15.7*
104.5*
Tree nuts (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-
days)
0.017
0.006
3.5*
27.3*
Sunflower (A)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.071
0.019
14.5*
86.4*
Sunflower (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.051
0.010
10.4*
45.5*
Right-of-way (G)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.054
0.009
11*
41*
Airports/landing fields (O)/ 26 app @ 0.08 lb
ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (15.89)1
2.11
1020*
9591*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm
(granular spot treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.019
0.004
3.9*
18.2*
Grasses grown for seed (granular spot
treatment) (O)/ 6 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.017
0.004
3.5*
18.2*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil
(granular band/broadcast/perimeter/spot
treatment) (O)/ 5 app @ 0.0792 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.059
0.009
12*
41*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil
(granular mound treatment) (O)/ 6 app @
0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.009
0.002
1.8*
9.1*
* = LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC /
0.0049 |ig ai/L (mysid shrimp). Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.00022 |ig ai/L (mysid shrimp).
Calculated EEC exceeded limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L), thus limit of solubility was used instead.
A = foliar aerial application
G = foliar ground application
C = chemigation
177
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
Oig/L)
21-day
EEC
fag/L)
Aeute RQ*
Chronic RQ*
D = dust application
M = mound application
T = trunk drench
CC = crack and crevice
ST = spot treatment
B = banded applications
F = furrow applications
PT = perimeter treatment
O = granular applications
R = rice
5.1.l.f. Estuarine/Marine Benthic Invertebrates
Acute risk to estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates is based on peak pore water EECs in the
standard pond and the lowest acute toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates (surrogate
for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates). Chronic risk is based on 21-day EECs and the
lowest chronic toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates (surrogate for estuarine/marine
benthic invertebrates). Risk quotients ranged from 0.004 to 1,020 (acute) and 0.09 to 22,727
(chronic). Ninety-eight percent of the lambda-cyhalothrin exceeded the acute listed LOC (0.05)
and chronic LOC (1). In addition, 67% of the uses exceeded the non-listed acute LOC (0.5)
indicating the potential for indirect effects to listed species that rely on estuarine/marine
invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle {i.e., CCR, TG, and DS) (Table 5-6).
Table 5-6. Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Benthic
Invertebrates (Based on Pore Water EECs)
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Hg/L)
21-day
EEC
ftig/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises (CC)/ 2 app @ 0.2212
and 1 app a, 0.0763 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (9.13)4
5.0 (9.10)4
1020*
22727*
Alfalfa (A)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.023
0.023
4.7*
105*
Alfalfa (G)/ 3 app @ 0.38 lb ai/A (10 days)
0.007
0.007
1.4*
32*
Almond (G)/ 6 app @0.1 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.005
0.005
1.0*
23*
Almond (T)/ 3 app 0.06 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, trees (G)/ 9 app @ 0.1 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18*
Nectarine, peach, cherry trees trunk drench (T)/ 3
app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (5 days)
0.0000656
0.0000652
0.01
0.30
Apple trees (T)/1 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A
0.00002
0.00002
0.004
0.09
Animal housing premises, paths/patios (CC)/14
app @ 0.0762 and 1 app a, 0.1132 lb ai/A (5-days)
5.0 (18.09)4
5.0
(17.97)4
1020*
22727*
Household/domestic dwellings, outdoor premises
(CC)/ 2 app a, 2.0 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (121.0)4
5.0
(121.0)4
1020*
22727*
Apricot, loquat, mayhaw, plum, quince (G)/ 9 app
a 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
178
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Hg/L)
21-day
EEC
ftig/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic RQ*
Bean, groundcherry, pea, pepino, pepper (G)/ 9 app
a 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
14*
Eggplant (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew, chestnut,
chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia nut (G)/ 6 app
a 0.0239 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Barley (A)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
14*
Barley (G)/ 2 app @ 0.031 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
9.1*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea) (A)/
12 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.011
0.011
2.2*
50*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)(G)/12
app a, 0.03 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi) (G)/ 8 app
@ 0.03 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.007
0.007
1.4*
32*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (A)/ 8 app@
0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day
interval within crop cycle)
0.009
0.009
1.8*
40.9*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables (G)/ 8 app@
0.031 lb ai/A (3 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day
interval within crop cycle)
0.005
0.005
1.02*
22.7*
Tomato, tomatillo (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Broccoli, cauliflower (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A
(2 crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval within
crop cycle)
0.011
0.011
2.24*
50*
Cabbage, kohlrabi (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (3
crop cycles of 120 days; 7-day interval within crop
cycle)
0.015
0.015
3.1*
68*
Mustard (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0294 lb ai/A (4 crop
cycles of 90 days; 7-day interval within crop cycle)
0.013
0.013
2.7*
59*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.005
0.005
1.0*
23*
Brussels sprouts (G)/ 9 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-
days)
0.010
0.010
2.0*
45*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (A)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3-
days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
14*
Buckwheat, oat, rye (G)/ 2 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3-
days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
9.1*
Canola/rape (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18*
Canola/rape (g)/ 3 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
14*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland (A)/ 3
app @0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
9.1*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland (G)/ 3
app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (30-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (A)/ 2 app @ 0.0311
lb ai/A (3-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
14*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat (G)/ 2 app @ 0.0311
lb ai/A (3-days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
9.1*
Cole crops (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.012
2.4*
55*
179
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Hg/L)
21-day
EEC
ftig/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic RQ*
Cole crops (G)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.007
0.007
1.4*
32*
Onion (A)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.005
0.005
1.0*
23*
Onion (G)/ 9 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (G)/ 2 app @
0.1585, 1 app (a), 0.0983 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
9.09*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns (ST)/ 7 app @ 0.06
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
4.5*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries) (G)/ 6 app @
0.0401 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.014
0.014
2.86*
63.6*
Conifers (seed orchard) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.156 and 1
app @ 0.036 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.031
0.031
6.3*
140.9*
Corn (field) (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.005
0.005
1.02*
22.7*
Corn (field) (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
13.6*
Corn (field, pop) (B,F)/ 2 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A (4-
days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
13.6*
Corn (sweet) (B, F)/ 6 app @ 0.0934 lb ai/A (4-
days)
0.009
0.009
1.84*
40.9*
Corn (sweet) (D)/ 5 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop cycle)
0.016
0.016
3.3*
73*
Corn (sweet) (A)/ 6 app @ 0.03 lb ai/A (3 crop
cycles of 120 days; 10-day interval per crop cycle)
0.016
0.016
3.27*
72.7*
Cotton (A)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
13.64*
Cotton (G)/ 3 app @ 0.042 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.55*
Cucurbit vegetables (A)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
13.6*
Cucurbit vegetables (G)/ 6 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.55*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (A)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
13.6*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (G)/ 2 app @ 0.057 and 1
app @ 0.044 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.5*
Filbert, pecan, walnut (D)/ 6 app @ 0.057 lb ai/A
(10-days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
9.1*
Forest plantings (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0511 and 1 app @
0.0337 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.016
0.016
3.27*
72.7*
Fruiting vegetables (A)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.011
0.011
2.24*
50*
Fruiting vegetables (G)/12 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.005
0.005
1.02*
22.7*
Garlic (A)/ 8 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.006
0.006
1.22*
27.3*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (G)/1 app
@ 0.068 lb ai/A
0.0005
0.0005
0.102*
2.3*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (M)/ 6 app
@ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.5*
Grasses grown for seed (G)/ 2 app @ 0.1306 and 1
app @ 0.0811 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.003
0.002
0.61*
9.1*
180
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Hg/L)
21-day
EEC
ftig/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic RQ*
Legume vegetables (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18.2*
Legume vegetables (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A
(5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.5*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (A)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18.2*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables (G)/ 4 app @
0.0311 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.5*
Lettuce (A)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop cycle)
0.023
0.023
4.7*
104.5*
Lettuce (G)/10 app @ 0.0311 lb ai/A (2 crop
cycles of 120 days; 5-day interval per crop cycle)
0.013
0.013
2.7*
59.1*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils (A)/ 2 app
@ 0.0792 and 1 app @ 0.0432 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (21.59)1
5.0
(21.48)1
1020*
22727*
Ornamental and/or shade trees (G)/ 2 app @0.162
and 1 app @ 0.0913 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18.2*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non-flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose (D)/ 3 app @ 1.2 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.227
0.226
46.3*
1027*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (PT)/ 6 app
@ 0.069 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.012
0.012
2.4*
55*
Pome and stone fruit (A)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
18.2*
Pome and stone fruit (G)/ 5 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.5*
Potato (A)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.204*
4.5*
Potato (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0239 and 1 app @ 0.0162 lb
ai/A (7-days)
0.0004
0.0004
0.08*
1.8*
Recreational areas (B)/ 26 app@ 0.033 lb ai/A (7-
days)
0.0005
0.0005
0.10*
2.3*
Recreational areas (CC, ST)/ 2 app @ 2.0 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.010
0.010
2.04*
9273*
Residential lawns (O)/ 6 app @ 0.078 lb ai/A (7-
days)
5.0 (14.12)1
5.0
(14.08)1
1020*
22727*
Residential lawns (M)/1 app @ 1.9 lb ai/A
5.0 (61.14)1
5.0
(59.55)1
1020*
22727*
Rice ®/ 3 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.360
0.360
73.47*
333955*
Seed orchard trees (G)/ 3 app @ 0.0162 and 1 app
a 0.0327 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.036
0.036
7.35*
33409*
Sorghum (A)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.004
0.003
0.82*
3728*
Sorghum (G)/ 2 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
2773*
Soybean (A)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021 lb
ai/A (14-days)
0.002
0.002
0.41*
1864*
Soybean (G)/1 app @ 0.038 and 1 app @ 0.021 lb
ai/A (14-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
909*
Tree nuts (A)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
3727*
Tree nuts (G)/ 4 app @ 0.0415 lb ai/A (5-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
9098*
181
-------
Uses/Application Rate
Peak EEC
(Hg/L)
21-day
EEC
ftig/L)
Acute
RQ*
Chronic RQ*
Sunflower (A)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.004
0.004
0.82*
3727*
Sunflower (G)/ 3 app @ 0.038 lb ai/A (10-days)
0.003
0.003
0.61*
2772*
Right-of-way (G)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (18.II)1
5.0
(18.03)1
1020*
22727*
Airports/landing fields (O)/ 50 app @ 0.08 lb ai/A
(7-days)
0.450
0.447
92*
2032*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm (granular
spot treatment) (O)/ 6 app a 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
909*
Grasses grown for seed (granular spot treatment)
(O)/ 6 app a, 0.06 lb ai/A (7-days)
0.001
0.001
0.20*
909*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil (granular
band/broadcast/perimeter/spot treatment) (O)/ 5
app @ 0.0792 lb ai/A (7-days)
5.0 (15.59)1
5.0
(15.48)1
1020*
22727*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil (granular
mound treatment) (O)/ 6 app @ 0.06 lb ai/A (7-
days)
5.0 (5.13)1
5.0 (5.12)1
1020*
22727*
* = LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded. Estuarine/marine benthic invertebrate data
were not available; freshwater invertebrate data were used instead. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC / 0.0049
|ig ai/ (mysid shrimp) L. Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.00022 |ig ai/L (mysid shrimp).
Calculated EEC exceeded limit of solubility (5 |ig ai/L), thus limit of solubility was used instead.
A = foliar aerial application
G = foliar ground application
C = chemigation
D = dust application
M = mound application
T = trunk drench
CC = crack and crevice
ST = spot treatment
B = banded applications
F = furrow applications
PT = perimeter treatment
O = granular applications
R = rice
5.1.l.g. Non-vascular Aquatic Plants
Acute RQs for aquatic non-vascular plants could not be calculated because the toxicity value is
non-definitive. See Section 5 for a characterization of the risk.
5.1.l.h. Vascular Aquatic Plants
Acute risk to aquatic vascular plants could not be calculated because toxicity data are not
available. See Section 5 for a characterization of the risk.
182
-------
5.1.2. Exposures in the Terrestrial Habitat
5.1.2.a. Birds (surrogate for Reptiles and Terrestrial-phase
Amphibians)
As previously discussed in Section 3.3, potential direct effects to terrestrial species are based on
foliar, granular, and in-furrow applications of lambda-cyhalothrin. Potential risks to birds and,
thus, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians are evaluated using T-REX, acute and chronic
toxicity data for the most sensitive bird species for which data are available, and the most
sensitive dietary item and size class for that species. For terrestrial-phase amphibians, the most
sensitive RQ in T-REX is for the small bird consuming small insects. For birds, the most
sensitive RQ in T-REX is for the small bird consuming short grass.
T-HERPS is used to assess potential risk to snakes and amphibians as a refinement to the RQs if
T-REX indicates potential risk to birds. Small snakes and amphibians only consume insects
while medium and large snakes and amphibians consume small and large insects, mammals, and
amphibians. The most sensitive RQ for snakes and amphibians are for medium snakes
consuming small herbivore mammals.
Potential direct acute effects to the CCR, CTS (all DPS), and SFGS are evaluated using dose-
and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX for small (20 g, juveniles) birds consuming short
grass (
Table 3-6) and acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity endpoints for avian species (Table 4-3).
Potential direct acute effects to the CTS, and SFGS are evaluated by considering dose- and
dietary-based EECs modeled in T-HERPS for medium amphibians and/or snakes consuming
small herbivorous mammals (
Table 3-8 and Table 3-9) and acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity endpoints for avian species
(Table 4-3).
Potential indirect effects to the CCR, SFGS, and CTS may result from direct acute effects to
birds and/or amphibians because of a reduction in prey. RQs for indirect effects are calculated in
the same manner as those for direct effects. The most sensitive EEC calculated in T-REX is for
small birds consuming short grass.
Potential direct chronic effects to the birds, CTS (all DPS) and SFGS (surrogate for amphibians
and reptiles) are evaluated by considering dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX and T-HERPS
consuming a variety of dietary items. The specific EECs for each species are for the same size
birds and same dietary items as those considered for acute exposure. Chronic effects are
estimated using the lowest available NOAEC from a chronic study for birds. Dietary-based
EECs are divided by toxicity values to estimate chronic dietary-based RQs.
Acute and chronic RQs for the CCR, CTS, birds, and amphibians derived using the foliar
analysis of T-REX are shown in Table 5-7. Four uses - animal housing premises, paths/patios
barrier and crack and crevice treatment; household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises barrier
and crack and crevice treatment; ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous plants,
183
-------
non flowering plants, woody shrubs and vines, and rose ground and dust application; and
recreational areas crack and crevice and spot treatment- exceeded the acute dose- and dietary-
based acute listed species LOC of 0.1. All uses exceeded the chronic LOC of 1. Thus, lambda-
cyhalothrin uses have the potential to directly affect SFGS, CCR, and CTS. Additionally, since
the acute non-listed species LOC (0.5) is exceeded for two of the uses and the chronic RQs are
exceeded for all uses, there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that rely on
birds (and, thus, reptiles and/or terrestrial-phase amphibians) during at least some portion of their
life-cycle {i.e., SFGS and CCR).
Table 5-7. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-REX for LamMa-Cyhalothrin and
Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Birds and CCR, CTS (all DPS), and SFGS
(small bird consuming short grass)
Acute Dose-
Acute Dietary
Chronic Dietarv
Based6
Based7
Based8
Agricultural/farm premises, crack and crevice/surface
spray/perimeter treatment
0.06
0.03
20.95*
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
4.55*
Almond, ground dust and spray
0.06
0.03
20.94*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust and spray
0.07
0.03
26.43*
Almond, nectarine, peach, cherry, trunk drench
0.02
0.01
7.85*
Apple, trunk drench
0.01
<0.01
2.88*
Animal housing premises, paths/patios, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
0.11*
0.05
38.85*
Household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
0.50*
0.23*
179.57*
Apricot, bean, eggplant, groundcherry, loquat, mayhaw,
pea, pepino, pepper, plum, quince, ground spray/dust
0.02
0.01
6.32*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew, chestnut,
chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia nut, ground
spray/dust
0.01
0.01
5.00*
Barley, aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
2.78*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)
(aerial/ground spray/dust)
0.03
0.01
9.02*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi), ground
spray/dust
0.02
0.01
7.45*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
4.19*
Tomato, tomatillo, ground spray/dust
0.02
0.01
7.77*
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground spray/dust
0.02
0.01
8.00*
Cabbage, kohlrabi, ground spray/dust
0.02
0.01
8.63*
Mustard
0.03
0.01
9.15*
Brussels sprouts, ground spray
0.01
0.01
4.55*
Brussels sprouts, dust
0.02
0.01
8.44*
Buckwheat, oat, rye, aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
2.80*
Canola/rape, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
4.07*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland,
aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
2.77*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat, aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
2.90*
Cole crops, aerial/ground/dust
0.02
0.01
7.73*
Onion, aerial/ground/dust
0.02
0.01
8.22*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns and turf,
0.05
0.02
17.11*
184
-------
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Birds and CCR, CTS (all DPS), and SFGS
(small bird consuming short grass)
Acute Dose-
Based6
Acute Dietary
Based7
Chronic Dietary
Based8
recreation area lawns, ground
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns, mound/spot treatment
0.04
0.02
13.82*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries), ground
0.02
0.01
8.40*
Conifers (seed orchard), ground
0.05
0.02
19.68*
Corn (field), aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
5.03*
Corn (sweet), dust
0.02
0.01
7.36*
Corn (sweet), spray
0.02
0.01
5.92*
Cotton, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
5.03*
Cucurbit vegetables, aerial/ground
0.02
0.01
7.09*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, aerial/ground
0.02
0.01
6.20*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, dust
0.03
0.01
10.59*
Forest plantings, ground
0.02
0.01
8.64*
Fruiting vegetables, aerial/ground
0.03
0.01
11.01*
Garlic
0.02
0.01
7.73*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, ground
0.01
<0.01
3.26*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, mound
0.03
0.02
12.56*
Grasses grown for seed, ground
0.04
0.02
14.10*
Legume vegetables, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
5.18*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
4.91*
Lettuce, aerial/ground
0.03
0.01
10.33*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, aerial
0.02
0.01
8.26*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
0.05
0.02
17.04*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non flowering plants, woody shrubs
and vines, rose, ground/dust
0.42*
0.19*
151.40*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks), barrier/perimeter
treatment
0.04
0.02
14.45*
Pome and stone fruit, aerial/ground
0.02
0.01
7.69*
Potato, aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
3.40*
Recreational areas, band treatment
0.03
0.01
10.78*
Recreational areas, crack and crevice/spot treatment
0.50*
0.23*
179.57*
Rice, ground
0.02
0.01
5.43*
Seed orchard trees, ground
0.06
0.03
20.44*
Sorghum, aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
3.32*
Soybean, aerial/ground
0.01
<0.01
2.39*
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
0.02
0.01
6.91*
Sunflower, aerial/ground
0.01
0.01
4.55*
Right-of-way, ground
0.03
0.02
12.56*
n/a = not applicable
LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1 and chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded.
1 An interval of 60 days was used between crop cycles
2Only 30 applications were modeled because of limitations with T-REX; an interval of 30 days was used between
crop cycles
3 Application exceeds the seasonal maximum because of limitations on T-REX
4University of California and USD A 2004
5An interval of 90 days was used between crop cycles
1 Based on dose-based EEC and mallard duck acute oral LD50 = 3950 mg/kg-bw
185
-------
2Based on dose-based EEC and mallard duck subacute dietary LC50 =3948 mg/kg-diet
3Based on dietary-based EEC and northern bobwhite quail NOAEC = 5 mg/kg-diet.
Granular applications were calculated using the LD50/ft feature in T-REX. The analysis
considers the exposure to a chemical based on foraging activity within a square foot area. None
of the uses exceeded the acute listed species LOC (0.1); therefore, direct or indirect effects to
listed species are not expected, based on granular uses (Table 5-8).
Table 5-8. LDso/ft2 RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians for in Furrow/Soil
Treatments and Granular Applications
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Birds and CCR, CTS
(all DPS), and SFGS
(small bird consuming short
grass)
Acute Dose-Based
Corn (field, pop), soil in furrow/T-banding3
<0.01
Corn (sweet), soil in furrow/T-banding1
<0.01
Airports/landing fields, ground granular
0.02
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, granular spot treatment
0.02
Grasses grown for seed, granular spot treatment
0.02
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil, granular band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot treatment
0.02
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil, granular mound treatment
0.02
Residential lawns, granular ground
0.02
Residential lawns, granular mound treatment
0.01
'University of California and USDA 2004
5.1.2.b. Terrestrial-phase Amphibians
Given that RQs exceeded the acute listed LOC (0.1) for four uses and the chronic LOC (1) for all
of the uses when birds were used as a surrogate for amphibians in T-REX, T-HERPS was used to
refine the assessment. Acute and chronic RQs were only calculated for those uses that exceeded
the listed species LOC in T-REX. The results for the CTS were similar in T-HERPS as in T-
REX: three uses - household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises barrier and crack and crevice
treatment; ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous plants, non flowering plants,
woody shrubs and vines, and rose ground and dust application; and recreational areas crack and
crevice and spot treatment - exceeded the acute listed species dose- and dietary-based LOC of
0.1. All uses exceeded the chronic LOC of 1 (Table 5-9). Thus, three lambda-cyhalothrin uses
have the potential to directly affect CTS on an acute basis. All uses have the potential to directly
affect CTS on a chronic basis. Additionally, since the chronic LOC is exceeded for all uses,
there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that rely on amphibians during at
least some portion of their life-cycle {i.e., SFGS and CCR).
186
-------
Table 5-9. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-HERPS for LamMa-Cyhalothrin and
UQs lor (IS (iill DPS)
I so. l-'oriniiliilioii. Tjpe «f
(mod in in iiinphi
liiin coiiNiiniinii herlmore iii;iiiiin;ils)
Application
Anile l)ose-li;ised
Aeule l)iel;in
liiiseri
( lironie Diel.in
liiiseri
Agricultural/farm premises,
crack and crevice/surface
n/a
n/a
66*
spray/perimeter treatment
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
15*
Almond, ground dust and spray
n/a
n/a
J*
Apple, cherry, crabapple,
nectarine, peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust and spray
n/a
n/a
g*
Almond, nectarine, peach,
cherry, trunk drench
n/a
n/a
26*
Apple, trunk drench
n/a
n/a
10*
Animal housing premises,
paths/patios, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
0.03
0.05
130*
Household/domestic dwellings
outdoor premises, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
0.15*
0.23*
601*
Apricot, bean, eggplant,
groundcherry, loquat, mayhaw,
pea, pepino, pepper, plum,
quince, ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
21*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia nut,
ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
17*
Barley, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
9*
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
(aerial/ground spray/dust)
n/a
n/a
30*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy,
pak-choi), ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
25*
Brassica (head and stem)
vegetables, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
13*
Tomato, tomatillo, ground
spray/dust
n/a
n/a
26*
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground
spray/dust
n/a
n/a
26*
Cabbage, kohlrabi, ground
spray/dust
n/a
n/a
26*
Mustard
n/a
n/a
26*
Brussels sprouts, ground spray
n/a
n/a
15*
Brussels sprouts, dust
n/a
n/a
28*
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
9*
Canola/rape, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
14*
Grass forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
n/a
n/a
9*
187
-------
UQs lor (IS (iill DPS)
I so. l-'oriniiliilioii. Tjpe «f
(mod in in iiinphi
linn coiiNiiniinii herlmore iii;iiiiin;ils)
Application
Anile l)ose-li;ised
Aeule l)iel;in
liiiseri
( lironie Diel.in
liiiseri
aerial/ground
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
10*
Cole crops, aerial/ground/dust
n/a
n/a
26*
Onion, aerial/ground/dust
n/a
n/a
28*
Commercial/industrial lawns,
ornamental lawns and turf,
n/a
n/a
67*
recreation area lawns, ground
Commercial/industrial lawns,
ornamental lawns and turf,
n/a
n/a
46*
recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment
Conifers (plantations/nurseries),
ground
n/a
n/a
28*
Conifers (seed orchard), ground
n/a
n/a
66*
Corn (field), aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
28*
Corn (sweet), dust
n/a
n/a
24*
Corn (sweet), spray
n/a
n/a
19*
Cotton, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
17*
Cucurbit vegetables,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
24*
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
23*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, dust
n/a
n/a
35*
Forest plantings, ground
n/a
n/a
32*
Fruiting vegetables,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
37*
Garlic
n/a
n/a
26*
Golf course turf, ornamental
sod farm, ground
n/a
n/a
11*
Golf course turf, ornamental
n/a
n/a
42*
sod farm, mound
Grasses grown for seed, ground
n/a
n/a
55*
Legume vegetables,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
17*
Peanuts, root and tuber
n/a
n/a
16*
vegetables, aerial/ground
Lettuce, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
33*
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soils, aerial
n/a
n/a
33*
Ornamental and/or shade trees,
n/a
n/a
68*
ground
Ornamental and/or shade trees,
ground cover, herbaceous
plants, non flowering plants,
woody shrubs and vines, rose,
ground/dust
0.13*
0.19*
507*
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks),
n/a
n/a
48*
188
-------
I so. l-'oriniiliilioii. Tjpe <>l'
Application
UQs lor (IS (iill DPS)
(mod in in ;i in pli i hi;i n consuming hcrlmure m;imm;ils)
Anile l)osc-li;isod
Acule l)iel;in
liiised
Chronic Diel.in
liiised
barrier/perimeter treatment
Pome and stone fruit,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
26*
Potato, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
13*
Recreational areas, band
treatment
n/a
n/a
36*
Recreational areas, crack and
crevice/spot treatment
0.15*
0.23*
601*
Rice, ground
n/a
n/a
18*
Seed orchard trees, ground
n/a
n/a
68*
Sorghum, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
11*
Soybean, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
11*
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
23*
Sunflower, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
15*
Right-of-way, ground
n/a
n/a
42*
n/a = RQ not calculated
LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1 and chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded.
5.I.2.C. Reptiles
Given that RQs exceeded the acute listed LOC (0.1) for four uses and the chronic LOC (1) for all
of the uses when birds were used as a surrogate for reptiles in T-REX, T-HERPS was used to
refine the assessment. Acute and chronic RQs were only calculated for those uses that exceeded
the LOC in T-REX. The results for the SFGS was similar in T-HERPS as in T-REX: three uses
- household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises barrier and crack and crevice treatment;
ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous plants, non flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, and rose ground and dust application; and recreational areas crack and crevice
and spot treatment - exceeded the acute dose- and dietary-based LOC of 0.1. All uses exceeded
the chronic LOC of 1 (Table 5-10). Consequently, three lambda-cyhalothrin uses have the
potential to directly affect SFGS on an acute basis. All uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1) and
therefore have the potential to directly affect SFGS on a chronic basis. Additionally, since the
chronic LOC is exceeded for all uses, there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed
species that rely on reptiles during at least some portion of their life-cycle.
Table 5-10. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-HERPS for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
and Reptiles
I se. 1- o nun hit ion. l\pcol Application
UQs1 I'orSK.S
(medium reptile consuming licrlmorc m;inim;ils)
Acule Doso-
Ifcised"
Acule l)icl;in
liiised"
Chronic l)icl;in
IJ;iseds
\gncullural farm premises, crack and
crevice/surface spray/perimeter treatment
n/a
n/a
51*
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
12*
Almond, ground dust and spray
n/a
n/a
54*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear,
plum, prune, ground dust and spray
n/a
n/a
68*
189
-------
HQs' I'nrSK.S
I so. I'orniuliilioii. It pool Application
(medium ivplilo consuming hcrlmoiv niiimniiils)
Acule Dose-
Aculc Dicliin
( limine l)k'(;ir\
Ifcised"
Based
B;iseds
Almond, nectarine, peach, cherry, trunk drench
n/a
n/a
20*
Apple, trunk drench
n/a
n/a
J*
Animal housing premises, paths/patios, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
0.05
0.04
99*
Household/domestic dwellings outdoor
premises, barrier treatment/crack and crevice
0.22*
0.17*
459*
Apricot, bean, eggplant, groundcherry, loquat,
mayhaw, pea, pepino, pepper, plum, quince,
ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
16*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut, ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
13*
Barley, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
J*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea)
(aerial/ground spray/dust)
n/a
n/a
23*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi), ground
spray/dust
n/a
n/a
19*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
10*
Tomato, tomatillo, ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
20*
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
20*
Cabbage, kohlrabi, ground spray/dust
n/a
n/a
20*
Mustard
n/a
n/a
20*
Brussels sprouts, ground spray
n/a
n/a
12*
Brussels sprouts, dust
n/a
n/a
22*
Buckwheat, oat, rye, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
J*
Canola/rape, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
10*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland,
aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
J*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
J*
Cole crops, aerial/ground/dust
n/a
n/a
20*
Onion, aerial/ground/dust
n/a
n/a
21*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
n/a
n/a
51*
and turf, recreation area lawns, ground
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns
and turf, recreation area lawns, mound/spot
n/a
n/a
35*
treatment
Conifers (plantations/nurseries), ground
n/a
n/a
21*
Conifers (seed orchard), ground
n/a
n/a
50*
Corn (field), aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
13*
Corn (sweet), dust
n/a
n/a
18*
Corn (sweet), spray
n/a
n/a
14*
Cotton, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
13*
Cucurbit vegetables, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
18*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
17*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, dust
n/a
n/a
27*
Forest plantings, ground
n/a
n/a
24*
190
-------
HQs' for SI'(.S
I so. I'orniuliilioii. I vpcol Application
(medium ivnlile consuming hcrlmoiv niiimniiils)
Acule Dose-
Aculc Dicliin
( limine l)k'(;ir\
Ifcised"
Based
B;iseds
Fruiting vegetables, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
28*
Garlic
n/a
n/a
20*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, ground
n/a
n/a
8*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, mound
n/a
n/a
32*
Grasses grown for seed, ground
n/a
n/a
42*
Legume vegetables, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
13*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
13*
Lettuce, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
25*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, aerial
n/a
n/a
26*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
n/a
n/a
52*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose, ground/dust
0.18*
0.15*
387*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks),
barrier/perimeter treatment
n/a
n/a
37*
Pome and stone fruit, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
20*
Potato, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
10*
Recreational areas, band treatment
n/a
n/a
28*
Recreational areas, crack and crevice/spot
treatment
0.22*
0.17*
459*
Rice, ground
n/a
n/a
14*
Seed orchard trees, ground
n/a
n/a
52*
Sorghum, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
8*
Soybean, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
8*
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
18*
Sunflower, aerial/ground
n/a
n/a
12*
Right-of-way, ground
n/a
n/a
32*
n/a = RQ not calculated
LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1 and chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded.
highest RQ is reported.
5.1.2.d. Mammals
Potential risks to mammals are evaluated using T-REX, acute and chronic mammalian toxicity
data, and a variety of body-size and dietary categories. The potential for indirect effects to the
SFGS, CCR, and CTS may result from direct effects to mammals because of a reduction in prey.
Potential indirect effects to the SFGS and CTS may result from direct effects to mammals
because of effects to habitat or a reduction in rearing sites. RQs for indirect effects are
calculated in the same manner as those for direct effects. The most sensitive EECs calculated in
T-REX are for small mammals consuming short grass.
Potential direct chronic effects to the mammals are evaluated by considering dietary-based EECs
modeled in T-REX consuming a variety of dietary items. The specific EECs for each species are
for the same size mammals and same dietary items as those considered for acute exposure.
Chronic effects are estimated using the lowest available NOAEC from a chronic reproductive
191
-------
study for mammals. Dietary-based EECs are divided by toxicity values to estimate chronic
dietary-based RQs.
EECs for acute dose-based and chronic dietary-based exposures, based on foliar applications, are
presented in Table 5-11. All uses, except for soybean, exceeded the acute listed species LOC
(0.1). Similarly, all uses, except soybean, sweet corn (spray), cotton, and sorghum, exceeded the
chronic LOC (1). Twenty-three percent of uses exceeded the acute non-listed species LOC (0.5)
and 93% of the uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1), thus, there is a potential for indirect effects
from lambda-cyhalothrin to listed species that rely on mammals during at least some portion of
their life-cycle {i.e., SFGS, CCR, and CTS).
Table 5-11. Acute and Chronic RQs Derived Using T-REX for LamMa-Cyhalothrin and
Mammals
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Small Mammals
(small mammals consuming short grass)
Acute Dose-
Based6
Chronic Dictarv-
Based7
Agricultural/farm premises, crack and crevice/surface
spray/perimeter treatment
0.81*
3.49*
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
0.18*
0.76
Almond, ground dust and spray
0.81*
3.49*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune,
ground dust and spray
1.02*
4.41*
Almond, nectarine, peach, cherry, trunk drench
0.30*
1.31*
Apple, trunk drench
0.11*
0.48
Animal housing premises, paths/patios, barrier treatment/crack
and crevice
1.50*
6.47*
Household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
6.96*
29.93*
Apricot, bean, eggplant, groundcherry, loquat, mayhaw, pea,
pepino, pepper, plum, quince, ground spray/dust
0.24*
1.05*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew, chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia nut, ground spray/dust
0.19*
0.83
Barley, aerial/ground
0.11*
0.46
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea) (aerial/ground
spray/dust)
0.35*
1.50*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi), ground spray/dust
0.29*
1.24*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, aerial/ground
0.16*
0.70
Tomato, tomatillo, ground spray/dust
0.30*
1.30*
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground spray/dust
0.31*
1.33*
Cabbage, kohlrabi, ground spray/dust
0.33*
1.44*
Mustard
0.35*
1.52*
Brussels sprouts, ground spray
0.18*
0.76
192
-------
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Small Mammals
(small mammals consuming short grass)
Acute Dose-
Based6
Chronic Dietary-
Based7
Brussels sprouts, dust
0.33*
1.41*
Buckwheat, oat, rye, aerial/ground
0.11*
0.47
Canola/rape, aerial/ground
0.16*
0.68
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland, aerial/ground
0.11*
0.46
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat, aerial/ground
0.11*
0.48
Cole crops, aerial/ground/dust
0.30*
1.29*
Onion, aerial/ground/dust
0.32*
1.37*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns, ground
0.66*
2.85*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns, mound/spot treatment
0.54*
2.30*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries), ground
0.33*
1.40*
Conifers (seed orchard), ground
0.76*
3.28*
Corn (field), aerial/ground
0.19*
0.84
Corn (sweet), dust
0.29*
1.23*
Corn (sweet), spray
0.23*
0.99
Cotton, aerial/ground
0.19*
0.84
Cucurbit vegetables, aerial/ground
0.27*
1.18*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, aerial/ground
0.24*
1.03*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, dust
0.41*
1.76*
Forest plantings, ground
0.33*
1.44*
Fruiting vegetables, aerial/ground
0.43*
1.83*
Garlic
0.30*
1.29*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, ground
0.13*
0.54
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, mound
0.49*
2.09*
Grasses grown for seed, ground
0.55*
2.35*
Legume vegetables, aerial/ground
0.20*
0.86
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables, aerial/ground
0.19*
0.82
Lettuce, aerial/ground
0.40*
1.72*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, aerial
0.32*
1.38*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
0.66*
2.84*
193
-------
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Small Mammals
(small mammals consuming short grass)
Acute Dose-
Based6
Chronic Dictarv-
Based7
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous
plants, non flowering plants, woody shrubs and vines, rose,
ground/dust/
5.86*
25.23*
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks), barrier/perimeter
treatment
0.56*
2.41*
Pome and stone fruit, aerial/ground
0.30*
1.28*
Potato, aerial/ground
0.13*
0.57
Recreational areas, band treatment
0.42*
1.80*
Recreational areas, crack and crevice/spot treatment
6.96*
29.93*
Rice, ground
0.21*
0.91
Seed orchard trees, ground
0.79*
3.41*
Sorghum, aerial/ground
0.13*
0.55
Soybean, aerial/ground
0.09
0.40
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
0.27*
1.15*
Sunflower, aerial/ground
0.18*
0.76
Right-of-way, ground
0.49*
2.09*
n/a = not applicable
LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1 and chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded.
1 An interval of 60 days was used between crop cycles
2Only 30 applications were modeled because of limitations with T-REX; an interval of 30 days was used between
crop cycles
3 Application exceeds the seasonal maximum because of limitations on T-REX
5An interval of 90 days was used between crop cycles
6Based on dose-based EEC and rat acute oral LD50 = 56 mg/kg-bw
7Based on dietary-based EEC and rat NOAEC = 30 mg/kg-diet.
None of the in-furrow soil treatments exceeded the acute listed LOC (0.1); however, all granular
uses exceeded the acute LOC (Table 5-12). To further refine the assessment for the granular
treatments, the mass of granules that would need to be consumed to reach the LD50 (adjusted for
mammal body weight) was estimated. The equations and calculations are available in Appendix
M. In all cases, it was estimated that a mammal would have to consume 1.8 to 2 times its body
weight (small mammal) or 0.63 to 0.71 times its body weight (medium sized mammal) to
achieve the LD50. These scenarios appear unlikely; thus there are direct or indirect effects to
listed mammals from the granular uses are expected to be minimial.
194
-------
Table 5-12. LDso/ft2 RQs for Mammals for in furrow/soil treatments and granular
applications
Use, Formulation, Type of Application
RQs for Small Mammals
(small mammals consuming short
grass)
Acute Dose-Based
Corn (field, pop), soil in furrow/T-banding3
0.02
Corn (sweet), soil infurrow/T-banding3
0.03
Airports/landing fields, ground granular
0.45*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, granular spot treatment
0.39*
Grasses grown for seed, granular spot treatment
0.34*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil, granular
band/broadcast/ perimeter/spot treatment
0.45*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soil, granular mound
treatment
0.34*
Residential lawns, granular ground
0.44*
Residential lawns, granular mound treatment
0.46*
'University of California and USDA 2004
5.1.2.e. Terrestrial Invertebrates
To assess the risks of lambda-cyhalothrin to terrestrial invertebrates, the honeybee is used as a
surrogate for terrestrial invertebrates. The toxicity value for terrestrial invertebrates is calculated
by multiplying the lowest available acute contact LD50 of 0.038 |ig a.i./bee by 1 bee/0.128g,
which is based on the weight of an adult honey bee. EECs (|ig a.i./g of bee) calculated by T-
REX for arthropods are divided by the calculated toxicity value for terrestrial invertebrates,
which is 0.30 |ig a.i./g of bee. Risk quotients are shown for the arthropods, in Table 5-13.
Potential indirect effects to the SFGS, CCR, and CTS may result from direct acute effects to
terrestrial invertebrates because of a reduction in prey. RQs for indirect effects are calculated in
the same manner as those for direct effects.
Results of the RQ calculations for terrestrial invertebrates are presented in Table 5-13. All uses
exceeded the acute listed species LOC (0.05). Thus, lambda-cyhalothrin has the potential to
directly affect the BCB and VELB. Additionally, given that all the uses exceed the acute non-
listed LOC (0.5), there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that rely on
terrestrial invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle {i.e., CCR, CTS, and
SFGS).
Table 5-13. Summary of RQs for Terrestrial Invertebrates
Use
Arthropod RQ*
Agricultural/farm premises, crack and crevice/surface spray/perimeter treatment
137*
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
39.7*
Almond, ground dust and spray
41.01*
Apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach, pear, plum, prune, ground dust and spray
137*
195
-------
Use
Arthropod RQ*
Almond, nectarine, peach, cherry, trunk drench
51.2*
Apple, trunk drench
18.8*
Animal housing premises, paths/patios, barrier treatment/crack and crevice
254*
Household/domestic dwellings outdoor premises, barrier treatment/crack and crevice
1172*
Apricot, bean, eggplant, groundcherry, loquat, mayhaw, pea, pepino, pepper, plum,
quince, ground spray/dust
41.2*
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut, cashew, chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut, macadamia
nut, ground spray/dust
32.7*
Barley, aerial/ground
18.2*
Bell pepper, catjang (Jerusalem/marble pea) (aerial/ground spray/dust)
59*
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-choi), ground spray/dust
49*
Brassica (head and stem) vegetables, aerial/ground
27.3*
Tomato, tomatillo, ground spray/dust
50.7*
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground spray/dust
52.3*
Cabbage, kohlrabi, ground spray/dust
56.3*
Mustard
61.6*
Brussels sprouts, ground spray
29.7*
Brussels sprouts, dust
55.1*
Buckwheat, oat, rye, aerial/ground
18.3*
Canola/rape, aerial/ground
26.6*
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures, rangeland, aerial/ground
18.1*
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat, aerial/ground
18.9*
Cole crops, aerial/ground/dust
50.4*
Onion, aerial/ground/dust
53.7*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns and turf, recreation area lawns, ground
112*
Commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental lawns and turf, recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment
90.2*
Conifers (plantations/nurseries), ground
54.8*
Conifers (seed orchard), ground
128*
Corn (field), aerial/ground
32.8*
Corn (sweet), dust
34.3*
Corn (sweet), spray
38.6*
Cotton, aerial/ground
32.8*
Cucurbit vegetables, aerial/ground
46.3*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, aerial/ground
40.5*
Filbert, pecan, walnut, dust
69.1*
Forest plantings, ground
56.4*
Fruiting vegetables, aerial/ground
71.9*
Garlic
50.4*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, ground
21.3*
Golf course turf, ornamental sod farm, mound
82*
Grasses grown for seed, ground
92*
Legume vegetables, aerial/ground
33.8*
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables, aerial/ground
32*
Lettuce, aerial/ground
67.4*
Nonagricultural uncultivated areas/soils, aerial
53.9*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
111*
Ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous plants, non flowering plants,
988*
196
-------
Use
Arthropod RQ*
woody shrubs and vines, rose, ground/dust/
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks), barrier/perimeter treatment
94.3*
Pome and stone fruit, aerial/ground
50.2*
Potato, aerial/ground
22.2*
Recreational areas, band treatment
70.4*
Recreational areas, crack and crevice/spot treatment
1172*
Rice, ground
35.4*
Seed orchard trees, ground
133*
Sorghum, aerial/ground
21.7*
Soybean, aerial/ground
15.6*
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
45.1*
Sunflower, aerial/ground
29.7*
Right-of-way, ground
82*
LOC exceedances (RQ > 0.05) are bolded.
5.1.2.f. Terrestrial Plants
Toxicity data are not available for terrestrial plants; the potential for indirect effects to listed
species because of effects to plants is discussed in Sections 5.2.1 through 5.2.8.
5.2. Bioaccumulation Analysis Results
KABAM was used to calculate risk quotients from a bioaccumulation pathway for food items
that may be consumed by listed species. The rail was used to represent the CCR. The sandpiper
was used to represent the SFGS and CTS because its body size was the same as these organisms
(0.02 kg). The fog/water shrew category was used to represent a piscivorous mammalian food
item that may be consumed by the SFGS. The RQs for bioaccumulation risk did not exceed the
acute listed species LOC (0.01) for mammals or birds/reptiles/amphibians; however the chronic
LOC (1) was exceeded for the highest application rate (airports/landing field -0.08 lb ai/A) for
these organisms. This indicates that there may be direct chronic risks to the CCR, CTS (all
DPS), and CTS at the highest lambda-cyhalothrin application rates. Although the acute non-
listed species LOC (0.5) was not exceeded, the chronic LOC (1) was exceeded; therefore, there
may be risks to species that rely on mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians during at least
some portion of their life cycle {i.e., SFGS and CCR). This is only applicable to the higher
application rates of lambda-cyhalothrin.
Table 5-14. Bioaccumulation Risk Quotients for Mammals, Birds, Reptiles and
Amphibians for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
I sc. I'ormiikilion. I \|K'
UQs lor CCU. CTS (sill DPSiiind SI CS
of Application
Acule l)ose-l$;ised
Anile l)iel;ir\-
Chronic Dose-
Chronic l)ic(;u\-
liiised
li;iscd
liiised
CCR
Airports/landing fields
(granular)/ 50 app @ 0.08
lb ai/A (7-days)
0.004
0.004
N/A
3.5*
Almond dust (ground) (6
app @ 0.1 lb ai/A - 10-
<0.001
<0.001
N/A
0.034
197
-------
I sc. I'ormiikilion. Tjpe
UQs lor CCU. CTS (sill DPSiiind SI CS
of Application
Acnlc l)osc-l$;iscd
Anile l)iel;ir\-
C hronic Dosc-
Chronic l)icl;ir\-
liiised
liiised
liiised
days)
SFGS and CTS (all DPS)
Airports/landing fields
(0)/ 50 app @ 0.08 lb
0.006
0.003
N/A
2.46*
ai/A (7-days)
Almond dust (ground) (6
app @ 0.1 lb ai/A - 10-
<0.001
<0.001
N/A
0.023
days)
Fog/Water Shrew
Airports/landing fields
(O)/ 50 app @ 0.08 lb
0.067
N/A
2.5*
0.449
ai/A (7-days)
Almond dust (ground) (6
app @ 0.1 lb ai/A - 10-
0.001
N/A
0.024
0.004
days)
* Exceeds the chronic LOC of 1.
5.3. Toxicity of Chemical Mixtures
As previously discussed, the results of available toxicity data for mixtures of /awMa-cyhalothrin
with other pesticides are presented in Appendix A. Table A. 1 (Appendix A) compares the
toxicity of /awMa-cyhalothrin technical with the toxicity (adjusted for % ai) of registered
mixture products. When the product LD50s, and associated confidence intervals, are adjusted for
the percent /awMa-cyhalothrin (a conservative assumption that attributes all of the observed
toxicity of the formulated product to lambda-cyhalothrin), the adjusted 95% confidence intervals
of the formulated product do not overlap with the TGAI lambda-cyhalothrin LD50 in eight
instances. This indicates that these mixtures may be more toxic than lambda-cyhalothrin
technical. In two instances, the adjusted 95% confidence intervals for the formulated product
overlap with the TGAI lambda-cyhalothrin toxicity values, indicating that these two mixtures are
likely of similar toxicity to lambda-cyhalothrin technical. For all other formulated products, the
LD50 was non-definitive, thus there are no confidence intervals and the toxicity values cannot be
compared. This suggests that in some instances, the combination of active ingredients that are
contained within a mixture enhance the toxicity of the compound. Table 5-15 displays the EECs
and RQs for the labeled uses of Cobalt Advanced - the lambda-cyhalothrin and chloropyrifos
mixture that appeared to be most toxic to mammals based on an adjusted oral LD50 (see
Appendix A for entire listing). When compared with the RQs calculated with toxicity data from
lambda-cyhalothrin technical, Cobalt Advanced produces higher RQs, indicating a risk at least as
high as lambda-cyhalothrin.
Table. 5-15. EECs and RQs for Small Mammals (Consuming Short Grass) for Cobalt
Advanced
I sc(s).
App Kiilc (II) iii/A)
Dosc-hiiscd
Aculc KQ
Acme UQ
T\ pc of Application
iind lnlcr\;il
r.r.c
((ohiill)
(la 11 ibtla-v \ h ;i lo I h ri n
(( ohiill)
Icchniciil)
Alfalfa
3 at 0.038
21.08
3.79*
0.18*
10 days
198
-------
Apple tree trunk
1 at 0.06
13.73
2.40*
0.11*
Brussels sprout
3 at 0.038
10 days
21.68
3.79*
0.18*
Conifer and deciduous trees
(plantations, nurseries, and seed
orchards)
6 at 0.0401
7 days
40.03
7.01*
0.33*
Corn (spray)
3 crop cycles per year
5 apps at 0.042 per
crop cycle
10 days
35.09
6.14*
0.23*
Corn (T-banding)
6 at 0.0934,
4 days
Rows 40 inches
apart1; banding 7
inches
106.84
18.70*
0.03
Cotton
3 at 0.042
10 days
23.96
4.19*
0.19*
Sorghum
2 at 0.038
10 days
15.83
2.77*
0.13*
Soybean
1 at 0.038,
1 at 0.021
14 days
11.39
1.99*
0.09
Sunflower
3 at 0.038
10 days
21.68
3.79*
0.18*
Tree fruits and almond spray
9 at 0.1
7 days
12.6
2.21*
0.27*
Tree fruits and almond trunk spray
3 at 0.06
5 days
37.43
6.55*
0.30*
Tree nuts spray
6 at 0.0239
7 days
23.86
4.18*
0.27*
Wheat
2 at 0.0311
3 days
13.82
2.42*
0.11*
*RQ exceeds LOC of 0.1.
University of California and USDA 2004
As part of the ECOTOX open literature search, studies on mixtures were reviewed to determine
if they contained information relevant for the risk assessment. No studies tested mixture
products that are currently registered by EPA; however, there were six studies that tested
mixtures of lambda-cyhalothrin with other active ingredients (e.g., tank mixtures). Of these, two
presented results relevant to this risk assessment. Wang et al. 2005 examined the synergistic
199
-------
effects of a number of chemicals mixed with abamectin; it was found that there were no
significant increases in toxicological effects when lambda-cyhalothrin and abamectin were
mixed. Hardke et al. 2005 found that lambda-cyhalothrin (insecticide) mixed with glyphosate
(herbicide) resulted in significantly lower phytotoxicity damage than glyphosate alone.
Although the target organisms (insects versus plants) are not the same, this study does document
an instance where mixing lambda-cyhalothrin with another chemical decreases the efficacy of
the other chemical. Measurements of lambda-cyhalothrin's efficacy were not performed in this
study.
5.4. Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the
Endangered Species Levels of Concern
The Agency uses the probit dose response relationship as a tool for providing additional
information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic
animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (USEPA, 2004). As part of the
risk characterization, an interpretation of acute RQs for listed species is discussed. This
interpretation is presented in terms of the chance of an individual event {i.e., mortality or
immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species with sensitivity to
/awMa-cyhalothrin on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation. To
accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose response relationship
available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each
taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated
with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose
response relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean,
upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in
the slope, if available.
Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1
(Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental
Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such calculations by entering
the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter
for the spreadsheet. In addition, the acute RQ is entered as the desired threshold (Table 5-16).
Table 5-16. Summary of Individual Effect Probabilities for LamMa-Cyhalothrin Exposure
at Scenarios that Produce RQs that Exceed the LOC
Taxa
Aculc UQ
(range)
Probit Slope
Chance of Effect
(1 in...) (range)
Terrestrial Invertebrate LD50 = 0.30 |ig a.i./gbee
18.1-1172
4.5 (Default slope)
1-1
Small Bird LD50 = 2051 mg ai/kg-bw
0.42-0.50
4.5 (Default slope)
11-22
Medium Amphibian LD50 = 3950 mg ai/kg-bw
0.19-0.23
4.5 (Default slope)
491-1710
Medium Reptile LD50 = 3950 mg ai/kg-bw
0.18-0.22
4.5 (Default slope)
648-2490
Small Mammal LD50 = 123 mg/kg-bw
0.11-6.96
4.5 (Default slope)
1-125000
FW Fish LC50 = 0.078 ng ai/L
0.12-64
4.5 (Default slope)
1-58500
FW Invertebrate EC50 = 1.4 ng ai/L
0.57-3571
4.5 (Default slope)
1-7
FW Benthic Invertebrate EC50 = 1.4 ng ai/L
0.71-3571
4.5 (Default slope)
1-4
E/M Fish LC50 = 0.807 ng ai/L
0.052-6.2
4.5 (Default slope)
1-265000000
E/M Invertebrate LC50 = 0.0049 ng ai/L
0.16-1020
4.5 (Default slope)
1-5850
E/M Benthic Invertebrate LC50 = 0.0049 ng ai/L
0.08-1020
4.5 (Default slope)
1-2510000
200
-------
5.5. Ear Tag Assessment
For terrestrial exposures based on ear tag uses of lambda-cyhalothrin (e.g., CCR), a screening-
level assessment of the potential magnitude of exposure in comparison with toxicological
endpoints was conducted. Typically, an assessment of the mass of material per unit area and the
acute oral dose (LD50) is used to establish an index of potential acute avian toxic risk (LD5o/ft).
The screening level assessment for acute avian effects in the case of pesticide application to
livestock is based on the index of LDso/animal. Magpies were chosen as a model species
because they are known to forage for insects on the backs of cows. According to the product
label (Saber Extra Insecticide Ear Tags - 773-75), there are two ear tags per cow, thus the total
lambda-cyhalothrin mass per animal is 1.9 g (0.95 g ai/ear tag). If this mass is assumed to be
100 % available to a magpie (weight 170 g), the total available mass of lambda-cyhalothrin
would be 0.011 g ai/g of bird or 11 g ai/kg or 11,000 mg ai/kg. The most sensitive LD50 (based
on limited registrant-submitted data) is 3950 mg ai/kg-bw (mallard duck). Thus, the potential
avian acute index would be 2780 LD50/animal, which is below the most sensitive LD50 however;
chronic toxicity may be a concern (NOAEC = 5 mg ai/kg-diet).
For aquatic exposures, ear tags were assessed by considering the number of tags that would need
to fall into a pond to result in concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin that would be toxic to
aquatic organisms. The assessment is based on an assumption of 100% availability of the
/awMa-cyhalothrin in an ear tag to surface water once the tag is immersed. With this
assumption regarding availability, one ear tag dropping into the EFED standard farm pond
(20,000,000 L volume), would result in a theoretical water concentration of 0.0000000475 g/L or
0.0475 ug/L. Since the LC50 for freshwater fish is 0.078 |ig ai/L (golden orfe) and the chronic
NOEL is 0.024 |ig ai/L (ACR for golden orfe), it would take only two ear tags (i.e., one cow) to
trigger acute risk concerns and one ear tag to trigger chronic concerns.
Similar calculations were performed to evaluate potential risk to aquatic invertebrates. Given the
theoretical water concentration 0.0475 ug/L, it would take only one ear tag to trigger acute and
chronic risk concerns, since the LC50 for freshwater invertebrates (the most sensitive freshwater
organisms tested) is 0.0014 |ig ai/L (scud) and the chronic NOAEC is 0.000008 |ig ai/L (ACR
for scud).
5.5.1. Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat
For lambda-cyhalothrin use, the assessment endpoints for designated critical habitat PCEs
involve the same endpoints as those being assessed relative to the potential for direct and indirect
effects to the listed species assessed here. Therefore, the effects determinations for direct and
indirect effects are used as the basis of the effects determination for potential modification to
designated critical habitat.
5.6. Risk Description
The risk description synthesizes overall conclusions regarding the likelihood of adverse effects
leading to a preliminary effects determination (i.e., "no effect," "may affect, but not likely to
201
-------
adversely affect," or "likely to adversely affect") for the assessed species and the potential for
modification of their designated critical habitat based on analysis of risk quotients and a
comparison to the Level of Concern. The final No Effect/May Affect determination is made
after the spatial analysis is completed at the end of the risk description, Section 5.6.9. In Section
5.6.9, a discussion of any potential overlap between areas where potential usage may result in
LAA effects and areas where species are expected to occur (including any designated critical
habitat) is presented. If there is no overlap of the species habitat and occurrence sections with
the Potential Area of LAA Effects, a No Effect determination is made.
If the RQs presented in the Risk Estimation (Section 5.1) show no direct or indirect effects for
the assessed species, and no modification to PCEs of the designated critical habitat, a
preliminary "no effect" determination is made, based on lambda-cyhalothrin's use within the
action area. However, if LOCs for direct or indirect effect are exceeded or effects may modify
the PCEs of the critical habitat, the Agency concludes a preliminary "may affect" determination
for the FIFRA regulatory action regarding lambda-cyhalothrin. Based on this risk estimation
process described above, all species in this assessment, the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS),
DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB have a preliminary "may affect" determination. A summary of the
risk estimation results are provided in Table 5-17 for direct and indirect effects to the listed
species assessed here and the PCEs of their designated critical habitat.
Table 5-17. Risk Estimation Summary for LamMa-Cyhalothrin - Direct and Indirect
Effects
Taxa
LOC
Exccedanccs
(Yes/No)
Description of Results of Risk
Estimation
Assessed
Species
Potentially
Affected
Species
Associated with
a Designated
Critical Habitat
that May Be
Modified by the
Assessed Action
Freshwater Fish
and Aquatic-
phase
Amphibians
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
More than half of the uses exceeded the
non-listed acute LOC (0.5). About 30% of
the uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1).
These uses include: mustard cabbage
(ground); cabbage, kohlrabi (ground);
mustard (ground); airports/landing fields
(ground); seed orchard trees (ground); rice
(ground); recreational areas (crack and
crevice/spot treatment); residential lawns
(mound); paved areas (ground);
ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
over, herbaceous plants, non-flowering
plants, woody shrubs and vines, roses
(dust); lettuce (aerial and ground); garlic
(aerial); fruiting vegetables (aerial); forest
plantings (ground); sweet corn (aerial,
dust, and in furrow); conifers
(plantations/nurseries) (ground); conifer
seed orchard (ground); cole crops (aerial
and ground); Brussels sprouts (dust);
broccoli, cauliflower (ground); brassica
Indirect
Effects
(prev
items):
CCR, CTS
(all DPS),
SFGS
CTS-CC, CTS-
SB, DS, TG
202
-------
Taxa
LOC
Exccedanccs
(Yes/No)
Description of Results of Risk
Estimation
Assessed
Species
Potentially
Affected
Species
Associated with
a Designated
Critical Habitat
that May Be
Modified by the
Assessed Action
head and stem vegetables (aerial); bell
pepper, catjang (aerial);
household/domestic dwellings, outdoor
premises (ground); alfalfa (aerial).
Listed
Species (Yes)
All but two of the uses (trunk drench for
cherry, peach, nectarine, and apple)
exceeded the acute listed species LOC
(0.05). Approximately 30% of the uses
exceeded the chronic LOC (listed in the
above row).
Direct
Effects:
CTS (all
DPS), DS,
TG
Freshwater
Invertebrates
(Non-Benthic)
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
All uses exceeded the acute non-listed
LOC (0.5) and chronic LOC (1).
Indirect
Effects
(prev
items):
CCR,
CFWS,
CTS (all
DPS), DS,
SFGS, TG
CTS-CC, CTS-
SB, DS, TG
Listed
Species (Yes)
All uses exceeded the acute listed LOC
(0.05) and chronic LOC (1).
Direct
Effects:
CFWS
Freshwater
Benthic
Invertebrates
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
All but five uses [nectarine, apple, peach,
cherry trunk drench; golf course turf,
ornamental sod farm (ground); potato
(ground); recreational areas (banding)]
exceeded the acute non-listed LOC (0.5).
All uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1).
Indirect
Effects
(prev
items):
CCR,
CFWS,
CTS (all
DPS), DS,
SFGS, TG
CTS-CC, CTS-
SB, DS, TG
Listed
Species (Yes)
All but two uses (nectarine, apple, peach,
cherry trunk drench) exceeded the acute
listed LOC (0.05). All uses exceeded the
chronic LOC.
Direct
Effects:
CFWS
Estuarine/Marine
Fish
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
Ten uses exceeded the acute non-listed
LOC (0.5) for /cwM/«/fl-cyhalothrin. These
uses are: alfalfa (aerial); household/
domestic dwellings, outdoor premises
(ground); conifer plantations and nurseries
(ground); conifer seed orchards (ground);
ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
cover, herbaceous plants, non-flowering
Indirect
Effects
(prev
items):
CCR
DS, TG
203
-------
Taxa
LOC
Exccedanccs
(Yes/No)
Description of Results of Risk
Estimation
Assessed
Species
Potentially
Affected
Species
Associated with
a Designated
Critical Habitat
that May Be
Modified by the
Assessed Action
plants, woody shrubs and vines, roses
(dust); paved areas (ground); residential
lawns (mound); seed orchard trees
(ground). The chronic LOC (1) was
exceeded for two uses: rice (ground);
ornamental and/or shade trees, ground
cover, herbaceous plants, non-flowering
plants, woody shrubs and vines, rose
(dust).
Listed
Species (Yes)
Approximately 65% of the uses exceeded
the acute LOC (0.05). Chronic LOCs were
exceeded for six uses (see row above).
Direct
Effects:
DS, TG
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates
(Non-Benthic)
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
All but two uses (nectarine, peach, cherry,
apple trunk drench) exceeded the acute
non-listed species LOC (0.5). Only one
use did not exceed the chronic LOC (1)
(apple trunk drench).
Indirect
Effects
(prev
items):
CCR, DS,
TG
DS, TG
Estuarine/Marine
Benthic
Invertebrates
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
Most uses exceeded the acute non-listed
species LOC (0.5). All but two uses
(nectarine, cherry, peach, and apple trunk
drench) exceeded the chronic LOC (1).
Indirect
Effects
(prev
items):
CCR, DS,
TG
DS, TG
Birds, Reptiles,
and Terrestrial-
Phase
Amphibians
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
Based on T-REX modeling, acute RQs
exceeded the non-listed species LOC (0.5)
for two uses for birds (household/domestic
dwellings outdoor premises barrier and
crack and crevice treatment; and
recreational areas crack and crevice and
spot treatment). TheT-HERPS
refinements for these uses resulted in RQs
that did not exceed the non-listed species
LOC for reptiles and terrestrial-phase
amphibians. All of the "spray" uses
exceeded the chronic LOC (1) for birds,
reptiles, and terrestrial-phase amphibians
(T-REX and T-HERPS modeling). The
following non-spray uses did not: corn
(field, sweet, pop) (soil in-furrow/T-
banding); airports/landing fields
(granular); golf course turf, ornamental sod
farm (granular); grasses grown for seed
Indirect
Effects:
CCR, CTS
(all DPS),
SFGS
CTS-CC, CTS-
SB
204
-------
LOC
Exccedanccs
(Yes/No)
Description of Results of Risk
Estimation
Assessed
Species
Potential Iv
Species
Associated with
a Designated
Taxa
Affected
Critical Habitat
that May Be
Modified by the
Assessed Action
(granular); nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soil (granular band and mound);
residential lawns (granular ground and
mound).
Listed
Species (Yes)
Based on T-REX modeling and T-HERPS
refinements, acute RQs exceeded the listed
LOC (0.1) for three uses (animal housing
premises paths/patios barrier treatment -
birds only; household/domestic dwellings
outdoor premises barrier and crack and
crevice treatment; ornamental and/or shade
trees, ground cover, herbaceous plants, non
flowering plants, woody shrubs and vines,
and rose ground and dust application; and
recreational areas crack and crevice and
spot treatment). Chronic RQs were
exceeded as described in the row above.
Direct
Effects:
CCR, CTS
(all DPS),
SFGS
Mammals
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
Based on T-REX modeling, acute RQs
exceeded the non-listed LOC (0.5) for a
number of uses (seed orchard trees;
recreational areas, crack and crevice spot
treatment; paved areas; ornamental and/or
shade trees, ground cover, herbaceous
plants, non flowering plants, woody shrubs
and vines, and rose ground and dust
application; ornamental and/or shade trees,
ground; conifers (seed orchard);
commercial/industrial lawns, ornamental
lawns and turf, recreation area lawns,
mound/spot treatment/ground; animal
housing premises, paths/patios, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice; household/
domestic dwellings outdoor premises
barrier and crack and crevice treatment;
apple, cherry, crabapple, nectarine, peach,
pear, plum, prune, ground dust and spray;
almond, ground dust and spray; and
agricultural/farm premises, crack and
crevice/surface spray/perimeter treatment).
With the exception of alfalfa; apple trunk
drench; beechnut, Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut, chinquapin, hickory nut,
macadamia nut; barley; brassica head and
stem vegetables; Brussels sprouts (ground
spray); buckwheat, oat, rye; canola/rape;
grass forage/ fodder/hay, pastures,
rangeland; cereal grains, triticale, wheat;
Indirect
Effects:
(prey items)
CCR
(prey items
and habitat)
CTS (all
DPS), SFGS
CTS-CC, CTS-
SB
205
-------
Taxa
LOC
Excccdanccs
(Yes/No)
Description of Results of Risk
Estimation
Assessed
Species
Potentially
Affected
Species
Associated with
a Designated
Critical Habitat
that May Be
Modified by the
Assessed Action
field corn; sweet corn (spray, soil-in-
furrow); cotton; golf course turf
ornamental sod farm (ground and
granular); legume vegetables; peanuts, root
and tuber vegetables; potato; rice;
sunflower; airports/landing fields
(granular); grasses grown for seed
(granular); nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soil (granular); residential lawns
(granular); sorghum; and soybean, all
other uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1).
Listed
Species (Yes)
Based on T-REX modeling, acute RQs
exceeded the listed LOC (0.1) for all uses
except soybean and the in-furrow corn
treatments. See above row for the uses
that exceeded the chronic LOC.
Direct
Effects:
None
Listed
Species (Yes)
Direct
Effects:
BCB,
VELB
BCB, VELB
Terrestrial
RQs exceeded the listed and non-listed
species LOC for all uses.
Invertebrates
Non-listed
Species (Yes)
Indirect
Effects:
CCR, CTS
(all DPS),
SFGS
CTS-CC, CTS-
SB
Following a preliminary "may affect" determination, additional information is considered to
refine the potential for exposure at the predicted levels based on the life history characteristics
{i.e., habitat range, feeding preferences, etc) of the assessed species. Based on the best available
information, the Agency uses the refined evaluation to distinguish those actions that "may affect,
but are not likely to adversely affect" from those actions that are "likely to adversely affect" the
assessed species and its designated critical habitat.
The criteria used to make determinations that the effects of an action are "not likely to adversely
affect" the assessed species or modify its designated critical habitat include the following:
• Significance of Effect: Insignificant effects are those that cannot be meaningfully
measured, detected, or evaluated in the context of a level of effect where "take" occurs
for even a single individual. "Take" in this context means to harass or harm, defined as
the following:
206
-------
¦ Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in
death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
¦ Harass is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species
to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
• Likelihood of the Effect Occurring: Discountable effects are those that are extremely
unlikely to occur.
• Adverse Nature of Effect: Effects that are wholly beneficial without any adverse effects
are not considered adverse.
A description of the risk and effects determination for each of the established assessment
endpoints for the assessed species and their designated critical habitat is provided in Sections
5.2.1 through 5.2.8. The effects determination section for each listed species assessed will
follow a similar pattern. Each will start with a discussion of the potential for direct effects,
followed by a discussion of the potential for indirect effects. These discussions do not consider
the spatial analysis. For those listed species that have designated critical habitat, the section will
end with a discussion on the potential for modification to the critical habitat from the use of
lambda-cyhalothrin. Finally, in Section 5.6.9, a discussion of any potential overlap between
areas of concern and the species (including any designated critical habitat) is presented. If there
is no overlap of the species habitat and occurrence sections with the Potential Area of LAA
Effects, a No Effect determination is made.
5.6.1. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly
5.6.1.a. Direct Effects
RQs for all lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the LOC (0.05) for direct effects to the BCB,
resulting in a preliminary "may affect" determination. Lambda-cyhalothrin is an insecticide and
thus it is expected to have adverse effects on insects. However, it should be noted that there is
uncertainty regarding the use of honeybee data as a surrogate for lepidopteran species (Hoang et
al. 2011).
Four incidents involving terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees) were reported for lambda-
cyhalothrin in the EIIS database. All reported large numbers of dead bees and the loss or partial
loss of hives (22 to 92 hives) as a result of lambda-cyhalothrin applications. One of the incidents
involved lambda-cyhalothrin and another insecticide/acaricide, but the other three involved
lambda-cyhalothrin only. Of these, one of them was a misuse because the application occurred
during bee flight activity.
There were two non-guideline studies on honeybees that were submitted to the Agency. One of
the studies (MRID 40436303) documented possible repellency effects of lambda-cyhalothrin to
honeybees. Honeybee response was observed via a choice test with simulated honeydew. The
results indicated that honeybees preferred the honeydew samples without lambda-cyhalothrin. A
honeybee foliage acute toxicity test (MRID 4043602) established LT50 values for two typical
lambda-cyhalothrin application rates - 0.013 and 0.031 lb ai/A). LT50S ranged from 4 to 12
207
-------
hours at the lower application rate to 23 hours at the higher application rate. Likewise, the
NOEL was identified as 24 to 96 hours, depending on the application rate. These results suggest
that honeybees, and possibly other insects, may experience adverse effects up to 4 days after an
application of lambda-cyhalothrin is made (0.031 lb ai/A rate).
No open literature studies were available specifically for lambda-cyhalothrin on insects.
The probability of an individual effect for a BCB is high: 1 in 1 (100%) for all application rates
(Appendix N). These probabilities are calculated based on the acute RQs and the default probit
slope of 4.5.
Based on the weight of evidence presented here, there is a potential for direct effects to the BCB
as a result of lambda-cyhalothrin uses.
5.6.1.b. Indirect Effects
The BCB relies on terrestrial dicot plants exclusively for both food and habitat and has an
obligate relationship with dicots (dwarf plaintain species). Eggs are laid on a native plantain
which the larvae feed upon; if this food is not sufficient for development, the larvae may move
onto owl's clover. The adult butterflies live on nectar, feeding on a variety of plants. The BCB
inhabits grasslands on serpentine soils, such as the Montara soil series; populations now remain
only in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested; the maximum application rate
for lambda-cyhalothrin is 2 lb ai/A. In addition, four incidents were identified in the EIIS; three
incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin and one was listed as
unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-cyhalothrin was the only
pesticide used in three of the reported incidents. Twenty-six plant incidents were recorded in the
IDS; however, no additional information was available. Given the reported incidents for
terrestrial plants and the lack of toxicity information, effects to non-target plants, including the
obligate host - dwarf plantain speces - cannot be precluded. Therefore, there is the potential for
indirect effects to the BCB.
5.6.1.c. Modification of Designated Critical Habitat
Based on the assessment of direct and indirect effects to the BCB above, the modification of
designated critical habitat for the BCB is possible.
208
-------
5.6.2. California Clapper Rail
5.6.2.a. Direct Effects
Three lambda-cyhalothrin uses resulted in acute RQs that exceed the LOC for direct effects to
the CCR. All lambda-cyhalothrin "spray" uses yielded chronic RQs that exceed the LOCs for
direct effects to the CCR. Thus, a preliminary "may affect" determination is appropriate.
No incidents involving birds have been reported. No open literature studies on the effects of
lambda-cyhalothrin on birds or terrestrial-phase amphibians have been identified. The only sub-
lethal effect reported from registrant-submitted studies was a slight loss in weight during the first
days immediately following the consumption of lambda-cyhalothrin. Recovery occurred by the
end of the study.
The probability of an individual effect for a CCR based on avian toxicity data is between 1 in 11
(9%) and 1 in 22 (4.5%) for the three lambda-cyhalothrin application rates (animal housing
premises paths/patios barrier treatment - birds only; household/domestic dwellings outdoor
premises barrier and crack and crevice treatment; ornamental and/or shade trees, ground cover,
herbaceous plants, non flowering plants, woody shrubs and vines, and rose ground and dust
application; and recreational areas crack and crevice and spot treatment) with RQs above the
LOC (Appendix N). These probabilities are calculated based on acute RQs and the default probit
slope of 4.5.
At higher application rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk for birds eating aquatic prey; however,
those application rates also exceeded acute LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before
bioaccumulation occurred. At lower application rates (< 0.1 lb ai/A), bioaccumulation does not
pose risks to piscivorous birds.
Based on the weight of evidence presented here, there is a potential for direct effects to the CCR
as a result of lambda-cyhalothrin uses.
5.6.2.b. Indirect Effects
The CCR is a generalist and opportunistic feeder that forages at the upper end of marshes, along
the ecotone between mudflat and higher vegetated zones, and in tidal sloughs. Mussels, clams,
arthropods, snails, worms and small fish are its preferred foods, which it retrieves by probing and
scavenging the surface while walking. The bird will only forage on mudflats or very shallow
water where there is taller plant material nearby to provide protection at high tide. Although
CCRs typically consume invertebrates, they have also been known to occasionally consume
small birds and mammals, including the salt marsh harvest mouse. The CCR diet may contain
up to 15% plant material.
Indirect effects to the CCR via loss of prey species and plant foods are evaluated using toxicity
data and other information gathered on freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates,
estuarine/marine fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, small mammals,
terrestrial invertebrates, and terrestrial plants.
209
-------
The CCR inhabits cordgrass marshes around San Francisco Bay. CCR juveniles can disperse a
sufficient distance to be found in both residential and agricultural areas east of SF Bay and along
the open coast.
Freshwater Fish
Approximately 65% of the scenarios yielded acute RQs that exceeded the acute non-listed
species LOC (0.5) and about 30% of the scenarios exceeded the chronic LOC (1). The
18
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species is between 1 in 5.24 x 10 and 1 in 1
(100%).
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater fish, see Section 5.2.5.a.
Indirect effects to the CCR are possible based on this prey component.
Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all uses for freshwater invertebrates and
most uses for freshwater benthic invertebrates. Chronic RQs were exceeded for all of the
freshwater benthic and non-benthic invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect for a
non-listed species freshwater invertebrate is between 1 in 7 (14%) and 1 in 1 (100%). The
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of freshwater benthic invertebrates is
between 1 in 2.75 x 1016 and 1 in 1 (100%).
There were three incidents reported specifically for a freshwater invertebrate (crayfish) in the
EIIS database. Detailed information was only available for one of them. The incident was listed
as "highly probable" to have occurred as the result of lambda-cyhalothrin exposure. It involved
the aerial application (registered use) of Karate to cotton in Wilson County, Texas in 2004. An
unreported number of crayfish were observed to be dead. The listed route of exposure was
through spray drift.
Therefore, indirect effects to the CCR are possible based on this prey component.
Estuarine/Marine Fish
Ten of the lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the acute non-listed LOC (0.5) and two of the uses
exceed the chronic LOC (1) for estuarine/marine fish. The probability of an individual effect for
a non-listed species is between 1 in 1.28 x 1041 and 1 in 1 (100%).
Based on the weight of evidence presented here, indirect effects to the CCR are possible based
on this prey component.
Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceeded the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all but two of the estuarine/marine
invertebrate scenarios and for more than 50% of the estuarine/marine benthic invertebrate use
210
-------
scenarios. Chronic RQs exceeded the chronic LOC (1.0) for all but one estuarine/marine
invertebrates use scenarios and all but two scenarios for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates.
The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates
is between 1 in 5850 and 1 in 1 (100%). The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed
species of estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates is between 1 in 5.25 x 1026 and 1 in 1 (100%).
There are no incident reports or open literature studies available on the effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on estuarine/marine invertebrates or estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates; however,
incidents on invertebrates are unlikely to be noticed and reported to the Agency.
Considering the weight of evidence, indirect effects to the CCR based on this prey component
are possible.
Aquatic Plants
Toxicity data were not available for vascular aquatic plants, thus non-vascular plants were used
as a surrogate. The non-vascular plant EC50 was greater than 310 |ig ai/L. RQs cannot be
calculated from a non-definitive value; however, 310 |ig ai/L is much greater than the largest
peak surface water EEC (179.7 |ig ai/L). Another Class II pyrethroid, fenvalerate, had algae and
diatom toxicity values of > 1000 |ig ai/L, thus lending support that Class II pyrethroids are not
very toxic to aquatic plants. Based on these lines of evidence, it is unlikely that there would be
adverse effects to aquatic plants from the maximum use rate of lambda-cyhalothrin.
Indirect effects to the CCR based on this food and habitat component are not likely.
Birds
For the same reasons that are detailed in the CCR direct effects section, indirect effects to the
CCR are possible based on risk to small avian prey. Two of the registered uses exceeded the
non-listed species LOC (0.5) in T-REX. The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed
18
avian species ranges from less than 1 in 8.86 x 10 to 1 in 11 (9%).
Small Mammals
Many use scenarios produced acute and chronic RQs that exceed both the listed and non-listed
species LOCs. The probability of an individual effect ranges from 1 in 791,000 (0.00012%) to 1
in 1 (100%>) for all uses. These probabilities are based on acute LOCs and the default probit
slope (4.5). At higher application rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk to mammals; however,
those application rates also exceeded acute LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before
bioaccumulation occurred. At lower application rates (< 0.1 lb ai/A), bioaccumulation does not
pose risks to mammals.
Therefore, indirect effects to the CCR are possible based on risk to small mammalian prey.
211
-------
Terrestrial Invertebrates
For the same reasons that are detailed in the BCB and VELB direct effects sections, indirect
effects to the CCR are possible, based on risk to terrestrial invertebrate prey.
Terrestrial Plants
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the CCR.
5.6.3. California Freshwater Shrimp
5.6.3.a. Direct Effects
Acute and chronic RQs exceeded the listed species LOCs (acute = 0.05, chronic = 1) for all use
scenarios, resulting in a preliminary "may affect" determination. The probability of an
individual effect for listed freshwater invertebrates ranged from 1 in 1 (100%) to 1 in 7 (14%).
These probabilities were calculated based on acute RQs and the default probit slope of 4.5. The
ear tag use screening assessment indicated it would take only one ear tag to trigger acute and
chronic risk concerns.
There were three incidents reported specifically for a freshwater invertebrate (crayfish) in the
EIIS database. Detailed information was only available for one of them. The incident was listed
as "highly probable" to have occurred as the result of lambda-cyhalothrin exposure. It involved
the aerial application (registered use) of Karate to cotton in Wilson County, Texas in 2004. An
unreported number of crayfish were observed to be dead. The listed route of exposure was
through spray drift.
Based on the weight of evidence, direct effects are possible to the CFWS.
5.6.3.b. Indirect Effects
The CFWS relies on aquatic and terrestrial plants for both food and habitat. The CFWS feeds on
decomposing vegetation and other detritus, consuming minute diverse particles conveyed by
212
-------
currents to downstream pools, which includes zooplankton. The CFWS is found only in low
elevation perennial streams or intermittent streams with perennial pools in the northern San
Francisco Bay Area. Freshwater shrimp require low gradient streams with diverse habitat
structure including undercut banks, exposed roots, woody debris and overhanging vegetation.
Indirect effects to the CFWS via loss of food and habitat are evaluated using toxicity data and
other information gathered on freshwater invertebrates, aquatic plants, and terrestrial plants.
Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all uses for freshwater invertebrates and
most uses for freshwater benthic invertebrates. Chronic RQs were exceeded for all of the
freshwater benthic and non-benthic invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect for a
non-listed species freshwater invertebrate is between 1 in 7 (14%) and 1 in 1 (100%). The
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of freshwater benthic invertebrates is
between 1 in 2.75 x 1016 and 1 in 1 (100%). In addition, the reasons outlined in the CFWS direct
effect section also are applicable.
Therefore, indirect effects to the CFWS are possible based on risk to freshwater invertebrate prey
items.
Aquatic Plants
Toxicity data were not available for vascular aquatic plants, thus non-vascular plants were used
as a surrogate. The non-vascular plant EC50 was greater than 310 |ig ai/L. RQs cannot be
calculated from a non-definitive value; however, 310 jug ai/L is much greater than the largest
peak surface water EEC (179.7 |ig ai/L). Another Class II pyrethroid, fenvalerate, had algae and
diatom toxicity values of > 1000 |ig ai/L, thus lending support that Class II pyrethroids are not
very toxic to aquatic plants. Based on these lines of evidence, it is unlikely that there would be
adverse effects to aquatic plants from the maximum use rate of lambda-cyhalothrin.
Indirect effects to the CFWS based on this food and habitat component are not likely.
Terrestrial Plants
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
213
-------
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the CFWS.
5.6.4. California Tiger Salamander (All DPS)
5.6.4.a. Direct Effects
Aquatic-phase
The aquatic-phase includes life stages of the CTS that are obligatory aquatic organisms,
including eggs and larvae. It also includes submerged terrestrial-phase juveniles and adults,
which spend a portion of their time in water bodies that may receive runoff and spray drift
containing lambda-cyhalothrin.
All but two scenarios yielded acute RQs that exceeded the listed species LOC (0.05) and about
30% of the scenarios exceeded the chronic LOC (1). The probability of an individual effect for
listed aquatic-phase amphibians was between 1 in 1 (100%) to 1 in 299,000 (0.0003%). These
probabilities were calculated based on acute RQs and the default probit slope (4.5). The ear tag
screening assessment indicated it would take only two ear tags (i.e., one cow) to trigger acute
risk concerns and one ear tag to trigger chronic concerns.
No incidents were reported for aquatic-phase amphibians.
Based on the lines of evidence, direct effects to the aquatic-phase CTS are possible.
Terrestrial-phase
Potential for direct effects to the terrestrial-phase CTS are assessed based on direct acute and
chronic toxicity effects to birds as a surrogate because of a lack of toxicity data for terrestrial-
phase amphibians. Three acute RQs and all chronic RQs for lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the
listed species LOC for direct effects to the terrestrial-phase CTS, resulting in a preliminary "may
affect" determination.
A refinement of the acute and chronic risks posed to the terrestrial-phase CTS was performed
using the T-HERPS model. Avian RQ values used as screening surrogates for terrestrial-phase
amphibians likely overestimate risks to amphibians because of the higher energy requirements of
birds over amphibians of the same body weight, which results in a higher daily food intake rate
value and a resultant higher dose-based exposure for birds than would occur for an amphibian of
the same body weight. The T-HERPS model refines the EEC and RQ values based on the
dietary intake rate of an amphibian, rather than a dietary intake rate of a bird. Acute RQs show a
slight decrease when modeled in T-HERPS, but remain above the listed species LOC for two of
the uses that posed acute risks to birds. Chronic RQ values increased under the T-HERPS
model, still exceeding the LOC for all uses. Model results from T-HERPS are from the most
sensitive RQs, medium amphibians (20 g) consuming herbivorous mammals.
214
-------
The probability of an individual effect for a CTS based on avian toxicity data is between 1 in 491
(0.2%) and 1 in 1710 (0.06%) for the full range of lambda-cyhalothrin application rates (Table 4-
7). These probabilities are calculated based on acute RQs and the default probit slope of 4.5.
No incidents were reported specifically for terrestrial-phase amphibians, but there were 22 minor
fish and wildlife incidents in the IDS. It is uncertain if any of these pertained to amphibians.
Based on the weight of evidence presented here, direct effects to the terrestrial-phase CTS as a
result of lambda-cyhalothrin uses are possible.
5.6.4.b. Indirect Effects
CTS larvae are only able to eat small crustaceans, algae, and mosquito larvae. When they are
large enough, they begin to consume aquatic insects, invertebrates and tadpoles of Pacific
treefrogs, California red-legged frogs, western toads, and spadefoot toads. The terrestrial-phase
CTS feeds on terrestrial invertebrates, insects, frogs, worms, and small mammals. Indirect
effects to the CTS via loss of prey species are evaluated using toxicity data and other information
gathered on freshwater invertebrates, freshwater fish, terrestrial invertebrates, and small
mammals.
The CTS inhabits low elevation vernal pools and seasonal ponds and associated grassland, oak
savannah, and coastal scrub plant communities. Juvenile and adult CTS spend the dry summer
and fall months in the burrows of California ground squirrels {Spermophilus beecheyi) and
Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). The CTS cannot dig their own burrows; as a result,
their presence is associated with active burrows of these small mammals. Indirect effects to the
CTS through potential modification of habitat are evaluated based on the effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on aquatic plants, terrestrial plants, and small mammals.
Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all uses for freshwater invertebrates and
most uses for freshwater benthic invertebrates. Chronic RQs were exceeded for all of the
freshwater benthic and non-benthic invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect for a
non-listed species freshwater invertebrate is between 1 in 7 (14%) and 1 in 1 (100%). The
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of freshwater benthic invertebrates is
between 1 in 2.75 x 1016 and 1 in 1 (100%).
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater invertebrates, see Section 5.2.3.a.
The evidence suggest that indirect effects to the CTS are possible based on this prey component.
Freshwater Fish/Amphibians
Approximately 65% of the scenarios yielded acute RQs that exceeded the acute non-listed
species LOC (0.5) and about 30% of the scenarios exceeded the chronic LOC (1). The
18
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of fish is between 1 in 5.24 x 10 and
215
-------
1 in 1 (100%). At higher application rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk for amphibians (using
birds as a surrogate) eating aquatic prey; however, those application rates also exceeded acute
LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before bioaccumulation occurred. At lower application
rates (< 0.1 lb ai/A), bioaccumulation does not pose risks to amphibians.
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater fish, see Section 5.2.5.a.
Considering the lines of evidence, indirect effects to the CTS are possible based on this prey
component.
Terrestrial Invertebrates
For the same reasons that are detailed in the BCB and VELB direct effects sections, indirect
effects to the CTS are possible based on risk to terrestrial invertebrate prey.
Small Mammals
Mammals are part of the CTS diet. In addition, juvenile and adult CTS rely on the burrows of
small mammals for habitat in the dry summer and fall months. Many use scenarios produced
acute and chronic RQs that exceed both the listed and non-listed species LOCs. The probability
of an individual effect ranges from 1 in 791,000 (0.00012%) to 1 in 1 (100%) for all uses. These
probabilities are based on acute LOCs and the default probit slope (4.5). At higher application
rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk to mammals; however, those application rates also exceeded
acute LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before bioaccumulation occurred. At lower
application rates (< 0.1 lb ai/A), bioaccumulation does not pose risks to mammals.
Therefore, indirect effects are anticipated to the CTS based on risk to small mammalian prey and
a reduction in small mammal burrows.
Aquatic Plants
Aquatic plants serve several important functions in aquatic ecosystems. Non-vascular aquatic
plants are primary producers and provide the autochthonous energy base for aquatic ecosystems.
Vascular plants provide structure, rather than energy, to the system, as attachment sites for many
aquatic invertebrates, and refugia for juvenile organisms, such as fish and frogs. Emergent
plants help reduce sediment loading and provide stability to nearshore areas and lower stream
banks. In addition, vascular aquatic plants are important as attachment sites for egg masses of
aquatic species.
Toxicity data were not available for vascular aquatic plants, thus non-vascular plants were used
as a surrogate. The non-vascular plant EC50 was greater than 310 |ig ai/L. RQs cannot be
calculated from a non-definitive value; however, 310 |ig ai/L is much greater than the largest
peak surface water EEC (179.7 |ig ai/L). Another Class II pyrethroid, fenvalerate, had algae and
diatom toxicity values of > 1000 |ig ai/L, thus lending support that Class II pyrethroids are not
very toxic to aquatic plants. Based on these lines of evidence, it is unlikely that there would be
adverse effects to aquatic plants from the maximum use rate of lambda-cyhalothrin.
216
-------
Indirect effects to the CTS based on this food and habitat component are not likely.
Terrestrial Plants
Terrestrial plants serve several important habitat-related functions for the listed assessed species.
In addition to providing habitat and cover for invertebrate and vertebrate prey items of the listed
assessed species, terrestrial vegetation also provides shelter and cover from predators while
foraging. Upland vegetation, including grassland and woodlands, provides cover during
dispersal. Riparian vegetation helps to maintain the integrity of aquatic systems by providing
bank and thermal stability, serving as a buffer to filter out sediment, nutrients, and contaminants
before they reach the water, and serving as an energy source.
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the CTS.
5.6.4.C. Modification of Designated Critical Habitat
Based on the assessment of direct and indirect effects to the CTS, the modification of designated
critical habitat for the CTS-CC and CTS-SB may occur. There is no designated critical habitat
for the CTS-SC.
5.6.5. Delta Smelt
5.6.5.a. Direct Effects
All but two uses exceed the acute LOC for listed species and nearly a third of the uses exceed the
chronic LOC for freshwater fish. More than half of lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the acute
LOC and five of the uses exceed the chronic LOC for estuarine/marine fish. The probability of
an individual effect for listed freshwater fish ranged from 1 in 1 (100%) to 1 in 299,000
(0.0003%). The probability of an individual effect for listed estuarine/marine fish ranged from 1
in 265,000,000 to 1 in 1 (100%). These probabilities were calculated based on acute RQs and
the default probit slope (4.5). The ear tag screening assessment indicated that it would take only
two ear tags (i.e., one cow) to trigger acute risk concerns and one ear tag to trigger chronic
concerns.
217
-------
There were four incidents involving fish that were reported in the EIIS database. The incidents
caused mortality in bream (hundreds), catfish (250), bass (many, 200), and unknown fish (16);
they were reported as "probable" and "possible" to have been caused by the application of
lambda-cyhalothrin. Twenty-two minor incidents to fish and wildlife were reported in the IDS
database; it is uncertain how many of these affected fish versus terrestrial wildlife.
Based on the weight of evidence, direct effects to the DS are possible; therefore, a preliminary
"may affect" determination is made.
5.6.5.b. Indirect Effects
As discussed in Attachment II, the diet of DS is composed primarily of zooplankton, particularly
copepods. Therefore, freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates as well as unicellular
aquatic plants are considered as prey groups for determining indirect effects to the DS caused by
direct effects to its prey.
Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all uses for freshwater invertebrates and
most uses for freshwater benthic invertebrates. Chronic RQs were exceeded for all of the
freshwater benthic and non-benthic invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect for a
non-listed species freshwater invertebrate is between 1 in 7 (14%) and 1 in 1 (100%). The
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of freshwater benthic invertebrates is
between 1 in 2.75 x 1016 and 1 in 1 (100%).
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater invertebrates, see Section 5.2.3.a.
Therefore, indirect effects to the DS are possible based on this prey component.
Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceeded the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all but two of the estuarine/marine
invertebrate scenarios and for more than 50% of the estuarine/marine benthic invertebrate use
scenarios. Chronic RQs exceeded the chronic LOC (1.0) for all but one estuarine/marine
invertebrates use scenarios and all but two scenarios for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates.
The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates
is between 1 in 5850 and 1 in 1 (100%). The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed
species of estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates is between 1 in 5.25 x 1026 and 1 in 1 (100%).
There are no incident reports or open literature studies available on the effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on estuarine/marine invertebrates or estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates; however,
incidents on invertebrates are unlikely to be noticed and reported to the Agency.
Based on the weight of evidence, indirect effects to the DS based on this prey component are
possible.
218
-------
Aquatic Plants
Toxicity data were not available for vascular aquatic plants, thus non-vascular plants were used
as a surrogate. The non-vascular plant EC50 was greater than 310 |ig ai/L. RQs cannot be
calculated from a non-definitive value; however, 310 |ig ai/L is much greater than the largest
peak surface water EEC (179.7 |ig ai/L). Another Class II pyrethroid, fenvalerate, had algae and
diatom toxicity values of > 1000 |ig ai/L, thus lending support that Class II pyrethroids are not
very toxic to aquatic plants. Based on these lines of evidence, it is unlikely that there would be
adverse effects to aquatic plants from the maximum use rate of lambda-cyhalothrin.
Indirect effects to the DS based on this food and habitat component are not likely.
Terrestrial Plants
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the DS.
5.6.5.C. Modification of Designated Critical Habitat
Based on the assessment of direct and indirect effects to the DS, the modification of designated
critical habitat for the DS is possible.
5.6.6. San Francisco Garter Snake
5.6.6.a. Direct Effects
Potential direct effects to the SFGS are assessed based on direct acute and chronic toxicity
effects to birds as a surrogate because of a lack of toxicity data for reptiles. Three acute RQs and
all chronic RQs for lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the listed species LOC for direct effects to
the SFGS, resulting in a preliminary "may affect" determination.
See Section 5.6.4.a for a description of the refinement of terrestrial acute and chronic risks
conducted using the T-HERPS model.
219
-------
The probability of an individual effect for a SFGS based on avian toxicity data is between 1 in
2490 (0.04%) and 1 in 648 (0.15%) for the full range of lambda-cyhalothrin application rates
(Appendix N). These probabilities are calculated based on acute RQs and the default probit
slope of 4.5.
At higher application rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk for reptiles eating aquatic prey;
however, those application rates also exceeded acute LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before
bioaccumulation occurred. At lower application rates, bioaccumulation does not pose risks to
reptiles.
Based on the weight of evidence presented here, direct effects to the SFGS as a result of lambda-
cyhalothrin uses are possible.
5.6.6.b. Indirect Effects
Adult SFGS feed primarily on California red-legged frogs and juvenile bullfrogs. Newborn and
juvenile snakes prey upon Pacific tree frogs. Small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, terrestrial
and aquatic invertebrates, and some fish species may also be consumed by the SFGS if they can
be captured in shallow water. Indirect effects to the SFGS via loss of prey species are evaluated
using toxicity data and other information gathered on freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates,
birds, small mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates.
The SFGS inhabits densely vegetated ponds near open hillsides where it can sun, feed, and find
cover in rodent burrows as well as forage extensively in aquatic habitats. Freshwater habitats
include natural and manmade (e.g. stock) ponds, slow moving streams, vernal pools and other
ephemeral or permanent water bodies which typically support inundation during winter rains.
Upland habitats are within 200 ft of the mean high water mark of such aquatic habitats.
Freshwater Fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibians
Approximately 65% of the scenarios yielded acute RQs that exceeded the acute non-listed
species LOC (0.5) and about 30% of the scenarios exceeded the chronic LOC (1). The
18
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species is between 1 in 5.24 x 10 and 1 in 1
(100%>). At higher application rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk for amphibians reptiles (based
on birds as a surrogate) eating aquatic prey; however, those application rates also exceeded acute
LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before bioaccumulation occurred. At lower application
rates, bioaccumulation does not pose risks to amphibians.
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater fish, see Section 5.6.5.a.
Based on the lines of evidence, indirect effects to the CCR are possible based on this prey
component.
220
-------
Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all uses for freshwater invertebrates and
most uses for freshwater benthic invertebrates. Chronic RQs were exceeded for all of the
freshwater benthic and non-benthic invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect for a
non-listed species freshwater invertebrate is between 1 in 7 (14%) and 1 in 1 (100%). The
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of freshwater benthic invertebrates is
between 1 in 2.75 x 1016 and 1 in 1 (100%).
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater invertebrates, see Section 5.6.3.a.
Therefore, indirect effects to the SFGS are possible based on this prey component.
Birds, Terrestrial-phase Amphibians, and Reptiles
For the same reasons that are detailed in the SFGS and terrestrial-phase CTS direct effects
sections, indirect effects to the SFGS are possible, based on this prey component. Two of the
registered uses exceeded the non-listed species LOC (0.5) in T-REX. The probability of an
18
individual effect for a non-listed avian species ranges from less than 1 in 8.86 x 10 to 1 in 11
(9%).
Small Mammals
The SFGS consumes small mammals as part of its diet. In addition, it relies on the burrows of
small mammals for shelter and aestivation when ponds become dry. They may also forage for
amphibians in the rodent burrows during the summer. Many use scenarios produced acute and
chronic RQs that exceed both the listed and non-listed species LOCs. The probability of an
individual effect ranges from 1 in 791,000 (0.00012%) to 1 in 1 (100%) for all uses. These
probabilities are based on acute LOCs and the default probit slope (4.5). At higher application
rates, bioaccumulation posed a risk to mammals; however, those application rates also exceeded
acute LOCs; thus the prey would likely die before bioaccumulation occurred. At lower
application rates (< 0.1 lb ai/A), bioaccumulation does not pose risks to mammals.
Therefore, indirect effects are anticipated to the SFGS based on risk to small mammalian prey
and a reduction in small mammal burrows.
Terrestrial Invertebrates
For the same reasons that are detailed in the BCB and VELB direct effects sections, indirect
effects to the SFGS are possible, based on risk to terrestrial invertebrate prey.
Aquatic Plants
Toxicity data were not available for vascular aquatic plants, thus non-vascular plants were used
as a surrogate. The non-vascular plant EC50 was greater than 310 |ig ai/L. RQs cannot be
calculated from a non-definitive value; however, 310 jug ai/L is much greater than the largest
221
-------
peak surface water EEC (179.7 |ig ai/L). Another Class II pyrethroid, fenvalerate, had algae and
diatom toxicity values of > 1000 |ig ai/L, thus lending support that Class II pyrethroids are not
very toxic to aquatic plants. Based on these lines of evidence, it is unlikely that there would be
adverse effects to aquatic plants from the maximum use rate of lambda-cyhalothrin.
Indirect effects to the SFGS based on this food and habitat component are not likely.
Terrestrial Plants
Terrestrial plants serve several important habitat-related functions for the listed assessed species.
In addition to providing habitat and cover for invertebrate and vertebrate prey items of the listed
assessed species, terrestrial vegetation also provides shelter and cover from predators while
foraging. Upland vegetation including grassland and woodlands provides cover during dispersal.
Riparian vegetation helps to maintain the integrity of aquatic systems by providing bank and
thermal stability, serving as a buffer to filter out sediment, nutrients, and contaminants before
they reach the water, and serving as an energy source.
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the SFGS.
5.6.7. Tidewater Goby
5.6.7.a. Direct Effects
All but two uses exceed the acute LOC for listed species and nearly a third of the uses exceed the
chronic LOC for freshwater fish. More than half of lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the acute
LOC and five of the uses exceed the chronic LOC for estuarine/marine fish. The probability of
an individual effect for listed freshwater fish ranged from 1 in 299,000 (0.0003%) to 1 in 1
(100%). The probability of an individual effect for listed estuarine/marine fish ranged from 1 in
265,000,000 to 1 in 1 (100%). These probabilities were calculated based on acute RQs and the
default probit slope (4.5). The ear tag screening assessment indicated that it would take only two
ear tags (i.e., one cow) to trigger acute risk concerns and one ear tag to trigger chronic concerns.
No incidents were reported for estuarine/marine fish.
222
-------
Based on the lines of evidence, direct effects to the TG are possible; therefore, a preliminary
"may affect" determination is made.
5.6.7.b. Indirect Effects
As discussed in Attachment II, the diet of the TG consists of macroinvertebrates such as mysid,
shrimp, gammarid amphipods, ostracods, and aquatic insects. Food items of the smallest TGs,
which are 4-8 mm (0.2-0.3 in.) in size, have not been examined, but they likely feed on
unicellular phytoplankton or zooplankton like many other early stage larval fishes (Attachment
II). Therefore, freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates as well as unicellular aquatic plants
are considered as prey groups for determining indirect effects to the TG caused by direct effects
to its prey.
Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceed the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all uses for freshwater invertebrates and
most uses for freshwater benthic invertebrates. Chronic RQs were exceeded for all of the
freshwater benthic and non-benthic invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect for a
non-listed species freshwater invertebrate is between 1 in 7 (14%) and 1 in 1 (100%). The
probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of freshwater benthic invertebrates is
between 1 in 2.75 x 1016 and 1 in 1 (100%).
For a summary of reported incident information to freshwater invertebrates, see Section 5.6.3.a.
Therefore, indirect effects to the TG are possible based on this prey component.
Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Acute RQs exceeded the non-listed species LOC (0.5) for all but two of the estuarine/marine
invertebrate scenarios and for more than 50% of the estuarine/marine benthic invertebrate use
scenarios. Chronic RQs exceeded the chronic LOC (1.0) for all but one estuarine/marine
invertebrates use scenarios and all but two scenarios for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates.
The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed species of estuarine/marine invertebrates
is between 1 in 5850 and 1 in 1 (100%). The probability of an individual effect for a non-listed
species of estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates is between 1 in 5.25 x 1026 and 1 in 1 (100%).
There are no incident reports or open literature studies available on the effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on estuarine/marine invertebrates or estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates; however,
incidents on invertebrates are unlikely to be noticed and reported to the Agency.
Based on the weight of evidence, indirect effects to the TG based on this prey component are
possible.
Aquatic Plants
223
-------
Toxicity data were not available for vascular aquatic plants, thus non-vascular plants were used
as a surrogate. The non-vascular plant EC50 was greater than 310 |ig ai/L. RQs cannot be
calculated from a non-definitive value; however, 310 jug ai/L is much greater than the largest
peak surface water EEC (179.7 |ig ai/L). Another Class II pyrethroid, fenvalerate, had algae and
diatom toxicity values of > 1000 |ig ai/L, thus lending support that Class II pyrethroids are not
very toxic to aquatic plants. Based on these lines of evidence, it is unlikely that there would be
adverse effects to aquatic plants from the maximum use rate of lambda-cyhalothrin.
Indirect effects to the TG based on this food and habitat component are not likely.
Terrestrial Plants
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the TG.
5.6.7.C. Modification of Designated Critical Habitat
Based on the assessment of direct and indirect effects to the TG, the modification of designated
critical habitat for the TG is possible.
5.6.8. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
5.6.8.a. Direct Effects
RQs for all lambda-cyhalothrin uses exceed the LOC (0.05) for direct effects to the VELB,
resulting in a preliminary "may affect" determination. Lambda-cyhalothrin is an insecticide and
thus it is expected to have adverse effects on insects.
Four incidents involving terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees) were reported for lambda-
cyhalothrin in the EIIS database. All reported large number of dead bees the loss or partial loss
of hives (22 to 92 hives) as a result of lambda-cyhalothrin applications. One of the incidents
involved lambda-cyhalothrin and another insecticide/acaricide, but the other three involved
lambda-cyhalothrin only. Of these, one of them was a misuse because the application occurred
during bee flight activity.
224
-------
No open literature studies were available; however, there were two non-guideline studies that
were submitted to the Agency. One of the studies (MRID 40436303) documented possible
repellency effects of lambda-cyhalothrin to honeybees. Honeybee response was observed via a
choice test with simulated honeydew. The results indicated that honeybees preferred the
honeydew samples without lambda-cyhalothrin. A honeybee foliage acute toxicity test (MRID
4043602) established LT50 values for two typical lambda-cyhalothrin application rates - 0.013
and 0.031 lb ai/A). LT50s ranged from 4 to 12 hours at the lower application rate to 23 hours at
the higher application rate. Likewise, the NOEL was identified as 24 to 96 hours, depending on
the application rate. These results suggest that honeybees, and possibly other insects, may
experience adverse effects up to 4 days after an application of lambda-cyhalothrin is made
(0.031 lb ai/A rate).
The probability of an individual effect for a VELB is high: 1 in 1 (100%) for all application rates
(Appendix N). These probabilities are calculated based on the acute RQs and the default probit
slope of 4.5.
Based on the weight of evidence presented here, there is a potential for direct effects to the
VELB as a result of lambda-cyhalothrin uses.
5.6.8.b. Indirect Effects
The VELB is associated with riparian elderberry trees during its entire life cycle and relies on
these trees for both food and habitat. The VELB has an obligate relationship with the elderberry
trees. Females lay their eggs on the bark and larvae hatch and burrow into the stems. The larval
stage may last 2 years, after which the larvae enter the pupa stage and transform into adults.
No plant toxicity data are available from registrant-submitted studies. In lieu of this, the
Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (maintained by EFED) was consulted for information on
terrestrial plant data for other pyrethroids. Terrestrial plant studies were not available for any of
the other pyrethroids. Studies from open literature also were consulted. Two product efficacy
studies were evaluated. Both tested the formulation Karate™ and neither documented any
adverse effects of the insecticide on plants (wheat and groundnuts). Application rates up to
0.004 lb ai/A (groundnut) and 0.025 lb ai/A (wheat) were tested. In addition, four incidents were
identified in the EIIS; three incidents were listed as possibly being caused by lambda-cyhalothrin
and one was listed as unlikely. Additional information was not available, although lambda-
cyhalothrin was the only pesticide being used in three of the cases. Twenty-six plant incidents
were recorded in the IDS, but there was no additional information available.
Given the uncertainty and dearth of data for terrestrial plants, effects to non-target plants cannot
be precluded, thus there is the potential for indirect effects to the VELB.
5.6.8.C. Modification of Designated Critical Habitat
Based on the assessment of direct and indirect effects to the VELB above, the modification of
designated critical habitat for the VELB is possible.
225
-------
5.6.9. Spatial Extent of Potential Effects
Since LOCs are exceeded, analysis of the spatial extent of potential LAA effects is needed to
determine where effects may occur in relation to the treated site. If the potential area of usage
and subsequent Potential Area of LAA Effects overlaps with BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS),
DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB habitat or areas of occurrence and/or critical habitat, a likely to
adversely affect determination is made. If the Potential Area of LAA Effects and BCB, CCR,
CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB habitat and areas of occurrence and/or critical
habitat do not overlap, a no effect determination is made.
To determine this area, the footprint of lambda-cyhalothrin's use pattern is identified, using
corresponding land cover data, see Section 2.7. However, given lambda-cyhalothrin's highly
diverse and extensive use patterns, the footprint of registered uses covers the whole state of
California. Therefore, a spatial analysis of the extent of the chemical's effects on the assessed
listed species of concern was not conducted. Likewise, the downstream dilution analysis is not
expected to provide additional useful information because of the widespread use of lambda-
cyhalothrin, and was not performed.
5.6.9.a. Spray Drift
To determine terrestrial habitats of concern from lambda-cyhalothrin 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 levels of concern. Ground applications of
/awMa-cyhalothrin granular formulations are expected to result in negligible drift. For the
flowable uses, a quantitative analysis of spray drift distances was completed using AgDRIFT (v.
2.11) using default inputs for ground applications {i.e., high boom, ASAE droplet size
distribution = Very Fine to Fine, 90th data percentile) and aerial applications {i.e., ASAE Very
Fine to Fine). Only agricultural uses applied with ground boom or aerial spray equipment are
modeled. Only organisms/scenarios that exceeded the acute listed species LOCs are modeled
(Table 5-18, 5-19, and 5-20).
Table 5-18. Terrestrial Organisms Buffers for LamMa-Cyhalothrin Calculated with
AgDRIFT
l so
Smule
application
kale (lb
ai \)
I'ladiou of \pplicd
Unl'la- Distance (I'D
Insecl
Mammal
lllsccl
Mammal
Alfalfa, aerial
0.038
0.0013
0.56
>1,000
0
Alfalfa, ground
0.038
0.0013
0.56
>1,000
6.56
Almond, ground dust
and spray
0.1
0.0012
0.12
>1,000
22.97
Apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust and
spray
0.1
0.0004
0.10
>1,000
26.25
Apricot, bean,
eggplant, groundcherry,
0.0239
0.0012
0.42
>1,000
6.56
226
-------
l so
Smule
application
kale (lb
ai \)
l iaclKiii of \pplicd
Unl'lci' Distance (I'D
Insecl
Mammal
Insect
Mammal
loquat, mayhaw, pea,
pepino, pepper, plum,
quince, ground
spray/dust
Beech nut, Brazil nut,
butternut, cashew,
chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut,
macadamia nut, ground
spray/dust
0.0239
0.0015
0.53
961.27
6.56
Barley, aerial
0.031
0.0027
0.91
>1,000
0
Barley, ground
0.031
0.0027
0.91
652.88
3.28
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea), aerial
0.03
0.0008
0.29
>1,000
59.05
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea), ground spray/dust
0.03
0.0008
0.29
>1,000
9.84
Mustard cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi),
ground spray/dust
0.03
0.0010
0.34
>1,000
9.84
Brassica (head and
stem) vegetables, aerial
0.031
0.0018
0.63
>1,000
0
Brassica (head and
stem) vegetables,
ground
0.031
0.0018
0.63
853.01
3.28
Tomato, tomatillo,
ground spray/dust
0.0294
0.0010
0.33
>1,000
9.84
Broccoli, cauliflower,
ground spray/dust
0.0294
0.0010
0.32
>1,000
9.84
Cabbage, kohlrabi,
ground spray/dust
0.0294
0.0009
0.30
>1,000
9.84
Mustard, ground
0.0294
0.0008
0.29
>1,000
9.84
Brussels sprouts,
ground spray
0.038
0.0017
0.56
885.82
6.56
Brussels sprouts, dust
0.038
0.0009
0.30
>1,000
9.84
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
aerial
0.03
0.0027
0.91
>1,000
0
Buckwheat, oat, rye,
ground
0.03
0.0027
0.91
652.88
3.28
Canola/rape, aerial
0.0311
0.0019
0.63
>1,000
0
Canola/rape, ground
0.0311
0.0019
0.63
823.48
3.28
Grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
aerial
0.0311
0.0028
0.91
>1,000
0
Grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
ground
0.0311
0.0028
0.91
636.48
3.28
Cereal grains, triticale,
0.0311
0.0026
0.91
>1,000
0
227
-------
l so
Smule
application
kale (lb
ai \)
l iaclKiii of \pplicd
Unl'lei' Distance (I'D
Insecl
Mammal
Insect
Mammal
wheat, aerial
Cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, ground
0.0311
0.0026
0.91
669.28
3.28
Cole crops, aerial
0.0311
0.0010
0.33
>1,000
39.37
Cole crops, ground/dust
0.0311
0.0010
0.33
>1,000
9.84
Onion, aerial
0.0311
0.0009
0.31
>1,000
49.21
Onion, ground/dust
0.0311
0.0009
0.31
>1,000
9.84
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries),
ground
0.0401
0.0009
0.30
>1,000
9.84
Conifers (seed
orchard), ground
0.156
0.0004
0.13
>1,000
22.97
Corn (field), aerial
0.042
0.0015
0.53
>1,000
0
Corn (field), ground
0.042
0.0015
0.53
961.27
6.56
Corn (sweet), dust
0.042
0.0015
0.34
961.27
9.84
Corn (sweet), spray
0.03
0.0013
0.43
>1,000
6.56
Cotton, aerial
0.042
0.0015
0.53
>1,000
0
Cotton, ground
0.042
0.0015
0.53
961.27
6.56
Cucurbit vegetables,
aerial
0.0311
0.0011
0.37
>1,000
22.97
Cucurbit vegetables,
ground
0.0311
0.0011
0.37
>1,000
6.56
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial
0.057
0.0012
0.42
>1,000
13.12
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
ground
0.057
0.0012
0.42
>1,000
6.56
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
dust
0.057
0.0007
0.24
>1,000
13.12
Forest plantings,
ground
0.0511
0.0009
0.30
>1,000
9.84
Fruiting vegetables,
aerial
0.0311
0.0007
0.23
>1,000
98.42
Fruiting vegetables,
ground
0.0311
0.0007
0.23
>1,000
13.12
Garlic, ground
0.0311
0.0010
0.33
>1,000
9.84
Grasses grown for
seed, ground
0.1306
0.0005
0.18
>1,000
16.4
Legume vegetables,
aerial
0.0311
0.0015
0.50
>1,000
3.28
Legume vegetables,
ground
0.0311
0.0015
0.50
961.27
6.56
Peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables, aerial
0.0311
0.0016
0.53
>1,000
0
Peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables, ground
0.0311
0.0016
0.53
921.9
6.56
Lettuce, aerial
0.0311
0.0007
0.25
>1,000
85.3
Lettuce, ground
0.0311
0.0007
0.25
>1,000
13.12
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soils, aerial
0.0792
0.0009
0.31
>1,000
49.21
228
-------
l so
Sinule
application
kale (lb
ai \)
Fraction of \pplied
nulla- Distance (I'D
Insect
Mammal
lllsccl
Mammal
Pome and stone fruit,
aerial
0.0415
0.0010
0.33
>1,000
39.37
Pome and stone fruit,
ground
0.0415
0.0010
0.33
>1,000
9.84
Potato, aerial
0.0239
0.0022
0.77
>1,000
0
Potato, ground
0.0239
0.0022
0.77
748.02
3.28
Rice, ground
0.0415
0.0014
0.48
>1,000
6.56
Seed orchard trees,
ground
0.162
0.0004
0.13
>1,000
22.97
Sorghum, aerial
0.038
0.0023
0.77
>1,000
0
Sorghum, ground
0.038
0.0023
0.77
728.34
3.28
Soybean, aerial
0.038
0.0032
n/a
>1,000
n/a
Soybean, ground
0.038
0.0032
n/a
580.7
n/a
Tree nuts, aerial
0.0415
0.0011
0.37
>1,000
22.97
Tree nuts, ground
0.0415
0.0011
0.37
>1,000
6.56
Sunflower, aerial
0.038
0.0017
0.56
>1,000
0
Sunflower, ground
0.038
0.0017
0.56
885.82
6.56
n/a = not calculated because acute RQ did not exceed
LOC
Insects are the most sensitive group and buffer distances range from 580 to >1000 ft. Buffer
distances for mammals range from 0 to 98 ft. Many of the calculated buffer distances for
mammals are less than 25 ft. This may be a mitigation measure that could be employed to
protect listed species. Aquatic buffers of 10 and 25 ft are being implemented for all pyrethroids,
although these buffers were not yet listed on all the lambda-cyhalothrin labels that were assessed
here.
Table 5-19. Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Fish Buffers for LamMa-Cyhalothrin
Calculated with AgDRIFT
1 sc
Sinule
application
kale (lb ai A)
I'rcshualer I'ish liul'ler Distance (I'D
1 !siu
Dist
in no Marine I'ish Unl'lcr
nice (I'D
Initial \\eraue Concentration (uu
ai 1.) (uuai 1.)
luiti
dm
il \\eraue Concentration
ii 1.) dm ai 1.)
n.ir-1) (
( \cille)
u.()( rx
("Si
( \cute
restricted)
o on"1)
("5^1
( \cute
listed)
(i 4o
(4UO)
( \cutei
() UNI
(SI i
( \cute
restricted)
() ()4<)
(40)
(Acute
listed)
Alfalfa, aerial
0.38
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Alfalfa, ground
0.38
744.74
>1,000
>1,000
55.77
413.38
731.62
Almond, apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
peach, pear, plum,
prune, trees, ground
0.1
229.66
905.5
>1,000
0
85.3
223.09
Apricot, loquat,
mayhaw, plum, quince,
bean, groundcherry,
pea, pepino, pepper,
eggplant, beech nut,
Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut,
0.0239
22.97
275.59
521.65
0
3.28
19.68
229
-------
l so
Sinule
application
kale (lb ai A)
I'rcshuater I'ish Unl'ler Distance (I'D
1 !sinai'iiie Marine I'ish UnlTer
Distance (I'd
Initial \\eraue Concentration i nu
ai 1.) (imai 1.)
Initial \\eraue Concentration
(imai 1.) inuai 1.)
u.o
( \ciite)
u.()( rx
("Si
( \cnte
restricted)
o on"1)
("5^1
( \ciltc
listed)
0 4o
(4(iO)
( \cntei
() UNI
(SI )
( \cnte
restricted)
() ()4<)
(4(1)
( Acute
listed)
chinquapin, hickory
nut, macadamia nut,
potato, ground
Barley, brassica (head
and stem) vegetables,
aerial
0.031
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
9.84
725.06
>1,000
Barley, brassica (head
and stem) vegetables,
ground
0.031
39.37
357.61
639.76
0
6.56
36.09
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea), buckwheat, oat,
rye, corn (sweet),
aerial
0.03
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
3.28
685.69
>1,000
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea), mustard cabbage
(gai choy, pak-choi),
buckwheat, oat, rye,
ground
0.03
36.09
344.48
623.35
0
6.56
32.81
Tomato, tomatillo,
broccoli, cauliflower,
cabbage, kohlrabi,
mustard, ground
0.0294
32.81
337.92
613.51
0
6.56
32.81
Brussels sprouts,
sorghum, soybean,
sunflower, ground
0.038
55.77
429.78
744.74
0
9.84
55.77
Canola/rape, grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, cole crops,
onion, cucurbit
vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, garlic,
legume vegetables,
peanuts, root and tuber
vegetables, lettuce,
aerial
0.0311
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
9.84
731.62
>1,000
Canola/rape, grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, cole crops,
onion, cucurbit
vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, legume
0.0311
39.37
357.61
643.04
0
6.56
36.09
230
-------
l so
Sinule
application
kale (lb ai A)
I'rcshuater I'ish Unl'ler Distance (I'D
1 !sinai'iiie Marine I'ish UnlTer
Distance (I'd
Initial \\eraue Concentration nm
ai 1.) (nuai 1.)
Initial \\eraue Concentration
(nuai 1.) inuai 1.)
u.o
( \ciltC)
u.()( rx
("Si
( \cnte
restricted)
o on"1)
("5^1
( \ciltc
listed)
0 4o
(4(iO)
( \ciiiei
() UNI
(SI )
( \cnte
restricted)
() ()4<)
(4(1)
( Acute
listed)
vegetables, peanuts,
root and tuber
vegetables, lettuce,
ground
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries),
ground
0.0401
62.34
449.47
774.27
0
13.12
59.05
Conifers (seed
orchard), ground
0.156
357.61
>1,000
>1,000
6.56
164.04
351.05
Corn (field), cotton,
aerial
0.042
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
65.62
>1,000
>1,000
Corn (field), cotton,
ground
0.042
68.9
469.15
800.52
0
13.12
65.62
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial
0.057
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
137.79
>1,000
>1,000
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
ground
0.057
111.55
600.39
994.08
0
29.53
108.27
Forest plantings,
ground
0.0511
95.14
551.17
921.9
0
22.97
91.86
Grasses grown for
seed, ground
0.1306
301.83
>1,000
>1,000
3.28
127.95
295.27
Pome and stone fruit,
tree nuts, aerial
0.0415
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
65.62
>1,000
>1,000
Pome and stone fruit,
rice, tree nuts, ground
0.0415
65.62
462.59
793.95
0
13.12
65.62
Potato, aerial
0.0239
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
0
475.72
>1,000
Seed orchard trees,
ground
0.0162
6.56
177.16
370.73
0
0
6.56
Sorghum, soybean,
sunflower aerial
0.038
55.77
429.78
744.74
0
9.84
55.77
Table 5-20. Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Benthic and Non-Benthic Invertebrate
Buffers for Lambda-Cyhalothrin Calculated with AgDRIFT
I se
Snide
application
kale (lb ai A)
I'rcshuater lieniliic and \on-lJeniliic
ln\ertebrate Unl'ler Distance (I'll
l!sinariiie Marine lieniliic and
\oii-l5cnthic ln\ertebrate IJiil'I'er
Distance (I'll
Initial \\eraue Concentration inu
ai 1.) (iiuai 1.)
Initial \\eraue Concentration
inuai 1.) inuai 1.)
I) ODD"
( "i
( \cntei
0 onol4
( 14)
( \cnte
restricted)
0 oooo"
( O")
( \cnte
listed)
0 0025
(2 5)
( \ciiiei
o 0004'J
( 4'J)
( \cnte
restricted)
o.ooo25
( 25)
( \cnte
listed)
Alfalfa, aerial
0.38
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Alfalfa, ground
0.38
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Almond, apple, cherry,
crabapple, nectarine,
0.1
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
231
-------
l so
Smule
application
kale (lb ai A)
I'leshwalei' IScnlliic and \on-lJciilhic
ln\cilcbialc Unl'lcr Distance ill)
l!sinai'ine Marine liciiihic and
\kii-Iiculhic ln\eilehrale ISiilTci"
Disiance (I'D
Initial \\ciauc ( onceniniioii inu
ai 1.) inuai 1.)
Imiial \\ciauc Coiiceiiiralion
inuai 1.) inuai 1.)
0 Duo"
1 "i
( \ciiiei
0 onol4
1 14)
( VjlllC
lesincled)
0 Mono"
( O")
( VjlllC
liMed)
o 0025
(2 5)
( \cniei
o 0004'J
( 4'J)
( \cnie
ivsincled)
o.ooo25
( 25)
( \cnic
lisied)
peach, pear, plum,
prune, trees, ground
Apricot, loquat,
mayhaw, plum, quince,
bean, groundcherry,
pea, pepino, pepper,
eggplant, beech nut,
Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut,
chinquapin, hickory
nut, macadamia nut,
potato, ground
0.0239
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
734.9
>1,000
>1,000
Barley, brassica (head
and stem) vegetables,
aerial
0.031
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Barley, brassica (head
and stem) vegetables,
ground
0.031
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
885.82
>1,000
>1,000
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea), buckwheat, oat,
rye, corn (sweet),
aerial
0.03
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble
pea), mustard cabbage
(gai choy, pak-choi),
buckwheat, oat, rye,
ground
0.03
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
866.13
>1,000
>1,000
Tomato, tomatillo,
broccoli, cauliflower,
cabbage, kohlrabi,
mustard, ground
0.0294
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
853.9
>1,000
>1,000
Brussels sprouts,
sorghum, soybean,
sunflower, ground
0.038
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Canola/rape, grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, cole crops,
onion, cucurbit
vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, garlic,
legume vegetables,
peanuts, root and tuber
0.0311
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
889.1
>1,000
>1,000
232
-------
l so
Smule
application
kale (lb ai A)
I'leshwalei' IScnlliic and \on-lJeiilhic
ln\cilcbiale Unl'ler Distance ill)
l!sinai'ine Marine lienihic and
\kii-Iiculhic ln\eilehrale Unl'lcr
Disiance (I'D
Initial \\eiaue ( onceniniioii inu
ai 1.) inuai 1.)
Imiial \\crauc Coiiceiiiralion
inuai 1.) inuai 1.)
0 Duo"
1 "i
( \cnici
() 00014
i 14)
( \cnie
lesincled)
I) <)()<)<)"
( ()")
( \cnle
liMed)
o 0025
(2 5)
( \cniei
o 0004'J
( 4'J)
( \cnie
resl ncled)
o.ooo25
( 25)
( \cnle
lisied)
vegclablcb, lelluce,
aerial
Canola/rape, grass
forage/fodder/hay,
pastures, rangeland,
cereal grains, triticale,
wheat, cole crops,
onion, cucurbit
vegetables, fruiting
vegetables, legume
vegetables, peanuts,
root and tuber
vegetables, lettuce,
ground
0.0311
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
889.1
>1,000
>1,000
Conifers
(plantations/nurseries),
ground
0.0401
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Conifers (seed
orchard), ground
0.156
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Corn (field), cotton,
aerial
0.042
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Corn (field), cotton,
ground
0.042
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial
0.057
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
ground
0.057
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Forest plantings,
ground
0.0511
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Grasses grown for
seed, ground
0.1306
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Pome and stone fruit,
tree nuts, aerial
0.0415
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Pome and stone fruit,
rice, tree nuts, ground
0.0415
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Potato, aerial
0.0239
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Seed orchard trees,
ground
0.0162
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
544.61
>1,000
>1,000
Sorghum, soybean,
sunflower aerial
0.038
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
>1,000
Invertebrates are the most sensitive aquatic group. Buffer distances for freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates at the acute LOC (0.05) are >1000 ft. Buffer distances for
freshwater fish at the acute LOC (0.05) range from 370 to >1000 ft. Buffer distances for
estuarine/marine fish at the acute LOC (0.05) range from 6.6 to >1000 ft. In 2008, EPA issued a
233
-------
memo requiring that aquatic buffers be added to all pyrethroid labels. This action is in the
process of being implemented; however, the modeled scenarios indicate that the 10 to 25 ft
aquatic buffers that appear on labels may not be sufficient to protect listed species in the case of
most lambda-cyhalothrin uses.
As a refinement, several scenarios were modeled that incorporated the restrictions that are being
added to lambda-cyhalothrin labels. Many labels require a medium course droplet size and 10 or
25 foot buffers around aquatic areas. Five pesticide application scenarios were chosen to
represent the breadth of lambda-cyhalothrin application rates. Table 5-21 compares a no buffer
situation with 10 and 25 foot buffers. Risk quotients were calculated for freshwater fish and
invertebrates. As a result of the mitigation efforts, EECs and RQs are lower when buffers are
employed. However, in all instances, the buffer was not sufficient to reduce an RQ that was to a
value that was below the LOC (acute = 0.05; chronic = 1).
Table 5-21. EECs for LamMa-Cyhalothrin Buffer Mitigation Scenarios
Proposed
l.illK l I so
PU/.M/
I.WMS
Scenario"
(firsl ;ip|) date)
Mclhori
Application Rale
(inlcnal IkMwccii
applicalions)
Peak
l.l.(
2l-da\
i:i.(
Wl-dsij
r.r.c
(iig/l.i
IW
fish
ill'IIIC
RQ
IW
l-'isli
chronic
HQ
IW
in\cr(
ilCIIIC
RQ
IW
in\cr(
chronic
HQ
Surface Water Concentrations
Alfalfa
CA Alfalfa
(Dec 10 -
foliar)
Aerial EEC
3 app @ 0.38 lb
a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
1.34
0.27
0.16
17*
6.7*
957*
33750*
10 ft. buffer
1.14
0.23
0.14
15*
5.8*
814*
28750*
25 ft. buffer
0.96
0.19
0.12
12*
5.0*
686*
23750*
Corn
(sweet)
CACorn
(April 10
foliar)
Aerial EEC
6 app @ 0.03 lb
a.i./acre
(3 crop cycles of
90 days;
10-day interval
per crop cycle;
max. 16 apps./
year)
0.22
0.09
0.09
2.8*
3.8*
157*
11250*
10 ft. buffer
0.21
0.08
0.08
2.7*
3.3*
150*
10000*
25 ft. buffer
0.21
0.07
0.07
2.7*
2.9*
150*
8750*
Cotton
CA Cotton
(Oct 1 - foliar)
Aerial EEC
3 app @ 0.042 lb
a.i./acre
(10-day interval)
0.15
0.03
0.02
1.9*
0.83
107*
37508*
10 ft. buffer
0.13
0.03
0.02
1.7*
0.83
93*
2500*
25 ft. buffer
0.11
0.02
0.02
1.4*
0.83
79*
2500*
Lettuce
CA Lettuce
(Feb 6 - foliar)
Aerial EEC
10 app @0.0311
lb a.i./acre
(2 crop cycles of
120 days;
5-day interval per
crop cycle)
0.28
0.14
0.13
3.6*
5.4*
200*
17500*
10 ft. buffer
0.27
0.12
0.12
3.5*
5*
193*
15000*
25 ft. buffer
0.26
0.11
0.10
3.3*
4.2*
186*
13750*
Potato
CA Potato
(May 11 -
foliar)
Aerial EEC
3 app @ 0.0239 lb
a.i./acre
1 app @0.0162 lb
a.i./acre
(7-day interval)
0.08
0.02
0.01
1.0*
0.42
57*
2500*
10 ft. buffer
0.07
0.02
0.01
0.90*
0.42
50*
2500*
234
-------
Proposed
l.illH'l I so
PU/.M/
i:\.\ms
Scenario1
(I'irsl iipp «l;i(o)
Method
Application Ksili*
(in(cr\;il hcmmi
iippliciilions)
Peak
l.l.(
2l-d;i\
II.(
Wl-dsij
I.I.C "
IW
fish
<11*11 ll*
HQ
IW
l-ish
chronic
RQ
IW
in\cr(
ilCIIIC
no
IW
in\cr(
chronic
HQ
25 ft. buffer
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.77*
0.42
43*
1250*
indicates the RQ is greater than the LOC (acute = 0.05; chronic = 1).
5.7. Effects Determinations
5.7.1. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the BCB based on RQs exceeding the
listed species LOCs for terrestrial invertebrates. Four major incidents were reported for
terrestrial invertebrates. Indirect effects from effects on food and habitat structure are anticipated
because risks to terrestrial plants cannot be precluded (lack of terrestrial plant toxicity data).
Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects on plants. The
BCB has an obligate relationship with plaintains and anything that negatively affects the plantain
will adversely affect the BCB. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of California
and use is expected to occur within the BCB's range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination based
on the potential for direct effects to the BCB and a habitat modification determination for the
designated critical habitat of the BCB.
5.7.1. California Clapper Rail
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CCR based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed species LOCs for birds. Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible
based on RQs exceeding the listed and non-listed species LOCs for birds, mammals, terrestrial
invertebrates, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, and freshwater and estuarine/marine
invertebrates. Four incidents have been reported for freshwater fish and three incidents for
freshwater invertebrates. Indirect effects on habitat are anticipated from modifications to the
terrestrial plants in the environment. Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating
possible adverse effects on plants. Effects are not expected from modifications to the aquatic
plant environmental structure. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of California,
thus use is expected to occur within the CCR range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination for the
CCR. The CCR does not have a designated critical habitat.
5.7.2. California Freshwater Shrimp
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CFWS based on RQs exceeding listed
species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates. Three incidents have been reported for freshwater
invertebrates. Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
235
-------
listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates. Indirect effects from habitat
modification are anticipated from effects to terrestrial plants. Several plant incidents have been
reported, indicating possible adverse effects on plants. Indirect effects are not expected from
changes to the aquatic plant community. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of
California, thus use is expected to occur within the CFWS range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination for the
CFWS. The CFWS does not have a designated critical habitat.
5.7.3. California Tiger Salamander (All 3 DPS)
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CTS based on RQs exceeding listed
species LOCs for terrestrial-phase amphibians (using avian surrogate species data) and based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for aquatic-phase amphibians (using freshwater fish
surrogate species data). Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs
exceeding listed and non-listed species LOCs for terrestrial-phase amphibians (using avian
surrogate species data), mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates and
freshwater fish. Four incidents for freshwater fish and three incidents for freshwater
invertebrates have been reported. Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible because the
RQs exceeded the listed and non-listed species LOCs for mammal burrow availability. Small
mammals are essential in creating the underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend
upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation. Indirect effects on
habitat from terrestrial plants are also anticipated. Several plant incidents have been reported,
indicating possible adverse effects on plants. Effects from changes to the aquatic plant
community are not anticipated. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of California,
thus use is expected to occur within the CTS range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination for the
CTS (all DPS) and a habitat modification determination for the designated critical habitat of
the CTS-CC, and CTS-SB based on the potential for direct and indirect effects and effects to the
PCEs of critical habitat. The CTS-SC does not have a designated critical habitat.
5.7.4. Delta Smelt
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the DS based on RQs exceeding the listed
species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish. Four incidents for freshwater fish have
been reported. Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates. Three
incidents on freshwater invertebrates have been reported. Indirect effects terrestrial plant
modifications to the habitat are expected. Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating
possible adverse effects on plants. Effects are not anticipated from changes to the aquatic plant
community. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of California, thus use is expected
to occur within the DS range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination for the
DS and a habitat modification determination for the designated critical habitat of the DS.
236
-------
5.7.5. San Francisco Garter Snake
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the SFGS based on RQs exceeding the
listed species LOCs for reptiles (using avian surrogate species data). Indirect effects from
affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs for
terrestrial-phase amphibians (using avian surrogate species data), reptiles, mammals, terrestrial
invertebrates, freshwater fish/aquatic-phase amphibians, and freshwater invertebrates. Four
freshwater fish and three freshwater invertebrate incidents have been reported. Indirect effects
from affected habitat are possible because the RQs exceeded the listed and non-listed species
LOCs for mammal burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that CTS depend upon for shelter, and aestivation. Indirect effects on
habitat from terrestrial plants are also anticipated. Several plant incidents have been reported,
indicating possible adverse effects on plants. Effects from changes to the aquatic plant
community are not expected. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of California,
thus use is expected to occur within the SFGS range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination for the
SFGS. The SFGS does not have a designated critical habitat.
5.7.6. Tidewater Goby
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the TG based on RQs exceeding the listed
species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish. Four incidents affecting freshwater fish
have been reported. Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine
invertebrates. Three incidents for freshwater invertebrates have been reported. Indirect effects
from effects on habitat are anticipated from modifications to the terrestrial plant community.
Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects on plants. Effects
on habitat from changes to the aquatic plants in the environment are not expected. Lambda-
cyhalothrin uses extend across the state of California, thus use is expected to occur within the TG
range.
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination for the
TG and a habitat modification determination for the designated critical habitat of the TG.
5.7.7. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
It is possible for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the VELB based on RQs exceeding the
listed species LOCs for terrestrial invertebrates. Indirect effects on food and habitat structure are
anticipated because of potential risks to terrestrial plants and insects. Several plant incidents
have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects on plants. The VELB has an obligate
relationship with the elderberry and thus it is expected that negative effects to plants and/or
insects (pollinators, seed dispersers) will adversely affect the VELB. Lambda-cyhalothrin uses
extend across the state of California, thus use is expected to occur within the VELB range.
237
-------
Therefore, the Agency makes a may affect, and likely to adversely affect determination based
on the potential for direct effects to the VELB and a habitat modification determination for the
designated critical habitat of the VELB.
5.7.8. Addressing the Risk Hypotheses
To conclude this risk assessment, it is necessary to address the risk hypotheses defined in Section
2.9.1. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, some of the hypotheses can be rejected. The
following statements modify the hypotheses based on the results of this risk assessment for direct
and indirect effects of /awMa-cyhalothrin on the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS,
TG, and VELB and their designated critical habitat.
The labeled use of lambda-cyhalothrin may:
• ... directly affect the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB by
causing acute mortality or by adversely affecting chronic growth or fecundity;
• ... indirectly affect the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB
and/or affect their designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the composition of
the food supply;
• ... indirectly affect none of the assessed species and their designated critical habitat by
reducing or changing the composition of the aquatic plant community in the species'
current range, thus, affecting primary productivity and/or cover;
• ... indirectly affect all of the assessed species and their designated critical habitat by
reducing or changing the composition of the terrestrial plant community in the species'
current range;
• ... indirectly affect the CTS (all DPS) and SFGS and affect their designated critical
habitat by reducing or changing aquatic habitat in their current range (via modification of
water quality parameters, habitat morphology, and/or sedimentation).
6. Uncertainties
Uncertainties that apply to most assessments completed for the San Francisco Bay Species
Litigation are discussed in Attachment I. This section describes additional uncertainties specific
to this assessment.
Many product labels for lambda-cyhalothrin lack specific application rate information. OPP
models rely on application rates being reported in lb ai/A, knowledge of the minimum
application interval, and a maximum seasonal/yearly application rate (or maximum number of
applications per year at the highest rate). In many instances, labels did not contain these
specifics. Some application methods, such as crack and crevice, trunk drench, and mound
applications, do not lend themselves to rates in pounds of active ingredient per acre. In other
instances, labels stated that reapplications could be made as needed, or did not stipulate any
information about the timing of reapplications. For all of these cases, best professional
judgement was used to fill in the blanks, often from similar uses on other labels. Final
application rates were shared with the registrants and any input received was incorporated into
the assessment. However, given the uncertainties with some of the application rates, it is
238
-------
possible that some rates may be overly conservative (e.g., 2 lb ai/A at 7 day intervals) and thus
may have led to overly conservative RQs.
6.1. Exposure Assessment Uncertainties
6.1.1. Maximum Use Scenario
The screening-level risk assessment focuses on characterizing potential ecological risks resulting
from a maximum use scenario, which is determined from labeled statements of maximum
application rate and number of applications with the shortest time interval between applications.
The frequency at which actual uses approach this maximum use scenario may be dependent on
pest resistance, timing of applications, cultural practices, and market forces.
6.1.2. Usage Uncertainties
County-level usage data were obtained from California's Department of Pesticide Regulation
Pesticide Use Reporting (CDPR PUR) database. CDPR PUR documentation indicates that errors
in the data may include the following: a misplaced decimal; incorrect measures, area treated, or
units; and reports of diluted pesticide concentrations. In addition, it is possible that the data may
contain reports for pesticide uses that have been cancelled. The CPDR PUR data do not include
home owner applied pesticides; therefore, residential uses are not likely to be reported. As with
all pesticide usage data, there may be instances of misuse and misreporting. The Agency made
use of the most current, verifiable information; in cases where there were discrepancies, the most
conservative information was used.
6.1.3. Terrestrial Exposure Assessment Uncertainties
6.1.3.a. T-REX
Organisms consume a variety of dietary items and may exist in a variety of sizes at different life
stages. For foliar applications of liquid formulations, T-REX estimates exposure for the
following dietary items: short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants/small insects,
fruits/pods/seeds/large insects, and seeds for granivores. Birds (used as a surrogate for
amphibians and reptiles), including the CCR, and mammals consume all of these items. The size
classes of birds represented in T-REX are the small (20 g), medium (100 g), and large (1000 g).
The size classes for mammals are small (15 g), medium (35 g), and large (1000 g). EECs are
calculated for the most sensitive dietary item and size class for birds (surrogate for amphibians
and reptiles) and mammals. Table 6-1 shows the percentages of the EECs and RQs of the
various dietary classes for each size class as compared to the most sensitive dietary class (short
grass) and size class (small mammal or bird). This information could be used to further
characterize potential risk that is specific to the diet of birds and mammals. For example, if a
mammal only consumes broadleaf plants and small insects and the RQ was 100 for small
mammals consuming short grass, the RQ for small mammals that only consumed broadleaf
plants and small insects would be 56 (100 x 0.56).
239
-------
Table 6-1. Percentage of EEC or RQ for the Specified Dietary Items and Size Classes as
Compared to the EEC or RQ for The Most Sensitive Dietary Items (Short Grass) and Size
Class (Small Bird or Small Mammal)
Dicliin lloms
Poroonliijio of r.l'.Cs or UQs lor (ho Specified l)ic(ar\ 1 loins ;ind
Si/o ( hiss :is compared lo (ho F.F.C or KQ lor Small Birds' or
Sniiill Mammals Consuming Short Cr;iss
IJiids 1W IJased LLCs and RQs
Si/e Class
Small. :<) u
Mid. lull u
Larue. 1
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
Short Grass
100%
100%
57%
45%
26%
14%
Tall Grass
46%
46%
26%
21%
12%
7%
Broadleaf plants/small
Insects
56%
56%
32%
25%
14%
8%
Fruits/pods/seeds/large
insects
6%
6%
4%
3%
2%
1%
Granivores
1%
1%
1%
1%
0.4%
0.2%
Mammals I)nse-I5ased LI.( sand RQs
Si/e Class
Small. 15 u
Mid. '5 u
Larue. 1
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
EEC
RQ
Short Grass
100%
100%
69%
85%
16%
46%
Tall Grass
46%
46%
32%
39%
7%
21%
Broadleaf plants/small
Insects
56%
56%
39%
48%
9%
26%
Fruits/pods/seeds/large
insects
6%
6%
4%
5%
1%
3%
Granivores
1%
1%
1%
1%
0.2%
0.6%
Mammals and IJirds l)ielar>-based LLCs and RQsl'tirall Si/e Classes
Short Grass
100%
Tall Grass
46%
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
56%
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
6%
The percents of the maximum RQ shown here for birds are based on the Agency's default avian scaling factor of
1.15. The percents of the maximum RQ shown here for birds are based on the specific scaling factor of XX for
CHEM X (Mineau et al. 1996).
2 Percentages for dose-based chronic EECs and RQs for mammals are equivalent to the acute dose-based EECs and
RQs.
In the risk assessment, RQs were only calculated for the most sensitive dietary class relevant to
the organisms assessed. For most organisms, not enough data are available to conclude that
birds or mammals may not exclusively feed on a dietary class for at least some time period.
However, most birds and mammals consume a variety of dietary items and thus the RQ will
overestimate risk to those organisms. For example, the CCR is estimated to consume only 15%
plant material (USFWS, 2003). Additionally, some organisms will not feed on all of the dietary
classes. For example, many amphibians would only consume insects and not any plant material.
6.1.3.b. T-HERPS
For foliar applications of liquid formulations, T-HERPS estimates exposure for the following
dietary items: broadleaf plants/small insects, fruits/pods/seeds/large insects, small herbivore
240
-------
mammals, small insectivore mammals, and small amphibians. Snakes and amphibians may
consume all of these items. The default size classes of amphibians represented in T-HERPS are
small (2 g), medium (20 g), and large (200 g). The default vertebrate prey size that the medium
and large amphibians can consume is 13 g and 133 g, respectively (small amphibians are not
expected to eat vertebrate prey). The default size classes for snakes are small (2 g), medium (20
g), and large (800 g). The default vertebrate prey size that medium and large snakes can
consume is 25 g and 1,286 g, respectively (small snakes are not expected to eat vertebrate prey).
EECs are calculated for the most sensitive dietary item and size class for amphibians and snakes.
Table 6-2 shows the percentages of the EECs and RQs of the various dietary classes for each size
class as compared to the most sensitive dietary class (herbivorous mammal) and size class
[medium (20 g) amphibian or snake]. This information could be used to further characterize
potential risk that is specific to the diet of amphibians and snakes.
Table 6-2. Percentage of EEC or RQ for the Specified Dietary Class as Compared to the
EEC or RQ for The Most Sensitive Dietary Class (Small Herbivore Mammals) and Size
Dioliin llcms
l>crccn(;i«ic of FFCs or HQs lor (lie Specified l)ic(ar\ llems and
Si/e ( lass ;is compared (o (lie FF( or RQ lor Medium
.\ni|ihiliiiiiis or Siiiikes Consuming Small llcrl)i\orc Mammals
\mphihi;iiis. \cnle Dose IJased LL( sand R(K
Si/e ( lass
Small. : u
Mid. :i> -
Larue. 2<>u u
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
5%
3%
2%
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
0.5%
0.3%
0.2%
Small herbivore mammals
N/A
100%
37%
Small insectivore mammals
N/A
6%
2%
Small amphibians
V\
">n
_ ii
1".,
Snakes \cnle I)oso-I5ased LLCs and KHs
Si/e Class
Small. : u
Mid. :i> u
Mid. :
-------
dietary classes. For example, many amphibians would only consume insects and not any plant
material.
6.1.4. Aquatic Exposure Modeling of LamMa-Cyhalothrin
The standard ecological water body scenario (EXAMS pond) used to calculate potential aquatic
exposure to pesticides is intended to represent conservative estimates, and to avoid
underestimating the actual exposure. The standard scenario consists of application to a 10-
"3
hectare field bordering a 1-hectare, 2-meter deep (20,000 m ) pond with no outlet. Exposure
estimates generated using the EXAMS pond is intended to represent a wide variety of vulnerable
water bodies that occur at the top of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes,
wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and natural ponds, and intermittent and lower order streams.
As a group, there are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerable than the
EXAMS pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of pesticide-treated drainage area to
water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the EXAMS pond. These
water bodies will be either smaller in size or have larger drainage areas. Smaller water bodies
have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge,
whereas the EXAMS pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases beyond 10-hectares, it
becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a single crop that is all
treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations
higher than the EXAMS pond, but they likely persist for only short periods of time and are then
carried and dissipated downstream.
The Agency acknowledges that there are some unique aquatic habitats that are not accurately
captured by this modeling scenario and modeling results may, therefore, under- or over-estimate
exposure, depending on a number of variables. For example, some organisms may inhabit water
bodies of different size and depth and/or are located adjacent to larger or smaller drainage areas
than the EXAMS pond. However, the Services agree that the existing EXAMS pond represents
the best currently available approach for estimating aquatic exposure to pesticides
(USFWS/NMFS 2004).
The standard pond pH was assumed to be neutral (pH=7). Lambda-cyhalothrin degrades faster
in high pH water in which case, the EECs could be less than those predicted by PRZM/EXAMS.
On the other hand, lambda-cyhalothrin's degradation is possibly a function of the redox
potential, with the chemical being more stable in negative redox potential environments. In
general, static waters with low aeration could show higher EECs than predicted by PRZM/
EXAMS. In addition, lambda-cyhalothrin's EECs may be different than actually predicted if the
temperature is different than 20-25°C, which is the temperature used frequently in laboratory
studies.
In general, the linked PRZM/EXAMS model produces estimated aquatic concentrations that are
expected to be exceeded once within a ten-year period. The Pesticide Root Zone Model is a
process or "simulation" model that calculates what happens to a pesticide in an agricultural field
on a day-to-day basis. It considers factors such as rainfall and plant transpiration of water, as
well as how and when the pesticide is applied. It has two major components: hydrology and
chemical transport. Water movement is simulated by the use of generalized soil parameters,
242
-------
including field capacity, wilting point, and saturation water content. The chemical transport
component can simulate pesticide application on the soil or on the plant foliage. Dissolved,
adsorbed, and vapor-phase concentrations in the soil are estimated by simultaneously considering
the processes of pesticide uptake by plants, surface runoff, erosion, decay, volatilization, foliar
wash-off, advection, dispersion, and retardation.
Uncertainties associated with each of these individual components add to the overall uncertainty
of the modeled concentrations. Additionally, model inputs from the environmental fate
degradation studies are chosen to represent the upper confidence bound on the mean values that
are not expected to be exceeded in the environment approximately 90 percent of the time.
Mobility input values are chosen to be representative of conditions in the environment. The
natural variation in soils adds to the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors such as application
date, crop emergence date, and canopy cover can also affect estimated concentrations, adding to
the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors within the ambient environment such as soil
temperatures, sunlight intensity, antecedent soil moisture, and surface water temperatures can
cause actual aquatic concentrations to differ for the modeled values.
Unlike spray drift, tools are currently not available to evaluate the effectiveness of a vegetative
setback on runoff and loadings. The effectiveness of vegetative setbacks is highly dependent on
the condition of the vegetative strip. For example, a well established, healthy vegetative setback
can be a very effective means of reducing runoff and erosion from agricultural fields.
Alternatively, a setback of poor vegetative quality or a setback that is channelized can be
ineffective at reducing loadings. Until such time as a quantitative method to estimate the effect
of vegetative setbacks on various conditions on pesticide loadings becomes available, the aquatic
exposure predictions are likely to overestimate exposure where healthy vegetative setbacks exist
and underestimate exposure where poorly developed, channelized, or bare setbacks exist.
To account for uncertainties associated with modeling, available monitoring data were compared
to PRZM/EXAMS estimates of peak EECs for the different uses. As discussed above, several
data values were available from NAWQA for lambda-cyhalothrin's concentrations measured in
surface waters receiving runoff from agricultural areas. The specific use patterns (e.g.
application rates and timing, crops) associated with the agricultural areas are unknown; however,
they are assumed to be representative of potential lambda-cyhalothrin use areas. The majority
(93%) of the surface water EEC values were < 1 |ig/L, which were in line with the monitoring
values. It appears that modeling provides suitable conservative estimates of exposure
concentration (EECs).
6.1.5. Exposure in Estuarine/Marine Environments
PRZM-EXAMS modeled EECs are intended to represent exposure of aquatic organisms in
relatively small ponds and low-order streams. Therefore, it is likely that EECs generated from
the PRZM-EXAMS model will over-estimate potential concentrations in larger receiving water
bodies such as estuaries, embayments, and coastal marine areas because chemicals in runoff
water (or spray drift, etc.) should be diluted by a much larger volume of water than would be
found in the 'typical' EXAMS pond. However, as chemical constituents in water draining from
freshwater streams encounter brackish or other near-marine-associated conditions, there is
243
-------
potential for important chemical transformations to occur. Many chemical compounds can
undergo changes in mobility, toxicity, or persistence when changes in pH, Eh (redox potential),
salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO) content, or temperature are encountered. For example,
desorption and re-mobilization of some chemicals from sediments can occur with changes in
salinity (Jordan et al., 2008; Means, 1995; Swarzenski et al., 2003), changes in pH (e.g., Wood
and Baptista 1993; Parikh et al. 2004; Fernandez et al. 2005), Eh changes (Velde and Church,
1999; Wood and Baptista, 1993), and other factors. Thus, although chemicals in discharging
rivers may be diluted by large volumes of water within receiving estuaries and embayments, the
hydrochemistry of the marine-influenced water may negate some of the attenuating impact of the
greater water volume; for example, the effect of dilution may be confounded by changes in
chemical mobility (and/or bioavailability) in brackish water. In addition, freshwater
contributions from discharging streams and rivers do not instantaneously mix with more saline
water bodies. In these settings, water will commonly remain highly stratified, with fresh water
lying atop denser, heavier saline water - meaning that exposure to concentrations found in
discharging stream water may propagate some distance beyond the outflow point of the stream
(especially near the water surface). Therefore, it is not assumed that discharging water will be
rapidly diluted by the entire water volume within an estuary, embayment, or other coastal aquatic
environment.
PRZM-EXAMS model results should be considered consistent with concentrations that might be
found near the head of an estuary unless there is specific information - such as monitoring data -
to indicate otherwise. Conditions nearer to the mouth of a bay or estuary, however, may be
closer to a marine-type system, and thus more subject to the notable buffering, mixing, and
diluting capacities of an open marine environment. Conversely, tidal effects (pressure waves)
can propagate much further upstream than the actual estuarine water, so discharging river water
may become temporarily partially impounded near the mouth (discharge point) of a channel, and
resistant to mixing until tidal forces are reversed.
The Agency does not currently have sufficient information regarding the hydrology and
hydrochemistry of estuarine aquatic habitats to develop alternate scenarios for assessed listed
species that inhabit these types of ecosystems. The Agency acknowledges that there are unique
brackish and estuarine habitats that may not be accurately captured by PRZM-EXAMS modeling
results, and may, therefore, under- or over-estimate exposure, depending on the aforementioned
variables.
6.1.6. Modeled Versus Monitoring Concentrations
Peak model-estimated environmental concentrations resulting from different lambda-cyhalothrin
uses range from 0.0008 to 15.89 |ig/L, with the majority (93%) of EEC values < 1 |ig/L. These
estimates are supplemented with analysis of available California surface water monitoring data
from U. S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program and the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Concentrations of lambda-cyhalothrin reported
by NAWQA for California surface waters with agricultural watersheds are less than the limit of
quantitation (LOQ) which ranged from 0.004 to 0.018 |ig/L. However, the maximum
concentration of lambda-cyhalothrin reported by the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation surface water database (0.14 |ig/L) is roughly 100 times lower than the highest peak
244
-------
model-estimated environmental concentration. However, the majority (93%) of the surface
water EEC values were < 1 |ig/L were in line with the monitoring values. It appears that
modeling provides suitable conservative estimates of exposure concentration (EECs).
6.1.7. Degradate Modeling
Compound XV was determined to be similar in structure to the parent, lambda-cyhalothrin. No
toxicity data were available for this compound, but ECOSAR modeling indicated its toxicity
would be in the same order of magnitude as lambda-cyhalothrin. Given that these chemicals are
expected to be similar in their toxicity, modeling lambda-cyhalothrin alone should have been
protective of all organisms. If Compound XV were slightly more toxic than its parent, the RQ
would be expected to increase; however, it is unlikely that this would affect the overall
conclusion of the assessment, given the large number of RQs that exceeded the LOCs.
6.2. Effects Assessment Uncertainties
6.2.1. Data Gaps and Uncertainties
Terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. In lieu of this, two lambda-cyhalothrin efficacy
studies were used to support the premise that the pesticide is not harmful to plants at field
application rates. The EPA inventory of studies for other pyrethroids was searched for terrestrial
plant data, but no toxicity information was available. In addition, plant incident data were
reviewed. In most cases, details from the plant incidents were lacking and definitive evidence
linking lambda-cyhalothrin exposure to the plant damage was not present. In absence of
definitive data, risks to plants were assumed.
Toxicity data also were not available for aquatic vascular plants, thus toxicity data from non-
vascular plants were used as a surrogate (see Section 6.2.2).
Pyrethroids sorb to sediments and thus potentially pose greater risks to benthic organisms than
other chemicals. Data were not available for freshwater and estuarine/marine benthic
invertebrates, thus toxicity data from freshwater invertebrates and estuarine/marine invertebrates
were used as surrogates (see Section 6.2.2).
6.2.2. Use of Surrogate Species Effects Data
Guideline toxicity tests and open literature data on lambda-cyhalothrin are not available for
aquatic-phase amphibians; therefore, freshwater fish are used as surrogate species for aquatic-
phase amphibians and the CTS. Endpoints based on freshwater fish ecotoxicity data are assumed
to be protective of potential direct effects to aquatic-phase amphibians including the CTS, and
extrapolation of the risk conclusions from the most sensitive tested species to the aquatic-phase
CTS is likely to overestimate the potential risks to those species. Efforts are made to select the
organisms most likely to be affected by the type of compound and usage pattern; however, there
is an inherent uncertainty in extrapolating across phyla. In addition, the Agency's LOCs are
intentionally set very low, and conservative estimates are made in the screening level risk
assessment to account for these uncertainties.
245
-------
Similarly, toxicity data for aquatic vascular plants were not available. Toxicity data from aquatic
non-vascular plants were used as a surrogate. Depending on the differences in sensitivity
between aquatic vascular and non-vascular plants, these data may over or underestimate the risk
to aquatic vascular plants.
Data also were not available for benthic organisms - freshwater or estuarine/marine. In lieu of
this, toxicity data from other freshwater or estuarine/marine organisms were used as surrogates.
In the case of freshwater invertebrates, acute toxicity data from Hyalella were available. This
organism is commonly used for sediment toxicity testing. Daphnia data were used for chronic
effects to freshwater benthic invertebrates, in the form of an acute-to-chronic ratio; Daphnia is
usually less sensitive than freshwater benthic organisms. Mysid shrimp acute and chronic data
were used a surrogates for estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates.
6.2.3. Sublethal Effects
When assessing acute risk, the screening risk assessment relies on the acute mortality endpoint as
well as a suite of sublethal responses to the pesticide, as determined by the testing of species
response to chronic exposure conditions and subsequent chronic risk assessment. Consideration
of additional sublethal data in the effects determination is exercised on a case-by-case basis and
only after careful consideration of the nature of the sublethal effect measured and the extent and
quality of available data to support establishing a plausible relationship between the measure of
effect (sublethal endpoint) and the assessment endpoints. However, the full suite of sublethal
effects from valid open literature studies is considered for the characterization purposes.
Open literature studies were consulted for sublethal effects; however, studies mainly focused on
mortality and sublethal effects were either absent or not reported for lambda-cyhalothrin. To the
extent to which sublethal effects are not considered in this assessment, the potential direct and
indirect effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on listed species may be underestimated.
7. Risk Conclusions
In fulfilling its obligations under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, the information
presented in this endangered species risk assessment represents the best data currently available
to assess the potential risks of lambda-cyhalothrin to BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS,
SFGS, TG, and VELB and their designated critical habitat.
Based on the best available information, the Agency makes a Likely to Adversely Affect
determination for the CTS (all DPS) and SFGS. Additionally, the Agency has determined that
there is the potential for modification of the designated critical habitat for the CTS-CC and CTS-
SB from the use of the chemical. Given the LAA determination for BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all
DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB and potential modification of designated critical habitat for the
CTS-CC and CTS-SB, a description of the baseline status and cumulative effects is provided in
Attachment III.
246
-------
A summary of the risk conclusions and effects determinations for the BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS
(all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB and their critical habitat, given the uncertainties discussed
in Section 6 and Attachment I, is presented in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2. Use specific effects
determinations are provided in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4.
Table 7-1. Effects Determination Summary for Effects of LamMa-Cyhalothrin on the
BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS (all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
Potential for Direct Effects
Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
(Euphydryas editha
bayensis)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the BCB based on
the RQs exceeding the interim listed species terrestrial invertebrate LOC (acute)
for all uses. Four major incidents were reported for terrestrial invertebrates. The
probability of an individual effect is 1.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial food items, habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects to plant food and habitat sources
because quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. Several
plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for other pyrethroids, thus
extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Valley Elderberry
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Longhorn Beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the VELB based
on RQs exceeding the interim listed terrestrial invertebrate LOC (acute) for all
uses. Four major incidents were reported for terrestrial invertebrates. The
probability of an individual effect is 1.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial food items, habitat
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to result in adverse effects to non-
target terrestrial invertebrates, thus native pollinators of the elderberry also are
likely to be negatively affected by /cwM/«/fl-cyhalothrin use and result in impaired
plant reproduction. The elderberry plant serves as an obligate host for the
VELB.
There is the potential for indirect effects to plant food and habitat sources
because quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. Several
plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for other pyrethroids, thus
extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not possible.
California Tiger
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Salamander
(All 3 DPS)
(Ambystoma
californiense)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Aquatic-phase (eggs, larvae, and adults) and terrestrial-phase (juveniles and
adults)
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CTS based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial-phase
amphibians (using avian surrogate species data) and based on RQs exceeding the
247
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for aquatic-phase amphibians (using
freshwater fish surrogate species data). There were no major incidents reported
for amphibians. The probability of an individual effect is between 491 and 1710.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding listed and non4isted species LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial
invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, and freshwater fish.
Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible because the RQs exceed the
listed and non-listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for small mammals which
could affect burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food, shelter,
and protection from the elements and predation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
California Clapper
Rail
(Rallus longirostris
obsoletus)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CCR based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for avian species.
There were no major incidents reported for birds. The probability of an
individual effect is between 11 and 22.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs (acute and chronic) for birds,
mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, and
freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
California
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
248
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
Freshwater Shrimp
(Syncaris pacifica)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CFWS based
on RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates on an
acute and chronic basis. There were three major incidents reported for
freshwater invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect is between 1 and
7.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, habitat, cover, and primary productivity and terrestrial prey
items, riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Delta Smelt
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the DS based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish
on an acute and chronic basis. There were four major incidents reported for
freshwater fish. The probability of an individual effect is between 1 and 58,500
for freshwater fish and 1 and 265,000,000 for estuarine/marine fish.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, habitat, cover, and primary productivity and terrestrial
riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs (acute and
chronic) exceeding the listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
San Francisco
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Garter Snake
(Thamnophis
sirtalis tetrataenia)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the SFGS based
on RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for reptiles (using avian surrogate
species data), on an acute and chronic basis. There were no major incidents
249
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
reported for reptiles. The probability of an individual effect is between 648 and
2490.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial-phase
amphibians and reptiles (using avian surrogate species data), mammals,
terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater fish/aquatic-phase amphibians, and
freshwater invertebrates. Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible
because the RQs exceeded the listed and non-listed species LOCs for mammals,
for burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that CTS depend upon for shelter, and aestivation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Tidewater Goby
(Eucyclogobius
new berryi)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the TG based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for freshwater and
estuarine/marine fish on an acute and chronic basis. There were four major
incidents reported for freshwater fish. The probability of an individual effect is
between 1 and 58,500 for freshwater fish and 1 and 265,000,000 for
estuarine/marine fish.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
Terrestrial riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
250
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
Potential for Direct Effects
Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
(Euphydryas editha
bayensis)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the BCB based on
the RQs exceeding the interim listed species terrestrial invertebrate LOC (acute)
for all uses. Four major incidents were reported for terrestrial invertebrates. The
probability of an individual effect is 1.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial food items, habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects to plant food and habitat sources
because quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. Several
plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for other pyrethroids, thus
extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Valley Elderberry
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Longhorn Beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the VELB based
on RQs exceeding the interim listed terrestrial invertebrate LOC (acute) for all
uses. Four major incidents were reported for terrestrial invertebrates. The
probability of an individual effect is 1.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial food items, habitat
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to result in adverse effects to non-
target terrestrial invertebrates, thus native pollinators of the elderberry also are
likely to be negatively affected by /flw//«/fl-cyhalothrin use and result in impaired
plant reproduction. The elderberry plant serves as an obligate host for the
VELB.
There is the potential for indirect effects to plant food and habitat sources
because quantitative terrestrial plant toxicity data were not available. Several
plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible adverse effects of lambda-
cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for other pyrethroids, thus
extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not possible.
California Tiger
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Salamander
(All 3 DPS)
(Ambystoma
californiense)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Aquatic-phase (eggs, larvae, and adults) and terrestrial-phase (juveniles and
adults)
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CTS based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial-phase
amphibians (using avian surrogate species data) and based on RQs exceeding the
listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for aquatic-phase amphibians (using
freshwater fish surrogate species data). There were no major incidents reported
for amphibians. The probability of an individual effect is between 491 and 1710.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding listed and non-listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial
251
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, and freshwater fish.
Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible because the RQs exceed the
listed and non-listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for small mammals which
could affect burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food, shelter,
and protection from the elements and predation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
California Clapper
Rail
(Rallus longirostris
obsoletus)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CCR based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for avian species.
There were no major incidents reported for birds. The probability of an
individual effect is between 11 and 22.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs (acute and chronic) for birds,
mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, and
freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
California
Freshwater Shrimp
(Syncaris pacifica)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the CFWS based
on RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates on an
acute and chronic basis. There were three major incidents reported for
freshwater invertebrates. The probability of an individual effect is between 1 and
7.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, habitat, cover, and primary productivity and terrestrial prey
252
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
items, riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Delta Smelt
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the DS based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish
on an acute and chronic basis. There were four major incidents reported for
freshwater fish. The probability of an individual effect is between 1 and 58,500
for freshwater fish and 1 and 265,000,000 for estuarine/marine fish.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, habitat, cover, and primary productivity and terrestrial
riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs (acute and
chronic) exceeding the listed and non-listed species LOCs for freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
San Francisco
May Affect,
Potential for Direct Effects
Garter Snake
(Thamnophis
sirtalis tetrataenia)
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Terrestrial
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the SFGS based
on RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs for reptiles (using avian surrogate
species data), on an acute and chronic basis. There were no major incidents
reported for reptiles. The probability of an individual effect is between 648 and
2490.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
There is the potential for indirect effects from affected prey based on RQs
exceeding the listed and non-listed LOCs (acute and chronic) for terrestrial-phase
amphibians and reptiles (using avian surrogate species data), mammals,
253
-------
Species
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater fish/aquatic-phase amphibians, and
freshwater invertebrates. Indirect effects from affected habitat are possible
because the RQs exceeded the listed and non-listed species LOCs for mammals,
for burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that CTS depend upon for shelter, and aestivation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Tidewater Goby
(Eucyclogobius
new berryi)
May Affect,
Likely to
Adversely
Affect (LAA)
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic
There is the potential for lambda-cyhalothrin to directly affect the TG based on
RQs exceeding the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for freshwater and
estuarine/marine fish on an acute and chronic basis. There were four major
incidents reported for freshwater fish. The probability of an individual effect is
between 1 and 58,500 for freshwater fish and 1 and 265,000,000 for
estuarine/marine fish.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover, and primary productivity and
Terrestrial riparian habitat
Indirect effects from affected prey are also possible based on RQs exceeding the
listed and non-listed LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available for
other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is not
possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the organisms
that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal. Indirect effects
toaquatic plants are not anticipated.
Table 7-2. Effects Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact Analysis
Designated
Critical Habitat
for:
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
254
-------
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
California Tiger
Salamander Central
California Distinct
Population
Segment
Habitat
Modification
Habitat effects are possible because the RQs exceeded the LOCs for
mammal burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food,
shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
California Tiger
Salamander Santa
Barbara County
Distinct Population
Segment
Habitat
Modification
Habitat effects are possible because the RQs exceeded the LOCs for
mammal burrow availability. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult CTS depend upon for food,
shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Delta Smelt
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects to the DS because of a reduction in
the food supply, based on direct and indirect effects to aquatic invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
Tidewater Goby
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects to the DS because of a reduction in
the food supply, based on direct and indirect effects to aquatic invertebrates.
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
In addition, indirect effects to plants may result from effects on the
organisms that plants depend on for pollination and seed dispersal.
255
-------
Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
Habitat
Modification
There is the potential for indirect effects on habitat from adverse effects to
terrestrial plants (conservative assumption given that plant data were not
available). Several plant incidents have been reported, indicating possible
adverse effects of lambda-cyhalothrin on plants. Plant data are not available
for other pyrethroids, thus extrapolation from one pyrethroid to another is
not possible.
The VELB has an obligate relationship with the elderberry. Indirect effects
may occur because of the direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates, which
may affect pollination and seed dispersal of the elderberry.
Based on the information provided in the VELB Status and Life History
document prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Services, any human
disturbance that adversely affects the beetle results in modification of critical
habitat (1980 Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 155).
256
-------
Table 7-3. Use Specific Summary of the Potential for Adverse Effects to Aquatic Taxa
I SOS
Polenlhil lor I'.ITeels
lo lilculil'iotl l :i\ii ImiiiikI in the Auiiiilie l'.n\ immnenl
l)S. K, iiml
r.sdiiiriiK'/ Murine
Yer(el>r;iles'
l)S. TC. CTS-CC.
SC. iiml SIS DPS.
iiml l-'ivshwiilcr
Yer(el>r;i(es:
( IWSiiml
I'reslmiiler
ln\erlel>r;iles'
l"reslm;i(er
lien l hie
ln\erlel>r;iles''
l-lsliiiiri ne/Mii ri lie
ln\erlel)i'iiles4
l'.slii;irine/
Murine lien I hie
ln\er(el>r;i(es4
\ iisenliir
;ilid iKin-
\:iseiiliir
phi ills'"
Aenle
('limine
Aenle
('limine
Anile
( hmnie
Aenle
('hmnie
Aenle
( hmnie
Aenle
( hmnie
Agricultural/
farm premises
(crack and
crevice)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Alfalfa (aerial)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Alfalfa
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Almond
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Almond (trunk
drench)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Apple, cherry,
crabapple,
nectarine,
peach, pear,
plum, prune,
trees (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nectarine,
peach, cherry
trees trunk
drench (trunk
drench)
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
No
No
Apple trees
(trunk drench)
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes7
No
No
No
No
Animal housing
premises,
paths/patios
(crack and
crevice)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Household/
domestic
dwellings,
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
257
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatie Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Aeute
Chronie
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
outdoor
premises (crack
and crevice)
Apricot, loquat,
mayhaw, plum,
quince (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Bean,
groundcherry,
pea, pepino,
pepper (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Eggplant
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Beech nut,
Brazil nut,
butternut,
cashew,
chestnut,
chinquapin,
hickory nut,
macadamia nut
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Barley (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Barley (G)/ 2
app @ 0.031 lb
ai/A (7-days)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Bell pepper,
catjang
(Jerusalem/mar
ble pea) (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Bell pepper,
catjang
(Jerusalem/
marble
pea)(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
258
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG
and
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
CFWS
and
Freshwater
Estuarinc/Marinc
Estuarine/
Vascular
Estuarine/ Marine
SC, and SB DPS,
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Marine Bcnthic
and non-
Vcrtcbr
ites
and Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Invertebrates'
Invertebrates4
vascular
Vertebrates2
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Mustard
cabbage (gai
choy, pak-choi)
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brassica (head
and stem)
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brassica (head
and stem)
vegetables
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Tomato,
tomatillo
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(ground)
Broccoli,
cauliflower
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(ground)
Cabbage,
kohlrabi
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(ground)
Mustard
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brussels sprouts
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Brussels sprouts
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Buckwheat, oat,
rye (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Buckwheat, oat,
rye (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Canola/rape
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
259
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG
and
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
CFWS
and
Freshwater
Estuarinc/Marinc
Estuarine/
Vascular
Estuarine/ Marine
SC, and SB DPS,
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Marine Bcnthic
and non-
Vcrtcbr
ites
and Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Invertebrates'
Invertebrates4
vascular
Vertebrates2
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Canola/rape
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Grass
forage/fodder
/hay, pastures,
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
rangeland
(aerial)
Grass
forage/fodder
/hay, pastures,
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
rangeland
(ground)
Cereal grains,
triticale, wheat
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(aerial)
Cereal grains,
triticale, wheat
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(ground)
Cole crops
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cole crops
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Onion (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Onion (ground)
No
No
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Commercial/
industrial
lawns,
ornamental
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
lawns and turf,
recreation area
lawns (ground)
Commercial/
industrial
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
lawns,
260
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatie Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Aeute
Chronie
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
ornamental
lawns and turf,
recreation area
lawns (spot
treatment)
Conifers
(plantations/
nurseries)
(ground)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Conifers (seed
orchard)
(ground)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (field)
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (field)
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (field,
pop) (in-
furrow)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (sweet)
(in-furrow)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (sweet)
(dust)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Corn (sweet)
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cotton (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cotton (ground)
No
No
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Cucurbit
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Cucurbit
vegetables
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
261
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Ear tags
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Filbert, pecan,
walnut (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Filbert, pecan,
walnut (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Filbert, pecan,
walnut (dust)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Forest plantings
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Fruiting
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Fruiting
vegetables
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Garlic (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Golf course
turf, ornamental
sod farm
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(ground)
Golf course
turf, ornamental
sod farm
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
(mound)
Grasses grown
for seed
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Legume
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Legume
vegetables
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
262
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG
and
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
CFWS
and
Freshwater
Estuarinc/Marinc
Estuarine/
Vascular
Estuarine/ Marine
SC, and SB DPS,
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Marine Bcnthic
and non-
Vcrtcbr
ites
and Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Invertebrates'
Invertebrates4
vascular
Vertebrates2
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Peanuts, root
and tuber
vegetables
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Peanuts, root
and tuber
vegetables
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Lettuce (aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Lettuce
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soils
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(aerial)
Ornamental
and/or shade
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
trees (ground)
Ornamental
and/or shade
trees, ground
cover,
herbaceous
plants, non-
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
flowering
plants, woody
shrubs and
vines, rose
(dust)
Paved areas
(private roads/
sidewalks
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
(ground)
Pome and stone
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
263
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
fruit (aerial)
Pome and stone
fruit (ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Potato (aerial)
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Potato (ground)
No
No
Yes'
No
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
No
Recreational
areas (banding)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Recreational
areas (crack and
crevice/spot
treatment)
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Residential
lawns (ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Residential
lawns (mound)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Rice (ground)
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Seed orchard
trees (ground)
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Sorghum
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Sorghum
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Soybean
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Soybean
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Tree nuts
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Tree nuts
(ground)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Sunflower
(aerial)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Sunflower
Yes'
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
264
-------
Uses
Potential for .Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Aquatic Environment
DS, TG and
Estuarine/ Marine
Vertebrates1
DS, TG, CTS-CC,
SC, and SB DPS,
and Freshwater
Vertebrates2
CFWS and
Freshwater
Invertebrates3
Freshwater
Bcnthic
Invertebrates6
Estuarinc/Marinc
Invertebrates4
Estuarine/
Marine Bcnthic
Invertebrates4
Vascular
and non-
vascular
plants'1
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
(ground)
Right-of-way
(ground)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Airports/
landing fields
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Golf course
turf, ornamental
sod farm
(granular spot
treatment)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Grasses grown
for seed
(granular spot
treatment)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soil
(granular
band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot
treatment)
Yes7
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Nonagricultural
uncultivated
areas/soil
(granular
mound
treatment)
No
No
Yes7
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to DS and TG and indirect effects to CCR.
2 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to DS, TG and indirect effects to SFGS, and CCR. A yes also indicates a potential for direct
and indirect effects for the CTS-CC, CTS-SC, and CTS-SB.
3 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to the CFWS and indirect effects to the CFWS, SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SB, CTS-SC, TG,
andDS.
4 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to CCR, TG, and DS.
5 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, TG, DS, and CFWS.
265
-------
6 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to CFWS, SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SB, CTS-SC, TG, and DS.
7 No indirect effects are expected.
Table 7-4. Use Specific Summary of the Potential for Adverse Effects to Terrestrial Taxa
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-
SC, CTS-SB and
Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, V.ELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)5
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Agricultural/farm premises, crack
and crevice/surface
spray/perimeter treatment
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Alfalfa, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Almond, ground dust and spray
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apple, cherry, crabapple,
nectarine, peach, pear, plum,
prune, ground dust and spray
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Almond, nectarine, peach, cherry,
trunk drench
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apple, trunk drench
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Animal housing premises,
paths/patios, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Household/domestic dwellings
outdoor premises, barrier
treatment/crack and crevice
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apricot, bean, eggplant,
groundcherry, loquat, mayhaw,
pea, pepino, pepper, plum, quince,
ground spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Beech nut, Brazil nut, butternut,
cashew, chestnut, chinquapin,
hickory nut, macadamia nut,
ground spray/dust
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Barley, aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Bell pepper, catjang
(Jerusalem/marble pea)
(aerial/ground spray/dust)
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
266
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-
SC, CTS-SB and
Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, V.ELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)5
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Mustard cabbage (gai choy, pak-
choi), ground spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brassica (head and stem)
vegetables, aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tomato, tomatillo, ground
spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Broccoli, cauliflower, ground
spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cabbage, kohlrabi, ground
spray/dust
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mustard
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brussels sprouts, ground spray
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Brussels sprouts, dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Buckwheat, oat, rye, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Canola/rape, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grass forage/fodder/hay, pastures,
rangeland, aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cereal grains, triticale, wheat,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cole crops, aerial/ground/dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Onion, aerial/ground/dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Commercial/ industrial lawns,
ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns, ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Commercial/ industrial lawns,
ornamental lawns and turf,
recreation area lawns, mound/spot
treatment
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Conifers (plantations/ nurseries),
ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Conifers (seed orchard), ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (field), aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (field, pop), soil in furrow/T-
banding
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
267
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-
SC, CTS-SB and
Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, V.ELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)5
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Corn (sweet), soil in furrow/T-
banding
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (sweet), dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Corn (sweet), spray
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cotton, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cucurbit vegetables, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ear tag
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Filbert, pecan, walnut,
aerial/ground
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Filbert, pecan, walnut, dust
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Forest plantings, ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fruiting vegetables, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Garlic
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Golf course turf, ornamental sod
farm, ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Golf course turf, ornamental sod
farm, mound
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Grasses grown for seed, ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Legume vegetables, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Peanuts, root and tuber vegetables,
aerial/ground
Yes7
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lettuce, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soils, aerial
Yes7
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ornamental and/or shade trees,
ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ornamental and/or shade trees,
ground cover, herbaceous plants,
non flowering plants, woody
shrubs and vines, rose,
ground/dust/
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Paved areas (private
roads/sidewalks), barrier/perimeter
treatment
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
268
-------
Uses
Potential for Effects to Identified Taxa Found in the Terrestrial Environment
Small Mammals1
CCR and Small
Birds2
CTS-CC, CTS-
SC, CTS-SB and
Amphibians3
SFGS and
Reptiles4
BCB, VELB, and
Invertebrates
(Acute)5
Dicots6
Monocots6
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Pome and stone fruit, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Potato, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recreational areas, band treatment
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recreational areas, crack and
crevice/spot treatment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rice, ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Seed orchard trees, ground
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sorghum, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Soybean, aerial/ground
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tree nuts, aerial/ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sunflower, aerial/ground
Yes'
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Right-of-way, ground
Yes'
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Airports/landing fields, ground
granular
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Golf course turf, ornamental sod
farm, granular spot treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Grasses grown for seed, granular
spot treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soil, granular band/broadcast/
perimeter/spot treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Nonagricultural uncultivated
areas/soil, granular mound
treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Residential lawns, granular ground
Yes'
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Residential lawns, granular mound
treatment
Yes7
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
1 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS, and CTS-SB.
2 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to CCR and indirect effects to the CCR, SFGS, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, and CTS-SB.
3 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effects to CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, and indirect effects to CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, SFGS, and
CCR.
4 A yes in this column indicates the potential for direct and indirect effects to SFGS, and other reptiles.
5 A yes in this column indicates a potential for direct effect to BCB and VELB and indirect effects to SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, and CTS-SB.
269
-------
6 A yes in this column indicates a potential for indirect effects to BCB, VELB, SFGS, CCR, CTS-CC, CTS-SC, CTS-SB, TG, DS, and CFWS. For the BCB
and VELB this is based on the listed species LOC because of the obligate relationship with terrestrial monocots and dicots. For other species, the LOC
exceedances are evaluated based on the LOC for non-listed species.
7 No indirect effects are expected.
270
-------
Based on the conclusions of this assessment, a formal consultation with the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act should be initiated.
When evaluating the significance of this risk assessment's direct/indirect and adverse habitat
modification effects determinations, it is important to note that pesticide exposures and predicted
risks to the listed species and its resources {i.e., food and habitat) are not expected to be uniform
across the action area. In fact, given the assumptions of drift and downstream transport {i.e.,
attenuation with distance), pesticide exposure and associated risks to the species and its resources
are expected to decrease with increasing distance away from the treated field or site of
application. Evaluation of the implication of this non-uniform distribution of risk to the species
would require information and assessment techniques that are not currently available. Examples
of such information and methodology required for this type of analysis would include the
following:
• Enhanced information on the density and distribution of BCB, CCR, CFWS, CTS
(all DPS), DS, SFGS, TG, and VELB life stages within the action area and/or
applicable designated critical habitat. This information would allow for
quantitative extrapolation of the present risk assessment's predictions of
individual effects to the proportion of the population extant within geographical
areas where those effects are predicted. Furthermore, such population
information would allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of the significance
of potential resource impairment to individuals of the assessed species.
• Quantitative information on prey base requirements for the assessed species.
While existing information provides a preliminary picture of the types of food
sources utilized by the assessed species, it does not establish minimal
requirements to sustain healthy individuals at varying life stages. Such
information could be used to establish biologically relevant thresholds of effects
on the prey base, and ultimately establish geographical limits to those effects.
This information could be used together with the density data discussed above to
characterize the likelihood of adverse effects to individuals.
• Information on population responses of prey base organisms to the pesticide.
Currently, methodologies are limited to predicting exposures and likely levels of
direct mortality, growth or reproductive impairment immediately following
exposure to the pesticide. The degree to which repeated exposure events and the
inherent demographic characteristics of the prey population play into the extent to
which prey resources may recover is not predictable. An enhanced understanding
of long-term prey responses to pesticide exposure would allow for a more refined
determination of the magnitude and duration of resource impairment, and together
with the information described above, a more complete prediction of effects to
individual species and potential modification to critical habitat.
8. References
A bibliography of ECOTOX references, identified by the letter E followed by a number, is
located in Appendix H.
271
-------
Armitage, J.M. and F. A. P. C. Gobas. 2007. A terrestrial food-chain bioaccumulation model
for POPS. Environmental Science and Technology, 41: 4019-4025.
Arnot, J. A., & Gobas, F. A. P. C. 2004. A food web bioaccumulation model for organic
chemicals in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(10),
2343-2355.
Cover Jr., J. F., & Boyer, D. M. 1988. Captive reproduction of the San Francisco garter snake,
Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia. Herpetol. Rev., 19, 29-33.
Fellers, G. M., McConnell, L. L., Pratt, D., & Datta, S. 2004. Pesticides in Mountain Yellow-
Legged Frogs (Rana Mucosa) from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23(9), 2170-2177.
Gobas, F. A. P. C., B. C. Kelly, and J. A. Arnot. 2003. Quantitative structure activity
relationships for predicting the bioaccumulation of POPS in terrestrial food webs. QSAR
Comb. Sci. 22:329-336.
Hamer, M. J., U. M. Goggin, K. Muller, and S. J. Maund. 1999. Bioavailability of lambda-
cyhalothrin to Chironomus riparius in sediment - water and water-only systems. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health and Management, 2, 403-412.
Hardke, J. T.; Lorenz III, G. M.; Colwell, K., and Shelton, C. 2005. Effects of Tank Mixes of
MON 3539 and Selected Compounds in Roundup Ready Flex Cotton - 2005. AAES
Research Series, 150-155.
Hoang, T. C., R. L. Pryor, G. M. Rand, and R. A. Frakes. 2011. Use of butterflies as nontarget
insect test species and the acute toxicity and hazard of mosquito control insecticides.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30(4): 997-1005.
Jordan, T. E., Cornwell, J. C., Walter, R. B., & Anderson, J. T. 2008. Changes in phosphorus
biogeochemistry along an estuarine salinity gradient. Limnology and Oceanography
53(1), 172-184.
King, R. B. 2002. Predicted and observed maximum prey size - snake size allometry. Functional
Ecology, 16, 766-772.
Laskowski, D.A. 2002. Physical and chemical properties of pyrethroids. Rev. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 2002. 174:49-170.
LeNoir, J. S., McConnell, L. L., Fellers, G. M., Cahill, T. M., & Seiber, J. N. 1999. Summertime
Transport of Current-use pesticides from California's Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada
Mountain Range, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(12), 2715-2722.
Matsumura, F. 1985. Toxicology of insects. 2nd ed. Plenum New York.
McConnell, L. L., LeNoir, J. S., Datta, S., & Seiber, J. N. 1998. Wet deposition of current-use
pesticides in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, 77(10), 1908-1916.
Means, J. C. 1995. Influence of salinity upon sediment-water partitioning of aromatic
hydrocarbons. Marine Chemistry, 57(1), 3-16.
Patton, T. W., and G. P. Dively. 1999. Control of cereal leaf beetle in wheat, 1998. Arthropod
Management Tests, 24: 323.
Sparling, D. W., Fellers, G. M., & McConnell, L. L. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population
declines in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20(7), 1591-
1595.
272
-------
Swarzenski, P. W., Porcelli, D., Andersson, P. S., & Smoak, J. M. 2003. The behavior of U- and
Th-series nuclides in the estuarine environment. Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry, 52(1), 577-606.
Trenham, P. C., Shaffer, H. B., Koenig, W. D., & Stromberg, M. R. 2000. Life history and
demographic variation in the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense).
Copeia, 2, 365-377.
University of California and United States Department of Agriculture. 2004. Sample cost to
establish and produce sweet corn. U. C. Cooperative Extension Imperial County, CA.
USEPA. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Handbook. Office of Research and Development, United
States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/toc2-37.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2009).
USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA). Risk Assessment Forum. Office of Research and
Development. Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplav.cfm?deid=12460
(Accessed June 19, 2009).
USEPA. 1999. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting, February 23, 1999 held at the
Holiday Inn Hotel, Arlington, VA. SAP Report No. 99-03 A. March 25, 1999. Office of
Pesticide Programs. Available at URL:
http://www.epa.gov/scipolv/sap/meetings/1999/022399 mtg.htm#materials (accessed
December 15, 3009).
USEPA. 2000. Supplementary guidance for conducting health risk assessments of chemical
mixtures. EPA/630/R-00/002. Risk Assessment Forum. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington DC, 20460.
USEPA. 2002. Section 3 request for new uses of lambda-cyhalothrin (P.C. Code 128897) on
peas and beans, fruiting vegetables, canola, sugarcane sorghum, wheat, wheat hay and
other small grains, peanut hay, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, termite barrier, tobacco,
non-cropland and trees (conifer and deciduous trees). Environmental Fate and Effects
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June
2002.
USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide
Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental
Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2009).
USEPA. 2006. Environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for Section 3 registration of
lambda-cyhalothrin, an insecticide for new uses on cereal grains, cucurbit vegetables,
grass forage, fodder and hay, wild rice and tuberous and corm vegetables. Environmental
Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. December 2006.
USEPA. 2007a. Maximum Number of Crop Cycles Per Year in California for Methomyl Use
Sites. Memo from Monisha Kaul (BEAD) to Melissa Panger (EFED). Dated 27 February
2007.
USEPA. 2007b. Lambda-cyhalothrin human health risk assessment for the proposed food/feed
uses of the insecticide on cucurbit vegetables (group 9), tuberous and corm
vegetables (subgroup lc), grass forage, fodder, and hay (group 17), barley,
buckwheat, oat, rye, wild rice, and pistachios. Petition Number 5F6994, 3E6593,
273
-------
and 6E7077. Health Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. July 2007.
USEPA. 2008. EFED new use registration for lambda-cyhalothrin on non-bearing citrus
orchards. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. November 2008.
USEPA. 2010. EFED registration review problem formulation for lambda-cyhalothrin and
gamma-cyhalothrin. Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 2010.
USEPA. 2009. A set of scientific issues being considered by the EPA regarding: evaluation of
the common mechanism of action of pyrethroid pesticides. SAP Minutes No. 2009-07.
FIFRA SAP Meeting held 6.16.09 in Arlington, VA. Meeting minutes dated 9/9/09.
USEPA. 2012a. County-level usage for aldicarb, bensulide, bifenthrin, brodifacoum,
chlorothalonil, diazinon, difenacoum, lambda-cyhalothrin, methomyl, PCNB,
pendimethalin, in California in support of a San Francisco Bay Endangered Species
Assessment. Memo from Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2012.
USEPA. 2012b. Methomyl and cyhalothrin-lambda usage maps by crop reporting district (PC
codes: 090301 and 128897). Memo from Biological and Economic Analysis Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 2012.
USFWS/NMFS. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting
Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Final Draft. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Available at
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/consultations/s7hndbk/s7hndbk.htm (Accessed June 19,
2009).
USFWS. 2003. Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 304(a) Human Health Criterion for
Methylmercury: Protection for Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in California.
October 2003. Environmental Contaminants Division. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ec/Methvlmercurv%20Criterion%20Evaluation%20Final
%20Report%20Qctober%202003.pdf (Accessed January 25, 2010).
USFWS/NMFS/NOAA.2004. 50 CFR Part 402. Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act
Section 7 Consultation Regulations; Final Rule. Federal Register Volume 69. Number
20.Pages 47731-47762. August 5, 2004.
van Eeden, C.F., J. B. J., van Rensburg, and T. C. de K. van der Linde. 1995. Evaluation of
chemical control against the inset complex of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) in South
African Highveld region. African Journal of Plant Science, 12(1), 1-6.
Velde, B., & Church, T. 1999. Rapid clay transformations in Delaware salt marshes. Applied
Geochemistry, 14(5), 559-568.
Wang, Q.; Cheng, J. A.; Liu, Z. M.; Wu, S. G.; Zhao, X. P., and Wu, C. X. 2005. Influences of
Insecticides on Toxicity and Cuticular Penetration of Abamectin in Helicoverpa
armigera. Insect Science 12(2), 109-119.
Wood, T. M., & Baptista, A. M. 1993. A model for diagnostic analysis of estuarine
geochemistry. Water Resources Research 29(1), 51-71.
274
-------
9. MRID List
00150854. Roberts, N. L. and C. Fairley. 1981. The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of
Cyhalothrin to the Mallard Duck. Prepared by ICI, Ltd., Submitted by Coopers Animal
Health Inc., Kansas City, MO.
00151117. Roberts, N. L., C. Fairley and R. N. Woodhouse. 1981. The Subacute Dietary
Toxicity of Cyhalothrin to the Mallard Duck. Prepared by ICI ,Ltd. Submitted by
Coppers Animal Health Inc., Kansas City, Mo.
00151118. Roberts, N. L., C. Fairley and R. N. Woodhouse. 1981. The Subacute Dietary
Toxicity of Cyhalothrin to the Bobwhite Quail. Prepared by ICI, Ltd. Submitted by
Coopers Animal Health Inc., Kansas City, Mo.
00151594. Roberts, N.; Fairley, C. (1984) The Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) of PP321 to the
Mallard Duck: Report No. ICI 438BT1831011. Unpublished study prepared by
Huntingdon Research Centre. 17 p.
00151595. Roberts, N.; Fairley, C.; Anderson, A,; et al. (1985) The Subacute Dietary Toxicity
of PP321 to the Mallard Duck: Report No. ISN 46BT185171. Unpublished study prepared
by Huntingdon Research Centre. 34 p.
00151596. Roberts, N.; Fairley, C.; Anderson, A,; et al. (1985) The Subacute Dietary Toxicity
of PP321 to the Bobwhite Quail: Report No. ISN145BT1841287. Unpublished study
prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 34 p.
00151597. Hill, R. (1 984) PP321: Determination of Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout (...):
Report No. BL1B12405. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries
Ltd. 19 p.
00151599. Farrelly, E.; Hamer, M.; Hill, 1. (1984) PP321: Toxicity to First Instar Daphnia
magna: Report No. RJ 03598. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill Research
Station, ICI Plant Protection Division. 13 p.
00151600. Hill, R. (1985) PP321: Determination of Acute Toxicity of a (...) EC Formulation to
Rainbow Trout (...): Report No. BL1B12609. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial
Chemical Industries Ltd. 13 p.
00152728. Thompson, R. (1985) PP321: Determination of the Acute Toxicity to Larvae of the
Pacific Oyster (Crassostrea gigas): Study No. M2581D: No. FT 17/84: No.: BL1B12643.
Unpublished study prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries, PLC. 14 p.
00152729. Thompson, R. (1985) PP321: Determination of Acute Toxicity to Mysid Shrimps
(Mysidopsis bahia): Study No. M2581C: Report No. BL1B12635. Unpublished study
prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. 12 p.
00152730. Hamer, M.; Farrelly, E.; Hill, 1. (1985) PP321: Toxicity to Gammarus pulex: Report
No. RJ0414B. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. 29 p.
00152731 Thompson, R. (1 985) PP321: Toxicity to the Green Alga Selenastrum
capricornutum: Study No. M0681B: Report No. BL1B12584. Unpublished study prepared
by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. 17 p.
00152732. Hill, R.; Caunter, J.; Cumming, R. (1985) PP321: Determination of the Chronic
Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Embryos and Larvae: Study
No. N090B: Report No. BL1B12677. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial Chemical
Industries PLC. 35 p.
275
-------
00153504. Roberts, N.; Fairley, C.; Chanter, D.; et al. (1982) The Effect of the Dietary Inclusion
of Cyhalothrin on Reproduction in the Mallard Duck: Study No. JX0089: Report No.
375182701. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre. 178 p.
00153505. Roberts, N.; Fairley, C.; Chanter, D.; et al. (1 982) The Effect of the Dietary
Inclusion of Cyhalothrin on Reproduction in the Bobwhite Quail: Study No.: JX0090:
Report No.: 376182768, Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre.
207 p.
00153506. Hill, R. (1985) PP321: Determination of Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow
(Cyprinodon variegatus): Study No. M2581B: Report No. BLIB12615. Unpublished study
prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. 17 p.
259807 (Accession Number). R.W.Hill. 1984. PP 321: Determination of acute toxicity to
bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus ICI.
073989 (Accession Number). Thompson, R.S. 1987 Mysid Lifecycle Study with PP321
40052409. Gough, H.; Collins, I.; Everett, C.; et al. (1986) PP321: Acute Contact and Oral
Toxicity to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Laboratory Project ID: RJ0390B. Unpublished
study prepared by ICI Americas Inc., Jealott's Hill Research Station. 23 p.
40436302. Gough, H.; Brown, R. (1987) PP321: Toxicity of Residues on Foliage to Honey Bees
(Apis mellifera): Laboratory Project ID RJ 061 18. Unpublished study prepared by ICI
Plant Protection Div. 29 p.
40436303. Gough, H.; Collins, I.; Wilkinson, W. (1986) PP321: Effects on Honey Bees (Apis
mellifera) Foraging on Simulated Honeydew on Winter Wheat, 1985: Laboratory Project
ID RH 04648. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Plant Protection Div. 54 p.
41217501. Farrelly, E.; Hamer, M. (1989) PP321: Daphnia magna Life-Cycle Study Using a
Flow-through System: Rept. No. RJ0764B. Unpublished study prepared by ICI
Agrochemicals, Jealotts Hill Re- search Station. 29 p.
41512101. Beavers, J.; Hoxter, K.; Jaber, M. (1990) PP321: A One-Generation Reproduction
Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Lab Project Number: 123-143.
Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 192 p.
41519001. Tapp, J.; Maddock, B.; Harland, B. et al. (1989) Lambda-Cyhalothrin in (Karate
PP321): Determination of Chronic Toxicity to Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
Full Lifecycle: Lab Project No.: Q6001E (FT35187).
43908811. Kent, S.; Sankey, S.; Banner, A,; et al. (1995) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Acute Toxicity
to Daphnia magna of a 25 CS Formulation: Lab Project Number: AA06791C:
BL52351B. Unpublished study prepared by Brixham Environmental Lab. 22 p.
43908812. Kent, S.; Sankey, S.; Caunter, J.; et al. (1995) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Acute Toxicity
to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) of a 25 CS Formulation: Lab Project Number:
AA1091IC: BL53801B. Unpublished study prepared by Brixham Environmental Lab. 24
P-
43908813. Kent, S.; Sankey, S.; Caunter, J.; et al. (1995) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Acute Toxicity
to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of a 25 CS Formulation: Lab Project Number:
AA1091 IB: BL53791B. Unpublished study prepared by Brixham Environmental Lab. 24
P-
44584001. Kent, S.; Shillabeer, T. (1997) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Acute Toxicity to Golden Orfe
(Leuciscus idus): Lab Project Number: BL61421B. Unpublished study prepared by
Zeneca Limited. 22 p. 00151598 Hill, R. (1984) PP321: Determination of Acute Toxicity
276
-------
to Bluegill Sunfish (...): Report No. BL1B12406. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial
Chemical Industries Ltd. 19 p.
45447406. Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; McClymont, E.; et. al. (2000) XR-225: Growth Inhibition Test
with the Freshwater Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum PRINTZ: Lab Project
Number: 001093. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Company. 41 p.
45447407. Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; McClymont, E. et al. (2001) Gf-231 Insecticide: Growth
Inhibition Test with the Freshwater Green Algae, Selenastrum capricornutum PRINTZ:
Lab Project Number: 001203. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical
Company. 45 p.
48911001. Schroer, A.F.W., Belgers, J.D.M., Brock, T.C.M., Matser, A.M., Van den Brink, P.J.
2004. Comparison of Laboratory Single Species and Field Population-Level Effects of
the Pyrethroid Insecticide Lambda-Cyhalothrin on Freshwater Invertebrates. Arch
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 46:324-335.
10. Environmental Fate MRID List:
151604 Collis, W.; Leahey, J. (1984) PP321: Hydrolysis in Water at pH 5, 7 and 9:
Report No. RJ 0338B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill Research
Station, ICI Plant Protection Division. 20 p.
40052404 Wagner, J. (1987) Environmental Fate Data Overview and Summary for
Resubmission for PP321 on Cotton: [Response to EPA's Comments],
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 36 p.
151605 Curl, E.; Leahey, J.; Lloyd, S. (1984) PP321: Aqueous Photolysis at pH 5:
Report No. RJ 0362B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill Research
Station, ICI Plant Protection Division. 23 p.
40052404 Wagner, J. (1987) Environmental Fate Data Overview and Summary for
Resubmission for PP321 on Cotton: [Response to EPA's Comments],
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 36 p.
44861501 Priestley, D.; Leahy, J. (1988) PP321: Aqueous Photolysis at pH 5: Lab Project
Number: RJ 0605B. Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals. 61
P-
44861508 Hand, L.; Mehta, P. (1999) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Degradation in an Aquatic
Microcosm: Lab Project Number: 98JH083: RJ2730B. Unpublished study
prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals. 69 p.
151606 Curl, E.; Leahey, J.; Lloyd, S. (1984) PP321: Photodegradation on a Soil
Surface: Report No. RJ 0358B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill
Research Station, ICI Plant Protection Division. 36 p.
40052404 Wagner, J. (1987) Environmental Fate Data Overview and Summary for
Resubmission for PP321 on Cotton: [Response to EPA's Comments],
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 36 p.
277
-------
40052405
151607
44861504
44861505
151607
44075504
44367401
44075504
44367402
151608
152748
Parker, S.; Leahey, J. (1986) PP321: Photodegradation on a Soil Surface:
Laboratory Project ID: RJ0537B. Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas
Inc., Jealott's Hill Research Station. 55 p.
Bharti, H.; Bewick, D.; White, R. (1985) PP563 and PP321: Degradation in
Soil: Report No. RJ0382B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill
Research Station, ICI Plant Protection Division. 66 p.
Harvey, B. (1996) PP563 and PP321: Degradation in Soil: Report Addendum
Number 1): Lab Project Number: RJ 0382B-ADD1. Unpublished study
prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals. 24 p.
Shi, C.; Ericson, J. (1998) (Carbon-14)R211133 (Ref. XV), A Metabolite of
Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Rate of Degradation in Soil under Aerobic Laboratory
Conditions: Lab Project Number: RR98-019B. Unpublished study prepared by
Zeneca Ag Products. 41 p.
Bharti, H.; Bewick, D.; White, R. (1985) PP563 and PP321: Degradation in
Soil: Report No. RJ0382B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill
Research Station, ICI Plant Protection Division. 66 p.
Wagner, J. (1996) Karate Insecticide (Containing Lambda-Cyhalothrin):
Discussion of Environmental Fate Data Requirements to Support Registration
on Rice: Lab Project Number: ZA0724961. Unpublished study prepared by
Zeneca Ag Products. 10 p.
Tambling, D.; Goldsby, G.; Labatore, D. et al. (1997) (Carbon 14)-Lambda-
cyhalothrin: Anaerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism: Lab Project Number: PMS
420: WINO 15859: RR 96-102B. Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca Ag
Products (Western Research Center) 69 p.
Wagner, J. (1996) Karate Insecticide (Containing Lambda-Cyhalothrin):
Discussion of Environmental Fate Data Requirements to Support Registration
on Rice: Lab Project Number: ZA0724961. Unpublished study prepared by
Zeneca Ag Products. 10 p.
Tambling, D.; Goldsby, G.; Labatore, D. et al. (1997) (Carbon 14)-Lambda-
cyhalothrin: Aerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism: Lab Project Number: PMS 421:
WINO 15858: RR 96-094B. Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca Ag
Products (Western Research Center) 77 p.
Stevens, J.; Bewick, D. (1985) PP563 and PP321: Leaching of PP563 and
PP321 and Their Degradation Products in Soil Columns: Re- port No. RJ
0408B. Unpublished study prepared by Jealotts Hill Research Station, ICI Plant
Protection Division. 17 p.
Stevens, J.; Poole, N. (1981) Cyhalothrin: Leaching on Soil Thick- layer
Chromatograms: No. 6/HA/003802: Report No. RJ0206B. Un- published study
prepared by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. 29 p.
40052404
Wagner, J. (1987) Environmental Fate Data Overview and Summary for
278
-------
Resubmission for PP321 on Cotton: [Response to EPA's Comments],
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 36 p.
40052406 Vickers, J.; Bewick, D. (1986) PP321: Adsorption and Desorption in Soil:
Laboratory Project ID: RJ0535B. Unpublished study pre- pared by ICI
Americas Inc., Jealott's Hill Research Station. 108 p.
44861503 Muller, K.; Goggin, U.; Lane, M. (1996) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Adsorption and
Desorption Properties in Soil and Sediment: Lab Project Number: 94JH243.
Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca Agrochemicals. 56 p.
44861509 Kuet, S.; Lane, M. (1999) Lambda-Cyhalothrin: Aged Desorption in Soil: Lab
Project Number: 98JH135: RJ2761B. Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca
Agrochemicals. 36 p.
40052404 Wagner, J. (1987) Environmental Fate Data Overview and Summary for
Resubmission for PP321 on Cotton: [Response to EPA's Comments],
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 36 p.
40052407 Bewick, D.; Bartlett, D.; Hendley, P. (1986) PP321: Fate of Radio- labeled
Material in Soil under Field Conditions: Laboratory Project ID: RJ0529B.
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc., Jealott's Hill Research
Station. 159 p.
44075504 Wagner, J. (1996) Karate Insecticide (Containing Lambda-Cyhalothrin):
Discussion of Environmental Fate Data Requirements to Support Registration
on Rice: Lab Project Number: ZA0724961. Unpublished study prepared by
Zeneca Ag Products. 10 p.
44367403 Patterson, S.; Francis, P.; Robbins, J. et al. (1997) Lambda-cyhalothrin:
Aquatic Field Dissipation after Application to Rice in Mississippi During 1996:
Lab Project Number: LCYH-96-SD-01: WINO 23631: RR 97-002B.
Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca Ag Products (Western Research
Center) 143 p.
44367404 Patterson, S.; Francis, P.; Robbins, J. et al. (1997) Lambda-cyhalothrin:
Aquatic Field Dissipation after Application to Rice in California During 1996:
Lab Project Number: LCYH-96-SD-02: 94-CA-96-592: WINO 15346.
Unpublished study prepared by Zeneca Ag Products (Western Research
Center) 146 p.
152740 ICI Americas Inc. (1985) Karate Insecticide (Containing PP321):
Environmental Fate. Unpublished compilation. 27 p.
152744 Yamauchi, S.; Yamauchi, F.; Shigeoka, T.; et al. (1984) PP-563 (Cyhalothrin):
Accumulation in Fish (Carp) in a Flow-through Water System: Report No. 58-
367. Unpublished study prepared by Mitsubishi-Kasei Institute of
Toxicological & Environmental Sciences. 53 p.
152745 Leahey, J.; Parker, S. (1985) Cyhalothrin: Characterisation of Residues
Accumulated by Carp Continuously Exposed to [Carbon-14]- Cyhalothrin:
279
-------
Report No. RJ0407B. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial Chemical
Industries PLC. 22 p.
152746 Hamer, M.; Hill, I. (1985) Cyhalothrin: The Accumulation of Cyhalothrin and
Its Degradation Products by Channel Catfish & Daphnia magna in a Soil/Water
System: Report No. RJ0427B. Unpublished study prepared by Imperial
Chemical Industries PLC. 40 p.
40052404 Wagner, J. (1987) Environmental Fate Data Overview and Summary for
Resubmission for PP321 on Cotton: [Response to EPA's Comments],
Unpublished study prepared by ICI Americas Inc. 36 p.
280
------- |