UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

f PC Code: 147500 DP Barcodes: D299585 April 29,2005

Subject: EFED Risk Assessment For the New Herbicide Pinoxaden -. To: Donald Stubbs, Branch Chief James Tompkins, Risk Manager Herbicide Branch, Registration Division 

## 5,0?("5 From: Ibrahim Abdel-Saheb, Environmental Scientist William Erickson, Biologist Environmental Risk Branch 2, Environmenta Through: Thomas Bailey, Branch Chie

I Environmental Risk Branch 2, a1 Fate and Effec
EFED has completed a screening-level ecological risk assessment for the proposed registration of the new herbicide pinoxaden on wheat and barley. Due to unresolved problems with the solubility ofpinoxaden under test conditions, some toxicityvalues for aquatic organismshave not been adequately established. The studieshave been reviewed, but some of the DERs cannot be completed until additional information is provided by the registrant, and some studies need to be repeated. Therefore, until acceptable data are submitted and reviewed, EFED canonly qualitativelyassess potential risks to aquaticorganisms. The risk assessment is attached. The " followingrisk conclusions have been made:

I listed and non-listed monocots and non-flowering terrestrial plants are at risk from , channelized runoff and drift from wheat and barley fields minimal risk is expected to listed and non-listed dicotyledonous terrestrial plants; however confirmatorydata are needed for the two main degradates no adverse acute and chronic effects are expected for non-listed birds and mammals exposed to parent pinoxaden; however, confirmatorydata are needed for the formulated product with adjuvant potential indirect effects exist for listed birds and mammals that rely on monocots and non-flowering plants for food or habitatno unacceptable risks are expected to listed and non-listed aquaticorganisms The following data gaps have been identified: acute toxicity, warmwater and coldwater juvenile fish (72-I), parent pinoxaden acute toxicity, freshwater invertebrate (72-2),parent pinoxaden freshwater fish early life-stage (72-4a), parent pinoxaden freshwater invertebratelife-cycle (72-4b), parent pinoxaden marinelestuarine fish acute toxicity (72-3a), parent pinoxaden marine/estuarine shmpacute toxicity (72-3c), parent pinoxaden acute toxicity, warmwaterjuvenile fish (72-I), NOA-407854 freshwater fish early life-stage (72-4a), NOA-407854 freshwater invertebratelife-cycle (72-4b),NOA-407854 marinelestuarineshell deposition study (72-3b),NOA-407854 acute toxicity,warrnwater and coldwater juvenile fish (72-I), NOA-447204 freshwater fish earlylife-stage (72-4a),NOA-447204 freshwater invertebratelife-cycle (72-4b),NOA-447204 marinelestuarine shell deposition study (72-3b),NOA-447204 seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies (123- 1 a,b) on each ofthe two main degradates (NOA-407854 and NOA-447204) avian dietary studies (71-2a,b), bobwhite and mallard, formulated product with adjuvant For several ofthe aquatic studiesidentified as data gaps, there are supplemental studiesthat can be upgraded with submission ofmissing information. The risk assessment team acknowledgesthe assistance of

### D. Randall, senior scientist, ERB2, in addressing the toxicity study issues for aquaticorganisms and reviewing the risk assessment.

### NEW CHEMICAL REVIEW (SECTION 3)



### ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND ECOLOGICAL 

### RISKASSESSMENT

for 

### the Herbicide

PINOXADEN (PC Code 147500)

April 29,2005

Conducted by: Ibrahim Abdel-Saheb, Environmental Scientist William Erickson, Biologist Environmental Risk Branch 2 Environmental Fate and Effects Division Approved by: Thomas Bailey, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch 2 EnvironmentalFate and Effects Division

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVESUMMARY



### ..................................................... 1



### .................................................. PROBLEM FORMULATION 2



### .......................................................... Stressor Description 

### 2



### ................................................. Application Rate and Methods 3



### ........................................................... Conceptual Model 4 AnalysisPlan



### .............................................................. 8



### ........................................ Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps 12 

### ANALYSIS



### ................................................................. 13



### .................................................... Exposure Characterization 13



### ............................................ Ecological Effects Characterization 19



### ................................................ RISK CHARACTERIZATION 23



### ........................................................... RiskEstimation 23



### ........................................................... RiskDescription 29



### ..................................................... Listed Species Concerns 29



### ............................................... Assumptions and Uncertainties 31 

### REFERENCES



### ............................................................... 34 

### APPENDICES Appendix A: Status ofData Requirements



### ........................................ 35



### ......................................... AppendixB: PRZMIEXAMSModeling 38 Appendix C: T-REX ModelingFor Birds and Mammals



### ............................ 55 Appendix 

### D: TERRPLANT Modeling For Terrestrial Plants



### ......................... 61



### ........................................... Appendix E: Ecotoxicity Data Tables 66 Appendix 

### F: Listed Species Analysis



### ............................................ 75EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pinoxaden is a new activeingredient being proposed for registration as a systemic, postemergence herbicide. The end-use product (NOA 407855 100EC Herbicide), with a required adjuvant (A12127S), will be used to control several grass-weed species in all types of wheat and barley. It will be applied as a foliar spray in a single ground or aerial application when the crop is at the 2-leaf to pre-boot stage. Risk from theseproposed uses is assessed using available pinoxaden and pinoxaden degradate ecotoxicity data and exposureestimates in terrestrial and aquaticmedia made from environmental fate data and proposed use information from the product label. Exposure and Risk to Terrestrial Organisms For both aerial and ground application of the product with adjuvant, the level of concern (LOC) for risk to terrestrial plants is exceeded for non-listed and listed monocots (e.g., grasses) and nonflowering plants (e.g., ferns) inhabitinglowland areas subject to pinoxaden residues from combined channelized runoff and drift. The LOC also is exceeded for listed monocots and nonflowering plants exposed to spray drift alone from 

### an aerial application. No LOC is exceeded for terrestrial dicotelydenous plants exposed to pinoxaden in spray drift or in soil from channelized runoff and drift. However, terrestrial plants also may be exposed to the two main degradates (NOA-407854 and NOA-447204), and seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies are needed using these degradates as the test material. No acute or chronicLOCs are exceeded for listed or non-listed birds or mammals when pinoxaden is applied according to label directions at the maximum application rate. ~a;ent pinoxaden is not acutely toxic to birds, but uncertainties exists as to the toxicity of the degradates and formulated product due to lack of data. Degradate NOA-447204 is slightly toxic to the laboratoryrat, but the parent, a second degradate, and the formulation are practicallynontoxic. Chronic testing indicated some toxicityto birds and mainmals but only at residue levels above what is expected for the proposed use rates for wheat and barley. Exposure and Risk to Aquatic Organisms No acute or chronicLOCs are exceeded for aquaticorganisms, based on the available toxicity data. While there were some uncertianties in toxicityvalues that would result in underestimation of acute risk, the magnitude of these uncertainties is not considered to have a significant impact on risk conclusions. No unacceptable acute or chronic risks are expected from spray drift of the formulation and adjuvant. Although RQs were not calculated, the toxicity of the formulation and adjuvant expressed as the parent 96-h LC50 is >I40ppb, whch is lower than estimated concentration due to spray drift.PROBLEM FORMULATION Pinoxaden is a new active ingredient being proposed for postemergence control of grass weeds in wheat and barley. The objective of the screening-level risk assessment is to identifypotential ecologicalrisks from pinoxaden if it is used according to proposed labels. To focus the risk assessment a problem formulation was performed to identify the exposure pathways and associated ecological receptors whchwould be exposed as a result of either ground and aerial application ofpinoxaden (labeled application methods). Based on this information, the ecological assessment endpoints for which risks need to characterized in the screening-level risk assessment were identified.A conceptual model was developed which explicitlydescribes the exposurepathways, ecological receptors, exposure routes, and assessment endpoints to be addressed in the risk assessment. The conceptual model consists of both a diagram and a set of explicitrisk hypothesis statements for which risks are to be determined and characterized. For each of these risk hypothesis, methodsused to estimate exposure concentrations and the type of measurement endpoints which will be used to estimaterisks for assessment endpoints are described. The risk assessment performed complies with the approach described in the Agency's Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines (USEPA 1998). StressorDescription Chemical Structure The chemical structures ofparent pinoxaden and degradates NOA-407854 and NOA-447204 are shown below (Figure 1). Figure 1. Chemical structure of pinoxaden and major degradates.

Pinoxaden NOA-407854 NOA-447204 Chemical and Physical Properties of Pinoxaden Common Name: Pinoxaden Chemical Name: 

### 8-(2,6-diethyl-p-toly1)-

### 1,2,4,5-tetrahydro-7-0xo-7Hpyrazolo[l,2-d][l,4,5]oxadiazepin-9-yl 2,2-dimethyl propionate CAS NO. 243973-20-8 PC Code: 147500 Molecular Formula: C23H32N204Molecular Weight: Density: Vapor Pressure: Water Solubility: Henry's Law Const.: Octanol-WaterPartition

Coefficient (Log Pow): Formulations: 400.5 g/mol 1.2X lo3 Kg/m3 4.6E x 10." Pascal @.25"C 200 mg/L (@ 25 "C)

. 1.7~10-lo atm m3/mole

Mode of Action Pinoxaden (NOA 407855), a phenylpyrazolin, is a new herbicidal activeingredient for control of grass weeds. According to the registrant (Syngenta Crop Protection), "Themode of action is the inhibition of the enzyme, acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase). ACCase catalysesthe formation ofmalonyl-coenzyme A from acetyl-coenzyme A and bicarbonatewith concomitant consumption ofATP. ACCase activity in plants can be attributed to two isoenzymes located in different compartments of the plant cell, the chloroplast and the cytosol. The chloroplastic enzymeis responsible for the de novo biosynthesis of all fatty acids in the cell. The malonylcoenzyme A produced by the cytosolic ACCase is required for fatty acid elongation to form very long-chain fatty acids, and for the biosynthesis of flavonoids and malonylated metabolites." Application Rate and Methods NOA 407855 100EC Herbicide will be applied as a single foliar spray, by ground or air, when the crop is at the 2-leaf to pre-boot stage. Thorough spray coverage of grass weeds is essential for good control, and an adjuvant is required to be added prior to application. The adjuvant (A12127S) is a mixture of emulsified fatty acid esters (mainly oleic acid methyl esters). Optimum control occurs when the application is made to actively growing weeds. Susceptible grass weeds generally stop growing within 48 hours oftreatment, 

### turn yellow within one to three weeks, and are completely controlled within three to five weeks. Target species and application rates and methods arepresented in Table 1. NOA 407855 100EC Herbicide also can be tank mixed with a wide range ofbroadleaf herbicides.

### Table 1. Target Species and Application InformationFor NOA 407855 100 EC Herbicide

max. no. 

### ~PPI. Weeds controlled lb ailacre apple method Persian darnel (~oli'um persicurn)" 0.0624 1 ground or aerial Volunteer oats (Avena sativa)" spray Wild oats (A. fatua)" Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli)b Green foxtail (Setaria viridi~)~



### .Giant foxtail (S.faberii)b Yellow foxtail (S. gla~ca)~ Italian (annual)ryegrass (Lolium

m~tlflorum)~ 

### "Apply at 1to 6-leaf stage on main stem; prior to emergence of the 4th tiller

Apply at 1to 5-leaf stage on main stem; for optimum control, prior to emergence of the 

### 3rd tiller and while weeds are actively growing 

### ConceptualModel \ The conceptual model illustrates the problem formulation for evaluating risks to ecological receptors followinga ground or aerial spray application ofpinoxaden (Figure 2). It depicts possible exposure pathways and attributechanges for the ecological entities of concern on and adjacent to treated fields. The model indicates which measures of exposure, ecological receptors, and measures of effects will be used to estimate risks from the proposed uses ofpinoxaden on wheat and barley.Figure 2. Conceptual Model for Exposure and Effects

### of Pinoxaden. Major pathways, receptors, and attribute changesare highlighted in bold. Stressor:

Source:

Receptors:

Attribute change: Terrestrial 

### Terrestrial 

### plants insect$Assessment endpoints are "explicit expressions ofthe actual environmental value that is to be protected." Two criteria areused to select the appropriate ecological assessment endpoints: 1) identification of the valued attributes ofthe environment considered at risk, and 2) the \ operational definition of assessment endpoints in terms of an ecological entity (i.e., a community of fish and aquatic invertebrates)and its attributes (i.e., survival and reproduction). Therefore, the selection of assessment endpoints isbased on valued entities (i.e., ecological receptors), the ecosystemspotentially at risk, the migration pathways ofpesticides, and the routes by which ecological receptors are exposed to pesticide-related contamination. The selection of clearly defined assessment endpoints is important because they provide directionand boundaries in the risk 'assessment for addressing risk management issues of concern. TerrestrialEnvironment Exposure Immediately followinga spray application ofpinoxaden, potential fodd items ofbirds and mammals may be contaminated with NOA 407855 100EC Herbicide. Wildlife may be exposed by consuming grasses, broadleaf plants, insects, or seeds, pods, and/or fruits containingresidues of the formulation and adjuvant, parent pinoxaden, or one or more of the degradates. A dietary route of exposureis assumed in this assessment. Wildlife exposure could also result from a number of other possible exposurepathways. Such routes of exposuremight includeinhalation of spray at the time of application, dermaluptake via direct contact of skin with spray or contaminated vegetation, or intake via drinking from contaminated water puddles present on the field at the time of application or those forming after rainfall. The importance of these potential pathways is not known; but, given the high molecular weight (low dermal penetration) and low volatility ofpinoxaden, it seems unlikelythat theseroutes of exposurewould be significant. Receptors of Concern Ecological receptors identified for consideration in the terrestrial environment includeprimary producers, represented by upland and wetlandlriparian vegetation, and primary and secondary consumers, represented by vertebrates and invertebrates. Birds and mammals are further categorizedby diet (herbivores, insectivores, granivores). Omnivores are not included in the receptor list for a screening-level risk assessment, because exposureconcentrations and risk levels arepresumed to fall somewhere between the other feeding regimes. Risk Hypotheses Birds and mammals are subject to reduced survival or impaired reproduction when exposed to pinoxaden and/or its degradates or formulation as a result of application accordingto label directions and precautions.i Upland and riparianlwetland terrestrial plants (monocots, dicots, non-flowering species) are subject to adverse effects (reduced survival) when exposed to pinoxaden andlor its degradates or formulation as a result of application according to label directions and precautions. Pinoxaden is labeled only for control of grass weeds and appears to have some selectivity to grass species. Therefore, risk will be assessed separately for monocots (including non-flowering plants) and dicots. Aquatic Environment Exposure Pathways Direct application ofNOA 407855 100EC Herbicide to streams, lakes, and ponds is prohibited on the product label. However, because pinoxaden is persistent in terrestrial environments and solublein water, pinoxaden from a treated field may reach aquaticenvironments, followinga rain event, in sheet and channel flow runoff_Because pinoxaden degrades in the aquaticenvironment to NOA-407854 and NOA-447204, these aquaticorganisms are also potentiallyexposed to these two major degradates. Pinoxaden and its adjuvant may also reach aquatic environments as spray drift at the time of ground or aerial spray application. Aquatic organisms could also be exposed to pinoxaden residues and degradates from groundwater that is subsequently discharged into surface waters. Therefore, exposure to all forms ofpinoxaden (parent 

### + degradates 

## + formulated product) and the adjuvant were identified for consideration in the assessment. As proposed crop uses are not restricted to inland states and potentially occur in coastal areasboth freshwater and estuarinelmarine systems are potentiallyexposed. Receptors of Concern Ecological receptors considered in the aquatic environmentincludeprimary producers, represented by vascular and non-vascular aquaticplants, and primary and secondary consumers including fish and aquaticinvertebrates. As both freshwater and marinelestuarine systems are potentiallyexposed these ecological receptors include both freshwater and marinelestuarine species. Risk Hypotheses Aquatic animals are subject to adverse effects such as reduced survival and reduced reproduction when exposed to pinoxaden and/or its degradates, the formulated product, andlor the required adjuvant when applied according to product-label directions. Aquaticplants are subject to adverse effects (reduced survival) when exposed to pinoxaden andlor its degradates, the formulated product, andlor the required adjuvant when applied according to product-label directions.Analysis Plan This screeningrisk assessment examines the ecological risk ofproposed pinoxaden labeled uses and attempts to identify, where appropriate, how to minimizeunacceptable risk effects on the environment. A set ofrisk hypotheses to be addressed in this screening-level risk assessment were developed and described. This analysis plan describes how risks will be determined for each of these risk hypotheses, the methods to be used to estimate exposure concentrations and the identificationand selection approach for specific values to be used for the measurement endpoints. Risk Quotients Risk characterization integrates exposure and measures of effect to evaluate the likelihood of adverse effects. For a screening-level risk assessment, the Agency accomplishes this integration using the quotient risk method. Risk quotients (RQs) are calculatedby dividing exposure estimates (EECs)by acute and chronic measurement endpoints. RQ =EXPOSURE/ TOXICITY Levels of Concern RQs are then compared to the Office of Pesticide Program's Levels of Concern (LOCs) to assess potential risk to nontarget organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. Calculation of an RQ that exceeds the LOC indicatesthat a particular pesticide use poses a presumed risk to nontarget organisms. LOCs currently address the followingcategories ofpresumed risk:
LOC Presumed risk I acute: potential for acute risk is high and regulatory actionbeyond restricted use classification may be warranted acute restricted: the potential for acute risk is high, but may be mitigated through restricted use classification acute listed species: listed (federally endangered or threatened) species may be adversely affected chronic: the potential for chronic risk is high and regulatory action may be warrantedAnalysis Plan for Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Effect The risk hypotheses provide the assessment endpoints for which risks need to be characterized. A list ofthe measures of effect which have been selected for assessingrisks for an assessment endpoint areprovided in Table 2. This list does not mean that these measurement endpoints are actually available. In the Analysis of Effects section, effects data that is available fiom registrant submitted and open literature sources and that is scientifically sound and correspond to these measurement endpoints will be described. For a screening-level risk assessment, the most sensitive toxicity endpoint value will be used in RQ calculations. Table 2. Assessment Endpoints and Measurement Endpoints Assessment endpoint Measurement endpoint" Birds:

survival avian singleoral dose LD,, avian 5-day dietaryLC,, reproduction avian reproduction NOAEC Mammals:

survival mammalian single oral LD,, reproduction mammalian reproduction NOAEC Freshwater fish and invertebrates:

survival freshwater fish acute 96-hr LC,, freshwater invertebrates 96-hr LC,, except for certain invertebrates such as 

### D. magna where 48-hr LC,, values are more appropriate; EC,, values will be used for tests where an effect was considered a surrogate for mortality because handling might be required to determine death otherwise reproduction freshwater fish early life-stageor life cycle reproductive NOAEC freshwater invertebrate life cycle reproductive NOAEC Estuarinelmarinefish and invertebrates:

survival marinelestuarine fish 96-hr LC,, marinelestuarine invertebrate 96-hr LC,, or for mollusks 96-hr EC,, for shell deposition or embryollarval survival and developmentAssessment endpoint Measurement endpointa Terrestrial plants:

perpetuation ofnontarget monocot EC2, and NOAEC (or EC,,) for seedling emergence (crop and noncrop) species and vegetative vigor dicot EC2, and NOAEC (or EC,,) for seedling emergence and vegetative vigor Aquatic plants:

maintenance and growth of vascular sp. 14-dEC,, and NOAEC (EC,,) standing crop or biomass non-vascular algae and diatom EC,, Beneficial insects:

survival ofpopulations honey bee acute oral LD50 honey bee acute contact LD50 

### " LD,, = lethal dose to 50% oftest population

NOAEC =no observed adverse effect concentration LOAEC = lowest observed adverse effect concentration LC,, = lethal concentration to 50% ofthe test population EC,, (or EC2,) = effect concentration to 50% (or 25%) of the test population RQ calculations to be used to address each assessment endpoint based on the measures of effect identified above are described in Table 

### 3. Additionally, specificLOC values for identifyrng various risk presumptions are associated with each RQ calculation. Table 3. RQ Formulas and LOCs



### Risk Presumption RQ LOC Birds and WildMammals: Acute Risk EEC1/LC50or LD50/ft2* or L~50Iday 0.5 Acute Restricted Use 

### EEC/LC5OorLD50/ft2orLD5O/day(orLD50<50 0.2 mg/kg) Acute Listed Species EECILC50 or ~~50Ift~ or LD5OIday 0.1 Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1.O 

### *;I AquaticAnimals: Acute Risk EEC3/LC50or EC50 0.5 Acute Restricted Use EECILC50 or EC50 0.1 Acute Listed SpeciesRisk Presumntion RO LOC Chronic Risk EECNOAEC Terrestrial and Plants Inhabiting Semi-Aquatic Areas: Acute Risk EEC4/EC25 Acute Listed Use EECIECOS or NOAEC Aquatic Plants: Acute Risk EEC~IEC~O 1.O Acute Listed Species EECIECOS or NOAEC 1.O 'Estimated Environmental Concentration (ppm) on aviadmammalian food items

mg ai consumedlday EEC =ppm or ppb in water EEC = lb ailacre Federally Listed Species Risk to Federally listed species potentiallyexposed to pinoxaden is addressed in the screening assessment. The potential for individual effects at exposure levels equivalent to or above the Agency's Levels of Concern (LOCs) is evaluated based on the median lethal-dose estimate and the dose-response relationship established for the effects studycorresponding to each taxonomic group for which an LOC is exceeded. Proximityof listed species' habitats to areas in which target crops are grown also is evaluated to the state and county level. Analyses Plan For Fate and Exposure Terrestrial Environment EFED's spreadsheet-basedmodels areused to provide exposure estimates for terrestrial organisms. T-REX (version 1.1,2004)is used to calculate EECs on potential food items ofbirds and mammals. The EECs arebased on field-residue data compiledby Hoerger and Kenaga (1972) as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994) and adjusted for application rate, number of applications, and decay of the chemical. Because a decayvalue for foliar surfaces is not available, a default half-life of 35 days is assumed (based on data compiledby Willis and McDowell 1987). TERRPLANT (version 1 .O, 2001) is used to calculateEECs for terrestrial plants inhabitingdry and semi-aquatic (wetland) areas exposed to a pesticide from sheet or channelized runoff and/or spray drift. The runoff scenario is based on the pesticide's application rate, water solubility, and depth of incorporation, if any. Runoff is characterized as "sheetrunoff' (1 treated acre to 1adjacent untreated area) for dry areas and as "channelizedrunoff' (10 acres treated to 1 acre untreated) for semi-aquatic or wetland areas. The spray-drift scenario is assumed to be 1 % drift off-site fiom an unincorporated ground-spray application and 5% for an aerial-spray application. Aquatic Environment Tier 

### I1 Estimated EECs for pinoxaden and its degradates were estimated using EFED's aquatic models PRZM-EXAMS (EposureAnalysis Modeling System). PRZM is used to simulate pesticidetransport as a result ofrunoff and erosion fkom an 10-haagricultural field, and EXAMS considers environmental fate and transport ofpesticides in surface water and predicts EECs in a standard pond (10,000-m2 pond, 2-m deep), with the assumption that the small field is cropped at 100%. Calculations are carried out with the linkage program shell 

### - PE4VOl .pl 

### - which incorporates the standard scenariosdevelopedby EFED. Additional information on these models can be found at: 

### http://www.e~a.~ov/oppefedl/models/water/index.htm



### . Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps The following uncertaintiesand information gaps were identified during the problem formulation: Ecotoxicity Information Gaps The summary status of all ecotoxicological datarequirements for the proposed use on wheat and barley is provided in ~b~endix A. Because toxicity data are not available for non-flowering species, any risk exceedance for listed monocots is assumed to apply to listed non-flowering species (e. g., ferns, cypress). A number ofthe registrant submitted aquatic toxicity studies were identified as scientifically invalid or the results were scientificallyvalid but did not reflect values based on exposure of sensitive life stages (e.g., prespawning adultsrather thanjuvenile fish) and/or the soluble, bioavailableform of the test material. This resulted in either a complete lack of data for calculating RQs for a specific risk hypothesis or in RQs that potentially underestimate risk. Specific data gaps are identified in the Effects Analysis section. The impact to characterizing ecologicalrisks are discussed in the Risk Characterization section.

### ANALYSIS Exposure Characterization Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization Hydrolysis ofpinoxaden is pH dependent and fasterunder basic conditions. Aqueous photolysis ofpinoxaden is not a major dissipation route when exposed to sunlight. In soil, photolysis is also not a significant pathway for degradation for pinoxaden without hydrolytic degradation. Acceptable laboratory studies showed that pinoxaden degrades rapidly under aerobicsoil metabolism conditions. Half-lives range from 2-3 days, formingthe major degradate NOA407854, which degrades further to form the degradate NOA-447204. NOA-407854 averaged a maximum of 88.76% of the applied at 24 hours posttreatment and decreased to 44.9d% at 7 days, 13.66%at 14days, 5.91% at 30 days, and 1.35% at 181 days (study termination). N~A-447204 averaged a maximum of 16.45% at 14days posttreatment and decreased to 2.60% at 

# h81 days (MRID Number 4620301 1);NOA-407854 averaged a maximum of 67.26% of the applied at 24 hours posttreatment, and decreased to 25.16% at 5 days, 6.38% at 14days, and was 12.36%at and after 30 days. NOA-447204 averaged a maximum of 17.44% at 7 days posttreatbent, and decreased to 6.59% at 100days (MRID# 46203012); NOA-407854 averaged a maximum of 74.89% of the applied at 24 hours posttreatment and decreased to 21.51% at 5 days, 5.01% at 14 days, and 11.84% at and after 30 days. NOA-447204 averaged a maximum of 15.62% at 14 days posttreatment and decreased to 4.55% at 100 days (MRID# 46203013). Under aerobic aquatic conditions, pinoxaden degrades rapidly (half-life

### < 1 day) to the major transformation product NOA-407854, with maximums of 96.6%, 16.7% and 103.5%of the applied in the water layer, sediment, and total system, respectively. NOA-407854 was the major product detected in the treated water-sediment systems under both anaerobic and aer0bic conditions. Minor identifiedtransformation product (NOA-447204) with maximums of 0.3%, 0.1% and 0.4% in water, sediment and total system, respectively. Under aerobic aquatic conditions, more than 86% of applied activity remains (in total system) in form ofthe! major degradate NOA-407854 (MRID# 462030 1 5). Volatilityis not a significantroute of dissipation. Pinoxaden major degradates NOA-407854 and NOA-447204 are considered to be mobilebased on Freundlich

### I&, values ranging fkom 0.06-128 mllg, and 0.28-0856 mllg, respectively, in three test soils (loamy sand, loam, silty clay loam textures). Selected physical, chemical properties, and fate data are summarized in

## able 4, and 5, respectively..Table 4. SelectedPhysical and Chemical Properties of Pinoxaden

Table 5. Environmental Fate Data for pinoxaden and its major degradates (NOA-407854).

(pinoxaden) 1 8.1

Aerobic aquatic

### t,, (days) Kd Loamy sand Loam Sand Loam Silty clay loam (NOA-407854) 3.6 (pinoxaden) < 1 pinoxaden NOA-407854 5.36 0.064 13.1 0.180 1.08 0.082 11.0 0.136 8.87 0.280 MRID # 46203 0 1 

### 5

RID# 4620301 7Persistence Microbial degradationin soil and aquatic media is the primary dissipation route for pinoxaden. Acceptable laboratory studies showed that pinoxaden degrades rapidly under aerobic soil metabolism conditions, with half-livesranging from 2-3 days. The major degradate (NOA407854) hrther degrades to form NOA-447204 (MRID 462030 1 1 

### - 13). Under aerobic aquatic conditions, pinoxaden degrades rapidly (half-life<1 day) to major transformation product NOA-407854, with maximums of 96.6%, 16.7%and 103.5% of the applied in water layer, sediment, and total system, respectively. NOA-407854 was the major product detected in the treated water-sediment systems under both anaerobic and aerobic conditions. Minor transformation product NOA-447204 was identified with maximums of 0.3%, 0.1% and 0.4% in water, sediment, and total system, respectively. Under aerobic aquatic conditions, more than 86% of applied activity remains (in total system) in form of the major degradate NOA-407854 (MRID# 46203014-15). I Results form an acceptable guideline studyindicated that pinoxaden hydrolized with half-lives of 18.1days at pH 4, 17.2days at pH 5, 9.9 days at pH 7, and 0.21 days (5hours) at pH9. The transformation productNOA-407854 was stableto hydrolysis under the conditions ofthe study (MRID 46203005). Aqueous photolysis ofpinoxaden is not a major dissipation route when exposed to sunlight. In soil,photolysis is also not a significantpathway for degradation for pinoxaden withouthydrolytic degradation. Therefore; the toxic residue (parent 

## + 2 degradates) seems stable and will be around in the environment for a while. Results from supplemental terrestrial field dissipation studies showed that pinoxaden dissipated with half-lives closeto those from laboratory soil dissipation studies. Major degradatesNOA407854 and NOA-447204 were both detected in the soil at a concentration greaterthan 10%of the applied, based on the theoretical amount expected to be found in soil (MRID 462b3023-26). The soil was stored for up to 355 days prior to extraction despite

### A laboratory storage stability studywas not conducted using soil from the test sites.No additional terrestrial field dissipation studyisrequired. A study submitted (MRID 46203022) indicated pinoxaden was notistable in frozen storage. Volatilityis not a significant route of dissipation ofpinoxaden.Mobility Pinoxaden's major degradates (NOA-407854 and NOA-447204) are considered to be mobile based on Freundlich 

### K,,, values ranging from 0.06- 128mllg, and 0.28-0856 mllg, respectively, in three test soils: loamy sand, loam, and silty clay loam textures (MRID 46203016-1 9). Results from supplemental terrestrial field dissipation studies showed that pinoxaden was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the 0-15 cm depth. Degradate NOA-407854 was detected in the 0-15 cm soil depth at a maximum concentration of 10.5%of the applied pinoxaden, but was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the 0-1 5 cm depth. The degradate NOA-447204 was initiallydetected in the 0-15 cm soil depth at a maximum concentration of 10.4%of the applied pinoxaden, but was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the 0-15 cm depth (MRID 46203,023-26). Aquatic Exposure Assessment Aauatic Or~anism Exposure Modeling: Tier 

### I1 Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for pinoxaden and its major degradates (NOA-447204, NOA-407854) were estimated for a small, standing surface water body receiving runoff and spray drift fi-om a treated field using EFED7s fate and surface runoff 

### PRZM model, and surface water fate model, EXAMS. Both ground spray and aerial spray applications were modeled with spray drift input to the surfacewater assumed to be 1% of the application rate for ground spray and 5% for aerial spray applications. The terrestrial crops for which pinoxaden areproposed for registration are wheat and barely (the only crops on label). EECs for a ground spray and aerial spray application were estimated for three wheat scenarios, which are North Dakota, Oregon, and Texas. Because no barley crop scenario currently exists residues in surface water were modeled only for use ofpinoxaden on wheat. The standard scenarios assessed includes the statewith the highest US planted wheat and bareley acreage (based on the dataprovided in USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, "2002 Census ofAgriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 2: U.S. StateLevel Data" at 

### httw://www.nass.usda.~ov/census/censusO2lvolume1 /us/index2.htm). The highest exposure (driven in part by the vulnerability of the soils, the climate, and the agricultural practices) as well as well as the average exposurewere chosen for the selected crop. Maximum application rates were selected to model environmental concentrations for this screening-level deterministic(risk quotient-based) assessment. Representative inputs for the model are summarized in Table 5, and results are tabulated in Table 6. For more detailed inputs for this model and outputs from this model, seeAppendix B.

### Table 6. 

### PRZMIEXAMS input parameters

Surface WaterImpacts: Pinoxaden is a new pesticide; thus, 

### no surface water monitoring data are available. Pinoxadenmajor degradates NOA-407854 and NOA-447204 are considered to be mobile based on Freundlich 

### &,, values ranging from 0.06- 128mllg, and 0.28-0856 mllg, respectively, in three test soils loamy sand, loam, and silty clay loam textures 

### (MRID46203016- 19). 

### In addition, these two degradates arepersistent in water and could impact fish add aquatic invertebrates in streams in use areas. SourceIQuality of data MRID# 46224801 MRID# 4622480 1. An equivalent value based on maximum conversion ofpmoxaden to degradate(NOA- 407854) and the molecular weightratio adjustment. MRID# 46224801 For aerial and ground application, respectively; Input parameters guideline(212812002) For aerial and ground application, respectively; Input parameters guideline(212812002). MRID#46203011-13;inputparametersguideline(212812002). Half-lives were calculated for pinoxaden, ~OA-407854,and NOA-447204. Average of four values (NOA-407854); MkID# 46203017; Input parameters guideline(212812002). (NOA-407854); MRID# 46203006.

MRID# 46203015;Inputparameters guideline(2/28/2002). Half-lives were calculatedforpinoxaden,NOA-407854,and NOA-447204. Stable.No Anaerobic aquatic data available; hputparameters guideline(212812002). (NOA-407854);MRD#46203008;Input parameters guideline (212812002). (NOA-407854);MW46203005;Input parameters guideline (212812002).

I Average of four values (NOA-407854); MRID# 46203017; Input parametbs guideline(212812002). MRID# 46203006 (paent); Input parameters guideline (212812002). MRID# 46203006 (NOA-407854); multiplied by 10.Input parameters guideline (212812002) I

I (NOA-407854); MRID# 46203006. I Input variable (Units) Crop name application-rate (lb ailacre)

Intervalbetween appl. (d) Application efficiency Spray drift hction

DWRATE(day.')

I(d (mug) Henry's Law Const. (atm.m3/mole)

KBACW (h-I)

KBACS (h I)

KDP (h ')
KAH, KNH, KBH@-')
Kps (mug)

MWT (g/mob) Solubility @ 25 OC (mg1L) Vaporpressure (tom) Input value & calculations wheat

0.5

NIA 0.95,0.99

0 05,O.Ol

0.02

0.16

4.27XlO-l3

0.001

0

Stable

stable

0.16

400.5

3800

3.9-loEstimates of surface water concentrations ofpinoxaden (parent

## + degradates) generatedby the PRZM-EXAMS model for a wheat scenario arepresented in Table 6. The total residues were calculatedby combining the total residue concentrations for the parent and degradates of concerns that were identified in soil aerobicmetabolism, and aquatic metabolisms studies. EFED assumes comparable EECs for barley when applied at the same application rate. Table 7. Surface Water EECs For Pinoxaden and Degradates, Based on PRZM-EXAMS Modeling.

Use ~PPI. EEC (PP~) scenario method peak 2 1 -day-avg 60-day-avg Wheat 

### -ND ground 1.46 1.46 1.45 aerial 2.7 2.69 2.67 Wheat -OR ground 1.02 1.02 1.01 aerial 1.67 1.67 1.66 Wheat -TX ground ' 2.19 2.18 2.16 aerial 2.61 2.59 2.57

Exposure Assessment for Birds and Mammals The EECs for terrestrial wildlife are presented in Table 8 for a single application ofpinoxaden applied at a rate of 0.0624 lb ai per acre. Themaximum EECs areused to calculateRQs for the risk assessment. If LOCs are exceeded, mean EECs will be used to characterizerisk.

### Table 8. EECs on Potential Food Items of Birds and Mammals

Use site appl. rate food item (lbailacre) max. mean Wheat and 0.0624 short grass 15 5.3 Barley tall grass broadleaf plants, insects 8.4 2.8 seeds, pods, fruits 0.9 0.4 

### " from T-REX (Appendix C) TERRPLANT was used to calculateEECs for terrestrial plants. Model inputs include the maximum application rate of 0.0624 lb ai per acre, a runoff value of 0.05based on the water solubilityofpinoxaden (3800 mg/L),no incorporation, and ground and aerial application. The EECs arepresented in Table 

### 9. Table 9. 

### EECs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants From Ground or Aerial Application of 0.0624 

### lb ailacre EEC (lb ailacre)"

Use site Appl. method adjacent semi-aquatic uplandb lowlandc driftd Wheat and aerial 0.005 0.022 0.003 Barley ground 0.004 0.032 0.001 

### " from TERRPLANT (Appendix 

### D)

includes sheet runoff and drift from 1 acre onto 1 acre "includes channelized runoff(l0 acres onto 1 acre) and drift

drift only: 1% for ground application, 5% for aerial application 

### Ecological Effects Characterization The screening-level effects characterization describes the types of effects a pesticide can produce in an organism and identifies the values selected for use in RQ calculations. The characterization of effects and values selected arebased on registrant-submitted studiesthat describe acute and chronic toxicity informationfor various aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. When available, other sources of information, includingreviews ofthe open literature and EFED's Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), are evaluated and included, if scientificallysound, to further refine the characterization ofpotential ecological effects. However, no nonHowever, no none regstrant submitted pinoxaden or pinoxaden degradate effects data were found in ECOTOX at the time of this risk assessment (March, 2005).registrant submitted pinoxaden or pinoxaden degradate effects data were found in ECOTOX at the time of this risk assessment (March, 2005). Effects to Aquatic Organisms The toxicity values selected for use in calculatingRQs for assessment endpoints identified in the Problem Formulation section are listed in Table 9. Under neutral to alkaline environmental conditions the parent is expected in aquatic systems to degrade releatively rapidly to the degradates NOA-407584 and NOA-447204. As stated in the Exposure Characterization plan, EECs are the sum of the parent plus degradates. To calculate RQs, toxicityvalues for the parent were selected to represent effects fiom both the parent and the degradates where the parent was more sensitivethan the degradate. For chronic exposure there were no studiesperformed with the parent or with the NOA-447204 degradate. Therefore, chronic values available for the NOA407854 degradate were used to assess chronic risks. Table 10. Summary ofAquatic-organism Endpoints Used for 

### RQ Calculations

Taxa assessment endpoints measurement endpointsa Freshwater fish survival fathead minnow 96-h LC50 = 20 ppm reproduction fathead chronic NOAEC = 0.96 ppm (degradate) Freshwater survival Eastern oyster EC50 = 0.32 ppm invertebrates (parent) reproduction daphnid chronic NOAEC = 5.8 ppm (degradate) Estuarinelmarine survival fish Estuarinelmarine survival invertebrates sheepshead minnow LC50 >16 pprn (parent) Eastern oyster EC50 = 0.32 pprn

(parent)

### Taxa assessmentendnoints measurement endsointsa Plants maintenanceand growth duckweed EC50 =4.3 ppm of standingcrop or (parent) biomass duckweedNOAEC = 0.5 ppm (parent) marine diatom EC50 = 1.2ppm

(parent) 

### " LC50 =lethal concentration to 50% ofthe test population

NOAEC =no observed adverse effect concentration EC5O = effect concentration to 50%d the test population There are acutewarmwater fish and freshwater invertebrate toxicity data available for the formulated product with adjuvant (0.16 and 0.14 ppm ai, respectively). On a ppm ai basis, the formulated product with adjuvant is more toxic than the parent alone or the degradates. Although RQs were not calculated for the formulated product with adjuvant for runofffrom treated fields into an aquatic system, the impact to risk conclusions was evaluated qualitatively. 

### Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms The toxicityvalues used to calculate RQs for the risk assessment are presented in Table 11.Table 11. Summary of Terrestrial-organism Endpoints Used for 

### RQ Calculations Taxa assessment endpoints measurement endpointsa Birds survival bobwhite LD50 >2250 mg/kg bobwhite and mallard LC5Os 25970ppm (parent) reproduction and growth bobwhite chronicNOAEC = 107ppm (NOA-407854) Mammals survival rat LD50 = 1098mg/kg (NOA-447204) reproduction and growth rat chronic NOAEC = 250 ppm (parent) Terrestrial perpetuation of'nontarget monocots: plants (crop and noncrop) Seedlingemergence: species (monocots and ryegrass EC25 = 0.016 lb ailacre dicots) NOAEC = 0.008 lb ailacre Vegetative vigor:

oat EC25 = 0.005 lb ailacre NOAEC = 0.002 lb ailacre dicots: Seedling emergence: EC25s all >0.125 lb ailacre NOAECs = 0.125 lb ailacre Vegetative vigor: cabbage EC25 = 0.093 lb ailacre NOAEC = 0.03 1 1b ailacre (all testingused formulation with adjuvant) 

### " LD50 = lethal dose to 50% of test population

LC50 = lethal concentration to 50% ofthe test population NOAEC =no observed adverse effect concentration EC25 = effect concentration to 25% of the test population Parent pinoxaden is practically nontoxic to birds on an acute-oral and dietarybasis. Because the acute oral and dietary values classifypinoxaden as practically nontoxicto birds and no mortality was reported at the highest test concentration, minimal risk is presumed and acute avian RQs are not calculated in the risk assessment No acute or subacutetesting was done for the degradates or the product formulation and adjuvant. Parent pinoxaden also is practically nontoxic to the laboratoryrat, but one degradate (NOA 447204) is slightlytoxic (LD50 = 1098mg/kg). Two other degradates tested (SYN 502836 and Syn 519312) are practically nontoxic. The formulation (withoutadjuvant) also was tested and found to be practically nontoxicto the rat.The avianreproduction tests were conducted using only the degradateNOA 407854 (which EFED agreed to prior to testing), whereas the two-generation reproductive test with the laboratoryrat was conducted using parent pinoxaden. Adverse effects on the number ofviable embryos and number ofhatchlingswas reported at 3 18ppm of the degradate in the diet of northern bobwhite. No adverse effects were observed at test concentrations up to 1050ppm with the mallard. Parent pinoxaden was found to have adverse effects on offspring body weight at 500ppm in the diet of the laboratory rat. Seedling emergence and vegetativevigor tests were conductedby exposing 10 species 

### (4 monocots, 6 dicots) to the formulated product with adjuvant. Impacts on seedlingemergence were tested at concentrations up to 0.125 Ib ailacre, with only one species (ryegrass EC25 = 0.016 lb ailacre) showing any adverse effects. In the vegetative vigor test, only one dicot species (cabbage EC25 = 0.093 lb ailacre) was adversely affected. Three of four monocot species were affected, with oats (EC25 = 0.005 lb ailacre) the most sensitive species tested. EFED does not calculate RQs for beneficial insects, but uses the available acute toxicity data to determine whether precautionary label statements are needed for their protection. Tests with the honey bee exposed via oral and contact routes of exposure were conducted with parent pinoxaden, the 10.1% ai formulation, the formulation with adjuvant, and the adjuvant alone. Only the formulation displayed toxicitythat might be of concern, but an LD was not established (LD50 >6.3 pg aihee)nor shown to exceed 11 pg aihee. The available studies are summarized in Appendix E. EFED does not require toxicity tests with the earthworm,but studieswere submittedby the registrant. Those data are summarized in Appendix E. RISK CHARACTERIZATION Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and effects characterization to determine the likelihood of effects on aquatic life, wildlife, and plants based on varyingpesticide-usescenarios. The risk characterization provides an estimation and a description of the risk; articulates risk assessment assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties; synthesizes an overall conclusion; and provides the risk managers with information to makeregulatory decisions. 

### Risk Estimation Results ofthe exposure and toxicity effects data are used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects to nontarget species. As previously described, risk in a screening assessment is assessedby calculating RQs as an index of exposure (EEC) to toxicity and comparing them to the Agency's LOCs for acute and chronic risk to each taxa of concern.Aquatic Animals No acute or chronicLOCs are exceeded for fish or aquaticinvertebrates potentiallyexposed fkom a maximum application of 0.0624 lb ai per acre to wheat or barley (Table 12). Table 12. Acute and Chronic 

### RQs for Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates, Based on EECs For a Maximum Application to Wheat In Texas

- - -- EEC (PP~) toxicity (ppb) 

### RQ" Taxal appl.method peak avg LC50 NOAECb acute chronic 

### Freshwaterfish:

aerial 2.61 2.57 20,000" 960d <0.001 <0.01 ground 2.19 2.16 <0.001 <0.01 

### Estuarine/marine fish: aerial ground 2.61 

### 2'57 >16,000e no data <0.001 2.19 2.16 <0.001 n/a 

### Freshwater invertebrates: / aerial 2.61 2.59 320f 58OOg <0.001 , <0.01 ground 2.19 2.18 <0.001 <0.01 

### Estuarine/marine invertebrtaes: aerial 2.61 2.59 320h no data 0.008 ground 2.19 2.18 0.007 n!a 

### " acute LOC = 0.5; chronicLOC = 1

chronic

### NOAEC' 

### " fathead minnow exposed to parent pinoxaden

fathead minnow exposed to degradate NOA-407854 

### " sheepshead exposed to parent pinoxaden

toxicity for Eastern oyster exposed to parent pinoxaden is used as a surrogate, because no valid parent data are availablefor a fkeshwater invertebrate

waterflea exposed to degradate NOA-407854 Eastern oyster exposed to parent pinoxadenTerrestrialAnimals Birds 

### No chronicLOC 

### is exceeded for birds potentially exposed from a maximum application of 0.0624 

### lb ai per acre to wheat or barley (Table 13). 

### As previously discussed, acute RQs are not calculated,becausepinoxaden ispractically nontoxicto birds on acute-oral and dietarybases; therefore, minimal risk is presumed. Table 13. Acute and Chronic RQs for Birds



### Food item max. EEC LC50 

### chronicNOAEC 

### acute chronic Short grass 15 >5970 107 

### n/a 0.1 

### Tall grass 6.9 >5970 107 n/a 0.1 

### Broadleafplants 8.4 >5970 107 

### n/a 0.1 

### Insects Seeds, Pods, 0.9 >5970 107 

### n/a <O. 1 

### Fruits 

### " acute RQs are not calculated, because parent pinoxaden ispractically nontoxic to birds on 

### an

acute-oral and dietarybasis chronic LOC = 1 Mammals 

### No acute or chronicLOC 

### is exceeded for mammals potentially exposed from a maximum application of 0.0624 

### lb ai per acre to wheat or barley (Table 14).

### Table 

### 14. Acute and Chronic RQs for Small Mammals
Food item max. EEC LD50 chronic NOAEC acute chronic Short grass 15 1098 250 0.01 <O. 1 Tall grass 6.9 1098 250 <0.01 <O. 1 Broadleafplants 8.4 1098 250 <0.01 <o. 1 Insects Seeds, Pods, 0.9 1098 250 <0.01 <o. 1 Fruits 

### "based on dose-based EECs for a 15-gmammal as determined from T-TEX

LOC = 0.5 for non-listed spp. and 0.1 for listed spp. based on dietary EECs from T-REX LOC = 1for non-listed and listed spp.



### Nontarget Terrestrial Plants The LOC is exceeded for non-listed and listed monocots and non-flowering plants inhabiting lowland areas subject to channelized runofffrom either an aerial or ground application (Tables 15and 16). The LOC also is exceeded for any listed monocots and non-floweringplants exposed to drift from an aerial application. No LOC is exceeded for the dicots.

### Table 15. 

### RQs For Non-listedNontarget Terrestrial Plants
EEC (lb ailacre) EC25 (lb ailacre) RQ" Apple up- low- seed. veg. UP- lowmethod land land drift emerg. vigor landb landc driftd Monocots:

Aerial 0.005 0.022 0.003 0.016 0.005 0.3 1.4 0.6 Ground 0.004 0.032 0.001 0.016 0.005 0.2 2 0.1 Dicots: Aerial 0.005 0.022 0.003 >0.125 0.093 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1 Ground 0.004 0.032 0.001 >O. 125 0.093 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 "LOC= 1



### RQ = sheet runoff

## + driWEC25 (seedling emergence) 

### " RQ = channelized runoff

## + driWEC25 (seedling emergence)

RQ = drift/EC25 (vegetative vigor)

### Table 16. RQs For Listed Nontarget TerrestrialPlants
EEC (lb ailacre) NOAEC (lb ailacre) 

### RQ" APP~. up- low- seed. veg. UP- lowmethod land land drift emerg. vigor landb landc driftd 

### Monocots": Aerial 

### 0.005 0.022 0.003 0.008 0.002 0.6 

### 2.7 1.6 Ground 

### 0.004 0.032 0.001 0.008 0.002 0.5 

### 4 0.3 

### Dicots: Aerial 

### 0.005 0.022 0.003 0.125 0.031 0. <0.2 0.1 Ground 

### 0.004 0.032 0.001 0.125 0.031 0. <0.3 ~0.1 aLOC= 

### 1

RQ = sheet runoff

### + drift/NOAEC (seedlingemergence) "

### RQ = channelized runoff

## + drift/NOAEC (seedling emergence)

RQ = drift/NOAEC (vegetativevigor) 

### " RQs for monocots also arepresumed to represent listed non-flowering plants



### Aquatic Plants No LOC is exceeded for listed or non-listed aquaticplants for EECs expected for a maximum application ofpinoxaden (Table 

### 17). Table 17. RQs for Non-listed and Listed Aquatic Plants

- EEC toxicity (ppb) RQ" Plant group (PP~) 

### EC50 NOAEC non-end. spp. end. spp. Vascular species:

Duckweed 

### 2.7 4300b 500 <0.001 0.005 Non-vascular species: Diatom 

### 2.7 1200" n/a 

### 0.002 n/a aLOC= 

### 1

duckweed exposed to parent pinoxaden "marine diatom exposed to parent pinoxadenRisk Description Risks to Aquatic Organisms No unacceptable acute or chronic risks were identified for listed and non-listed aquatic organisms. Uncertainties in the assessment of acute risks include lack ofvalid data for a coldwater fish species (e.g., rainbow trout) exposed to parent pinoxaden. Additionally, toxicity data for the fathead minnow exposed to parent pinoxaden may be underestimated, because the fish tested were older than recommended in the guidelines. The magnitude of theseuncertainties is not considered to have a significantimpact on risk conclusions. Although a toxicity value for a freshwater arthropod (e.g., Daphnia magna) was not available, acute risks to freshwater inverebrates as represented by the mollusk shell deposition value are considered representative. The shell deposition studywas 60 times more sensitivethan the estuarinelmarine fish study and 30 times more sensitivethan the arthropod studywith the mysid shrimp. No unacceptable acute or chronic risks are expected from spray drift of the formulation and adjuvant. Although RQs were not calculated, the toxicity ofthe formulation and adjuvant expressed as the parent 96-h LC50 is >I40ppb, which is lower than estimated concentration due to spray drift. Risks to TerrestrialAnimals Because no acute or chronicLOC is exceeded for birds or mammals, minimal risks are expected for these taxa. Risks to Terrestrial Plants Risk to terrestrial plants is presumed only for monocots and non-floweringplants. The LOC is exceeded for non-listed and listed monocots and non-flowering plants inhabitinglowland areas subject to channelized runoff from aerial or ground application. The LOC also is exceeded for listed monocots and non-flowering plants exposed to drift alone from an aerial application. No LOC is exceeded for thk dicots exposed to sheet or channelized runoff or drift alone from either aerial or ground application. Listed Species Concerns Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk 

### The Agency's LOC is exceeded for listed and threatened terrestrial monocots and non-flowering plants from the proposed uses on wheat and barley. Appendix F provides a list of listed andthreatened monocots and non-flowering plants in those states and counties where wheat and barley are grown. The list is based on OPP's LOCATES listed-species database. The Agencyhas developed an Endangered Species ProtectionProgram to ibentifypesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on listed species and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. The Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likelyto jeopardize listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service may be necessary. A deterhination of likelihood of potential impact to a listed species may result in limitations on use ofthe pesticide or in other measures to mitigate any potential impact. The Endangered Species Protection Program as described in a Federal Register notice 

### (54 FR 27984-28008, July 

### 3, 1989)is currentlybeing implemented on an interim basis. As part ofthe interimprogram, the Agency has developed County Specific Pamphlets that articulatemany of the specific measures outlinedinthe Biological Opinions issued to date. The Pamphlets are availablefor voluntary use by pesticide applicators on EPAYs website at www.epa.gov/espp. A final Endangered SpeciesProtection Program, which maybe altered from the interim program, was proposed for public comment in the Federal Register December 2,2002. Critical Habitat 

### In the evaluation of pesticide effects on designated critical habitat, consideration is given to the physical and biological features (constituent elements) of a critical habitat identified by the FWS and NMFS as essential to the conservation of a listed species and which may require special management considerations orprotection. The evaluation ofimpacts for a screening level pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological features that are constituent elements and is accomplishedusing the screening level taxonomic analysis (RQs and LOCs) that areused to evaluate direct and indirect effects to listed organisms. The screening level risk assessment has identified potential concerns for indirect effects on listed species for those organisms dependent upon freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, birds, and mammals. In light of the potential for indirect effects, the next step for EPA, FWS, and the NMFS is to identify which listed species and criticalhabitat are potentially implicated. Analytically, the identification of such species and critical habitat can occur in either oftwo ways. First, the agencies could determine whether the action area overlaps critical habitat or the occupied range of any listed species. If so, EPA would examine whether the pesticide's potential impacts on non-listed species would affect the listed species indirectly or directly affect a constituent element of the critical habitat. Alternatively, the agencies could determine which listed species depend on biological resources, or have constituent elements that fall into, the taxa that may be directly or indirectlyimpacted by the pesticide. Then EPA would determinewhether use of the pesticide overlaps with the critical habitat or the occupied range of those listed species.At present, the informationreviewed by EPA does not permit use of either analytical approach to make a definitive identificationof speciesthat are potentially impacted indirectlyor critical habitats that are potentiallyimpacted directly by the use of the pesticide. EPA and the Service(s) are working together to conduct the necessary analysis. This screening level risk assessment for criticalhabitat provides a listing ofpotentialbiological features that, if the are constituentelements of one or more critical habitats, would be of potential concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being ofpotential concern for indirect effects and include the following: fieshwater fish and invertebrates,estuarine/marinefish and invertebrates,birds, and mammals. This list should serve as an initial step in problem formulation for fixther assessment of critical habitat impacts outlined above, should additional work be necessary. Indirect Effects Pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effectsupon listed organisms. For example, an herbicidemay impact nontarget terrestrial plants that herbivores utilize as food, insectivoresmay use for foraging on invertebrates,and birds and mammals may use for cover andlor as nesting or breeding habitat. Aquaticplants also may be adversely affected by an herbicide. Aquatic plants may be used by aquaticvertebrates (e.g., fish, birds, mammals) and invertebrates as a source of food and cover and may provide an essential substratefor harboring eggs of some fish. In a screen for indirect effects, EFED uses the 

### LOC exceedances for direct effects to infer a potential for indirect effects upon listed species. For pinoxaden, indirect effectsmay exist for listed organisms utilizing terrestrial monocots exposed to channelized runoff fiom treated fields and possibly for those aquatic species utilizing surface waters that receive runoff and drift. Assumptions and Uncertainties Possible Limitations Related to Exposure for all Taxa Maximum Use Scenario This screening-level risk assessment is based on the maximum labeled application rate, which reflects the proposed allowable use of pinoxaden. This assumption constitutes a maximum-use scenario and might overestimate risk iftypical application rates will be lower than the maximum labeled rate. However, as an unregistered active ingredient, no typical-useinformation is available at this time. Possible Limitations Related to Exposure for Aquatic Species No Averaging Time for ExposureFor an acute risk assessment, the instantaneouspeak concentration, with a 1in 

### 10year return fi-equency,is assumed for exposure of aquatic organisms. The use ofthe instantaneouspeak assumes that instantaneous exposureis of sufficientduration to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed over more protracted exposure periods tested in the laboratory, typically 48 to 96 hours. In the absence of data regarding time-to-toxicevent analyses and latentresponses to instantaneous exposure, the degree to which risk mightbe overestimated cannotbe quantified. Test materials Aquatic organisms mightbe exposedto either or any combination ofparent pinoxaden, its degradates, inert ingiedients ofthe formulation, and to the adjuvant required to be added to the end-use product prior to application. Some aquatic testing has been done with most ofthese test materials, but not all test species have been tested with each potential stressor. For example, no chronic studies were conducted using parent pinoxaden, and only acute studies with parent pinoxaden were conducted for estuarinelmarine species. Appendix 

### E identifies the test material used for each aquatic-organism toxicity study. Limitations Related to Exposure of Terrestrial Species Routes of Exposure Screening-levelrisk assessments for birds and mammals arebased solely on dietary exposure. Otherpossible routes of exposure are not considered in this assessment, but might includethe following: Thoroughness of the Application This risk assessment is based on the assumption that the entiretreatment area is subject to pinoxaden application at the rate specified on the label. However, the potential for uneven application exists due to changes in calibrationof applicationequipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific areas ofthe treated field that are associated with specificsofthe type of application equipment used. Test materials Terrestrial organisms might be exposed to parent pinoxaden, its degradates, the formulated product, to the adjuvant required for this product, ox to a combination ofthese materials. For birds, acute-oral and dietary data are lacking for exposure to the degradates, the formulated product, and to the required adjuvant. The acute-oral testing with the laboratory rat indicated that one of the degradates is more toxic than the parent or the end-use product, although toxicity is categorized as being only slight. Avian reproduction testing is availableonly for the degradates.Limitations Related to Effects Age class and sensitivity thresholds The age oftest organisms may have a significantimpact on the observed sensitivityto a toxicant. The acute toxicity data for fish are collected on juvenile fish weighing from 0.1 to 

### 5 g. Acute tests with aquatic invertebrates areperformed on immature age classes (e.g., first instar for daphnids, second instar for amphipods, stoneflies and mayflies, and third instar for midges). Dietary testing with birds also isperformed usingjuvenile birds (5to 10-day-oldmallards, 

### 10to 14-day-old northern bobwhite). In contrast, adult birds are used in the acute-oral test. Testing juveniles may overestimate toxicity for older age classes for pesticidesthat act directly, because younger age classesmay not have the enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xenobiotics. The screening risk assessment has no current provisions to account for this uncertainty. 

### In so far as the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivityinformation with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stageinformation as the conservative screening endpoint. Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested The screening-level risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most sensitive species tested. However, this value likely does not reflect the sensitivityofthe most sensitive species existingin a given environment. The relation ofthe most sensitive species tested to the distributionof all possible species depends on the overall variability among species sensitivityto a particular chemical stressor. 

### In the case of listed species, there is uncertainty regarding the relationship ofthe listed species' sensitivityand the most sensitive species tested. Additional uncertainty exists when extrapolatingamong different taxa, such as assuming that avian toxicity is representativeofreptiles or fish sensitivityrepresents sensitivityof amphibians. 

### EFED will use non-guideline data whenever available, but none areknown for pinoxaden at this time. Assumptions Associated with the Acute LOCs The risk characterization section of the assessment document includes an evaluation ofthe potential for individual effects at an exposurelevel equivalent to the LOC. This evaluation is based on the median lethal dose estimate and doselresponse relationship established for the effects study corresponding to each taxonomic group for which the LOCs are exceeded.

### REFERENCES Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrumentfor estimating pesticideresidues on plants. Environ. Tox. Chem. 13:1383-1391. Hoerger, 

### F. and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. 

## InF. Coulston and F. Korte, 

### eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart,West Germany, pp. 9-28. Support Document #14. 

### U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPN63OIR-95/002F, April 1 998, Final. 1 7 1pp. http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm Willis, G. 

### H. and L..L. McDowell, 1987. PesticidePersistence on Foliage. in

### Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 100:23-73.APPENDIXA: STATUS 

### OF DATA REQUIREMENTS Ecotoxicity Data Requirements:

Data requirement

satisfied? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

no

no

no

no

no

no

no

no Data required? Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

no Yes

yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Guideline no. 7 1 - 1

(A) 71-2(a) 7 1 -2(b) 71-3

83-3(a)

7 1 -4(a) 7 1 -4(b) 71-5 72- 1 (a)
72- 1 (c)

72-2

72-3 (a)

72-3(b)
72-3(c)
72-4(a)
72-4(b) Study description Acute Avian Oral,Bobwhte Avian DietaryToxicity, Bobwhite Avian DietaryToxicity, Duck Mammalian Acute Oral

Mammalian Chronic/Reproductive Toxicity Avian ReproductiveJBobwhite Avian Reproductive/Duck Field Testing, TerrestrialAnimals Fish Acute Toxicity, Fathead Minnow Fish Acute Toxicity, Rainbow Trout

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity

EstuarineJMarineFishAcute Toxicity EstuarineMarine Mollusc Acute Toxicity EstuarineJMarineShrimp Acute Toxicity Early Life Stage, Fish
Life Cycle, Aquatic Invertebrate MRID no. 46203 1-03 462031-04 46203 1-05 462032- 14 462032-17 462032-15a 462032-16a 462032-1 Sa 462033-08

462031-07 46203 1-08

462030-36
462030-34 462030-35 462030-37 462030-39 462030-41 462030-29 462030-30 462030-31 462030-38

462030-32

462030-33

46203 1-01

462030-42 Status acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable da da da acceptable acceptable acceptable ds supplemental
invalid

core supplemental 'supplemental supplemental invalid

core supplemental supplemental
supplemental supplemental
supplemental
supplementalData Guideline Study Data requirement no. description required? satisfied? 72-5 Life Cycle, Fish no 72-6 Aquatic Bioaccumulation no 72-7 Simulated or Acutal Field Testing, no Aquatic Animal 123-l(a) 

# 1 Seedling Emergence Yes Yes 123-1(b) 

# IVegetativeVigor

Earthworm toxicity Status 

# '" 

# I

ds

acceptable acceptable
core core core supplemental core core core supplemental supplemental core

46203 1-13 acceptable 46203 1 - 10 supplemental 46203 1-09 supplemental 462031-11 supplemental 46203 1 - 12 supplemental 46203 1-26 supplemental 46203 1-27 supplemental 46203 1-28 su~olemental " study done with metabolite,was not reviewed by OPPIHED ds = none submitted, requirement is reservedEnvironmentalFate Data Requirements:

I Guideline #
161-1 161-2 161-3

161-4 162-1

162-3,4 162-4 163-2 163-1

164- 1

164-2 Requirement Description Hydrolysis Photodegradation in Water Photodegradation on Soil
Photodegradationin Air Aerobic SoilMetabolism

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Laboratory Volatility Leaching -AdsorptioaiDesorption

TerrestrialField Dissipation

Aquatic Field Dissipation Are Data Available for Risk Assessment? Yes Yes Yes Yes Waived Yes

Yes No Waived No Yes Yes Yes No

Not required MRID

46203005 46203008 46203009 46224803

46203011 46203012 46203013 46203014 46203015

46203016 462030 17 46203018 46203019 46203023 46203024 46203025 46203026 00094799 00101940 Study Classification
acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable
acceptable acceptable acceptable acceptable supplemental

invalid accepta;ble acceptaple acceptible supplemental suppledental supple+ental supple&ental invalid invalid

### APPENDIX B: PRZMIEXAMS AND SCI-GROW MODELING FOR AQUATIC ORGANISMS
PRZM/EXAMS INPUT & OUTPUT FILE FOR THE USE OF PINOXADEN ON Wheat IN NORTH DAKOTA 

### Aerial Application stored as PnxwtRDr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment: NDwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12 October EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August Metfile: wl4914.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 Water segment concentrations(ppb) Year 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Peak 0.4088

1

323 1.368 0.9245 0.7668 0.731 1 0.7808 0.7841 0.9813

0.831 1.167 0.8721 0.7754

1.196 1.031 0.791 7 0.71 77 0.7333 0.6873 0.6661

2.274 1.187 0.8276 0.81 52 1.262 0.8775 0.9294 0.7362 0.7541

1.009 21 Day 0.3942

1.473 1.336 0.8936 0.751 9

0.714 0.7552 0.7606 0.9525 0.8075 1.13 0.8438 0.7528

1.159 0.9982 0.7663 0.6938

0.709 0.6678 0.6449

2.206

1.15 0.801 7 0.7901

1.224 0.8505 0.9001 0.71 35 0.7296 0.9754 60 Day 0.3726

1.386 1.257 0.8632 0.7145 0.6803 0.7103 0.7182 0.901 8 0.7696

1.064 0.7959 0.7109

1.091 0.9369 0.7203 0.6637 0.6687 0.6574 0.6101

2.079 1.098 0.7574 0.7437

1.154 0.8344 0.851 1 0.6751 0.6896 0.91 71 90 Day Yearly 0.3614 0.1879

1.323 0.741 4 1.199 0.8568 0.8402 0.661 0.6834 0.5112

0.651 0.4595 0.6872 0.4781 0.6965 0.4922 0.8623 0.5781 0.7391 0.5431

1.015 0.6557 0.761 9 0.5771 0.6794 0.4874

1.042 0.6564 0.894 0.6683 0.687 0.529 0.6371 0.4527 0.6542 0.461 2 0.6381 0.4578 0.5827 0.4184

1.984 1.115 1.053 0.9046 0.7244 0.5657 0.7189 0.507

1.103 0.7025 0.8073 0.628

0.814 0.569 0.6448 0.4802 0.6597

, 0.4576 0.8747 0.5732Water segment concentrations(ppb) Sorted results Prob. Peak 0.032258 2.274 0.06451 6 1.523 0.096774 1.368 0.129032 1.262

0.16129 1.196 0.193548 1.187 0.225806 1 .I 67 0.258065 1.031 0.290323 1.009 0.322581 0.981 3 0.354839 0.9294 0.387097 0.9245 0.419355 0.8775 0.451613 0.8721 0.483871 0.831 0.516129 0.8276 0.548387 0.81 52 0.580645 0.7917 0.612903 0.7841 0.645161 0.7808 0.677419 0.7754 0.709677 0.7668 0.741935 0.7541 0.774194 0.7362 0.806452 0.7333

0.83871 0.731 1 0.870968 0.7177 0.903226 0.6873 0.935484 0.6661 0.967742 0.4088 21 Day 2.206 1.473 1.336 1.224 1.159 1.15 1.13 0.9982 0.9754 0.9525 0.9001 0.8936 0.8505 0.8438 0.8075 0.8017 0.7901 0.7663 0.7606 0.7552 0.7528 0.7519 0.7296 0.714 0.71 35 0.709 0.6938 0.6678 0.6449 0.3942 60 Day 2.079 1.386 1.257 1.154 1.098 1.091 1.064 0.9369 0.9171 0.9018 0.8632 0.851 1 0.8344 0.7959 0.7696 0.7574 0.7437 0.7203 0.7182 0.7145 0.71 09 0.7103 0.6896 0.6803 0.6751 0.6687 0.6637 0.6574 0.63 01 0.3726 90 Day 1.984 1.323 1.199 1.103 1.053 1.042 1.015 0.894 0.8747 0.8623 0.8402 0.814 0.8073 0.7619 0.7391 0.7244 0.7189 0.6965 0.6872 0.687 0.6834 0.6794 0.6597 0.6542 0.651 0.6448 0.6381 0.6371 0.5827 0.3614 Yearly 1.115 0.9046 0.8568 01.741 4 0,.7025 0.6683 0.661 0~.6564 0.6557 b.628 01.5781 01.5771 01.5732 d,.569 01.5657 0.5431 6.529 01.51 12 0.507 0.4922 0.4874

014595 014578 014576 014527 014184 011879 0.1 1.3574 1.3494 1.3248 1.2467 1.1894 0.84526 Average of yearly averages: 0.579203 Inputs generated by pe4.pl 

### - 8-Aug-03 Data used for this run: Output File: PnxwtRDr Metfile: wl4914.dvf PRZM scenario: NDwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 400.51 glmolDescription Variable Name Value Units Comments Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure Solubility Kd Koc Photolysis half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Aerobic Soil Metabolism Hydrolysis: Method: vapr sol Kd Koc kdp kbacw kbacs

asm pH CAM 7 2 integer Incorporation Depth: DEPl 0 Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 Application Effciency:APPEFF 0.95 Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 Application Date Date 20-05 Record 17:OO FlLTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18:OO PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Flag for runoff calc. torr mg/L mg/L mg/L days Half-life days Half-life days Half-life days Half-life 0 days Half-life

See PRZM manual cm kg/ha fraction fraction of application ddlmm or ddlmmm

Run IR RUNOFF total none,



### Ground Application

stored as PnxwtRDr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment: NDwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12 October EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August Metfile:wl4914.dvf modified Wedday, 3 Jul2002 Water seqment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.1635 0.1 623 0.1 578 0.1 509 0.1503 0.08083 1962 1.24 1.232 1.2 1.128 1.077 0.577 1963 1.058 1.051 1.032 0.9716 0.9268 0.67Year 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Peak 0.6087 0.41 02 0.3707 0.4362 0.4411 0.6396 0.481 3

0.823 0.5146 0.41 48 0.849 0.7134 0.4285

0.365 0.3991 0.3551 0.2979

1.978 1.002 0.4646

0.476 0.931 0.5508 0.5778 0.3727 0.3958 0.6703 Sorted results Prob. Peak 0.032258 1.978 0.064516 1.24 0.096774 1.058 0.129032 1.002

0.16129 0.931 0.193548 0.849 0.225806 0.823 0.258065 0.7134 0.290323 0.6703 0.322581 0.6396 

## . 0.354839 0.6087 0.387097 0.5778 0.419355 0.5508 0.451 61 3 0.5146 0.483871 0.481 3 0.516129 0.476 0.548387 0.4646 21 Day 0.5884 0.4033 0.3628

0.422 0.4272 0.6208 0.4673 0.7978

0.498 0.4015 0.8237 0.6907 0.41 48 0.3529 0.3858 0.3468 0.2888

1.918 0.973 0.4502

0.461 0.9035 0.5326 0.5586 0.3609

0.383 0.648 21 Day

1.918

1.2 1.032 0.973 0.9035 0.8237 0.7978 0.6907 0.648 0.6208 0.5884 0.5586 0.5326 0.498 0.4673 0.461 0.4502 60 Day 0.5522 0.3852 0.3477 0.3968 0.4034 0.5896 0.4432

0.751 0.4688 0.3794 0.7754 0.6484 0.3901 0.3331 0.3625 0.3278 0.2755

1.808 0.9223

0.427 0.4335 0.8527 0.5082 0.5276 0.3449 0.3609 0.6094

60 Day

1.808 1.128 0.9716 0.9223 0.8527 0.7754 0.751 0.6484 0.6094 0.5896 0.5522 0.5276 0.5082 0.4688 0.4432 0.4335 0.427 90 Day 0.538 0.3692 0.3334 0.3787 0.3854 0.5646 0.4252

0.717 0.4499 0.3631 0.7405 0.61 87 0.3721 0.321 1 0.3459 0.3201 0.2636

1.725 0.8858 0.4095 0.4137

0.815 0.4962

0.505 0.3305 0.3451 0.5812

90 Day

1.725 1.077 0.9268 0.8858 0.815 0.7405 0.71 7 0.6187 0.5812 0.5646 0.538 0.505 0.4962 0.4499 0.4252 0.41 37 0.4095 Yearly 0.4573 0.2958 0.24 0.2586 0.2736 0.3629 0.3272 0.4449 0.3633 0.2694 0.4451 0.4574 0.31 38 0.2393 0.2425 0.2386 0.1982 0.9238 0.7035 0.35d5 0.2905 0.4931 0.4151 0.3548 0.2646 0.2497 0.3602 Yearly 0.9238 0.7035

0.67 0.577 0.4931 0.4574 0.4573 0.4451 0.4449 0.4151 0.3633 0.3629 0.3602 0.3548 0.3505 0.3272 0.3138Year 0.580645 0.612903 0.645161 0.67741 9 0.709677 0.741 935 0.774194 0.806452

0.83871 0.870968 0.903226 0.935484 0.967742 Peak 0.441 1 0.4362 0.4285 0.41 48 0.4102 0.3991 0.3958 0.3727 0.3707 0.365 0.3551 0.2979 0.1635 21 Day 0.4272 0.422 0.4148 0.4033 0.4015 0.3858 0.383 0.3628 0.3609 0.3529 0.3468 0.2888 0.1578 60 Day 0.4034 0.3968 0.3901 0.3852 0.3794 0.3625 0.3609 0.3477 0.3449 0.3331 0.3278 0.2755 0.1509 90 Day 0.3854 0.3787 0.3721 0.3692 0.3631 0.3459 0.3451 0.3334 0.3305 0.321 1 0.3201 0.2636 0.1503 Yearly 0.2958 0.2905 0.2736 0.2694 0.2646 0.2586 0.2425 0.2407

0.24 0.2386 0.2343 0.1982 0.08083 0.1 1.0524 1.04552 1.0261 0.96667 0.9227

. 0.6607 Average of yearly averages 0.371584 Inputs generated by pe4.pl 

## - 8-Aug-03 Data used for this run: Output File: PnxwtRDr Me.tfile: wl4914.dvf PRZM scenario: NDwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Description Variable Value Units Comments Name Molecular weight mwt 400.51 glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.90E-10 torr Solubility sol 3800 mg/L Kd Kd 0.16 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half-life kdP 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 937 days Half-life Anaerobic Aquatic kbacs 0 days Half-life Metabolism Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36.4 days Half-life Hydrolysis: PH7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPl 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.07 kglha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.064 fraction of applicationDescription Variable Value Units Comments Name Application Date Date 20-05 ddlmm or ddlmmm Record 17:OO FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18:OO PLVKRT PLDKRT

. FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run I R Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none,



### PRZM/EXAMS INPUT & 

### OUTPUT FILE FOR THE USE OF PINOXADEN ON Wheat IN OREGON Aerial Application

stored as PnxORPAr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment: 0RwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12 October EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 1961 0.125 1962 0.2633 1963 0.3769 1964 0.4629 1965 0.5764 1966 0.6481 1967 0.7033 1968 0.7787 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.1248 0.1242 0.1238 0.1235 0.03946 0.2631 0.2625 0.2609 0.2598 0.1618 0.3765 0.3749 0.3722 0.3706 0.2873 0.4625 0.4615 0.4587 0.4568 0.3862

0.576 0.5743 0.5721 0.5699 0.4761 0.6475 0.6459 0.6427 0.64 0.5765 0.7026 0.6997 0.6951 0.6922 0.635 0.7783 0.7758 0.7712 0.7682 0.6928Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03225806 1.75 1.749 1.745 1.737 1.731 1.6670.1 1.6735 1.6724 1.6674 1.6579 1.652 1.5863 Average of yearly averages: 1.187259Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-Aug-03 Data used for this run: Output File: PnxORPAr Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scehario: 0RwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Description Variable Name Value Units Comment S Molecular weight mwt 400.51 glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.90E-10 torr Solubility sol 3800 mg/L Kd Kd 0.16 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 937 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36.4 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPl 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.05 kglha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray

. Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application Application Date Date 9-Jun ddlmm or ddlmmm Record 17:OO FILTRA

, IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18:OO PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none,



### Ground Application stored as PnxORPGr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment: 0RwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12 October EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day. 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.02652 0.0265 0.02641 0.02623 0.02603 0.008253 1962 0.07837 0.07833 0.07811 0.07771 0.07738 0.04008Sorted results Prob. Peak 0.032258 1.127 0.064516 1.101 0.096774 1.026 0.129032 0.9996

0.16129 0.957 0.193548 0.8978 0.225806 0.8848 0.258065 0.8203 0.290323 0.7967 0.322581 0.7833 0.354839 0.7785 0.387097 0.7766 0.41 9355 0.7745 0.451613 "0.7544 0.483871 0.731 9 0.516129 0.6991 0.548387 0.6566 21 Day 1.I23 1.099 1.024 0.9957 0.9554 0.8928

0.883 0.81 88 0.7944

0.782 0.7773 0.7733 0.7722 0.7528 0.7294 0.6976 0.6557 60 Day 1.118 1.096 1.021 

## - 0.99 0.9523 0.8861 0.8797

0.816 0.791 0.7794 0.7746 0.7685 0.7681 0.7497 0.7258 0.6949 0.6537 90 Day 1.I 14 1.092 1.018 0.9865 0.9495 0.881 9 0.8772 0.81 38 0.777 0.7767 0.7723 0.7657 0.7652 0.7472 0.7234 0.6926

0.652 Yearly 1.057

0.99 0.9865 0.9181 0.8796 0.8498 0.7937 0.7574

0.753 0.7414

0.741 0.7224 0.7154 0.7104 0.6727

0.635 0.601 8Prob. 0.580645 0.612903 0.645161 0.67741 9 0.709677 0.741935 0.774194 0.806452

0.83871 0.870968 0.903226 0.935484 0.967742 Peak 0.6243 0.5905 0.5563 0.5302 0.52 03325 0.1981 0.1938 0.1826 0.1262 0.1119 0.07837 0.02652 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.623 0.6206 0.6185 0.5681 0.5895 0.5874 0.5856 0.5373 0.5553 0.5534 0.5517 0.5139 0.5285 0.5266 , 0.5249 0.5002 0.5189 0.517 0.5154 0.41 16 0.231 6 0.2302 0.2293 0.1993 0.1971 6.1964 0.1958 0.1864 0.1929 0.1917 0.191 0.1787 0.1819 0.1809 0.1797 0.1354 0.1257 0.1251 0.1247 0.11 12 0.1113 0.1105 0.11 0.0851 0.0781 1 0.07771 0.07738 0.04008 0.02641 0.02623 0.02603 0.008253 0.1 1.02336 1.02328 1.02117, 1.0179 1.01485 0.97966 Average of yearly averages: 0.566691



# . Inputs generated by pe4.pl 

## - 8-Aug-03 Data used for this run: Output File: PnxORPGr Metfile: w24232.dvf PRZM scenario: 0RwheatC.txt EXAMS environmentfile: pond298.e~~ Chemical Name: pinoxaden Description Variable Value Units Comments Name Molecularweight mwt 400.51 glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure Solubility Kd Koc Photolysis half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Aerobic Soil Metabolism Hydrolysis: pH 7 Method: Incorporation Depth: Application Rate: Application Efficiency: Spray Drift vapr sol Kd Koc kdp kbacw kbacs

asm

CAM DEPl TAPP APPEFF

DRFT torr mg/L mg/L mg/L days days days days days integer

cm kg/ha fraction Half-life Half-life Half-life Half-lfie Half-life See PRZM manual

fraction of applicationSorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.03225806 2.782 2.778 2.765 2.741 2.662 2.487 0.06451613 2.694 2.693 2.687 2.673 2.558 2.334 0.09677419 2.619 2.615 2.604 2.58 2.497 2.158 0.12903226 2.532 2.531 2.525 2.51 1 2.43 2.117 0.16129032 2.341 2.34 2.334 2.321 2.31 1 2.049 0.19354839 2.247 2.246 2.24 2.228 2.218 1.931 0.22580645 2.178 2.177 2.172 2.16 2.148 1.911 0.25806452 2.089 2.089 2.085 2.076 2.066 1.864 0.29032258 2.039 2.038 2.035 2.026 2.017 1.826 0.32258065 1.992 1.99 1.982 1.967 1.912 1.791 0.35483871 1.934 1.933 1.929 1.921 1.871 1.766 0.38709677 1.897 1.896 1.891 1.88 1.87 1.729 0.41935484 1.847 1.847 1.844 1.837 1.83 1.667

0.451 6129 1.829 1.827 1.819 1.808 1.745 1.635 0.48387097 1.742 1.742 1.739 1.732 1.725 1.622 0.51 612903 1.71 2 1.71 1.702 1.69 1.572 1'494

0.5483871 1.647 1.645 1.636 1.621 1.544 1.45 0.58064516 1.596 1.595 1.591 1.581 1.539 1.435 0.61290323 1.559 1.558 1.554 1.546 1.522 1.335 0.6451 6129 1.542 1.542 1.538 1.529 1.425 1.316 0.67741 935 1.443 1.443 1.439 1.432 1.404 1.291 0.70967742 1.421 1.421 1.41 8 1.411 1.348 1.195 0.74193548 1.333 1.331 1.325 1.314 1.271 1.183 0.77419355 1.288 1.287 1.284 1.277 1.249 1.115 0.806451 61 1.266 1.266 1.262 1.255 1.241 1.103 0.83870968 1.199 1.I98 1.I95 1.187 1.18 1.075 0.87096774 1.176 1.176 1.173 1.168 1.I62 0.5825 0.90322581 0.3664 0.3659 0.364 0.3609 0.343 0.2825 0.93548387 0.2894 0.289 0.2878 0.2855 0.2663 0.195 0.96774194 0.1886 0.1883 0.1875 0.1747 0.1413 0.03484 0.1 2.6103 2.6066 2.5961 2.5731 2.4903 2.1 539 Average of yearly averages: 1.465795 Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-Aug-03 Data used for this run: Output File: PnxTXPAr Metfile: wl3958.dvfPRZM scenario: TXwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Description Variable Name Value Units Comment S Molecular weight mwt 400.51 glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.90E-10 torr Solubility sol 3800 mglL Kd Kd 0.16 mg1L Koc Koc mg1L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 937 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36.4 days Halfife 0 Hydrolysis: pH 7 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPl 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.05 kglha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application Application Date Date 15-10 ddlmm or ddlmmm Record 17:OO FILTRA IPSCND 1

UPTKF Record 18:OO PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run I R Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, Ground Application

stored as PnxTXPGr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment TXwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12 October EXAMS environment pond298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August Metfile: w13958.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.09328 0.09317 0.09275 0.07977 0.05815 0.01434 1962 0.1 145 0.1 144 0.1 139 0.1 131 0.1061 0.09004 1963 0.1284 0.1282 0.1276 0.1265 0.1209 0.1083 1964 1.477 1.475 1.468 1.456 1.112 0.3616 1965 1.719 1.717 1.71 1.698 1.612 1.408 1966 1.67 1.669 1.666 1.658 1.651 1.528Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr

0.03225806 2.473 0.06451 613 2.395 0.09677419 2.203 0.12903226 2.13 0.161 29032 1.998 0.19354839 1.824 0.22580645 1.743 0.25806452 1.719 0.29032258 1.67 0.32258065 1.665 0.35483871 1.64 0.38709677 1.499 0.41935484 1.477

0.4516129 1.397 0.48387097 1.39 0.51612903 1.279

0.5483871 1.I66 0.58064516 1.129 0.61290323 1.081 0.6451 6129 1.074 0.67741935 0.9655 0.70967742 0.9464 0.741 93548 0.8376 0.7741 9355 0.8064 0.806451 61 0.7878 0.83870968 0.7177 0.87096774 0.6932 21 Day 60 2.47 2.458 2.394 2.388 2.2 2.191 2.129 2.124 1.997 1.992 1.823 1.819 1.743 1.739 1.717 1.71 1.669 1.666 1.664 1.661 1.639 1.637 1.498 1.494 1.475 1.468 1.395 1.389

1.39 1.388 1.279 1.277 1.164 1.158 1.128 1.125

1.08 1.078 1.074 1.071 0.965 0.9629 0.946 0.9441 0.8367 0.8326

0.806 0.8042 0.7873 0.7852 0.71 72 0.7151 0.6929 0.6915 Day 90 Day Y 2.437 2.366 2.376 2.26 2.171 2.1 2.112 2.029 1.981 1.973 1.809 1.8 1.728 1.719 1.698 1.651 1.658 1.647 1.654 1.622 1.629 1.612 1.485 1.478 1.456 1.378 1.383 1.328 1.381 1.266 1.272 1.112 1.147 1.112 1.118 1.08 1.072 1.067 1.065 1.06 0.9578 0.9533 0.9395 0.9352 0.8255 0.7961 0.8 0.7774 0.7809 0.7625 0.7102 0.7062 0.6883 0.6853 'early 2.192 1.948 1.826 1.712 1.633

1.55 1.534 1.528 1.502 1.466 1.408 1.386 1.293 1.273 1 .I 77 1.052 0.9975 0.9889 0.881 3 0.8646 0.8373 0.7384

0.729 0.6617 0.6407 0.6104 0.361 60.1 2.1957 2.1929 2.1843 2.1651 2.0929 1.8146 Average of yearly averages: 1.I001 36 Inputs generated by pe4.pl - 8-Aug-03 Data used for this run: Output File: PnxTXPGr Metfile: wl3958.dvf PRZM scenario: TXwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Description Variable Name Value Units Comment S Molecular weight mwt 400.51 glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13 atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.90E-10 torr Solubility sol 3800 mg/L Kd Kd 0.16 mg/L Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 0 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 937 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36.4 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPl 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.05 kglha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of Application Date Date 15-10 ddlmm or Record 17:OO FILTRA IPSCND 1

UPTKF ' Record 18:OO PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, application ddlmmmSCIGROW VERSION 2.3

VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE SciGrow version 2.3 chemica1:pinoxaden time is 21 7/2005 9:46:59

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.33E-01



### ......................................................................

### APPENDIX C: T-REX MODELINGFOR BIRDS AND 

### MAMMALS 

## - EXPOSURE AND RQ CALULATIONS (T-REX VERSION 1.1, 

### DECEMBER 7,2004) Introduction and Background This spreadsheet-based model calculates the decay of a chemical applied to foliar surfaces for single or multiple applications. It uses the same principle as the batch code models FATE and TERREEC that calculate terrestrial exposure concentration estimates on plant surfaces following pesticide application. Afirst order decay assumption is used to deterpine the concentration at each day after initial application based on the concentration resulting from the initial and additional applications. The decay is calculated from the first order rate equation:

or in log form:

Where CT = concentration at time T = day zero. C, = concentration, in parts per million (PPM), present initially (on day zero) on the surfaces. C, is calculated by multiplying the application rate, in pounds active ingredient per acre, by 240 for short grass, 11 0 for tall grass, and 135 for broad-leafed plantslsmall insects and 15for fruitslpodsllarge insects based on the Kenaga nomogram (Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972) as modified by Fletcher (1994). For maximum concentrations, additional applications are converted from pounds active ingredient per acre to PPM on the plant surface and the additional mass added to the mass of the chemical still present on the surfaces on the day of application. k = If the foliar dissipation data submitted to EFED are found scientifically valid and statistically robust for a specific pesticide, the 90% upper confidence limit of the mean half-lives should be used. When scientifically valid, statistically robust data are not available, EFED recommends the using a default half-life value of 35 days. The use of the 35-day half-life is based on the highest reported value (36.9 days), as reported by Willis and McDowell (Pesticide persistence on foliage, Environ. Contam. Toxicol, 100:23-73, 1987). T = time, in days, since the start of the simulation. The initial application is on day 0. The simulation is designed to run for 365 days. The spreadsheet calculates the pesticide residue concentrations on each type of surface on a daily interval for one year. The maximum concentration during the year is calculated for both maximum and mean residues. The calculated residueconcentrations are used to calculate Avian and Mammalian risk quotient (RQ) values. The maximum calculated concentration is divided by user input values for acute and chronic endpoints to give RQs for each type of plant surface. 

### Inputs An 'Input' worksheet has been included to increase consistency and transparency in the terrestrial exposure estimation process. The inputs used to calculate the amount of chemical present and estimate exposure are highlighted in blue, as well as consist of various drop-down menus. These inputs include the following:Chemical name: Use: Formulation: % A.I.: Application Rate: Half-life: Application Interval: Maximum # Application per year: Concentration of Concern: Choose label: Enter either the chemical or common name used in the assessment Enter the crop name and type of use Enter the state of the chemical to be used (e.g., liquid, spray, WP, flowable, etc.) Enter the % A.I. for the formulation (from the label) The maximum label application rate (pounds ailacre) The degradation half-life for the dominant process (days) The interval between repeated applications, from the label (days) From the label For graphing purposes, choose an endpoint (mglkg-diet) that you wish to be overlaid onto the residue graph From the drop-down menu, choose the label that corresponds to the Concentration of Concern Endpoints TREX requires that both the chosen endpoint (entered in the blue cell) and the test species to be included (chosen from the drop-down menu options). For example, one would enter an avian LD, of 500 mglkg-bw and that this endpoint was based on a Bobwhite quail study (i.e., chosen from the drop-down menu immediately to the right of the LD, input cell). For now, this requirement is limited to the avian endpoints. Avian endpoints Enter the endpoints in the blue cells and choose the corresponding test species from the dropdown menus. Mammalian endpoints For acute endpoints, enter the data in the blue cells. For chronic endpoints, enter the reported number and then choose whether this datapointwas a dose- or diet-based endpoint from the drop-down menu. The other endpoint will then be calculated and displayed in the cell below. Terrestrial Exposures 

### All calculated Estimated Environmental Concentration (EEC) and RQ values are presented in yellow. Intermediate calculations are displayed in red. Users may find these intermediate values useful in their assessment, so they are presented. Upper Bound and Mean Kenaga Residue Worksheets 

### Boththe upper bound and mean Kenaga residuesfor the various food categories are provided. Each includes RQs for birds and mammals. The upper bound residue worksheet is to be used for reporting RQ values in the risk assessment, while the mean residueworksheet is solely for risk description purposes. Mean residues are calculated exactly as the maximum residues are, except the corresponding Kenaga values are 85 

### for Short Grass, 36 for Tall Grass, and 45 

### for Broad-leafed plants/small insects and 7 

### for fruits/pods/large insects.

### In both worksheets, dose-based RQs are calculated using a body weightadjusted LD, and consumption-weightedequivalent dose. The scaling factors (USEPA, 1993) used in the consumption-weighted (EECs) are: Avian consumption 

### 0.648

# *B

# w~.~~~ F = 

### (1- W) Mammal consumption



### These consumption-weighted EECs (i.e., EEC equivalent dose) are sorted by food source and body size. There is a corresponding table for birds and mammals. The LD, values entered on the input form are adjusted for animal class (20, 100 and 1000 g birds and 15, 

### 35, and 1000 g mammals) using the following equations: Avian LD,,

Mammal LD,,



### The dose-based RQs are calculated by dividing the daily dose (EEC equivalent dose) by the adjusted LD, for each food category and animal class. For dietary-based RQs, the Kenaga EEC is divided by the LC, (acute RQ) or the NOAEC (chronic RQ).

References 

### Fletcher, J.S., J.E. 

### Nellesson and T. G. 

### Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrumentfor estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. Tox. And Chem. 13(9):1383-1391 Hoerger, F. and E.E. 

### Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: correlation of respresentative dada as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. IN: F. Coulston and F. Corte, eds.,

57Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology and Technology.Vol I. Georg Theime Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany. pp. 9-28 

### USEPA.1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.Volume I of II. EPN600lR-931187a. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C. 20460. Willis and McDowe11. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 100:23-73

OUTPUT Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ CalculationPinoxaden wheat and barley Upper bound Kenaga Residues 

## Mammalian Results

### APPENDIX D: TERRPLANT MODELINGFOR TERRESTRIAL PLANTS

# - EXPOSURE AND 

### RQ CALULATIONS (TERRPLANTversion 1.0, August 8,2001) Exposure to Terrestrial Plants including Wetlands Terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and semi-aquatic (wetland) areas may be exposed to pesticides from runoff and/or spray drift. Semi-aquatic areas are low-lying wet areas that may dry up at times throughout the year. EFED's runoff scenario is: (1) based on a pesticide's water solubilityand the amount ot pesticidepresent on the soil surface and its top one inch, (2) characterized as "sheetrunoff' (one treated acreto an adjacent acre) for dry areas, (3) 

### characterized as "channelrunoff' (10 acres to a distant low-lying acre) for semi-aquatic or wetland areas, and (4) based on percent runoff values of 0.01,0.02, and 0.05 for water solubilities of -40, 10-100, and 400 ppm, respectively. EFED's Spray Drift scenario is assumed as: (1) 1 % 

### for ground application, and 

### (2) 

### 5% for aerial, airblast, forced air, and spray chemigation applications. The spray driftratio used here is in agreement with the policyprocedures at the time the worksheet was designed. Currently, 1) this worksheet is designed to derive the plant exposureconcentrations from a single,maximum applicationrate only. 2) For pesticide applications with incorporation of depth of less than 1inch, the total loadingEECs derived for the incorporation method will be same as 

### the unincorporated method. 

### Formulas used to calculate EEC values To calculate EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting in areas adjacent

### to treatment sites UnincorporatedGroundApplication won-granular): Sheet Runoff =

### Application Rate (lb ai/A) x RunoffValue Drift =

### Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.01 Total Loading =

### EEC = 

### Sheet Runoff

## +Drift Incorporated GroundApplication with Drift won-granular):

### Sheet Runoff = 

### [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/IncorporationDepth (inch)]

### x RunoffValue Drift =

### Application Rate (lb aiiA) 

### x 0.01 Total Loading =

### EEC = 

### Sheet Runoff

## +Drift Unincorporated Ground Application (Granular): ' 

### Sheet Runoff =

### EEC =

### Application Rate (lb ai1A) 

### x Runoff Value Incorporated GroundApplication without Drift (Granular): 

### Sheet Runoff =

### EEC = 

### [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/IncorportionDepth (inch)]

x 

### Runoff Value Aerial/Airblast/Spray Chemigation Applications: 

### Sheet Runoff =

### Application Rate (lb ailA) 

### x Runoff Value 

### x Application Efficiency of 0.6 Drift =

### Application Rate (lb ailA) 

### x 0.05 Total Loading =

### EEC = 

### Sheet Runoff 

### +Drift RunoffValue = 

### 0.01,0.02, or 0.05 when the solubilityofthe chemical is 40 ppm, 10-100ppm, or >I00ppm, respectively.

I 

### Incorporation Depth: Use the minimum incorporation depth reported on the label. To calculate RQ values for Non-Listed Terrestrial Plants: Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Areas Adjacent to Treatment Site: 

### Emergence RQ =

### Total Loading to Adjacent Area or EECISeedlingEmergence EC25 Drift RQ =

### Drift EECNegetative Vigor EC25 Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Semi-aquatic Areas Adjacent to Treatment Site:

, 

### Emergence RQ =

### Total Loading to Semi-aquatic Area or EECISeedlingEmergence EC25

, 

### Drift RQ =

### Drift EECNegetative Vigor EC25 To calculate 

### RQ values for Listed Terrestrial Plants: Listed Terrestrial Plants Inhabiting Areas Adjacent to Treatment Site: 

### Emergence RQ =

### Total Loading to Adjacent Area or EECiSeedling Emergence EC05 or NOAEC

### Non-listed species RQs:

Inputs for Listed Species: 

### Ground lncorp Aerial, Airblast, spray Chemigation 0.021

### 8 0.0050 

### 0.0031

### Listedspecies RQs

### APPENDIX 

### E: ECOTOXICITYDATA TABLES Terrestrial Organisms:

Avian Acute Oral Toxicity LD50 Toxicity MRID No. Species % ai (mag bw) Category AuthorNear Study Classification

I Northern bobwhte 98.5 >2250k practically 46203 1-03 acceptable (Colinusvivginianus) nontoxic (Gallagher et al. 2003) ,

a no mortality at any test concentration,but treatment-related signs oftoxicity (e.g.,lethargy, slight lowe+-limb weakness) observed at the 1350 and 2250 ppm test concentrations



### Avian Dietary Toxicity

- - LC50 Toxicity MRID No. Study

S~ecies % ai (~prn) Catezorv AuthorNear Classification Northern bobwhite 98.5 >5970a practically 46203 1-04 acceptable nontoxic (Gallagher et al. 2003) Mallard 98.5 >5970b practically 462031-05 acceptable nontoxic (Gallagher et al. 2003)

a no mortality at any test concentration

no mortality at any test concentration,but body-weight gain and food consumption adversely affected at the highest test concentration 

### Avian Reproductive Toxicity
NOEC 1LOEC Endpoints MRID No. Study Soecies % ai urn) affected AuthorNear Classification Mallard 99 1050 none 46203 1-08 acceptable (NOA-407854)" (Temple et al. 2003) Northern 99 107 1318 viable embryos; 462031-07 acceptable bobwhite (NOA-407854)" no. hatchlings (Temple et al. 2003)

a degradate

### Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity" LD50 Toxicity MRID No. Study Species % ai (mg ailkg) Category AuthorNear Classification Laboratory rat 97.2 >5000 practically 462032-14 acceptable (Rattus nontoxic (Johnson 2002) novvegicus) 99 1098' slightly toxic 462032-15 n/a (NOA-447204)b (Johnson 2002) 99 >20OOc practically 462032-16 n/a (SYN-50283 6)b nontoxic (Johnson 2003) 96 >20OOc practically 462032-1 8 na/ (SYN-5 19312)b nontoxic (Johnson 2003) 10.10 3129' practically 462032-17 acceptable (formulation) nontoxic (Merkel2003) "information obtained from studies required by OPP's Health Effects Division

degradate; note: degradatestudies were not reviewed and classifiedby EPA "determined from up-and-down test



### Mammalian Two-generation Reproductive Toxicity NOEC / LOEC Endpoints MRID No. Study Species % ai (PP~) affected AuthorJYear Classification Laboratory rat 97 250 / 500 offspring body 462033-08 acceptable weight (Khalil2003)i 

### Beneficial Insect Acute Toxicity LD50 Toxicity MRID No. Study Species % ai (~8 a~ee) Category AuthorrJear Classification Honey bee 98.3 >lo0 practically 462031-13 acceptable (Apis (acute contact) nontoxic (Sindermann et al. 2003) mellifera) 97.7 >200 practically 462031-09 sugplementala (acute oral) nontoxic (Sindermannet al. 2003) 10.10 >6.3 (contact) moderately 462031-10 supplementalb (formulation) 19.1 (oral) toxic (Sindermannet al. 2003) supplementala formulation 84 (contact) practically 462031-11 acceptable wladjuant 93 (oral) nontoxic (Bocksch 2003) supplementala (A12127R)

adjuvant >200 (contact) practically 46203 1-12 akceptable (A12127R) >220 (oral) nontoxic (Bocksch 2003) s~~~lemental" 

# > the test did not establish an LD50 nor demonstrate that it exceeds 11 pg ailbee

### Nontarget Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence Toxicity (Tier 

### I1 using 

### NOA 407855 lOOEC [10.10% ail 

### with adjuvant)
Endpoint EC25 NOEC MRID No. Study Species Affected (lb ai/A) (lb ai/A) AuthorIYear Classification Monocots: 46203114 acceptable

Corn Oat Onion Ryegrass , none
none
none biomass >0.125 0.125 (Porch et al. 2003)

Dicots:

Flax none >0.125 0.125 Soybean none >0.125 0.125 Tomato none '>0.125 0.125 Lettuce none >0.125 0.125 Cucumber none >0.125 0.125 Cabbage none >O. 125 0.125

### Nontarget Terrestrial Plant VegetativeVigor Toxicity (Tier 

### I1 using NOA 407855 lOOEC [10.10% 

### ail with adjuvant)
Endpoint EC25 NOEC MRID No. Study Species Affected (lb ai!A) (Ib adA) AuthorIYear Classification Monocots:

Corn dry weight 0.023 462031-15 acceptable 0.007 (~orch'et al. 2003) 1 Oat dry weight 0.005 0.002 Ryegrass dry weight 0.01 0.008 Onion none >0.125 0.125 Dicots:

Cabbage dryweight 0.093 Flax none >0.125 Soybean none >0.125 Cucumber none >0.125 Lettuce none >O. 125 0.125 Tomato none >0.125 0.125



### Earthworm Toxicity 14-dayLC50 MRID No. Study Species % ai (Wk)

, AuthorIYear Classification Earthworm 97 >lo00 46203 1-28 supplemental" (Eisenia fetida) (Batscher 2002) 97 >lo00 462031-27 supplementala (NOA 447204)b (Batscher 2002) 99.6 >lo00 462031-26 supplementala (NOA407854)b (Pfeifle 1999) "earthworm test is not required by EPA

metabolite

### Aquatic Organisms: 

### Information summaries fi-omthe submitted studies for aquatic organisms are tabulated below. Data gaps that were identified includethe following tests for pinoxaden: acute tests with a coldwater and warmwater fish (juvenile);acute freshwater invertebrate;

### an early life stage test with a freshwater fish; a life cycle test with a freshwater invertebrate;

### an acute test with a marinelestuarinefish; and an acute test with a marinelestuarine shnmp. Although the mollusk shell deposition studywas found to be acceptable, based on this value mollusks appear to be over 60 times more sensitivethan fish and 30 times more sensitivethan mysid shrimp. For, the NOA 407854 degradate the followingdata gaps were identified: an acute warmwater fish test (juvenile); a freshwater fish early-life stage test; a freshwater invertebratelife cycle test; a mollusk shell depositiontest (eastern oyster preferred so a comparison with the parent can be performed). For the NOA 447204 degradate the following data gaps were identified: acute warmwater and coldwater fish (juvenile) tests; a freshwater fish early life stage test; 

### an acute freshwater invertebratetest; and a mollusk shell deposition study. Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity (Parent andDegradates) 96-hLC,, Toxicity MRID No. Study Species % ai (PP~) Category AuthorNear Classification Rainbow trout 97.2 -- 

### -- 462030-34 unacceptable (Oncouhynchus (Rufli 2000) mykiss) 99.6 >lo3 practically 462030-35 acceptable (NOA 407854)a nontoxic (Rufli 1999) 99 >I20 nd " 462030-37 supplemental (NOA447204)a (Wallace 2001) (TOC concentration

unknown) 10.79 2.3 (total) nd 462030-39 supplemental (formulation (0.16ppm a.i., (Peither 2003) (totalbasis wiadjuvant total) rather than A12127R) soluble) Fathead minnow 97.2 20 ppm a.i. slightly toxic 462030-36 supplementalf (Pimephales promelas), (Maynard 2003) approximately six months old

he test material was unstable (potentially >50% decline) and the study methods were insufficient to address this instability. Given the instability, the frequency of samplingwas insufficient to determine exposure concentrations. 

### ' Not determined (nd) Organic carbon content in the dilutionwater was not documented, therefore unknown ifresponse is less sensitive than what would have been observed under low guideline TOC (<2mgll) environmental test conditions. e Precipitant was observed in test solutionsbut no filtering or centrifugation of water samples were performed prior to analysis. Analytical results are for total rather than soluble.

Six month old fish, which are considered prespawning adults,were used rather than youngjuveniles. Potentiallyvalues underestimates toxicity to youngjuveniles. Freshwater Fish Early Life-stage Toxicity '(Pinoxadendegradate)

NOEC / Endpoints MRID No. Study Species % ai LOEC affected AuthorIYear Classification

Fathead minnow 99 >0.96~ none 462031-01 supplementalb (NOA407854) (Maynard 2003)

a The highest concentration tested

An LOAEC was not established and not all required endpoints were assessed for treatment-related effects.

Freshwater InvertebrateAcute Toxicity (Parent and Degradates)
48-h EC,, MRID No. Study Species % ai (PP~) ToxicityCategory AuthorIYear Classification Waterflea 97.2 -- -- 462030-29 unacceptable (Daphnia (Knauer 2003) magna) 99 >I20 nd 462030-41 supplemental

## * (NOA-447204) a (Wallace 2001) practically 462030-30 acceptable nontoxic (Grade 2000) 10.5 6 (total) moderately toxic 462030-3 1 supplemental (formulation (0.14ppm a.i., (Peither 2003) (totalrather

wladjuant total) than soluble) A12127R)

a degradate

~ot determined (nd) The test material is known to be unstable. A flowthrough test system was used but the stock solutions feeding mixing chambers were renewed. Timing of water samples with renewal of stock solutions was not provided so that stabilityof test material throughout the exposure duration is unknown.

Total organic carbon and total suspended solid concentrations in the dilutionwater (15.6mgll and 2.8 ingll) were higher than the 2 mg/L guideline level,potentially reducing the bioavailable form. Therefore,the LC,, value may be biased hgh. e Precipitantwas observed intest solutionsbut no filtering or centrifugation of water samples were performed prior to analysis. Analytical results are for total rather than soluble.Freshwater Invertebrate 21-day Life-cycle Toxicity (PinoxadenDegradate) NOEC 1 Endpoints MRID No. Study Species % ai LoEC (PP~) affected AuthorNear Classification Waterflea 99.8 5.8 1 11.9 survival, reproduction, 462030-42 supplementalb (~0~-407854)~ (total) body length (Batscher 2003)

a degradate b Undissolved test material was observedin test solutions but samples were not filteredor centrifuged prior to analysis. Therefore, analytical results represent total rather than soluble concentrations.

EstuarineIMarine Fish Acute Toxicity (Parent) 96-h LC50 Toxicity MRID No. Study Species % ai (ppm a.i.) Category AuthorlY ear Classification Sheepsheadminnow 97.7 >16 nd a 462030-38 supplemental (Cyprinodon (total) (Palmer et al. 2003) (totalrather than variegatus) dissolved)

a Not determined (nd)

The sample processing method appears to result in a measurement biased toward total versus soluble because the test concentration samples were acidified before centrifugation and the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration was not reported such that it is unknown ifpinoxaden was in its most bioavailable form.

Estuarine/Marine InvertebrateAcute Toxicity (Parent) 96-h LC,, or Toxicity MRID No. Study S~ecies % ai. EC,, (DD~) Cateeorv AuthorNear Classification Mysid 97.7 8.3 nd a 462030-33 supplemental (Mysidopsisbahia) (Palmer et al. 2003) (totalrather than soluble) Eastern Oyster 97.7 0.32 highly toxic 462030-32 acceptable (Crassostrea (Palmer et al. 2003) virginica)

a Not determined (nd)

The sample processing method appearsto result in a measurement biased toward total versus soluble because the test concentration samples were acidified before centrifugation and the total organic carbon (TOC) concentration was not reported such that it is unknown ifpinoxaden was in its most bioavailable form.

### Aquatic Plant Toxicity (Parent and Degradates)
ECso NOEC MRID No. Study Species % ai (PPm) (PPm) AuthorIYear Classification Vascular species: Duckweed 97.2 4.3 0.5 462031-16 acceptable (Lemna gibba) (Grade 2002) 99 10 4 462031-17 acceptable (NOA407854)a (Grade 2000) 99 >93.5 49.2 462031-18 acceptable (NOA447204)a (Grade 2003) Non-vascular species: Blue-green algae 97.2 5 0.6 46203 1-20 acceptable (Anabaenaflos-aquae) (Grade 2003) Green algae 97.2 16 4 462031-19 supplemental (Psuedokirchneria (Jbauer 2002) subcapitata) 99.6 >lo2 102 462031-24 supplemental (NOA 407854) a (Grade 2000)

97 95.6 15 46203 1-25 acceptable (NOA447204)a (Wallace2001) 10.10 0.36 0.134 462031-21 acceptable (100 EC) (Peither 2003) Green algae 99.6 >lo0 100 464215-11 supplemental (Selenastrum (NOA407854)a (Grade 2000) capuicornutum) Freshwater diatom 97.2 10.2 7.5 462031-23 supplemental Naviculapelliculosa (Maynard and Stewart2002) Marine diatom 97.2 1.2 0.9 46203 1-22 acceptable Skeletonema costatum (Maynard and Swarbick2002)

a degradate

the study was conducted for 72hours rather than 96 hours as required by the guideline. Undissolved test material was observed in test solutions. No filtration or centrifugationwas performed on analytical samples to document soluble concentrations.

### APPENDIX F: Listed Species Analysis

## - Listed Monocots and non-FloweringPlants In CountiesWhere Barley and Wheat Are Grown Note: counties with 

### <I00 acres ofwheat or barley are tabulated 

### Barley acreage 6897 4623 0 1677 6587 1500 4623

986 465 1198 12772

1677 493 10409

465 2235

831 1677

4623 4230

986 725 4230

725 

### Wheat acreage 37613 11413 8437 16017 33797 0 0 0 0 1206 0 8437

945 5790 6413 25606 0 8437

11413 29044

1299 50629 29044 50626 r 

### Species

GRASS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY ORCUTT (Orcuttia inaequalis)

GRASS, HAIRY ORCUTT (Ovcuttia pilosa)

GRASS, SLENDER ORCUTT (Ovcuttia tenuis)

GRASS, CALIFORNIA ORCUTT (Ovcuttia californica) GRASS, SACRAMENTO ORCUTT (Orcuttia viscida) GRASS, COLUSA (Neostapfia colusana)

GRASS, SOLANO (Tuctoria mucronata) 

### State CA

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA 

### County Fresno Merced Sacramento Madera Tulare Glenn Merced Stanislaus Tehama Lassen Modoc Sacramento Shasta Siskiyou Tehama Riverside Ventura Sacramento

Merced Solano Stanislaus Yo10 Solano Yo10

### Barley acreage 0 0 0 0

0

245 277 1500 4623 0 0 493 986 465 888 2235 15593

15593

15593 22676 22676

2235

0

1751

115 

### Wheat acreage 872 2429 1097 205

173 62

0 0 0 11413 3869 16017 94

a 1299 6413 0 25606

7887

7887

7887 3633 3633 25606

750

6103 61079 

### Species GRASS, TENNESSEE (Xyris tennesseenis)

PONDBERRY (Lindera melissifolia) SPURGE, HOOVER'S (Chamaesyce hooveri) FIDDLENECK, LARGE (Amsinckiagrandzj7ora) TUCTORIA,GREEN'S (Tuctoriagveenei)

BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED (BrodiaeaJilifolia) CYPRESS, GOWEN (Cupressusgoveniana ssp. goveniana) PIPERIA, YADON'S (Piperiayadonii) AMOLE, PURPLE (Chlorogalum purpureum) AMOLE, CAMATTA CANYON ONION,MUNZ'S (Alliummunzii) LADIES1-TRESSES, NAVASOTA (Spiranthes parhii) LADIES'-TRESSES, UTE (Spiranthes diluvialis) 

### State AL GA

SC

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA

CA CA

TX

CO 

### County Calhoun Bartow Gordon Charles

Glenn

Alameda Contra Costa Glenn Merced Butte Madera Shasta Stanislaus Tehama Los Angeles Riverside Monterey

Monterey Monterey San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Riverside

Burleson

Boulder Morgan

### Barley acreage 10870

1565 2996 1287 1548 8761 42 1 1860 0 3496 1558 5672

497 0 120 310 5055 1274 958 434 0

135

0 0 1208 316

0 0 

### Wheat acreage 156909 0 0 0 0 0 0 2320

852 6646 4868 8391 1099 937 660 2247 6264 2765 2269

860 4375

38138

3280 485 1 12755 0 2429

180 

### Species

BULRUSH, NORTHEASTERN (=BARBED BRISTLE) (Scirpus ancistrochaetus)

WILD-RICE, TEXAS (Zizania texana) SEDGE,NAVAJO (Carex specuicola) SEDGE, GOLDEN (Carex lutea) POGONIA, SMALL WHORLED (Isotria medeoloides) 

### State

UT

PA

MD VA

WV TX

UT

NC

DE

GA 

### County Weld Duchesne Salt Lake Tooele Uintah Utah Wayne Weber Clinton Cumberland Dauphin Franklin Huntingdon Lackawana Monroe Union Washington Augusta Rockingham Berkeley Hays

San Juan

Onslow Pender New Castle Randolph Bartow ChattoogaORCHID, WESTERN PRAIRIE (Platanthera praeclara) 

### State County 

# I Wheat acreage 

# I Barley acreage I I Gordon Murray Polk Walker

IL 1097 916 153 1216

- Berrien 0 0 0 0 White Whitfield Randolph

Sussex Onondaga

Appomattox

Caroline 7296 2902 I I 4945

PA SC TN



# I Glouchester 

# 1 1208 

# 1 1006 

# 1 102 120 40800 0 0 4851 0 0 0

117 973

Centre Oconee Hamilton

James City 

# 1 New Kent 

# I 0 

# 1 309 

# 1 3327 11 11 24 1

King William 510 250 0

787 9696 

# 1 2911 368

I A

Buchanon Butler PrinceWilliam Stafford Appano Benton

Carroll 155 272

Cedar 833 220 174 245 0 0 114 327 

# 1 0 0 169

0 0

0

### Barley acreage 3656

700 6388 0 2555 4259

428 1088

177 239 4890 0 109

0 285 973 0 0 0 2799

254 199 39 1

0

- 0

## - 548

0 0 

### Wheat acreage 59972 17231 169474 418 45121 98478 17550 36894

1202 3355 88747 10911

827 828 660 4851 3233 1954 705 677 1287 612 5286

214 2336 1294

196 274 

### County Bennett Brookings Brown Clay Codington Day Deuel Grant Minnehaha Moody Roberts Todd Turner Yankton Madison Onandaga Jackson Morgan Marion Goodhue Rice Steele Burlington Camden Monmouth Jackson

Cook Du Page 

### Species

FERN, AMERICAN HART'S (Asplenium scolopendrium)

LILY, MINNESOTA TROUT (Erythronium propullans)

BEAKED RUSH (Rhynchosproahieskernzi)

FRITILLARY, GENTNER'S (Fritillariagentneri) ORCHID, EASTERN PRAIRIE (Platanthera leucophaea) 

### State SD

NY

AL

TN MN

NJ

OR

IL

### Barley acreage 0 0 0 0 0 

### Wheat acreage 387 1811 4878 3999 4363 County Grundy He~y Iroquois Kane Lake 

### Species State

### Species

IRIS, DWARF LAKE (Irislacustris)

### Barley acreage 2199 1423 1597 1086

121

0 121

## -

0 308 308

250 

### Wheat acreage 0 1611 6094 6184

24 1 100 24 1 243 1145 1145

11 11 

### County Menominee Presque Isle Door Brown Rutherford Sevier Rutherford Polk Greenville Greenville

Oconee 

### Species

LICHEN, ROCK GNOME (Gymnoderma lineare) IRISETTE, WHITE (Sisyrinchium dichotomum)

"ARROWHEAD,BUNCHED (Sagittaria fasciculata) TRILLIUM,PERSISTENT (Trillium persistens) 

### State

WI

NC TN NC

SC SC

SC