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 of pinoxaden under test conditions, some toxicity values for aquatic organisms have 

not been adequately established. The studies have 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 can only 

qualitatively assess potential risks to aquatic organisms. The risk assessment is attached. The " 

following risk 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 confirmatory data 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, confirmatory data 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 habitat 

Text Searchable File
no unacceptable risks are expected to listed and non-listed aquatic organisms 

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 invertebrate life-cycle (72-4b), parent pinoxaden 

marinelestuarine fish acute toxicity (72-3a), parent pinoxaden 

marine/estuarine shmp acute toxicity (72-3c), parent pinoxaden 

acute toxicity, warmwater juvenile fish (72-I), NOA-407854 

freshwater fish early life-stage (72-4a), NOA-407854 

freshwater invertebrate life-cycle (72-4b), NOA-407854 

marinelestuarine shell deposition study (72-3b), NOA-407854 

acute toxicity, warrnwater and coldwater juvenile fish (72-I), NOA-447204 

freshwater fish early life-stage (72-4a), NOA-447204 

freshwater invertebrate life-cycle (72-4b), NOA-447204 

marinelestuarine shell deposition study (72-3b), NOA-447204 

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies (1 23- 1 a,b) on each of the two main 

degradates (NOA-407854 and NOA-447204) 

avian dietary studies (71-2a,b), bobwhite and mallard, formulated product with adjuvant 

For several of the aquatic studies identified as data gaps, there are supplemental studies that can 

be upgraded with submission of missing information. 

The risk assessment team acknowledges the assistance of D. Randall, senior scientist, ERB2, in 

addressing the toxicity study issues for aquatic organisms and reviewing the risk assessment. 
NEW CHEMICAL REVIEW 

(SECTION 3) 

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND ECOLOGICAL 

RISK ASSESSMENT 

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 

Environmental Fate 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 of Data Requirements ........................................ 35 

AppendixB: PRZMIEXAMSModeling ......................................... 38 

Appendix C: T-REX Modeling For Birds and Mammals ............................ 55 

Appendix D: TERRPLANT Modeling For Terrestrial Plants ......................... 61 

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

Appendix F: Listed Species Analysis ............................................ 75 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Pinoxaden is a new active ingredient being proposed for registration as a systemic, 

postemergence herbicide. The end-use product (NOA 407855 100 EC 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 these proposed uses is assessed using 

available pinoxaden and pinoxaden degradate ecotoxicity data and exposure estimates in 

terrestrial and aquatic media 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) inhabiting lowland 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 chronic LOCs 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 

laboratory rat, but the parent, a second degradate, and the formulation are practicallynontoxic. 

Chronic testing indicated some toxicity to 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 chronic LOCs are exceeded for aquatic organisms, based on the available toxicity 

data. While there were some uncertianties in toxicity values 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 >I40 ppb, 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 identify potential 

ecological risks 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 whch would be exposed as a result of either ground and aerial 

application of pinoxaden (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 explicitly describes the 

exposure pathways, 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 

explicit risk hypothesis statements for which risks are to be determined and characterized. For 

each of these risk hypothesis, methods used to estimate exposure concentrations and the type of 

measurement endpoints which will be used to estimate risks for assessment endpoints are 

described. The risk assessment performed complies with the approach described in the Agency's 

Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines (USEPA 1998). 

Stressor Description 

Chemical Structure 

The chemical structures of parent 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: C23H32N204 
Molecular Weight: 

Density: 

Vapor Pressure: 

Water Solubility: 

Henry's Law Const.: 

Octanol-Water Partition 

Coefficient (Log Pow): 

Formulations: 

400.5 g/mol 

1.2 X 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 active ingredient for control of 

grass weeds. According to the registrant (Syngenta Crop Protection), "The mode of action is the 

inhibition of the enzyme, acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase). ACCase catalyses the 

formation of malonyl-coenzyme A from acetyl-coenzyme A and bicarbonate with concomitant 

consumption of ATP. 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 

enzyme is 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 100 EC 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 of treatment, turn yellow within one to three 

weeks, and are completely controlled within three to five weeks. Target species and application 

rates and methods are presented in Table 1. NOA 407855 100 EC Herbicide also can be tank 

mixed with a wide range of broadleaf herbicides. 
Table 1. Target Species and Application Information For 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 1 to 6-leaf stage on main stem; prior to emergence of the 4th tiller 

Apply at 1 to 5-leaf stage on main stem; for optimum control, prior to emergence of the 3rd tiller 

and while weeds are actively growing 

Conceptual Model \ 

The conceptual model illustrates the problem formulation for evaluating risks to ecological 

receptors following a ground or aerial spray application of pinoxaden (Figure 2). It depicts 

possible exposure pathways and attribute changes 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 of pinoxaden on 

wheat and barley. 
Figure 2. Conceptual Model for Exposure and Effects of Pinoxaden. Major pathways, receptors, and 

attribute changes are highlighted in bold. 

Stressor: 

Source: 

Receptors: 

Attribute change: 

Terrestrial Terrestrial 

plants insect$ 
Assessment endpoints are "explicit expressions of the actual environmental value that is to be 

protected." Two criteria are used to select the appropriate ecological assessment endpoints: 1) 

identification of the valued attributes of the 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 is based on valued entities (i.e., ecological receptors), the 

ecosystems potentially at risk, the migration pathways of pesticides, 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 direction and boundaries in the 

risk 'assessment for addressing risk management issues of concern. 

Terrestrial Environment 

Exposure 

Immediately following a spray application of pinoxaden, potential fodd items of birds and 

mammals may be contaminated with NOA 407855 100 EC Herbicide. Wildlife may be exposed 

by consuming grasses, broadleaf plants, insects, or seeds, pods, and/or fruits containing residues 

of the formulation and adjuvant, parent pinoxaden, or one or more of the degradates. A dietary 

route of exposure is assumed in this assessment. Wildlife exposure could also result from a 

number of other possible exposure pathways. Such routes of exposure might include inhalation 

of spray at the time of application, dermal uptake 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 of pinoxaden, it seems unlikely that these routes of exposure would be significant. 

Receptors of Concern 

Ecological receptors identified for consideration in the terrestrial environment include primary 

producers, represented by upland and wetlandlriparian vegetation, and primary and secondary 

consumers, represented by vertebrates and invertebrates. Birds and mammals are further 

categorized by diet (herbivores, insectivores, granivores). Omnivores are not included in the 

receptor list for a screening-level risk assessment, because exposure concentrations and risk 

levels are presumed 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 according to 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 of NOA 407855 100 EC Herbicide to streams, lakes, and ponds is prohibited 

on the product label. However, because pinoxaden is persistent in terrestrial environments and 

soluble in water, pinoxaden from a treated field may reach aquatic environments, following a rain 

event, in sheet and channel flow runoff_Because pinoxaden degrades in the aquatic environment 

to NOA-407854 and NOA-447204, these aquatic organisms are also potentially exposed 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 of pinoxaden (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 areas both freshwater and 

estuarinelmarine systems are potentially exposed. 

Receptors of Concern 

Ecological receptors considered in the aquatic environment include primary producers, 

represented by vascular and non-vascular aquatic plants, and primary and secondary consumers 

including fish and aquatic invertebrates. As both freshwater and marinelestuarine systems are 

potentially exposed 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. 

Aquatic plants 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 screening risk assessment examines the ecological risk of proposed pinoxaden labeled uses 

and attempts to identify, where appropriate, how to minimize unacceptable risk effects on the 

environment. A set of risk 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 

identification and 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 calculated by 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 indicates that a particular pesticide use poses a presumed risk to 

nontarget organisms. LOCs currently address the following categories of presumed risk: 

LOC Presumed risk I 

acute: potential for acute risk is high and regulatory action beyond 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 

warranted 
Analysis Plan for Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Effect 

The risk hypotheses provide the assessment endpoints for which risks need to be characterized. A 

list of the measures of effect which have been selected for assessing risks for an assessment 

endpoint are provided 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 single oral dose LD,, 

avian 5-day dietary LC,, 

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-stage or life cycle reproductive 

NOAEC 

freshwater invertebrate life cycle reproductive NOAEC 

Estuarinelmarine fish 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 

development 
Assessment endpoint Measurement endpointa 

Terrestrial plants: 

perpetuation of nontarget 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-d EC,, and NOAEC (EC,,) 

standing crop or biomass non-vascular algae and diatom EC,, 

Beneficial insects: 

survival of populations honey bee acute oral LD50 

honey bee acute contact LD50 

" LD,, = lethal dose to 50% of test population 

NOAEC = no observed adverse effect concentration 

LOAEC = lowest observed adverse effect concentration 

LC,, = lethal concentration to 50% of the 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, specific LOC values for identifyrng 

various risk presumptions are associated with each RQ calculation. 

Table 3. RQ Formulas and LOCs 

Risk Presumption RQ LOC 

Birds and Wild Mammals: 

Acute Risk EEC1/LC50 or 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 

Aquatic Animals: *;I 

Acute Risk EEC3/LC50 or EC50 0.5 

Acute Restricted Use EECILC50 or EC50 0.1 

Acute Listed Species 
Risk 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 potentially exposed 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 study corresponding to each taxonomic 

group for which an LOC is exceeded. Proximity of 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-based models are used to provide exposure estimates for terrestrial 

organisms. T-REX (version 1.1,2004) is used to calculate EECs on potential food items of birds 

and mammals. The EECs are based on field-residue data compiled by 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 decay value for foliar surfaces is not 

available, a default half-life of 35 days is assumed (based on data compiled by Willis and 

McDowell 1987). 

TERRPLANT (version 1 .O, 2001) is used to calculate EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry 

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 "sheet runoff' (1 treated acre to 1 
adjacent untreated area) for dry areas and as "channelized runoff' (1 0 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 (Eposure Analysis Modeling System). PRZM is used to simulate 

pesticide transport as a result of runoff and erosion fkom an 10-ha agricultural field, and EXAMS 

considers environmental fate and transport of pesticides 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 scenarios developed by 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 uncertainties and information gaps were identified during the problem 

formulation: 

Ecotoxicity Information Gaps 

The summary status of all ecotoxicological data requirements 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 of the registrant submitted aquatic toxicity studies were identified as scientifically 

invalid or the results were scientifically valid but did not reflect values based on exposure of 

sensitive life stages (e.g., prespawning adults rather than juvenile fish) and/or the soluble, 

bioavailable form 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 

ecological risks are discussed in the Risk Characterization section. 
ANALYSIS 

Exposure Characterization 

Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization 

Hydrolysis of pinoxaden is pH dependent and faster under basic conditions. Aqueous photolysis 

of pinoxaden 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 aerobic soil 

metabolism conditions. Half-lives range from 2-3 days, forming the 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 14 days, 5.91% at 30 days, and 1.35% at 181 days (study termination). N~A-447204 

averaged a maximum of 16.45% at 14 days posttreatment and decreased to 2.60% at h 81 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 14 days, 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 100 days (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 1 1.84% 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 identified transformation 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 of the! major 

degradate NOA-407854 (MRID# 462030 1 5). 

Volatility is not a significant route of dissipation. Pinoxaden major degradates NOA-407854 and 

NOA-447204 are considered to be mobile based 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. Selected Physical 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 7 
Persistence 

Microbial degradation in 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-lives ranging 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 study indicated that pinoxaden hydrolized with half-lives of 

18.1 days at pH 4, 17.2 days at pH 5, 9.9 days at pH 7, and 0.21 days (5 hours) at pH9. The 

transformation product NOA-407854 was stable to hydrolysis under the conditions of the study 

(MRID 46203005). 

Aqueous photolysis of pinoxaden 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. 

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 close to those from laboratory soil dissipation studies. Major degradates NOA407854 and NOA-447204 were both detected in the soil at a concentration greater than 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 

study was not conducted using soil from the test sites. No additional terrestrial field dissipation 

study is required. A study submitted (MRID 46203022) indicated pinoxaden was notistable in 

frozen storage. 

Volatility is not a significant route of dissipation of pinoxaden. 
Mobility 

Pinoxaden's major degradates (NOA-407854 and NOA-447204) are considered to be mobile 

based on Freundlich K,,, values ranging from 0.06- 128 mllg, and 0.28-0856 mllg, respectively, in 

three test soils: loamy sand, loam, and silty clay loam textures (MRID 4620301 6-1 9). 

Results from supplemental terrestrial field dissipation studies showed that pinoxaden was not 

detected above the LOQ in soil below the 0-1 5 cm depth. Degradate NOA-407854 was detected 

in the 0-1 5 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 initially detected in the 0-1 5 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 0-1 5 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 

surface water assumed to be 1% of the application rate for ground spray and 5% for aerial spray 

applications. 

The terrestrial crops for which pinoxaden are proposed 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 of pinoxaden on 

wheat. The standard scenarios assessed includes the state with the highest US planted wheat and 

bareley acreage (based on the data provided in USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, 

"2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1 Chapter 2: U.S. State Level 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 exposure were 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, see Appendix B. 
Table 6. PRZMIEXAMS input parameters 

Surface Water Impacts: Pinoxaden is a new pesticide; thus, no surface water monitoring data are 

available. Pinoxaden major degradates NOA-407854 and NOA-447204 are considered to be 

mobile based on Freundlich &,, values ranging from 0.06- 128 mllg, and 0.28-0856 mllg, 

respectively, in three test soils loamy sand, loam, and silty clay loam textures (MRID 46203016- 

19). In addition, these two degradates are persistent 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 of pmoxaden to degradate (NOA- 407854) and the 

molecular weight ratio 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; input parameters guideline (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; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002). 

Half-lives were calculated for pinoxaden, NOA-407854,and 

NOA-447204. 

Stable. No Anaerobic aquatic data available; hput parameters 

guideline (212812002). 

(NOA-407854); MRD# 46203008; Input parameters guideline 

(212812002). 

(NOA-407854);MW 46203005; 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) 

Interval between 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) 

Vapor pressure (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-lo 
Estimates of surface water concentrations of pinoxaden (parent + degradates) generated by the 

PRZM-EXAMS model for a wheat scenario are presented in Table 6. The total residues were 

calculated by combining the total residue concentrations for the parent and degradates of 

concerns that were identified in soil aerobic metabolism, 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 of pinoxaden 

applied at a rate of 0.0624 lb ai per acre. The maximum EECs are used to calculate RQs for the 

risk assessment. If LOCs are exceeded, mean EECs will be used to characterize risk. 
Table 8. EECs on Potential Food Items of Birds and Mammals 

Use site appl. rate food item 

(lb ailacre) 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 calculate EECs for terrestrial plants. Model inputs include the 

maximum application rate of 0.0624 lb ai per acre, a runoff value of 0.05 based on the water 

solubility of pinoxaden (3800 mg/L), no incorporation, and ground and aerial application. The 

EECs are presented 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 are based on registrant-submitted studies that describe acute and 

chronic toxicity information for various aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. When 

available, other sources of information, including reviews of the open literature and EFED's 

Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), are evaluated and included, if scientifically 
sound, to further refine the characterization of potential 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 calculating RQs 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, toxicity values for the parent 

were selected to represent effects fiom both the parent and the degradates where the parent was 

more sensitive than the degradate. For chronic exposure there were no studies performed 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 of Aquatic-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 assessment endnoints measurement endsointsa 

Plants maintenance and growth duckweed EC50 = 4.3 ppm 

of standing crop or (parent) 

biomass duckweed NOAEC = 0.5 ppm 

(parent) 

marine diatom EC50 = 1.2 ppm 

(parent) 

" LC50 = lethal concentration to 50% of the test population 

NOAEC = no observed adverse effect concentration 

EC5O = effect concentration to 50%d the test population 

There are acute warmwater 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 runoff from 

treated fields into an aquatic system, the impact to risk conclusions was evaluated qualitatively. 

Toxicity to Terrestrial Organisms 

The toxicity values used to calculate RQs for the risk assessment are presented in Table 1 1. 
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 25970 ppm 

(parent) 

reproduction and growth bobwhite chronic NOAEC = 107 ppm 

(NOA-407854) 

Mammals survival rat LD50 = 1098 mg/kg 

(NOA-447204) 

reproduction and growth rat chronic NOAEC = 250 ppm 

(parent) 

Terrestrial perpetuation of'nontarget monocots: 

plants (crop and noncrop) Seedling emergence: 

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 testing used formulation with adjuvant) 

" LD50 = lethal dose to 50% of test population 

LC50 = lethal concentration to 50% of the 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 dietary basis. Because the 

acute oral and dietary values classify pinoxaden as practically nontoxic to 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 subacute testing was done for the degradates 

or the product formulation and adjuvant. Parent pinoxaden also is practically nontoxic to the 

laboratory rat, but one degradate (NOA 447204) is slightly toxic (LD50 = 1098 mg/kg). Two 

other degradates tested (SYN 502836 and Syn 519312) are practically nontoxic. The formulation 

(without adjuvant) also was tested and found to be practically nontoxic to the rat. 
The avian reproduction tests were conducted using only the degradate NOA 407854 (which 

EFED agreed to prior to testing), whereas the two-generation reproductive test with the 

laboratory rat was conducted using parent pinoxaden. Adverse effects on the number of viable 

embryos and number of hatchlings was reported at 3 18 ppm of the degradate in the diet of 

northern bobwhite. No adverse effects were observed at test concentrations up to 1050 ppm with 

the mallard. Parent pinoxaden was found to have adverse effects on offspring body weight at 

500 ppm in the diet of the laboratory rat. 

Seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests were conducted by exposing 10 species (4 

monocots, 6 dicots) to the formulated product with adjuvant. Impacts on seedling emergence 

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 toxicity that 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 studies were submitted by 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 varying pesticide-use scenarios. 

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 make regulatory decisions. 

Risk Estimation 

Results of the 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 

assessed by 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 chronic LOCs are exceeded for fish or aquatic invertebrates potentially exposed 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; chronic LOC = 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 available for a fkeshwater invertebrate 

waterflea exposed to degradate NOA-407854 

Eastern oyster exposed to parent pinoxaden 
Terrestrial Animals 

Birds 

No chronic LOC 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, because pinoxaden is practically nontoxic to birds on acute-oral and dietary bases; 

therefore, minimal risk is presumed. 

Table 13. Acute and Chronic RQs for Birds 

Food item max. EEC LC50 chronic NOAEC acute chronic 

Short grass 15 >5970 107 n/a 0.1 

Tall grass 6.9 >5970 107 n/a 0.1 

Broadleaf plants 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 is practically nontoxic to birds on an 

acute-oral and dietary basis 

chronic LOC = 1 

Mammals 

No acute or chronic LOC 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 

Broadleaf plants 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-g mammal 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 = 1 for 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 runoff from either an aerial or ground application (Tables 

15 and 16). The LOC also is exceeded for any listed monocots and non-flowering plants 

exposed to drift from an aerial application. No LOC is exceeded for the dicots. 
Table 15. RQs For Non-listed Nontarget 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 Terrestrial Plants 

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 (seedling emergence) 

" RQ = channelized runoff + drift/NOAEC (seedling emergence) 

RQ = drift/NOAEC (vegetative vigor) 

" RQs for monocots also are presumed to represent listed non-flowering plants 

Aquatic Plants 

No LOC is exceeded for listed or non-listed aquatic plants for EECs expected for a maximum 

application of pinoxaden (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 pinoxaden 
Risk 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 of valid 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 these uncertainties 

is not considered to have a significant impact 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 study was 60 times more sensitive than the 

estuarinelmarine fish study and 30 times more sensitive than the arthropod study with 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 of the formulation and adjuvant 

expressed as the parent 96-h LC50 is >I40 ppb, which is lower than estimated concentration due 

to spray drift. 

Risks to Terrestrial Animals 

Because no acute or chronic LOC 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-flowering plants. The LOC is 

exceeded for non-listed and listed monocots and non-flowering plants inhabiting lowland 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 and 
threatened 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 Agency has developed an Endangered Species Protection Program to ibentify pesticides 

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 likely to 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 of the 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 currently being implemented on an interim basis. As part of the 

interim program, the Agency has developed County Specific Pamphlets that articulate many of 

the specific measures outlined in the Biological Opinions issued to date. The Pamphlets are 

available for voluntary use by pesticide applicators on EPAYs website at www.epa.gov/espp. A 

final Endangered Species Protection Program, which may be 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 or protection. The evaluation of impacts for a screening level 

pesticide risk assessment focuses on the biological features that are constituent elements and is 

accomplished using the screening level taxonomic analysis (RQs and LOCs) that are used 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 critical habitat are 

potentially implicated. 

Analytically, the identification of such species and critical habitat can occur in either of two 

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 indirectly impacted by the pesticide. Then EPA would determine whether 

use of the pesticide overlaps with the critical habitat or the occupied range of those listed species. 
At present, the information reviewed by EPA does not permit use of either analytical approach to 

make a definitive identification of species that are potentially impacted indirectly or critical 

habitats that are potentially impacted 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 critical habitat provides a listing of potential biological 

features that, if the are constituent elements of one or more critical habitats, would be of potential 

concern. These correspond to the taxa identified above as being of potential concern for indirect 

effects and include the following: fieshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish 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 effects upon listed organisms. For example, an 

herbicide may impact nontarget terrestrial plants that herbivores utilize as food, insectivores may 

use for foraging on invertebrates, and birds and mammals may use for cover andlor as nesting or 

breeding habitat. Aquatic plants also may be adversely affected by an herbicide. Aquatic plants 

may be used by aquatic vertebrates (e.g., fish, birds, mammals) and invertebrates as a source of 

food and cover and may provide an essential substrate for 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 effects may 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 if typical application rates will be lower than the maximum 

labeled rate. However, as an unregistered active ingredient, no typical-use information is 

available at this time. 

Possible Limitations Related to Exposure for Aquatic Species 

No Averaging Time for Exposure 
For an acute risk assessment, the instantaneous peak concentration, with a 1 in 10 year return 

fi-equency, is assumed for exposure of aquatic organisms. The use of the instantaneous peak 

assumes that instantaneous exposure is of sufficient duration 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-toxic event analyses and latent responses to 

instantaneous exposure, the degree to which risk might be overestimated cannot be quantified. 

Test materials 

Aquatic organisms might be exposed to either or any combination of parent pinoxaden, its 

degradates, inert ingiedients of the 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 of these 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-level risk assessments for birds and mammals are based solely on dietary exposure. 

Other possible routes of exposure are not considered in this assessment, but might include the 

following: 

Thoroughness of the Application 

This risk assessment is based on the assumption that the entire treatment area is subject to 

pinoxaden application at the rate specified on the label. However, the potential for uneven 

application exists due to changes in calibration of application equipment, spillage, and localized 

releases at specific areas of the treated field that are associated with specifics of the 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 of these 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 available only for the degradates. 
Limitations Related to Effects 

Age class and sensitivity thresholds 

The age of test organisms may have a significant impact on the observed sensitivity to 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 are performed 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 is performed using juvenile birds (5 to 10-day-old mallards, 10 to 

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 pesticides that act directly, 

because younger age classes may 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 sensitivity information 

with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage information 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 sensitivity of the most sensitive 

species existing in a given environment. The relation of the most sensitive species tested to the 

distribution of all possible species depends on the overall variability among species sensitivity to 

a particular chemical stressor. In the case of listed species, there is uncertainty regarding the 

relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive species tested. Additional 

uncertainty exists when extrapolating among different taxa, such as assuming that avian toxicity 

is representative of reptiles or fish sensitivity represents sensitivity of amphibians. EFED will 

use non-guideline data whenever available, but none are known for pinoxaden at this time. 

Assumptions Associated with the Acute LOCs 

The risk characterization section of the assessment document includes an evaluation of the 

potential for individual effects at an exposure level 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 instrument for estimating pesticide residues 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. In F. 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 Protection Agency. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 

EPN63 OIR-95/002F, April 1 998, Final. 1 7 1 pp. http://www.epa. gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm 

Willis, G. H. and L..L. McDowell, 1987. Pesticide Persistence on Foliage. in Reviews of 

Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 100:23-73. 
APPENDIX A: 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 Dietary Toxicity, Bobwhite 

Avian Dietary Toxicity, Duck 

Mammalian Acute Oral 

Mammalian Chronic/Reproductive 

Toxicity 

Avian ReproductiveJBobwhite 

Avian Reproductive/Duck 

Field Testing, Terrestrial Animals 

Fish Acute Toxicity, Fathead 

Minnow 

Fish Acute Toxicity, Rainbow Trout 

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute 

Toxicity 

EstuarineJMarine Fish Acute 

Toxicity 

EstuarineMarine Mollusc Acute 

Toxicity 

EstuarineJMarine Shrimp Acute 

Toxicity 

Early Life Stage, Fish 

Life Cycle, Aquatic Invertebrate 

MRID 

no. 

46203 1-03 

46203 1-04 

46203 1-05 

462032- 14 

462032-17 

462032-15a 

462032-16a 

462032-1 Sa 

462033-08 

46203 1-07 

46203 1-08 

462030-36 

462030-34 

462030-35 

462030-37 

462030-39 

462030-41 

462030-29 

462030-30 

462030-3 1 

462030-38 

462030-32 

462030-33 

46203 1-0 1 

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 

supplemental 
Data 

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) I Vegetative Vigor 

Earthworm toxicity 

'" I Status 

ds 

acceptable 

acceptable 

core 

core 

core 

supplemental 

core 

core 

core 

supplemental 

supplemental 

core 

46203 1-1 3 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 reserved 
Environmental Fate 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 

Photodegradation in Air 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

Laboratory Volatility 

Leaching - AdsorptioaiDesorption 

Terrestrial Field 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 

4620301 1 

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 

0.71 45 

0.6803 

0.71 03 

0.7182 

0.901 8 

0.7696 

1.064 

0.7959 

0.71 09 

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 0.51 12 

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 

0.71 89 0.507 

1.103 0.7025 

0.8073 0.628 

0.814 0.569 

0.6448 0.4802 

0.6597 , 0.4576 

0.8747 0.5732 
Water 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 

0.451 61 3 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 

0.67741 9 0.7754 

0.709677 0.7668 

0.741 935 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 

0.801 7 

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 

0.91 71 

0.9018 

0.8632 

0.851 1 

0.8344 

0.7959 

0.7696 

0.7574 

0.7437 

0.7203 

0.71 82 

0.7145 

0.71 09 

0.71 03 

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 

0.71 89 

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 

0141 84 

011 879 

0.1 1.3574 1.3494 1.3248 1.2467 1.1 894 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 glmol 
Description 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 Fl LTRA 

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 0.67 
Year 

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 

0.441 1 

0.6396 

0.481 3 

0.823 

0.51 46 

0.41 48 

0.849 

0.71 34 

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 

0.41 9355 0.5508 

0.451 61 3 0.51 46 

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 

0.971 6 

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 

0.41 37 

0.815 

0.4962 

0.505 

0.3305 

0.3451 

0.5812 

90 Day 

1.725 

1.077 

0.9268 

0.8858 

0.81 5 

0.7405 

0.71 7 

0.61 87 

0.581 2 

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 

0.31 38 
Year 

0.580645 

0.612903 

0.645161 

0.67741 9 

0.709677 

0.741 935 

0.7741 94 

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 

0.1 578 

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 

0.1 509 

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 

0.1 503 

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 0.371 584 

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 kd P 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: PH 7 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 

application 
Description 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 0.6928 
Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 

0.03225806 1.75 1.749 1.745 1.737 1.731 1.667 
0.1 1.6735 1.6724 1.6674 1.6579 1.652 1.5863 

Average of yearly averages: 1.187259 
Inputs 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 0.0781 1 0.07771 0.07738 0.04008 
Sorted 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 

0.71 54 

0.71 04 

0.6727 

0.635 

0.601 8 
Prob. 

0.580645 

0.61 2903 

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 

0.6243 

0.5905 

0.5563 

0.5302 

0.52 

03325 

0.1 981 

0.1 938 

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 0.551 7 0.51 39 

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 environment file: pond298.e~~ 

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 

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 

application 

Sorted 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 

0.0645161 3 2.694 2.693 2.687 2.673 2.558 2.334 

0.0967741 9 2.61 9 2.61 5 2.604 2.58 2.497 2.1 58 

0.1 2903226 2.532 2.531 2.525 2.51 1 2.43 2.117 

0.1 6129032 2.341 2.34 2.334 2.321 2.31 1 2.049 

0.19354839 2.247 2.246 2.24 2.228 2.21 8 1.931 

0.22580645 2.1 78 2.1 77 2.172 2.16 2.148 1.91 1 

0.25806452 2.089 2.089 2.085 2.076 2.066 1.864 

0.29032258 2.039 2.038 2.035 2.026 2.01 7 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 

0.41 935484 1.847 1.847 1.844 1.837 1.83 1.667 

0.451 61 29 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 61 2903 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 

0.5806451 6 1.596 1.595 1.591 1.581 1.539 1.435 

0.61 290323 1.559 1.558 1.554 1.546 1.522 1.335 

0.6451 61 29 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 1.41 1 1.348 1.195 

0.741 93548 1.333 1.331 1.325 1.314 1.271 1.183 

0.7741 9355 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 

0.967741 94 0.1 886 0.1883 0.1875 0.1747 0.1413 0.03484 

0.1 2.61 03 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.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 mglL 

Kd Kd 0.16 mg1L 

Koc Koc m g1L 

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 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 0.0931 7 0.09275 0.07977 0.0581 5 0.01434 

1962 0.1 145 0.1 144 0.1 139 0.1 131 0.1 061 0.09004 

1963 0.1 284 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 1.71 7 1.71 1.698 1.612 1.408 

1966 1.67 1.669 1.666 1.658 1.651 1.528 
Sorted results 

Prob. Peak 96 hr 

0.03225806 2.473 

0.06451 61 3 2.395 

0.0967741 9 2.203 

0.1 2903226 2.1 3 

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 

0.41 935484 1.477 

0.451 61 29 1.397 

0.48387097 1.39 

0.51 61 2903 1.279 

0.5483871 1 .I66 

0.5806451 6 1.129 

0.61 290323 1.081 

0.6451 61 29 1.074 

0.67741 935 0.9655 

0.70967742 0.9464 

0.741 93548 0.8376 

0.7741 9355 0.8064 

0.806451 61 0.7878 

0.83870968 0.71 77 

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 0.691 5 

Day 90 Day Y 

2.437 2.366 

2.376 2.26 

2.1 71 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 

0.71 02 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 

0.661 7 

0.6407 

0.61 04 

0.361 6 
0.1 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 

ddlmmm 
SCIGROW 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 MODELING FOR 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 15 for fruitslpodsllarge 

insects based on the Kenaga nomogram (Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972) as modified by Fletcher 

(1 994). 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 residue concentrations 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 datapoint was 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 

Both the upper bound and mean Kenaga residues for 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 residue worksheet 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-weighted equivalent 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 L D,, 

Mammal L D,, 

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 instrument for 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., 

5 7 
Environmental 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 Calculation 
Pinoxaden wheat and barley Upper bound Kenaga Residues 

Mammalian 

Results 

APPENDIX D: TERRPLANT MODELING FOR TERRESTRIAL PLANTS - 

EXPOSURE AND RQ CALULATIONS (TERRPLANT version 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 solubility and the amount ot pesticide present on the soil surface 

and its top one inch, 

(2) characterized as "sheet runoff' (one treated acre to an adjacent acre) for dry areas, 

(3) characterized as "channel runoff' (1 0 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 drift ratio used here is in agreement with the policy procedures at the time the 

worksheet was designed. 

Currently, 1) this worksheet is designed to derive the plant exposure concentrations from a 

single,maximum application rate only. 2) For pesticide applications with incorporation of depth 

of less than 1 inch, the total loading EECs 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 

Unincorporated Ground Application won-granular): 

Sheet Runoff = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x Runoff Value 

Drift = Application Rate (lb ai/A) x 0.01 

Total Loading = EEC = Sheet Runoff + Drift 

Incorporated Ground Application with Drift won-granular): 
Sheet Runoff = [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/Incorporation Depth (inch)] x Runoff Value 

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 Ground Application without Drift (Granular): 

Sheet Runoff = EEC = [Application Rate (lb ai/A)/Incorportion Depth (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 

Runoff Value = 0.01,0.02, or 0.05 when the solubility of the chemical is 40 ppm, 10-100 ppm, 

or >I00 ppm, 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 EECISeedling Emergence 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 EECISeedling Emergence 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 

0.0050 0.021 8 0.0031 
Listed species RQs 
APPENDIX E: ECOTOXICITY DATA 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 

(Colinus vivginianus) nontoxic (Gallagher et al. 2003) , 

a no mortality at any test concentration, but treatment-related signs of toxicity (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 46203 1-05 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 1 LOEC 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; 46203 1-07 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 462032-1 5 n/a 

(NOA-447204)b (Johnson 2002) 

99 >20OOc practically 462032-1 6 n/a 

(SYN-50283 6)b nontoxic (Johnson 2003) 

96 >20OOc practically 462032-1 8 na/ 

(SYN-5 193 12)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: degradate studies were not reviewed and classified by 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 46203 1-09 sugplementala 

(acute oral) nontoxic (Sindermann et al. 2003) 

10.10 >6.3 (contact) moderately 462031-10 supplementalb 

(formulation) 19.1 (oral) toxic (Sindermann et 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: 46203 114 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 Vegetative Vigor 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 dry weight 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-day LC50 MRID No. Study 

Species % ai (Wk) , AuthorIY ear Classification 

Earthworm 97 >lo00 46203 1-28 supplemental" 

(Eisenia fetida) (Batscher 2002) 

97 >lo00 46203 1-27 supplementala 

(NOA 447204)b (Batscher 2002) 

99.6 >lo00 46203 1-26 supplementala 

(NOA 407854)b (Pfeifle 1999) 

" earthworm test is not required by EPA 

metabolite 
Aquatic Organisms: 

Information summaries fi-om the submitted studies for aquatic organisms are tabulated below. 

Data gaps that were identified include the 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 

marinelestuarine fish; and an acute test with a marinelestuarine shnmp. Although the mollusk 

shell deposition study was found to be acceptable, based on this value mollusks appear to be over 

60 times more sensitive than fish and 30 times more sensitive than mysid shrimp. For, the NOA 

407854 degradate the following data gaps were identified: an acute warmwater fish test 

(juvenile); a freshwater fish early-life stage test; a freshwater invertebrate life cycle test; a 

mollusk shell deposition test (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 invertebrate test; and a mollusk shell deposition study. 

Freshwater Fish Acute Toxicity (Parent and Degradates) 

96-h LC,, 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 

(NOA 447204)a (Wallace 2001) (TOC 

concentration 

unknown) 

10.79 2.3 (total) nd 462030-39 supplemental 

(formulation (0.16 ppm a.i., (Peither 2003) (total basis 

wiadjuvant total) rather than 

A12127R) soluble) 

Fathead minnow 97.2 20 ppm a.i. slightly toxic 462030-36 supplemental f 

(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 sampling was insufficient to determine exposure concentrations. 

' Not determined (nd) 

Organic carbon content in the dilution water was not documented, therefore unknown if response is less sensitive 

than what would have been observed under low guideline TOC (<2 mgll) environmental test conditions. 

e Precipitant was observed in test solutions but 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 young juveniles. Potentially 
values underestimates toxicity to young juveniles. 

Freshwater Fish Early Life-stage Toxicity '(Pinoxaden degradate) 

NOEC / Endpoints MRID No. Study 

Species % ai LOEC affected AuthorIY ear Classification 

Fathead minnow 99 >0.96~ none 462031-01 supplemental b 

(NOA 407854) (Maynard 2003) 

a The highest concentration tested 

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

Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Toxicity (Parent and Degradates) 

48-h EC,, MRID No. Study 

Species % ai (PP~) Toxicity Category 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 (0.14 ppm a.i., (Peither 2003) (total rather 

wladjuant total) than soluble) 

A12127R) 

a degradate 

~ot determined (nd) 

The test material is known to be unstable. A flow through 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 

stability of test material throughout the exposure duration is unknown. 

Total organic carbon and total suspended solid concentrations in the dilution water (15.6 mgll 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 Precipitant was observed in test solutions but 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 (Pinoxaden Degradate) 

NOEC 1 Endpoints MRID No. Study 

Species % ai LoEC (PP~) affected AuthorNear Classification 

Waterflea 99.8 5.8 1 1 1.9 survival, reproduction, 462030-42 supplemental b 

(~0~-407854)~ (total) body length (Batscher 2003) 

a degradate 

b Undissolved test material was observed in test solutions but samples were not filtered or 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 

Sheepshead minnow 97.7 >16 nd a 462030-38 supplemental 

(Cyprinodon (total) (Palmer et al. 2003) (total rather 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 if pinoxaden was in its most bioavailable form. 

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Acute 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 

(Mysidopsis bahia) (Palmer et al. 2003) (total rather 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 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 if pinoxaden was in its most bioavailable form. 
Aquatic Plant Toxicity (Parent and Degradates) 

ECso NOEC MRID No. Study 

Species % ai (PPm) (PPm) AuthorIY ear Classification 

Vascular species: 

Duckweed 97.2 4.3 0.5 462031-16 acceptable 

(Lemna gibba) (Grade 2002) 

99 10 4 462031-17 acceptable 

(NOA 407854) a (Grade 2000) 

99 >93.5 49.2 462031-18 acceptable 

(NOA 447204) 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 46203 1-24 supplemental 

(NOA 407854) a (Grade 2000) 

97 95.6 15 46203 1-25 acceptable 

(NOA 447204) a (Wallace 2001) 

10.10 0.36 0.134 46203 1-21 acceptable 

(100 EC) (Peither 2003) 

Green algae 99.6 >lo0 100 464215-11 supplemental 

(Selenastrum (NOA 407854) a (Grade 2000) 

capuicornutum) 

Freshwater diatom 97.2 10.2 7.5 46203 1-23 supplemental 

Navicula pelliculosa (Maynard and 

Stewart 2002) 

Marine diatom 97.2 1.2 0.9 46203 1-22 acceptable 

Skeletonema costatum (Maynard and 

Swarbick 2002) 

a degradate 

the study was conducted for 72 hours rather than 96 hours as required by the guideline. 

Undissolved test material was observed in test solutions. No filtration or centrifugation was performed on 

analytical samples to document soluble concentrations. 
APPENDIX F: Listed Species Analysis - Listed Monocots and non-Flowering Plants In 

Counties Where Barley and Wheat Are Grown 

Note: counties with <I00 acres of wheat or barley are tabulated 

Barley acreage 

6897 

4623 

0 

1677 

6587 

1500 

4623 

986 

465 

1198 

12772 

1677 

493 

10409 

465 

2235 

83 1 

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 

(Amsinckia grandzj7ora) 

TUCTORIA, GREEN'S 

(Tuctoria gveenei) 

BRODIAEA, THREAD-LEAVED 

(BrodiaeaJilifolia) 

CYPRESS, GOWEN 

(Cupressus goveniana ssp. 

goveniana) 

PIPERIA, YADON'S 

(Piperia yadonii) 

AMOLE, PURPLE 

(Chlorogalum purpureum) 

AMOLE, CAMATTA CANYON 

ONION, MUNZ'S 

(Allium munzii) 

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 

Chattooga 
ORCHID, 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 

Prince William 

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 

Y ankton 

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 

(Rhynchosproa hieskernzi) 

FRITILLARY, GENTNER'S 

(Fritillaria gentneri) 

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 

(Iris lacustris) 
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