## REGISTRATION REVIEW

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSE SSMENT AND EFFECTS

DETERMINATION

Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl

CAS Number 100646

- 51

- 3

USEPA PC CODE 128709

ethyl (2 R )

- 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate

Prepared by:

Meghan Radtke, Ph.D., Biologist Stephen Wente, Ph.D.

, Biologist
Environmental Risk Branch I

Reviewed by: Anita Ullagaddi, M.S., Biologist Michael Lowit; Ph.D., Biologist

Environmental Risk Branch I

Environmental Fate and Effects Division U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs
Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch I 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington, DC 20460iv



### Executive Summary

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is the active ingredient in quizalofop

- ethyl herbicides

. “Q uizalofop

ethyl ” is commonly used to refer to a pesticide composed of a 50/50 racemic mixture of R

and S

- enantiomers (PC 128711). “Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl” is used to refer to a pesticide composed almost exclusively of the R

- enantiomer (PC 128709). The R

- enantiomer is the

isomer with pesticidal properties . Both isomers were first registered in 1988, but only quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (PC 128709) has current active registrations.



### E.1 Nature of Stressor
Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is a systemic herbicide for the control of annual and perennial grasses that is registered for use on numerous crops such as cotton, soybeans, dry beans, lentils, sunflower, flax, wheat, and barley . Affected plant tissues become necrotic/chlorotic and die leaving treated plants stunted and non

- competitive. Products are appl ied as liquid sprays (aerial and ground application equipment) and the timing corresponds with weed control at all stages of agricultural production (e.g., pre

- emergence, during planting, post

- emergence,

pre

- harvest, and burn down). Products are sold as e mulsifiable concentrates and ready

- to

- use solutions that are 1.4% or 10.3% active ingredient.

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl degrades into quizalofop acid (the actual active ingredient; sometimes referred to as “quizalofop”), a major degradate, which further degrades into 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid (another major degradate) and several minor degradates. The quizalofop

- p

- ethyl molecule is better able to penetrate the waxy cuticle of a leaf because of its relatively lipophilic nature, while quizalofop acid is better able to penetrate the cell wall and cell

membrane because of its semi

- lipophilic nature (less lipophilic, but not hydrophilic either). Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, quizalofop acid, and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid (because of its structural similarities to quizalofop acid) are co nsidered the stressors for this risk assessment.



### E.2 Assessment of Risk

Fate and effects data are largely available only for the parent chemical, quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. A total residues approach was used to adjust exposure half

- lives to account for the dur ation of exposure to all three chemicals of concern. Th is issue affect s the certainty of the risk

conclusions.

E.2.1 Physico

- Chemical and Environmental Fate Properties Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is relatively stable to hydrolysis at pHs of 5 and 7, but degrades much faster at pH 9 with a half life of 2 days. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is relatively stable to photolysis in water and soil (t 1/2 > 40 days). Laboratory aerobic soil metabolism studies show that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl degrades with a ha lf

- life of ~30 days to quizalofop acid , 3

- OH

- quizalofopv

acid, and phenolic compounds. This co mpare s with the terrestrial field dissipation (TFD)
stud y producing quizalofop

- p

- ethyl half

- lives of 1 to 12 days with quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

quizalofop acid as degradates

. (Note that field dissipation encompasses more transport and degradation pathways than laboratory degradation studies.) Laboratory anaerobic aquatic
metabolism studies indicate half

- lives of 95 and 107 days. (No studies have been submitted

f or anaerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism.) Based on available fate studies conducted on the parent , quizalofop acid appears to be less persistent than the parent under aerobic conditions, but similar in mobility to the parent compound. As for mob ility, the mean adsorption K oc of quizalofop acid is 256 ml/g , whereas the mean adsorption K oc value of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is 298 (both classified as moderately mobile). No data are available for

3

- OH

- quizalofop acid, but it is assumed to have properties similar to quizalofop acid, based
on structural similarities.

E.2.2 Ecological Risk Conclusions

The specific taxa that may be at r isk from quizalofop

- p

- ethyl are dependent on the specific registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl use. In general, registered uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl may cause direct adverse effects to mammals (chronic) and terrestrial monocots. EECs from scenarios that indicated potential chronic risks to mammals were 1 to 4 times the value of the

LOAEC. The pineapple use may cause direct adverse effects to freshwater fish (chronic

– EECs were half of the LOAEC and twice the NOAEC ), freshwater invertebrates (acute), and estuarine/marine invertebrates (acute). It should be noted that the “paved area” scenario also indicated potential risk to aquat ic organisms, but the scenario was very conservative because it assumed a spot treatment for weeds in paved areas would be applied over an entire acre. By assuming a more realistic percentage (treating 25% of an acre), risks were eliminated.

Direct eff ects are not expected for other taxonomic groups.

Given that there are possible direct effects to mammals, freshwater fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants, indirect effects to other organisms could occur. Indirect effects

could include changes to fo od, shelter, seed disper sal/pollination, or other alter ations of

habitat.

A spray drift analysis indicated that risks to terrestrial monocots from ground applications of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl could be eliminated through the implementation of buffers (52 to 394 ft). These buffers only apply to risks from spray drift as a result of ground applications; risks to terrestrial monocots from runoff and/or aerial applications may be lessened through the use of these buffers, but not necessarily eliminated.

Tables E.1

– E. 3 list the potential direct and indirect effects to listed and non

- listed species

, based on risk quotients exceeding the level of concern, as well as the organism group andvi

size classes potentially at risk from the highest application rate for each use of quizalofop

- p

ethyl.

Table E.1 . Potential direct effects to listed and non

- listed terrestrial organisms from exposure to quizalofop

- p
- ethyl 1

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl Listed Terrestrial Species Non

- listed Terrestrial Species

Birds 2 Mammals Plants Birds 2 Mammals Plants

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Except NY: barley,
wheat N N N Y (S,M) Y N N N Y (S,M) Y

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant) N N N Y (S,M) Y N N N Y (S,M) Y

Sorghum (herbicide

tolerant) N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Cotton N N N Y (S,M) Y N N N Y (S,M) Y

Dry beans N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap
beans N N N Y (S,M) Y N N N Y (S,M) Y

TX, OK, KS, CO, only: fallow N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/ poplar plantations N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Non

- crop areas N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

Puerto Rico only: pineapple HI only: pineapple
and ornamental and/or
shade trees N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Yvii

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl Listed Terrestrial Species Non

- listed Terrestrial Species

Birds 2 Mammals Plants Birds 2 Mammals Plants

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Paved areas N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

MN only: perennial ryegrass grown for
seed N N N Y (S,M,L) Y N N N Y (S,M,L) Y

1 Y= Potential direct effects (RQ ≥ LOC); N = Potential direct effects not expected (RQ < LOC); S, M or L indicate which size class is potentially affected; S = small bird (20 g) or mammal (15 g); M = medium bird (100 g) or mammal (35 g); L = large bird (1000 g) or mammal (1000 g). For mammals, chronic size classes are for
dose

- based exposure only. Dietary

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

2 Birds are surrogates for terrestrial reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians.

Table E.2 . Potential direct effects to listed aquatic organisms from exposure to quizalofop

- p
- ethyl 1

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

Freshwater Fish Estuarine/Marine
Fish Vascular

Aquatic
Plants Freshwater

Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa,
carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss
chard N N N N N N N N N

Except NY: barley,
wheat N N N N N N N N N

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers N N N N N N N N N

Field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant) N N N N N N N N N

Sorghum (herbicide

tolerant) N N N N N N N N Nviii

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

Freshwater Fish Estuarine/Marine
Fish Vascular

Aquatic
Plants Freshwater

Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Cotton N N N N N N N N N

Dry beans N N N N N N N N N

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans N N N N N N N N N

TX, OK, KS, CO, only:
fallow N N N N N N N N N

Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) N N N N N N N N N

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/ poplar plantations N N N N N N N N N

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) N N N N N N N N N

Non

- crop areas N N N N N N N N N

Puerto Rico only: pineapple HI only: pineapple and
ornamental and/or shade

trees N Y N N N Y N Y N

Paved areas N N N N N N N N N

MN only: perennial ryegrass grown for seed N N N N N N N N N

1 Y= Potential direct effects; N = Potential direct effects not expected

Table E.3 . Potential direct effects to non

- listed aquatic organisms from exposure to quizalofop

- p
- ethyl 1

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

Freshwater Fish Estuarine/Marine
Fish Vascular

Aquatic
Plants Freshwater

Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronicix

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

Freshwater Fish Estuarine/Marine
Fish Vascular

Aquatic
Plants Freshwater

Invertebrates Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss
chard N N N N N N N N N

Except NY: barley,
wheat N N N N N N N N N

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers N N N N N N N N N

Field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant) N N N N N N N N N

Sorghum (herbicide

tolerant) N N N N N N N N N

Cotton N N N N N N N N N

Dry beans N N N N N N N N N

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans N N N N N N N N N

TX, OK, KS, CO, only:
fallow N N N N N N N N N

Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) N N N N N N N N N

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/ poplar plantations N N N N N N N N N

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) N N N N N N N N N

Non

- crop areas N N N N N N N N N

Puerto Rico only: pineapple HI only: pineapple and
ornamental and/or shade

trees N Y N N N N N N N

Paved areas N N N N N N N N N

MN only: perennial ryegrass grown for seed N N N N N N N N N

1 Y= Potential direct effects; N = Potential direct effects not expected



### E.3 Uncertaintiesx

Certain data and other supporting information were not available to the Agency as it conducted the preliminary risk assessment for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. As such, certain assumptions were made and conclusions were based on the information that was available. For some taxa, this may have resulted in the use of overly conservative approaches for evaluating risk. EFED has identified the information it believes may he lp best resolve these uncertainties. Additional information may allow EFED to refine its risk conclusions for certain species. Below is a summary of the uncertainties associated with the risk assessment of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl.

E.3.1 Ecotoxicity Data Gap s and Uncertainties There were several ecotoxicity endpoints for which data were not available or available data

were non

- definitive.

Estuarine/Marine Fish (Acute) OPPTS 850.1075. In the Problem Formulation, data were not requested because a registrant study had recently been submitted for this endpoint. A detailed review of the study at a later date indicated that it was “invalid”

and thus not useable for risk assessments. To compensate for this data gap,
freshwater and estuarine/marine acute fish to xicity studies for two structurally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl) were reviewed. The fenoxaprop

- ethyl data indicated that freshwater fish are more sensitive than estuarine/marine fish. A comparison of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl acut e freshwater fish data to fenoxaprop

- ethyl indicated that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is more toxic than fenoxaprop

ethyl. Thus it was determined that acute freshwater fish data from quizalofop

- p

- ethyl would be a protective surrogate for the missing estuarine/mari ne data. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate (Chronic) OPPTS 850 .1350. In the Problem Formulation, data were not requested because it was possible to calculate an acute

- to

chronic ratio using freshwater invertebrates (waterflea) as a surrogate. An acute

- to

c hronic ratio will be used in the registration review risk assessment as well. Freshwater Fish (Chronic) OPPTS 850.1400. Chronic data are available for the fathead minnow; however, the most sensitive acute freshwater fish endpoint is for the

rainbow trout. Acute toxicity information is not available for the fathead minnow. To ensure that the most sensitive chronic endpoint for freshwater fish was employed in the risk assessment, the acute to chronic ratio methodology was applied. An acute

chronic pair of data was available for the fathead minnow for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, a structurally similar chemical to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. The ratio between the fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl fathead minnow endpoints was applied to the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl acute freshwater fish endpoin t to derive a protective freshwater fish chronic endpoint. Avian (Acute) (L D 50 ) OPPTS 850.2100. Definitive data were not available for the

L D 5 0 , and the NOAEL was reported as a “less than” value because effects were

observed. EECs, based on the highest application rate, were less than one tenth of thexi highest dose tested (2000 mg ai/kg

- bw), indicating that more refined, definitive data were not necessary for this assessment. Passerine Birds (Acute) (LD 50 ) OPPTS 850.2100. Da ta were not available. At the time the Problem Formulation was written, passerine bird data were no t required. In lieu of this endpoint, the acute oral toxicity of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl to the mallard duck and common quail was used to evaluate risk.

Avian (Chronic) (NOAEC) OPPTS 850.2300. The mallard duck study presented a

non

- definitive (less than) NOAEC. Given that the NOAEC was a “less than” value it presents uncertainty as to the true NOAEC and cannot be used in the risk assessment

to calculate risk quotients. Mallard duck data from two structurally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl) were considered as potential surrogates for the toxicity data. Fenoxaprop

- ethyl yielded a NOAEC (180 mg ai/kg

- diet) that was below the quizalof

op

- p

- ethyl value (< 296 mg ai/kg

- diet). Given the similarity between fenoxaprop and quizalofop, it was decided that the fenoxaprop

- ethyl mallard duck NOAEC could be used in place of the non

- definitive quizalofop

- p

- ethyl value. Aquatic Non

- Vascular Plant s (E C 50 ) OPPTS 850.5400

. Three of the four Tier 2

studies for non

- vascular plants were non

- definitive (greater than); these were also the most sensitive toxicity values. To justify the use of a less sensitive endpoint, non

vascular studies from two struc turally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl) were considered. These chemicals also presented non

- definitive toxicity values at the lowest concentrations tested and definitive toxicity numbers at higher concentrations . In addition, the fenoxaprop toxicity values were within the same order of magnitude as the quizalofop values. Thus, it was determined that using the definitive quizalofop

- p

- ethyl toxicity value was a reasonable approach, given that the lower toxicity values were all “ greater than” values

.

E.3.2 Application Rates

Several labels did not include the seasonal and/or annual maximum application rate of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. In these cases, seasonal maximum application rates were assumed based

on other information from the la bel or similar application patterns for uses that did contain the complete information. The Biological and Economic Division (BEAD) of OPP was consulted for their expertise. The following scenarios were affected:

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas)

– seasonal maximum application rate as sumed to be equivalent to twice the maximum single application rate Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks)

– seasonal maximum application rate assumed to be equivalent to single maximum application rate Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations

– seasonal maximum application rate assum ed to be equivalent to two applications at the single maximum application ratexii

E.3.3 Fate Data Gaps A quizalofop

- p

- ethyl hydrolysis study was submitted to address deficiencies in the previously submitted study. However, the second hydrolysis study was not performed under Agency guidelines (elevated temperature without quantification of degradates). Stud ies have not been provided for anaerobic soil and aerobic aquatic metabolism. Additionally, the parent fish bioconcentration study was not performed under conditions that allow ed the fish to be continuously exposed to the parent compound. The highest BCF was seen in viscera in the first few days of the study, presumably when the parent had not yet degraded. As the test progressed, the BCFs declined.

Few data are available for the degradates of concern. For quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

quizalofop acid , inf

ormation is unavailable on aqueous and soil photolysis, aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism, and aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (terrestrial field dissipation studies are typically not performed on degradates because these studies are based

on formulated products). Additionally, hydrolysis and adsorption/desorption studies are not

available for 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid

.

E.3 .4 Incomplete Life Histories of Listed Species Currently, a database of life histories for each of the listed animals and pla nts is not available for use by EFED. These life histories would include information such as body size at each life stage, food sources, relationships with other taxa, habitat, and reproductive habits. As such, conservative (protective) assumptions were made concerning the potential relationships between species in that each species was assumed to have a relationship with the other taxa. This is assumed to be an overestimation of the actual species that have a species dependant relationship.

E.3. 5 Lo cations of Listed Species In addition, the specific occurrences of listed species are not known in some cases beyond the
county

- level. If the location of a species was not known in greater detail than the county level, the species was assumed to occur any where with in that county at any time. Likewise, crop location data are also uncertain. Crops may rotate every year and some spatial datasets combine several crop types, making it impossible to distinguish one crop from another. Further, timing may play a role in the location of species and whether it overlaps with the time that a particular crop is in a field. The s e assumption s may lead to an overestimation of

co

- occurrence with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl exposure and overestimation of the number of species
pot entially at risk.xiii 

### Table of Contents

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 18 Purpose of Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 18 Problem Fo rmulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19 Previous Risk Assessments

................................ ................................ ............................. 20 Stressor Source and Distribution

................................ ................................ ..................... 20 Mechanism of Action and Side Effects

................................ ................................ .................. 20 Overview of Pesticide Use and Usage

................................ ................................ .................... 21 Environmental Fate and Transport

................................ ................................ .................. 29 Summary of Environmental Fate

................................ ................................ ............................ 29 Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 33 Effects to Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 33 Incident Dat abase Review

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33 Data Gaps Identified

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 34 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ............................... 34 Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 35 Risk Hypothesis

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37 Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 37 Measures to Evaluate the Risk Hypothesis and Conceptual Model

................................ ....... 37 Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 38 Integration of Exposure and Effects

................................ ................................ ....................... 38 Analysis of Co

- occurance of Federally Listed Species with Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

................... 39 Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 40 Aquatic Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ............................ 40 Moni toring Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 40 Aquatic Exposure Modeling

................................ ................................ ................................ 40 TIER II PRZM/EXAMS Model

................................ ................................ .............................. 40 Aquatic Exposure Modeling Results

................................ ................................ ................... 42 Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 48 Dietary

- Based Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Residue Levels

................................ ........................ 48 Off

- Field Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plant Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Exposure

.......... 58 Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 62 Terrestrial Vertebrate Toxicology

................................ ................................ ....................... 62 Effects on Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 62 Effects on Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 63 Terrestrial In vertebrate Toxicology

................................ ................................ .................... 65 Aquatic Vertebrate (Fish) Toxicology

................................ ................................ ................ 66 Effects to Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians

................................ ........... 66 Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Fish

................................ ................................ ..................... 67 Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicology

................................ ................................ ........................ 68 Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ................. 68 Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Invertebra tes

................................ ................................ ....... 69 Terrestrial Plant Toxicology

................................ ................................ ................................ 70 Aquatic Plant Toxicology

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 73 Results: Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ 75 Risk Estimation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 75xiv

Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Vertebrates

................................ ...................... 75 Direct Effects to Birds, Reptiles, and (land

- phase) Amphibians

................................ ............ 75 Direct Effects to Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 79 Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ .................... 83 Direct Effects to Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plants

................................ .............. 83 Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish (Amphibians), Invertebrates and Estuarine

- Marine Fish (Amphibians) and Invertebrates, and Aquatic Plants

................................ .............. 86 Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values

....................... 106 Risk Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 107 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians

................................ ............. 108 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Mammals

................................ ................................ ................. 110 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Invertebrates

................................ ................................ ............. 112 Direct Effects to Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ........................ 113 Direct Effects to Aquatic Fish, Invertebrates, and Plants

................................ ..................... 117 Listed Species Effects Analysis

................................ ................................ ..................... 120 Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 127 Effects Area Determination

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 127 Uncertainties

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 131 Effects and Risk Assessment Uncertainties

................................ ................................ ...... 131 Ecotoxicity Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 131 Application Rates

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 132 Fate Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 133 Incomplete Life Histories of Listed Species

................................ ................................ .. 133 Locations of Listed Species

................................ ................................ ........................... 133 Other Routes of Exposure

................................ ................................ .............................. 133 Foliar Dissipation Half

- life

................................ ................................ ............................ 134 Species Sensitivity

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 134 Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

................................ ......................... 134 Spatial Analyses...................................................................................133 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 136 Appendix B

– Aryloxyphenoxypropionate Chemical Family (“FOPs”)

.............................. 146 Appendix C

– Chemical Structures and Maximum Degradate Formation

........................... 147 Appendix D

– ECOTOX Literature Search

................................ ................................ .......... 151 Appendix E

– SIP and STIR Model Output

................................ ................................ .......... 165 Appendix F

– Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern

................................ .............. 168 Appendix G

– Surface Water Model Results and Sample Input and Outputs

...................... 170 Appendix H

– TerrPlant Output

................................ ................................ ............................ 1 73 Appendix I

– T

- REX Output

................................ ................................ ................................ . 175xv 

### List of Abbreviated Terms and Symbols

@ symbol for “at”

% symbol for “percent”

> symbol for “greater than”

< symbol for “less than” μg/L symbol for “micrograms per liter”

oC symbol for “degrees Celsius”

ai active ingredient

Acc# accession number

BEAD Biological and Economical Analysis Division
bw body weight

CI confidence interval

CL confidence limit

DP# data package

EC emulsifiable concentrate

EC 25 25% effect concentration

EC 50 50% (or median) effect concentration

ECOTOX EPA managed database

EEC estimated environmental concentration

EFED Environmental Fate and Effects Division

e.g

. Latin exempli gratia (“for example”)

et al. Latin et alii (“and others”)

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

FESTF FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force

FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act FQPA Food Quality Protection Act

ft feet

g gram GENEEC Generic Estimated Exposure Concentration model

IC 50 50% (or median) inhibition concentration

i.e

. Latin for id est (“that is”)

IMS information management system Kg kilogram(s)

Km kilometer(s)

K oc symbol for the organic carbon partitioning coefficient

LAA likely to adversely affect

Lbs pounds
lb ai/A pound(s) of active ingredient per acre

LC 50 50% (or median) lethal concentration

LD 50 50% (or median) lethal dosexvi

LOAEC lowest observable adverse effect concentration

LOAEL lowest observable adverse effect level

LOC level of concern

LOD level of detection

LOEC lowest observable effect concentration

K ow symbol for the octanol water partitioning coefficient LOQ level of quantitation

LUIS label use information system

m meter(s)

MA may affect

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

- bw) mg/L milligrams per liter (equivalent to ppm)

mi mile(s)

MM may modify primary constituent element

MM/NSF may modify primary constituent element/no shapefile mmHg millimeter of mercury

MRID master record identification number

MW molecular weight

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NAWQA National Wate r Quality Assessment

NE no effect

NLAA not likely to adversely affect

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAEC no observable adverse effect concentration

NOAEL no observable adverse effect level

NOEC no observable effect concentration

OCSPP Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs

OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances pH symbol for the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in an aqueous solution, dimensionless pKa symbol for the negative logarithm of the acid dissociation constant, dimensionless ppb parts per billion (equivalent to μg/L or μg/kg)

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

SLUA screening level usage analysis

USDA United States Department of Agriculturexvii

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

Wt weight18



# Introduction

Purpose of Assessment
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential risks of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl’s registered use s on federally listed endangered and threate ned (“listed”) species and all other

non

- target plant and animal (“non

- listed”) species. This risk assessment incorporates the available effects data, modeling, and risk methodologies, some of which may not have been available at the time when previous qu izalofop

- p

- ethyl registration actions occurred. Risks
from direct and indirect effects are derived and evaluated in accordance with the risk assessment methodology described in the Agency’s Overview Document (USEPA, 2004). These risk findings are then us ed as part of an “effects determination” for listed species. The Agency will reach one of the following three conclusions regarding the potential for the registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl use on food and non

- food crops to affect federally listed species:

“No effect”; “May affect, but not likely to adversely affect”; or “May affect, and likely to adversely affect”.

If the results of the risk assessment show no indirect effects and the levels of concern (LOC) are not exceeded for direct effects for a given l isted species taxonomic grouping ( e.g ., freshwater fish, small herbivorous mammal), a “no effect” (NE) determination is made, based on quizalofop

- p

- ethyl’s use within the action area for “species” with the given taxonomic group. If, however, there is a po tential for indirect effects and/or exposure exceeds the listed species LOC values for direct effects for a given group, the Agency concludes a preliminary “may affect” (MA) “species” within the taxonomic group. The Agency then considers additional lines of evidence such as the geographical nature of the exposure, as well as more in

- depth evaluations of the toxicological and ecological requirements to determine a rationale for a “not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) or “likely to adversely affect” (LAA) determination.

Similarly the Agency will reach one of the following conclusions regarding the potential for quizalofop

- p

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

“No effect”;

“ May Modify Primary Constituent Elements”

The Agency uses the risk assessment analysis for direct effects to categories of biological resource requirements to draw conclusions about effects to principle constituent elements of19

critical habitat. The Agency is limited in a practical sen se to those principle constituent elements of critical habitat that are of a biological nature. If the results of the risk assessment show that no LOC is exceeded for all taxonomic groups a “no effect” (NE) determination for

habitat modification is made. If a LOC is exceeded for one or more taxonomic groupings the Agency then considers additional lines of evidence such as direct effects to the species, the type and degree of effect on the taxonomic groupings, expected resultant effects on biologically med iated environmental processes ( e.g ., increased sedimentation from loss of vegetation) as compared to baseline environmental conditions, co

- occurrence of the action area with critical habitat, the type of principle constituent elements associated with criti cal habitat for listed species in a taxonomic grouping to determine a rationale for a “may modify primary constituent elements”.



### Problem Formulation

The problem formulation for this assessment and effects determination was provided in the USEPA Registrat ion Review

– EFED Problem Formulation for Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl Registration Review November 7, 2007 documen t. Data were requested for four studies; classifications after EFED evaluation are listed in parentheses:

850.4225

– Seedling emergence tier II (“supplemental” classification)

850.2300

– Vegetative vigor tier II (“supplemental” classification)

850.4100

– Algal toxicity tiers I and II (“acceptable” classification) Special Study

– Aquatic emergent study conducted on rice (“acceptable”

classification )

All submitted studies for quizalofop

- ethyl and quizalofop

- p

- ethyl are listed in the MRID bibliography in Appendix A.

There were two modifications to the risk assessment process originally proposed in the problem formulation.

Registrations for rapeseed subgroup 20A, herbicide

- tolerant field corn seed production, and herbicide

- tolerant sorghum were added to the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl
label. These were added to the uses assessed in this risk assessment.

3

- OH

- quizalofop acid was added as a degradate of conc ern and therefore, included in the total residue EECs. This degradate was only identified in one relatively recently submitted fate study (MRID 43235603).

Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), all pesticides distributed or sold in the United States generally must be registered by the United States20

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). To determine whether a pesticide can be registered, the USEPA evaluates its safety to non

- target species based on a wide range of environmental and health effects studies. In 1996, FIFRA was amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and EPA was mandated to implement a new program fo r the periodic review of pesticides, i.e ., registration review 1 . The registration review program is intended to ensure that as the ability to assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to meet the statutor y standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. Through the registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely.

Previous Risk Assessments

The most recent completed screening level risk assessments for use on rapeseed subgroup 20a, sorghum containing the DuPontTM InzenTM AII Herbicide Tolerance Trait, and corn containing DAS

- 4027809 (USEPA 2011 a , DP Barcode D 384583/386679 ) identified direct

risks to m ammals and terrestrial plants . In the absence of data, direct risks were assu med for aquatic vascular plants and estuarine/marine fish. Indirect risks we re assumed for all listed taxa because of their potential dependence on monocots for survival.

Stressor Source and Distribution

M ECHANISM OF A CTION AND S IDE E FFECTS Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is an organic phenoxy herbicide that belongs to a subclass of phenoxy compounds known as aryloxyphenoxys (fops ; Appendix B ). Herbicides categorized as

ar y loxyphenoxys have several modes of action in terrestrial and aquatic vascular and non vascular plants: (1) inhibition of acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCas e), a key enzyme in lipid biosynthesis; (2) inhibition of cell mitosis or immediate termination of mitosis once exposure has been known to occur; and (3) inhibition of Acetyl

- CoA carboxylase and the fatty acid synthesis pathway causes an inhibition of thyl akoid membrane formation, chloroplast formation and multiplication, and finally a halt of cell membrane formation and cell division.

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is absorbed from the leaf surface and moved throughout the plant. It accumulates in the active growing regions of stems and roots. Through ingestion, quizalofop

- p

- ethyl can affect the muscle membranes of terrestrial mammals causing increased irritability and rigidity followed by paralysis. Also, quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, like many of the other phenoxy herbicid es, may induce severe gastrointestinal effects in mammals after moderate toxic exposure. G astrointestinal effects often include: (1) vomiting; (2) unquenchable thirst; (3) severe diarrhea (with the appearance of specks of blood); and (4) frequent urinati on (Adams, 1999) . Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is known to initiate muscular control

1 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/21

problems in aquatic organisms (fish, invertebrates, and amphibians) once these organisms have been exposed to certain dose levels (Adams, 1999)

.

O VERVIEW OF P ESTICIDE U SE AND U SAG E Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, also known by the trade names Assure II, Matador, Quizalofop, and Targa, is an herbicide that is currently registered for application to a number of food and non

food crops to control monocot weeds, including some varieties of volunte er monocot crops ( e.g. , sorghum, corn). It was recently registered on herbicide

- tolerant corn for seed production and herbicide

- tolerant sorghum. Registered application methods for quizalofop

p

- ethyl are aerial, ground, low

- pressure ground, band, tractor

- mounted, and hooded sprayer. It is registered for use on a number of food and non

- food crops including grains, non

cultivated areas, beans, cotton, mint, ornamental trees, soybean, and grasses. Five different companies currently have registered products with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl concentrations ranging from 1.4 to 10.3 percent (Tables 1 and 2).

An average of 53,500 pounds of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (averaged from 2003

- 2010) is applied on agricultural crops in the United States each year with the majority bein g applied to dry beans/peas and soybeans (20,000 lb each). Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is also used on sunflowers (4000 lb), sugar beets (3000 lb), canola/rapeseed (2000 lb), alfalfa and cotton (1000 lb each), and barley, green beans, garlic, onions, and green pea s (<500 lb each ) (USEPA 2011b ) 2

.

2 Based on USDA

- NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service) and Private Pesticide Market Research22

Table 1 . Current registrations for quizalofop

- p
- ethyl

Product Name Registrant EPA Registration # (latest label date) Active

Ingredient (% w/w) Form Use(s)

Targa Herbicide Nissan Chemical

Industries, Ltd. 33906

- 9

4/6/10 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Alfalfa (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), barley,

canola/rape, carrot (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), Chinese cabbage (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), cotton, cr ambe, dry beans, dry and succulent peas, fallow, flax, garlic (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), lentils, mint (spearmint and peppermint), non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas), o nion (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), ornamental and/or shade trees, paved areas (private roads/sidewalks), perennial ryegrass grown for seed, pineapple, radish (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), red beets (non

- food/non

- feed for seed producti on), snap beans, soybeans, spinach (non

food/non

- feed for seed production), sugar beets, sunflowers, Swiss chard (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), wheat23

Product Name Registrant EPA Registration # (latest label date) Active

Ingredient (% w/w) Form Use(s)

DuPont Assure II
Herbicide E. I. Du Pont de

Nemours and Company 352

- 541

4/12/12 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Alfalfa (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production),

canola/rape, carrot (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), Chinese cabbage (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), cotton, crambe, dry beans, dry and succulent peas, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas), garlic (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations, lentils, mint (spearmint and peppermint), non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and
other similar areas), onion (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), ornamental and/or shade trees, Perennial ryegrass grown for seed, pineapple, radish (non

food/non

- feed for seed production), red beets (non

food/non

- feed for seed production), snap beans, sorgh um (herbicide tolerant) , soybeans, spinach (non

food/non

- feed for seed production), sugar beets, sunflowers, Swiss chard (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production)24

Product Name Registrant EPA Registration # (latest label date) Active

Ingredient (% w/w) Form Use(s)

Quizalofop EC Sharda USA, LLC 83529

- 15

3/11/09 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Alfalfa (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production),

canola/rape, carrot (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), Chinese cabbage (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), cotton, crambe, dry beans, dry and succulent peas, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas), garlic (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations, lentils, mint (spearmint and peppermint), non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas), onion (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), ornamental and/or shade trees, paved areas (private roads/sidewalks), perennial ryegrass grown for seed, pineapple, radish (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), red beets (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production), snap beans, soybea ns, spinach (non

food/non

- feed for seed production), sugar beets, sunflowers, Swiss chard (non

- food/non

- feed for seed production)

Mon 78746 Herbicide Monsanto Company 524

- 523

8/28/00 1.4 Ready

- to

- use Cotton, soybeans

Matador Herbicide FMC Corp. Agricultural Products Group 279

- 3183
2/13/97 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Cotton, soybeans

DuPont Assure II
Herbicide E. I. Du Pont de

Nemours and Company HI110001

11/16/11

IL110001
6/9/11

IN110003
5/3/11

Section 24c 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant)

DuPont Assure II
Herbicide Agro Servicios,

Inc. PR110002

11/3/11 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant)25

Product Name Registrant EPA Registration # (latest label date) Active

Ingredient (% w/w) Form Use(s)

DuPont Assure II

Herbicide E. I. Du Pont de

Nemours and Company ME050002

8/19/05

MN000006
11/29/00 10.3 Emulsifiable

concentrate Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations26

Table 2. Use and application rate information for quizalofop

- p
- ethyl

Crop Maximum Application

Rate Application

Method Shortest

Application

Interval (days) Reg. # 1

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming only

Non

- food/non

- feed for seed production: Alfalfa, c arrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, o nion, r adish, r ed beets,

s pinach, S wiss chard

All states, food item: Sugar beets Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.174 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Except New York

Barley, w heat Single max =
0.0695 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.0695 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) N/A 33906

- 9

Canola/rape, c rambe, s oybeans,

s unflowers Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.125 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

524

- 523 (soybean)

279

- 3183 (soybean)

Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant) Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =

0.0834 lb ai/A (corn) Spray (aerial

and ground) N/A HI110001

IL110001

IN110003

PR110002

352

- 541

Cotton Single max =
0.034 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.125 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

524

- 523

279

- 3183 Dry beans Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.195 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Dry and succulent peas , l entils, s nap beans Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.0973 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 1527 Crop Maximum Application

Rate Application

Method Shortest

Application

Interval (days) Reg. # 1

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado only

Fallow Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.21 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

Flax, g arbanzos (including chick peas) Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max = 0.167 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9 (garbanzos excluded)

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Maine and Minnesota only

Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations Single max =
0.0695 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =

NS 3 Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 352

- 541

83529

- 15

ME050002

MN000006

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.209 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment
storage areas, and other similar areas) Single max =
0.111 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.222 lb ai/A 3 Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii only

Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple Single max =
0.208 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.417 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) Single max =
0.108 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =

NS 2 Spray (aerial

and ground) N/A 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 15

Minnesota only

Perennial ryegrass grown for seed Single max =
0.0695 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.139 lb ai/A Spray (aerial

and ground) 7 33906

- 9

352

- 541

83529

- 1528 Crop Maximum Application

Rate Application

Method Shortest

Application

Interval (days) Reg. # 1

Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) Single max =
0.0834 lb ai/A

Seasonal max =
0.14 lb ai/A Spray (aerial)

and ground 7 352

- 541

N/A

- not applicable

NS

- not specified on label

1 Application rates represent maximum application rate for a least one of the EPA Reg. # listed. Other labels may have slightly different application rates.

2 Assuming the seasonal maximum is equivalent to the single application rate

3 Assuming two applications at the highest rate for the seasonal maximum29

Environmental Fate and Transport
S UMMARY OF E NVIRONMENTAL F ATE Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is relatively stable to hydrolysis at pHs of 5 and 7, but degrades much faster at pH 9 with a half life of 2 days. At pHs 5, 7, and 9, the only degradate formed was quizalofop acid (the active ingredient). Therefore, quizalofop acid is stable to abiotic hydrolysis.

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is rela tively stable to photolysis in water and soil (t 1/2 > 40 days). Laboratory aerobic soil metabolism studies show that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl degrades with a

half

- life of ~30 days to quizalofop acid , 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid, and phenolic compounds.

This co mpare s with the terrestrial field dissipation (TFD) stud y that produced quizalofop

- p

ethyl half

- lives of 1 to 12 days with degradates of quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid

. Based on available fate studies, quizalofop acid appears to be less persistent than both the
parent and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid under aerobic conditions, but similar in mobili t y to the parent compound. As for mobility, the mean adsorption K oc of quizalofop acid is 256 ml/g

, whereas the mean adsorption K oc value of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is 298 (both classified as moderately mobile)

.

The submitted fish bioaccumulation study was conducted under static conditions (not flow

through). Given that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl degraded to quizalofop acid during the study (99% quizalofop acid in water at 28 d ays) and the highest accumulation of radioactive residues occurred in the first few days of the 28

- day exposure period, it is EFED’s interpretation that the initial peak exposures (3900x and 4600x for the 0.004 and 0.04 mg ai/L exposures , respectively ) are likely more reflective of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl’s ability to bioaccumulate, the

28

- day values (1X and 4X for exposure concentrations of 0.004 and 0.04 mg ai/L exposures, respectively) are more reflective of quizalofop acid’s ability to bioaccumulate (Table 3 )

.

Quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid are degradate s of concern for aquatic exposures. Quizalofop acid is the active ingredient. For chemicals in the Aryloxyphenoxypropionate Chemical Family (“FOPs”) , the relatively non

- polar parent molecule undergoes hydrolysis to form a more polar (“semi

- polar”) acid. Having a non

- polar parent molecule (quizalofop

- p

ethyl) aids in penetrating the waxy cuticle of a plant leaf, while the semi

- polar quizalofop
acid is better able to cross the cell wall and cel l membrane. Quizalofop acid has also been detected in livestock tissues and is included in the tolerance expression and the HED risk

assessment. The mammalian toxicity level was determined by HED to be equivalent to or less than that of the parent.

Ap pendix B compares the structures of the parent and acid degradates for all of the FOPs. The right half of the acid degradates is the structurally similar, which helps explain the similar mode of action across the FOP family. The oxygen of the rightmost h ydroxy group of the degradates is attached to various non

- polar substituent groups in the parent molecules.30

3

- OH

- quizalofop acid is included as a residue of concern because of its similar structure to quizalofop acid. The only registrant

- submitted labora tory study that identified this degradate (maximum of 21% of applied radioactivity at 60 days) was an aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 43235603 ). The only registrant

- submitted field study that identified this degradate (maximum of 5.4 ng/g at 58 days) was a terrestrial field dissipation study (MRID 47408416).
Chemical s tructures and information on the m aximum amount of d egradate f ormation in each of the environmental fate studies can be found in Appendix C.

For ecological risk assessment purposes, the toxicity of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl , q uizalofop acid

, and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid will be considered to be roughly equivalent. This assumption is conservative; a review of the European Footprint Database ( http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htm ) indicates that major degradates are of similar toxicity, or in many cases, less toxic than the parent. Given that the Agency has not
reviewed the s tudies from which these database entries were made, a total toxic residues (TTR) approach will be used in this risk assessment. The TTR approach models the three chemicals (parent and two degradates) and un

- extracted residues as one chemical by adjust ing the parent exposure half

- lives to account for the duration of exposure to all three
chemicals of concern (and their un

- extracted residues)

.31

Table 3 . Physical, chemical, and environmental fate properties of quizalofop

- p
- ethyl , quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

- quizalofop

acid

Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Quizalofop Acid 3

- OH

- quizalofop Acid

Parameter Value Source/MRID # Value Source/MRID # Value Source/MRID #

Chemical name Ethyl (R)

- 2

- [4

- (6

-

chloroquinoxalin

- 2

- yl oxy)

- phenoxy]propionate Assure II Label 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy ]propanoic acid PPDB ( CAS name) ( R )

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 3

-

hydroxyquinoxalin

- 2

- yloxy)phenoxy]pro

- pionic

acid PPDB (CAS name)

Chemical family Aryloxyphenoxys PPDB Aryloxyphenoxypropionic

acid PPDB Aryloxyphenoxypropionic

acid PPDB

Empirical formula C 19 H 17 ClN 2 O 4 PPDB C 17 H 13 ClN 2 O 4 PPDB C 17 H 13 ClN 2 O 5 EPI Suite 4.1

Structure

Molecular mass 372.8 g/mol PPDB 344.76 g/mol EPI Suite 4.1 360.76 g/mol EPI Suite 4.1

Water solubility (20 C) 0.4 mg/L Product Chemistry 0.3 mg/L Tomlin, C. 1994 115.7 mg/L EPI Suite 4.1 (WSKOW v1.41)

Vapor pressure 3 × 10 - 7 mm Hg @ 20 C Product Chemistry 5.72 × 10 - 8 mm Hg @

25 C EPI Suite 4.1

(Modified Grain Method) 4.03 × 10 - 12 mm Hg @

25 C EPI Suite 4.1

(Modified Grain Method) Octanol/water partition coefficient (Log K
ow ) 4.61 PPDB 3.57 EPI Suite 4.1 (KowWIN v1.67) 3.09 EPI Suite 4.1 (KowWIN v1.67)

Hydrolysis (t 1/2 ) >600 days @ pH5 30 days @ pH7 2 days @ pH9 MRID 00 131583 Stable 1 MRID 00 131583 Unknown

Direct Aqueous Photolysis (t 1/2 ) 69 days MRID 00 146693 Unknown Unknown

Soil Photolysis 41 days MRID 40336002 Unknown Unknown

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (t 1/2 ) 30 days 37 days MRID 00146695

MRID 43235603 Unknown 2 Unknown32 Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Quizalofop Acid 3

- OH

- quizalofop Acid

Parameter Value Source/MRID # Value Source/MRID # Value Source/MRID #

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism (t 1/2 ) Unknown MRID 00 146696 is unacceptable. Unknown Unknown

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (t 1/2 ) Unknown No study

submitted Unknown Unknown

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (t 1/2 ) 107 and 95 days MRID 00 146697 Unknown Unknown

Soil Partition Coefficient (K
oc ) 298 ml/g Mean quizalofop

acid K
oc (436, 267, 302, and 187) (MRID 00 146698) 256 ml/g Mean quizalofop

acid K
oc (136, 90, 372, 425) (MRID

00 146947) Unknown

Terrestrial Field Dissipation (t 1/2 ) United Kingdom

– 2.2 days Germany

– 1.6 days
Southern France

– 1 day Spain

– 12 days MRID 474084146 Unknown 2 Unknown

Fish Bioconcentration

Factor (Static exposure

conditions

– 99% of applied quizalofop

ethyl had converted to quizalofop acid by day 28 in the water.) 0.004 μg/L Exposure

Muscle BCF = 16
Viscera BCF =3900

Carcass BCF =31
Whole Fish BCF = 290 0.04 μg/L Exposure

Muscle BCF = 10
Viscera BCF = 4600

Carcass BCF = 37
Whole Fish BCF = 380 MRID 00131583 ( Peak BCF

occurred in the first few days of the experiment and

decreased presumably as quizalofop acid formed.) U nknown, but presumably

much lower than quizalofop

- ethyl MRID 00131583 Unknown

PPDB = Pesticide Properties Database (http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/projects/ppdb/index.htm)

1 No degradates formed in the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl hydrolysis study (MRID 00 131583 ) other than quizalofop acid, which indicates the quizalofop acid formed did not degrade.

2 Data appears in the footprint database (a pesticide data base used by the European Union

- http://s item.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htm ) that may or may not be suitable for risk assessment that has not been submitted to the Agency for review.33

Receptors

E FFECTS TO O RGANISMS Studies are available for both quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (the concentrated active isomer) and quizalofop

- ethyl (50/50 racemic mixture of active and inactive isomers). The most sensitive toxicity value was selected for the risk analysis, regardless of the chemical form.

Registrant Submitted Studies for Quizalofop

- P

- Et hyl The registrant(s) have submitted a number of studies in support of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl new use registrations and registration review that are considered scientifically sound for use in risk assessments. Seven acute freshwater fish studies indicate quiz alofop

- p

- ethyl (3 studies) and quizalofop

- ethyl (4 studies) is slightly to highly toxic. Chronic freshwater and estuarine/marine fish studies also are available. Four acute freshwater invertebrate studies (2 each for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and quizalofop

- eth yl) show the chemical to be slightly toxic to highly toxic to the waterflea. Acute estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity testing indicate s quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (1 study) and quizalofop

- ethyl (2 studies) to be highly toxic. Five non

vascular plant studies and two vascular aquatic plant studies are available for quizalofop

- p

ethyl.

For terrestrial organisms, acute toxicity studies are available for birds, with quizalofop

- ethyl (5 studies), that indicate it is practically non

- toxic to birds. Two chronic stu dies with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl are also available. Rat studies with quizalofop

- ethyl indicate it is slightly toxic on an acute oral basis; a two generation rat study is also available. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is classified as practically non

- toxic to honeybees. A number of studies were performed on terrestrial plants with both quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (3 studies) and quizalofop

- ethyl (2 studies) typical end

- use products that documented the toxicity to dicots and monocots.

Open Literature Studies Open literature studies from the ECOTOX database were reviewed for inclusion in the risk assessment. Studies were screened to determine if they provided information about species for which EFED does not usually receive information

, or lower toxicity endpoints than regist rant

- submitted studies. No additional studies from ECOTOX were identified. All ECOTOX papers and rationales of why they were not included in the risk assessment are

listed in Appendix D

.

I NCIDENT D ATABASE R EVIEW A review of the Ecological Incident Infor mation System on September 26, 2012 (EIIS, version 2.1.1), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs , the Aggregate Summary Module of OPP’s Incident Database, and the Avian Monitoring Information System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, was conducted for both quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and quizalofop

- ethyl.34

According to Office of Pesticides Program Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS),

one incident for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl has been reported. The incident ( I016677

- 001) occurred when spray drift from an application of Assure II (quizalofop

- p

- ethyl) and Flexstar (sodium fomesafen) to soybeans came into contact with a garden in the vicinity of the soybean field. Hundreds of herbaceous plants in a home herb gar den (20 ft away) and various vegetables in another garden (150 ft away) were reported to have been damaged (leaf burn and spotting). The incident occurred on 8/2/05 in Missouri and is classified as “possible” to have been caused by quizalofop

- p

- ethyl; how ever there is some uncertainty given that sodium fomesafen was also applied.

There was one minor incident listed in the Aggregate Summary Module of OPP’s Incident Database for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. The formulation, Assure II, was associated with minor pl ant damage between 7/1/01 and 9/30/01. No further information was available. There were no quizalofop incidents reported in the AIMS database and EFED is unaware of other

incidents outside of these three databases.

D ATA G APS I DENTIFIED The following tox icity data gaps have been identified:

OPPTS 850.1075

- Acute Estuarine/Marine Fish Toxicity Test

OPPTS 850 .1350

- Chronic Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Toxicity Test

OPPTS 850.2100

- Acute Oral Toxicity Test with a Passerine Species

These data were not identified as gaps in the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl problem formulation. At the time, an acute estuarine/marine fish study had been submitted by the registrant. The study was assumed to be acceptable, but was found to be invalid when it was formally reviewed

se veral years later. Data were not requested for chronic effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates because it was possible to calculate an acute

- to

- chronic ratio to estimate that toxicity value. Finally, the acute oral toxicity test with a passerine specie s did not become a data requirement until after the data call

- in was issued.

E COSYSTEMS P OTENTIALLY AT R ISK The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope, and as a result it may not be possible to be specific at the screening level. Quizalofop

- p

- et hyl is registered on a variety of food ( e.g. , grains, beans, mint, pineapple) and non

- food (cotton, non

- agricultural areas, ornamentals, seed production) use s . In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could

include the areas next to tr eated fields, plantations, roadsides, fencerows, equipment storage areas, and paved areas. These areas could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats and other
uncultivated area s.35

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from the treated area and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal a reas, aquatic habitat also includes marine ecosystems and estuaries.

All of the uses apply quizalofop

- p

- ethyl as a foliar spray (ground or aerial) to vegetation. Given the diversity of uses (corn to pineapple), it is expected that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

ap plications could occur in most areas of the United States.

Conceptual Model For a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant concentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological exposure pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasibl e route of

exposure.

The conceptual model (Figures 1 and 2) depicts the potential pathways for ecological risk associated with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (including its degradates) use. The conceptual model provides an overview of the expected exposure routes fo r organisms within the quizalofop

- p

ethyl action area. For terrestrial organisms, the major route of exposure considered is the dietary route; consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that have quizalofop

p

- ethyl residues as a result of s praying and drift. Exposure through inhalation is unlikely given quizalofop

- p

- ethyl’s low vapor pressure and the results of EFED’s Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v. 1.0). EFED’s Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v. 1.0) indicated that drinking water exposure alone was not a potential concern for birds or mammals (acute and chronic exposures) (Appendix E ).

For aquatic animal species, the major routes of exposure are considered to be via the respiratory surface (gills) or the integument.

Direc t contact and/or root uptake is the major route of exposure for terrestrial and wetland (riparian) plants, while aquatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption. Estimated exposure concentrations for all organisms are obtained through the u se of several Agency exposure models.36

Figure 1. Conceptual model for the aquatic effects of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl applications. Dotted lines indicate the pathway is not expected to be significant.

Figure 2. Conceptual model for the terrestrial effects of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl applications.37

Risk Hypothesis For quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and its degradates , the following ecological risk hypotheses are being

tested in this baselin e risk assessment:

Terrestrial Environment

Exposure to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and degradate residues on insects, seeds, foliage, and other plant parts from direct deposition or spray drift from the labeled use of the pesticide has the potential to cause red uced survival, growth and reproduction to terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, terrestrial

- phase amphibians) and

terrestrial invertebrates.

Exposure to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and degradate residues on foliage, roots, or other plant parts from sp ray drift alone or from runoff from labeled use of the pesticide has the potential to result in reduced survival and biomass to upland plants and riparian/wetland plants in areas adjacent to a treated area.

Aquatic Environment

Exposure to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and degradate residues in water from spray drift or runoff from the labeled uses of the herbicide has the potential to cause reduced survival, growth and reproduction to aquatic invertebrates

, fish , and plants (vascular

and non

- vascular) in surface waters adjacent to a treated area.

Analysis Plan In registration review, pesticide ecological risk assessments will follow the Agency’s Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment and will be in compliance with the paper entitled
“O verview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” (US EPA, 2004).

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

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

- target organisms. In addition to addressing a pesticide’s toxic effects and potential routes of exposure, an ecological risk assessment addresses the uncertainties associated with a pesticide’s risk to

non

- target organisms.

M EASURES TO E VALUATE THE R ISK H YPOTHESIS AND C ONCEPTUAL M ODEL Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that predict estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl using maximum labeled application rates and methods of application. The model used to predict aquatic EECs is the PRZM [ P esticide R oot Z one M odel (PRZM v3.12.2)] and EXAMS [ EX posure A nalysis38

M odeling S ystem (v2.98.4.6)] models. The model used to predict terrestrial EECs on f ood
items is T

- REX [Terrestrial Residue Exposure Model version 1.5 (Mar. 22, 2012)]. The model used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial and wetland plants is TerrPlant [Version 1.2.2 (10/29/09)]

.

M EASURES OF E FFECT Data identified in the Effects Chara cterization Section are used as measures of effect for

direct and indirect effects to non

- target organisms. Data were obtained from registrant submitted studies or from open literature studies identified by ECOTOX. The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) was searched to provide more ecological effects data and to bridge existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the USEPA, Offic e of Research and Development, and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's Mid

- Continent Ecology Division.

The acute measures of effect used for animals in this screening level assessment are the LD 50 , LC 50 and EC 50 . LD stands for “ Lethal Dose ” , and LD 50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. LC stands for
“Lethal Concentration” and LC 50 is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to kill
50% of the test organisms. EC stands for “Effective Concentration” and the EC 50 is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the test organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non

- list ed animals are
the NOAEL/NOAEC and NOEC. NOAEL stands for “No Observed

- Adverse

- Effect

- Level” and refers to the highest tested dose of a substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) effects on test organisms. The NOAEC ( i.e. , “No

- Observed

- Adverse

- Effect

Concentration”) is the highest test concentration at which none of the observed effects were statistically different from the control. The NOEC is the No

- Observed

- Effects

Concentration. For non

- listed plants, only acute exposures are asse ssed ( i.e. , EC 25 for terrestrial plants and EC 50 for aquatic plants).

I NTEGRATION OF E XPOSURE AND E FFECTS Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effects characterization to determine the potential ecological risk from agricultural and non

- agricultural uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to non

- target organisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non

- target species. For the assessment of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl risks, the risk quotient ( RQ) method is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values. EECs are divided by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (US EPA, 2004).39

There is no established acute list ed or non

- listed LOC for terrestrial invertebrates. The LOCs currently in use for birds, mammals and aquatic species are based on 1975 regulations for the enforcement of FIFRA (40 CFR Part 154: 49005; 49007; 49016). Refer to Appendix F for

addition infor mation on the LOCs.

A NALYSIS OF C O
- OCCURANCE OF F EDERALLY L ISTED S PECIES WITH Q UIZALOFOP
- P
ETHYL Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Agency will evaluate risks to federally

- listed threatened and/or endan gered (listed) species from registered uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. This assessment will be conducted i n accordance with the Overview Document (US EPA, 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (U.S. FWS/NMFS, 1998).

In the case of a nation

- wide risk assessment conducted under Registration Review, the action area will encompass the entire U.S. and its territories. The purpose of defining the action

area as the entire U.S. and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration encompasses all areas where the pesticide may be used now and in the future, including the potential for off

- site transport via spray drift and downstream dilution. Additionally, the concept of a nationwide action area t akes into account the potential for direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat based on ecological effect measures associated with reduction in survival, growth, and reproduction, as well as the full suite of

sub

- lethal effects available in the effects literature.

It is important to note that the nation

- wide action area does not imply that direct and/or indirect effects and critical habitat modification are expected to or are likely to occur over the

full extent of the action area, but rather to identify all listed species and critical habitat that may potentially be affected by the action. The Agency will use more rigorous analysis including consideration of available land cover data, toxicity data, and exposure inform ation to determine areas where individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or reproduction.

The Information Management System (IMS), a work product of the industry

- based FIFRA Endangered Species Task Force (FESTF) will be used to evaluate the co

- occurrence of listed species and critical habitat within the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl action area. FESTF was formed to fulfill data requirements relative to species/pesti cide use proximity.40



# Exposure Assessment

Aquatic Exposure Assessment

Monitoring Data

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, quizalofop acid, and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid do not appear to be included in the list of the analytes monitored in the U.S. surface and groundwater under the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. There were no available monitoring data at the time of this assessment (October 2012).

Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Tier II screening

- level surface water exposures for aquatic risk assessmen t were conducted for all registered uses. Modeled application rates represent the maximum use pattern of the proposed label for all uses. The aquatic exposure estimates presented in this assessment were based on the use of models because no surface or gr oundwater monitoring data are available for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl within the continental U.S. Two major environmental degradates, quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid, were identified in the environmental fate and terrestrial field dissipation studies. There are no Agency

- reviewed toxicity data related to aquatic species for these major degradates that can be used to exclude any of the degradates
listed above (Europe’s Footprint database 3 does have data that support the premise that the degradates may be less toxic than the parent, but EPA does not have access to these studies for evaluation) . Therefore, a total residue (parent plus degradates of concern) approach is used and expected to provide protective exposure estimation for aquatic organisms exposed to the major degradates of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. Essentially, this method simply extends the duration of the predicted EECs to account for the time it would take for both the parent and

de gradates of concern to dissipate in the environment. It assumes that the degradates have equivalent fate and ecotoxicity properties as the parent

– a conservative assumption (Table 4).

TIER II PRZM/EXAMS Model

The Tier II model Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2) linked with EXposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.4.6) via the model shell PRZM/EXAMS (PE v5.0, Nov. 15, 2006) was used to estimate baseline

- level exposures for representative crop scenarios. The PRZM model simulates pesticide move ment and transformation on and across the agricultural field resulting from crop applications. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff, erosion, and spray drift assuming a “standard” 1

- ha pond, 2

- m

3 http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htm41

deep (20,000 m 3 ) with no outlet that borde rs a 10

- ha treated field. Simulations are run for multiple (usually 30) years, and the Agency estimates peak and running mean values that are expected once every ten years based on the daily values generated during the simulation. The coupled PE models a nd users manuals are available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Models Web

- page (U.S. EPA, 2011).

Exposure estimates generated using this “standard” pond are intended to represent a wide variety of vulnerable water bodies that occur in the upper reaches of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man

- made and natural ponds, and
intermittent and first

- order streams. As a group, there are factors that make these water
bodies more or less vulnerable than the standard surrogate pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of pesticide

- treated drainage area to water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the standard pond. These water bodies will be either smaller
in size or have large drainage areas. Smaller water bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge, whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the entir e watershed is planted with a non

- major single crop that is all treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations higher than the standard pond, but they likely persist for only short periods of time and are th en carried and dissipated
downstream.

Table 4. PRZM

- EXAMS input parameter values for quizalofop

- p
- ethyl
Input Parameter Value Comment Source Single Application Rate (kg ai/ha) See Table 2

Applications per Year Application Interval (days) CAM Input 2 Foliar Label s 1

IPSCND Input 1 Default

Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009) Spray Drift Fraction 1%

- ground; 5%

- aerial Default

Application Efficiency 99%

- ground; 95%

- aerial Default

Molecular Mass (g/mol) 344.8 Quizalofop acid EPI Suite 4.1 Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr) 3 × 10 - 7 Parent quizalofop

- p

ethyl Product Chemistry

Solubility in Water at 25 o C (mg/L) 0.4 Parent quizalofop

- p

ethyl Product Chemistry

Organic Carbon Partition 256 Mean quizalofop

- acid MRID42

Input Parameter Value Comment Source Coefficient (K OC ) (L/kg OC ) K oc (136, 90, 372, 425) 00 146947

Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Half

- life (days) 407 Combined parent, quizalofop

- acid, 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid,
and bound residues 2 MRID

00146697

MRID
43235603 Aerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 814 days 2 × aerobic soil
metabolism t 1⁄2 Input parameter guidance (USEPA, 2009) Anaerobic Aquatic
Metabolism Half

- life (days) 420 Combined parent, quizalofop

- acid, and
bound residues 2 MRID

00146697

Hydrolysis Half

- lives (days) Stable (pH 7) Combined parent and quizalofop

- acid
residues 2 MRID

00131583

Aqueous Photolysis
Half

- life (days) 85.4 days Combined parent and quizalofop

- acid 2 MRID
00146693

1 LUIS Report. 1/6/2012. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (128709).

2 The TTR approach sums residues of concern at each time point in each of the fate studies and fits degradation curves through this residue sum. These comments indicate the residues summed for each study.

Aquatic Exposure Modeling Results

The aquatic EECs for the various scenarios and application methods are listed in Table 5.

Fo r some uses, the maximum seasonal application rate was not an integer multiple of the maximum individual application rate. Table 6 provides additional detail indicating how the maximum seasonal application rate was distributed between the individual applic ations.

The Agency has developed only a limited number of model scenarios. Some of the scenarios used to model a particular use are from regions outside of the geographic restrictions for that

use. In these cases, EECs will necessarily be more uncertain than in those cases in which the scenario locations and geographic use restrictions better align.

Two scenarios require further clarification. First, EFED does not currently have a suitable scenario (or surrogate scenario) for applications to pineapple. To provide a high

- end estimate of potential exposure from applications to pineapple, the Mississippi cotton scenario was selected because it has a meteorological file associated with it that is representative of areas with high amounts of rainfall. Hawaii and Puerto Rico receive large amounts of rain; rainfall is a driving force in the generation of EECs.43

The second scenario in need of further clarification is the paved area scenario. EFED’s understanding of this scenario is that paved areas would be spra yed to control weeds that would be growing in the cr acks in the pavement. The EEC s calculated are for a completely paved watershed draining into the standard pond. The EEC can be linearly scaled to the proportion of the watershed that is paved. For examp le, if 10% of the watershed is paved, then the appropriate exposure values are 10% of the values provided under the paved areas entry in Table 5 (see sample model output in Appendix G)

.

Table 5

. Aquatic quizalofop

- p
- ethyl EEC values

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Peak 21

- day

average 60

- day

average Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

Alfalfa (MN alfalfa OP) A

G 3.2439

2.3641 3.1591

2.2989 3.0262

2.2357

Carrot (CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 2.9219

2.3906 2.8308

2.3066 2.7275

2.1727 Chinese cabbage (CA Cole Crop RLF ) A

G 6.5102

5.9816 6.3749

5.8582 6.1363

5.6347

Garlic (CA Garlic RLF ) A

G 3.1903

2.5178 3.1109

2.4413 2.9776

2.3342

Onion and Radish ( CA onion W / irrig STD ) A

G 1.7975

1.1664 1.7556

1.1215 1.7089

1.057

Red beets (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 2.9219

2.3906 2.8308

2.3066 2.7275

2.1727 Spinach (CA lettuce STD) A

G 4.7683

4.1377 4.6423

4.0219 4.5518

3.9295

Swiss chard (CA lettuce STD) A

G 4.7683

4.1377 4.6423

4.0219 4.5518

3.9295
All states, food item 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

S ugar beets ( CA sugar beet W / irrig OP ) A

G 1.7585

1.00725 1.7034

0.97215 1.6504

0.92407

S ugar beets (MN sugar beet STD) A

G 4.9319

4.1284 4.7972

4.0171 4.5858

3.890344 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Peak 21

- day

average 60

- day

average Except New York 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Barley and Wheat ( CA Wheat RLF ) A

G 2.0586

1.7928 1.9951

1.7317 1.8964

1.6435 Barley and Wheat ( ND wheat STD ) A

G 2.1658

1.8393 2.0984

1.7886 2.0012

1.7234 Barley and Wheat ( OR wheat OP ) A

G 1.4209

1.1225 1.3929

1.1009 1.3693

1.0792 Barley and Wheat ( TX wheat OP ) A

G 2.0762

1.8911 2.0123

1.8305 1.8002

1.5982
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Canola/rape ( ND canola STD ) A

G 2.5532

1.9196 2.4777

1.8743 2.3773

1.7927

Crambe ( CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 2.3499

1.8572 2.2986

1.8183 2.2133

1.758

Crambe ( MI beans STD ) A

G 3.962

3.422 3.8821

3.3373 3.7321

3.2005 Soybeans ( MS soybean STD ) A

G 6.8374

6.498 6.5753

6.2511 6.2246

5.9149

Sunflowers ( CA corn OP ) A

G 2.0317

1.6713 1.9878

1.651 1.9277

1.6096

Sunflowers ( IL Corn STD) A

G 3.9877

3.5359 3.8931

3.4455 3.8193

3.3792

Sunflowers ( IN Corn Std) A

G 3.2332

2.8219 3.1178

2.7235 3.0022

2.6291

Sunflowers ( KS Corn Std) A

G 5.8264

5.4552 5.7292

5.3695 5.554

5.204

Sunflowers ( MS corn STD) A

G 5.5477

5.2201 5.3746

5.0559 5.2468

4.9238

Sunflowers ( NC corn E STD) A

G 2.4737

1.9695 2.409

1.9062 2.2865

1.8052

Sunflowers ( NC corn W OP) A

G 4.6154

4.1596 4.4916

4.0464 4.3731

3.9362

Sunflowers ( ND corn OP) A

G 3.7274

3.1419 3.6242

3.0556 3.5196

2.98845 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Peak 21

- day

average 60

- day

average
Sunflowers ( OH Corn STD) A

G 4.1211

3.6426 3.9882

3.5189 3.7995

3.3558

Sunflowers ( PA corn STD) A

G 3.4193

2.8912 3.3448

2.8137 3.2278

2.7128

Sunflowers ( TX corn OP) A

G 4.7586

4.4377 4.6189

4.3101 4.4175

4.1261
1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A

Field Corn ( CA corn OP ) A

G 1.3485

1.0866 1.3184

1.074 1.2708

1.04658

Field Corn ( IL Corn STD) A

G 2.5371

2.2367 2.4861

2.1826 2.4345

2.1387

Field Corn ( IN Corn Std) A

G 2.002

1.6963 1.9378

1.6881 1.8533

1.6329

Field Corn ( KS Corn Std) A

G 3.9031

3.6589 3.8406

3.6041 3.6753

3.4161

Field Corn ( MS corn STD) A

G 3.6028

3.3847 3.5287

3.2985 3.4206

3.2057

Field Corn ( NC corn E STD) A

G 1.7521

1.3971 1.6936

1.346 1.6334

1.3045

Field Corn ( NC corn W OP) A

G 2.9839

2.6822 2.8907

2.5947 2.8026

2.5098

Field Corn ( ND corn OP) A

G 2.4124

2.0243 2.3455

1.9684 2.2785

1.9213

Field Corn ( OH Corn STD) A

G 2.5186

2.1711 2.4386

2.1024 2.3673

2.0508

Field Corn ( PA corn STD) A

G 2.1426

1.8389 2.0767

1.7764 2.01

1.6904

Field Corn ( TX corn OP) A

G 2.9889

2.7755 2.8942

2.677 2.7204

2.5142
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Sorghum (TXsorghumOP) A

G 6.102

5.7445 5.9538

5.6002 5.6358

5.3044
3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Cotton ( CA cotton W / irrig STD ) A

G 1.1651

0.57519 1.1303

0.56616 1.0876

0.5454946 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Peak 21

- day

average 60

- day

average
Cotton ( MS cotton STD) A

G 5.0259

4.646 4.8656

4.4933 4.6414

4.2777

Cotton ( NC cotton STD) A

G 5.1579

4.7392 5.0175

4.6114 4.8381

4.4581

Cotton ( TX cotton OP) A

G 4.184

3.8324 4.083

3.7307 3.8877

3.5516

2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Dry beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 3.4743

2.8456 3.3538

2.7449 3.1636

2.5842 Dry beans (MI beans STD) A

G 6.0823

5.2971 5.9518

5.1838 5.8049

5.0563
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Dry and succulent peas and lentils ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 1.9447

1.5878 1.9058

1.5563 1.8241

1.4925 Snap beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 3.0984

2.5369 2.9924

2.4472 2.863

2.3062 Snap beans (MI beans STD) A

G 5.4748

4.7557 5.3693

4.6575 5.1845

4.5155

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Fallow ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 2.7513

1.9472 2.6784

1.9236 2.6034

1.8834
2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Flax (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 2.9219

2.3906 2.8308

2.3066 2.7275

2.1727 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 2.9219

2.3906 2.8308

2.3066 2.7275

2.1727 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (MI beans STD) A

G 5.168

4.4906 5.083

4.4037 4.9093

4.265
Maine and Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations ( PA apple STD V2 ) A

G 2.9575

2.2796 2.8853

2.2243 2.8009

2.1669
2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)47 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Peak 21

- day

average 60

- day

average Mint (spearmint and peppermint) ( CA lettuce STD ) A

G 5.8014

5.176 5.6622

4.9992 5.4516

4.7857

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) (CA right

- of

- way RLF) A

G 6.9661

6.3427 6.8076

6.1987 6.2444

5.7362

Non

- crop areas ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 3.0643

2.1487 2.988

2.0988 2.9062

2.0586

Non

- crop areas ( FL turf STD ) A

G 1.5729

0.68379 1.5197

0.65138 1.4449

0.6071

Non

- crop areas (PA turf STD) A

G 2.4248

1.2399 2.3779

1.2116 2.2869

1.1741
Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Ornamental and/or shade trees ( CA nursery STD ) A

G 4.3858

2.5917 4.2487

2.5068 4.1297

2.4053 Pineapple ( MS cotton STD ) A

G 19.073

17.804 18.664

17.371 18.185

16.934
1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (CA Impervious RLF) A

G 19.649

19.959 19.207

19.516 18.327

18.624

Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Perennial ryegrass grown

for seed (ND wheat STD) A

G 4.4857

3.8345 4.335

3.7289 4.1339

3.5787 RLF = red legged frog OP = organophosphate

STD = standard48



### Terrestrial Exposure

Dietary

- Based Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Residue Levels The Agency uses the 

### T

- REX model (v1.5, USEPA, Mar. 22, 2012) to estimate the terrestrial animal exposure values resulting from possible dietary ingestion of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl residues on vegetative matter and insects present on non

- food and food crops from exposure to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. It is assumed that the degradates from quizalofop

- p

- ethyl are equivalent in their toxicity and this automatically incorporated into the model. In all screening

- level assessments, the organisms are assumed to consume 100% of their diet as

one food type. This model incorporates the Kenaga nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et
al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The upper limit values from the nomograph represented the 95th percentile of residue values from actua l field measurements (Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972). The Terrestrial Resi due Exposure Model

version 1.5 (T

- REX) was employed to estimate (1) EECs for different food items for birds and mammals, (2) dose/diet based risk to birds as well as dose based risk to m ammals, and (3) EECs for small and large insects to estimate risk to terrestrial invertebrates from direct contact. The short grass EECs were used to evaluate risk from acute oral exposure for

terrestrial invertebrates (Table 6).

Results of the T

- REX v 1.5 modeling of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl residue levels on those dietary food items which potentially occur on some treated fields, for mammals and birds 4 are provided in Tables 7 and 8. Residue levels for dietary items were calculated for all foliage

spray app lications.

Results include dietary

- based values ( i.e ., milligrams of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl per kilogram of diet (mg/kg

- diet)), and both an upper

- bound and mean estimate of these exposure levels. The

upper

- bound values are derived using the upper

- bound Kenag a nomogram which used the highest of the highest normalized residue values from a number of studies, as a tolerance limit approach.

As birds are also used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians within this assessment, it is assumed t hat dose

- based exposure levels for these animals are the same as birds ( i.e ., food ingestion rate per body weight for a bird is the same as for an amphibian and reptile). However, reptiles and amphibians have a lower ingestion rate for a given body weight than birds (US EPA, 1993). Therefore, the dose

- based EECs presented here represent an overestimate of exposure for reptiles and amphibians of a given body size (see sample output in Appendix I)

.

4 B irds are also used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial

- phase amphibians

.49

Table 6 . T

- REX modeling scenarios

Use Maximum Application Rate (lb ai/A) Number of

Applications (Interval between Applications, days)

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss
cha rd

All states, food item: sugar beets 0.0834 2

(7

- days)

Except New York

Barley, wheat 0.0695 1

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers 0.0834 1 at 0.0834 and

1 at 0.042

(7

- days)

Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant) 0.0834 1

Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) 0.0834 1 at 0.0834 and

1 at 0.057

(7

- days)

Cotton 0.034 3 at 0.034 and

1 at 0.023

(7

- days) Dry beans 0.0834 2 at 0.0834 and

1 at 0.03

(7

- days) Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans 0.0834 1 at 0.0834 and

1 at 0.01

(7

- days) Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow 0.0834 2 at 0.0834 and

1 at 0.04

(7

- days) Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) 0.0834 2

(7

- days)50

Maine and Minnesota, only

Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 0.0695 2 2

(7

- days)

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) 0.0834 2 at 0.0834 and

1 at 0.04

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) 0.111 2 2

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only

Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple 0.208 2

(7

- days) Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 0.108 1 3

Minnesota, only

Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 0.0695 2

(7

- days)

Parameters used in T

- REX Model: Foliar half life = 35 days; Avian NOAEC

– 180 mg ai/kg

- diet (mallard duck) 1 ; Mammal LD 50 = 870 mg ai/kg

- bw (rat); Mammal NOEL = 5 mg ai/kg

- bw (rat)

1 Surrogate data from fenoxaprop

- ethyl because quizalofop

- p

- ethyl NOAEC was non

- definitive (< 269 mg ai/kg

- diet.

2 Assuming two applications at the highest rate for the seasonal maximum.

3 Assuming the seasonal maximum is equivalent to the single application rate

Table 7 . Avian quizalofop

- p
- ethyl upper bound EEC values

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish,

red beets, spinach, Swiss chard All states, food item: sugar beets 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval) Short grass 37.44 42.64 24.32 10.89 Tall grass 17.16 19.54 11.14 4.99 Broadleaf plants 21.06 23.99 13.68 6.12 Fruits/pods 2.34 2.67 1.52 0.68 Arthropods 14.66 16.70 9.52 4.26

Seeds

- 0.59 0.34 0.15
Except New York Barley, wheat 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Short grass 16.68 19.00 10.83 4.85 Tall grass 7.65 8.71 4.97 2.2251

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Broadleaf plants 9.38 10.69 6.09 2.73 Fruits/pods 1.04 1.19 0.68 0.30 Arthropods 6.53 7.44 4.24 1.90

Seeds

- 0.26 0.15 0.07

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 27.50 31.33 17.86 8.00 Tall grass 12.61 14.36 8.19 3.67 Broadleaf plants 15.47 17.62 10.05 4.50 Fruits/pods 1.72 1.96 1.12 0.50 Arthropods 10.77 12.27 7.00 3.13

Seeds

- 0.44 0.25 0.11

Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant)

1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A Short grass 20.02 22.80 13.00 5.82 Tall grass 9.17 10.45 5.96 2.67 Broadleaf plants 11.26 12.82 7.31 3.27 Fruits/pods 1.25 1.42 0.81 0.36 Arthropods 7.84 8.93 5.09 2.28

Seeds

- 0.32 0.18 0.08
Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 31.10 35.43 20.20 9.04 Tall grass 14.26 16.24 9.26 4.15 Broadleaf plants 17.50 19.93 11.36 5.09 Fruits/pods 1.94 2.21 1.26 0.57 Arthropods 12.18 13.87 7.91 3.54

Seeds

- 0.49 0.28 0.13

Cotton 3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 24.19 27.55 15.71 7.03 Tall grass 11.09 12.63 7.20 3.22 Broadleaf plants 13.61 15.50 8.84 3.96 Fruits/pods 1.51 1.72 0.98 0.4452

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Arthropods 9.47 10.79 6.15 2.76

Seeds

- 0.38 0.22 0.10
Dry beans 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 39.79 45.32 25.84 11.57 Tall grass 18.24 20.77 11.85 5.30 Broadleaf plants 22.38 25.49 14.54 6.51 Fruits/pods 2.49 2.83 1.62 0.72 Arthropods 15.59 17.75 10.12 4.53

Seeds

- 0.63 0.36 0.16

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 20.02 22.80 13.00 5.82 Tall grass 9.17 10.45 5.96 2.67 Broadleaf plants 11.26 12.82 7.31 3.27 Fruits/pods 1.25 1.42 0.81 0.36 Arthropods 7.84 8.93 5.09 2.28

Seeds

- 0.32 0.18 0.08

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 42.19 48.06 27.40 12.27 Tall grass 19.34 22.03 12.56 5.62 Broadleaf plants 23.73 27.03 15.41 6.90 Fruits/pods 2.64 3.00 1.71 0.77 Arthropods 16.53 18.82 10.73 4.81

Seeds

- 0.67 0.38 0.17
Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 37.44 42.64 24.32 10.89 Tall grass 17.16 19.54 11.14 4.99 Broadleaf plants 21.06 23.99 13.68 6.12 Fruits/pods 2.34 2.67 1.52 0.68 Arthropods 14.66 16.70 9.52 4.2653

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Seeds

- 0.59 0.34 0.15
Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations

2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 31.20 35.53 20.26 9.07 Tall grass 14.30 16.29 9.29 4.16 Broadleaf plants 17.55 19.99 11.40 5.10 Fruits/pods 1.95 2.22 1.27 0.57 Arthropods 12.22 13.92 7.94 3.55

Seeds

- 0.49 0.28 0.13
Mint (spearmint and peppermint) 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 42.19 48.06 27.40 12.27 Tall grass 19.34 22.03 12.56 5.62 Broadleaf plants 23.73 27.03 15.41 6.90 Fruits/pods 2.64 3.00 1.71 0.77 Arthropods 16.53 18.82 10.73 4.81

Seeds

- 0.67 0.38 0.17

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas)

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 49.83 56.75 32.36 14.49 Tall grass 22.84 26.01 14.83 6.64 Broadleaf plants 28.03 31.92 18.20 8.15 Fruits/pods 3.11 3.55 2.02 0.91 Arthropods 19.52 22.23 12.68 5.67

Seeds

- 0.79 0.45 0.20

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 93.38 106.35 60.64 27.15 Tall grass 42.80 48.74 27.80 12.44 Broadleaf plants 52.53 59.82 34.11 15.27 Fruits/pods 5.84 6.65 3.79 1.7054

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Arthropods 36.57 41.65 23.75 10.63

Seeds

- 1.48 0.84 0.38
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A

Short grass 25.92 29.52 16.83 7.54 Tall grass 11.88 13.53 7.72 3.45 Broadleaf plants 14.58 16.61 9.47 4.24 Fruits/pods 1.62 1.85 1.05 0.47 Arthropods 10.15 11.56 6.59 2.95

Seeds

- 0.41 0.23 0.10
Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 31.20 35.53 20.26 9.07 Tall grass 14.30 16.29 9.29 4.16 Broadleaf plants 17.55 19.99 11.40 5.10 Fruits/pods 1.95 2.22 1.27 0.57 Arthropods 12.22 13.92 7.94 3.55

Seeds

- 0.49 0.28 0.13

Table 8

. Mammalian quizalofop

- p
- ethyl upper bound EEC values

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium

(135 g) Large

(1000 g)

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish,

red beets, spinach, Swiss chard All states, food item: sugar beets 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval) Short grass 37.44 35.70 24.67 5.72 Tall grass 17.16 16.36 11.31 2.62 Broadleaf plants 21.06 20.08 13.88 3.22 Fruits/pods 2.34 2.23 1.54 0.3655

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium

(135 g) Large

(1000 g)

Arthropods 14.66 13.98 9.66 2.24

Seeds

- 0.50 0.34 0.08
Except New York Barley, wheat 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Short grass 16.68 15.90 10.99 2.55 Tall grass 7.65 7.29 5.04 1.17 Broadleaf plants 9.38 8.95 6.18 1.43 Fruits/pods 1.04 0.99 0.69 0.16 Arthropods 6.53 6.23 4.30 1.00

Seeds

- 0.22 0.15 0.04

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 27.50 26.22 18.12 4.20 Tall grass 12.61 12.02 8.31 1.93 Broadleaf plants 15.47 14.75 10.19 2.36 Fruits/pods 1.72 1.64 1.13 0.26 Arthropods 10.77 10.27 7.10 1.65

Seeds

- 0.36 0.25 0.06

Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant)

1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A Short grass 20.02 19.08 13.19 3.06 Tall grass 9.17 8.75 6.05 1.40 Broadleaf plants 11.26 10.73 7.42 1.72 Fruits/pods 1.25 1.19 0.82 0.19 Arthropods 7.84 7.47 5.17 1.20

Seeds

- 0.27 0.18 0.04
Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 31.10 29.66 20.50 4.75 Tall grass 14.26 13.59 9.39 2.18 Broadleaf plants 17.50 16.68 11.53 2.67 Fruits/pods 1.94 1.85 1.28 0.30 Arthropods 12.18 11.62 8.03 1.8656

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium

(135 g) Large

(1000 g)

Seeds

- 0.41 0.28 0.07

Cotton 3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 24.19 23.06 15.94 3.70 Tall grass 11.09 10.57 7.31 1.69 Broadleaf plants 13.61 12.97 8.97 2.08 Fruits/pods 1.51 1.44 1.00 0.23 Arthropods 9.47 9.03 6.24 1.45

Seeds

- 0.32 0.22 0.05
Dry beans 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 39.79 37.94 26.22 6.08 Tall grass 18.24 17.39 12.02 2.79 Broadleaf plants 22.38 21.34 14.75 3.42 Fruits/pods 2.49 2.37 1.64 0.38 Arthropods 15.59 14.86 10.27 2.38

Seeds

- 0.53 0.36 0.08

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 20.02 19.08 13.19 3.06 Tall grass 9.17 8.75 6.05 1.40 Broadleaf plants 11.26 10.73 7.42 1.72 Fruits/pods 1.25 1.19 0.82 0.19 Arthropods 7.84 7.47 5.17 1.20

Seeds

- 0.27 0.18 0.04

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 42.19 40.23 27.80 6.45 Tall grass 19.34 18.44 12.74 2.95 Broadleaf plants 23.73 22.63 15.64 3.63 Fruits/pods 2.64 2.51 1.74 0.40 Arthropods 16.53 15.76 10.89 2.52

Seeds

- 0.56 0.39 0.0957

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium

(135 g) Large

(1000 g)

Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 37.44 35.70 24.67 5.72 Tall grass 17.16 16.36 11.31 2.62 Broadleaf plants 21.06 20.08 13.88 3.22 Fruits/pods 2.34 2.23 1.54 0.36 Arthropods 14.66 13.98 9.66 2.24

Seeds

- 0.50 0.34 0.08
Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 31.20 29.75 20.56 4.77 Tall grass 14.30 13.63 9.42 2.18 Broadleaf plants 17.55 16.73 11.56 2.68 Fruits/pods 1.95 1.86 1.28 0.30 Arthropods 12.22 11.65 8.05 1.87

Seeds

- 0.41 0.29 0.07
Mint (spearmint and peppermint) 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 42.19 40.23 27.80 6.45 Tall grass 19.34 18.44 12.74 2.95 Broadleaf plants 23.73 22.63 15.64 3.63 Fruits/pods 2.64 2.51 1.74 0.40 Arthropods 16.53 15.76 10.89 2.52

Seeds

- 0.56 0.39 0.09

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas)

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 49.83 47.51 32.84 7.61 Tall grass 22.84 21.78 15.05 3.49 Broadleaf plants 28.03 26.72 18.47 4.28 Fruits/pods 3.11 2.97 2.05 0.48 Arthropods 19.52 18.61 12.86 2.98

Seeds

- 0.66 0.46 0.1158

Feeding Category Dietary

based EECs (mg/kg

- food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small (15 g) Medium

(135 g) Large

(1000 g)

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 93.38 89.03 61.53 14.27 Tall grass 42.80 40.80 28.20 6.54 Broadleaf plants 52.53 50.08 34.61 8.02 Fruits/pods 5.84 5.56 3.85 0.89 Arthropods 36.57 34.87 24.10 5.59

Seeds

- 1.24 0.85 0.20
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A Short grass 25.92 24.71 17.08 3.96 Tall grass 11.88 11.33 7.83 1.82 Broadleaf plants 14.58 13.90 9.61 2.23 Fruits/pods 1.62 1.54 1.07 0.25 Arthropods 10.15 9.68 6.69 1.55

Seeds

- 0.34 0.24 0.06
Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 31.20 29.75 20.56 4.77 Tall grass 14.30 13.63 9.42 2.18 Broadleaf plants 17.55 16.73 11.56 2.68 Fruits/pods 1.95 1.86 1.28 0.30 Arthropods 12.22 11.65 8.05 1.87

Seeds

- 0.41 0.29 0.07

Off

- Field Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plant Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Exposure TerrPlant 1.2.2 (10/29/09) was used as a Tier 1 model for screening level assessments of pesticides. The model provides estimates of exposure to terrestrial plants from single pesticide applications; the model does not consider exposures to plants from mu ltiple pesticide applications. TerrPlant derives pesticide EECs in runoff and in spray drift, and develops risk quotients for non

- listed and listed species of monocots and dicots inhabiting dry and semi

- aquatic areas.59

The estimated e xposure concentrati ons of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl for terrestrial plant s are presented below (Table 9 ). The most protective ground and aerial application scenarios for each use were selected, based on information from the label (see Appendix H for sample output)

.

Table 9 . Te rrestrial plant exposure concentration estimates for quizalofop

- p
- ethyl

Description Equation EEC (lb ai/A)

Ground Aerial Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard 1 app at 0.0834 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.000834 0.000834

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.00834 0.00834 Spray drift A*D 0.000834 0.00417 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.001668 0.005004

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.009174 0.01251
Except New York Barley, wheat 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.000695 0.000695

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.00695 0.00695 Spray drift A*D 0.000695 0.003475 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00139 0.00417
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.007645 0.010425
Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers, field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant) , sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) , dry beans, dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas), mint (peppermint and spearmint), sugar

beet 1 app at 0.0834 Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.000834 0.000834
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.00834 0.00834 Spray drift A*D 0.000834 0.00417 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.001668 0.005004

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.009174 0.01251

Cotton 1 app at 0.034 Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00034 0.00034
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0034 0.003460 Description Equation EEC (lb ai/A)

Ground Aerial Spray drift A*D 0.00034 0.0017 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00068 0.00204
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.00374 0.0051

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow

1 app at 0.0834 Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.000834 0.000834

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.00834 0.00834 Spray drift A*D 0.000834 0.00417 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.001668 0.005004
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.009174 0.01251
Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.000695 0.000695

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.00695 0.00695 Spray drift A*D 0.000695 0.003475

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00139 0.00417
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.007645 0.010425

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) 1 app at 0.111 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00111 0.00111
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0111 0.0111 Spray drift A*D 0.00111 0.00555 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00222 0.00666
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.01221 0.01665

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple

1 app at 0.208 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00208 0.00208
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0208 0.0208 Spray drift A*D 0.00208 0.0104 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00416 0.01248
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.02288 0.0312
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks)61 Description Equation EEC (lb ai/A)

Ground Aerial 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00108 0.00108

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0108 0.0108 Spray drift A*D 0.00108 0.0054 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00216 0.00648

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.01188 0.0162
Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.000695 0.000695

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.00695 0.00695 Spray drift A*D 0.000695 0.003475 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00139 0.00417

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.007645 0.010425 A = application rate I = incorporation
R = runoff fraction
D = drift fractionChapter 3 Effects Characterization

62 

# Effects Characterization

There are two enantiomers for quizalofop. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is the R

- enantiomer and the isomer with pesticidal properties. Quizalofop

- ethyl is a 50/50 racemic mixture of R

- and S

enantiomers. Toxicity information has been submitted for both enantiomers. Given that the toxicity of quizalofop

- ethyl is driven by the R

- enantiomer in the mixture, the lowest toxicity endpoint for an organism was used in the assessment, regardless of the chemical tested (quizalofop

- p

- ethyl or quizalofop

- ethyl).

Many quizalofop

- p

- ethyl toxicity studies were submitted by the registrant since the Registration Review Quizalofop Final Work Plan (US EPA, 2008) and have been incorpo rated into the chemical’s toxicity profile. Of particular note are the studies that were requested in the DCI: vegetative vigor, seedling emergence, non

- vascular aquatic plant, and a special aquatic monocot study with rice. The aquatic monocot and non

- v ascular plant studies were classified as “acceptable” and filled data gaps in the ecotoxicological risk picture. Several seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies were submitted and classified as “supplemental” or “acceptable.” Combined, they compl ete the risk picture for terrestrial plants.

No additional information was available from the open literature. The toxicity endpoints of the registrant

- submitted studies were lower than those found in the open literature and there were not any open lit erature studies that addressed taxa not currently considered with the Agency

- required data. A list of the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl open literature studies that were screened as part of this assessment is provided in Appendix D

.

One data gap remains for quizalo fop

- p

- ethyl

– acute toxicity to estuarine/marine fish. In addition, there are several instances where the lowest toxicity endpoint is non

- definitive (acute and chronic avian toxicity, and algal toxicity). In these instances, surrogate data from

the struc turally

- similar chemicals fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl were considered. Finally, an acute

- to

- chronic ratio was employed to derive a chronic NOAEC for the most sensitive (on an acute

- basis) species of freshwater fish. A summary of the quizalofo p studies and surrogate data used in this risk assessment are described below.



### Terrestrial Vertebrate Toxicology

Effects on Birds There was one acute avian oral toxicity study with quizalofop

- ethyl (MRID 00128210). The study was classified as “supplement al” because it tested the common quail in lieu of the bobwhite quail and there was uncertainty about the weight

- measured doses received by the
birds. The acute oral LD 50 of quizalofop

- ethyl was reported as >2000 mg/kg

- bw in the mallard duck and common qua il. The toxicity value is non

- definitive and was compared toChapter 3 Effects Characterization

63 toxicity values for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl, two herbicides with similar chemical structures to quizalofop. The reported LD 50 s for these chemicals were similar to quizalofop

- eth yl (LD 50 > 2000 and 2510 mg ai/kg

- bw, fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

ethyl, respectively). Sublethal effects included a decrease in food consumption and body weight. A passerine bird study was not available; thus the most sensitive mallard duck and common quail toxicity data will be used instead (Table 10).

Two dietary studies were available for quizalofop

- ethyl. MRID 00128211 determined the

LC 50 to be > 5000 mg ai/kg

- diet for both the bobwhite quail and mallard duck. Decreases in food consumption and weight loss were observed. Similarly, MRID 00147574 studied the bobwhite quail and yielded an LC 50 of > 5620 mg ai/kg

- diet. Weight loss was observed. Together, the acute oral dose and dietary studies indicate that quizalofop is practically non

tox ic on an acute basis to birds (Table 10)

.

There were two avian chronic studies available. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl was found to be more toxic to the mallard duck (NOAEC < 269 mg ai/kg

- diet) compared to the bobwhite quail (NOAEC = 1030 mg ai/kg

- diet). The ma llard duck’s NOAEC is based on the proportion of eggs set. No adult parameters were affected; however a reduction in hatchability (31%), percent of eggs laid and set, and 14

- day old survivors was noted in the 1030 mg ai/kg

- diet treatment group. Hatchling weight also decreased by 5% at this treatment level. No sublethal effects were observed in the bobwhite quail study. Both studies were classified as “supplemental” because they did not verify the frozen storage stability of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

feed mixtu res that had been prepared in advance, frozen, and then thawed for use. In addition, the non

- definitive (less than) value of the mallard’s toxicity endpoint lends uncertainty to estimating the true toxicity of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. To decrease this

uncerta inty, the mallard NOAEC s for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl, two structurally

- similar herbicides to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, were examined. Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl yielded a NOAEC o f 512 mg ai/kg

- diet whereas the NOAEC for fenoxaprop

- ethyl was 180 mg ai/kg

- diet. Both of these values are similar to the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl NOAEC; it was determined that using the fenoxaprop

- ethyl NOAEC of 180 mg ai/kg

- diet would be a
conservative definitive number to use in the risk assessment (Table 10)

.

Effects on Mammals An acute oral mammal toxicity study yielded LD 50 s of 870 and 1088 mg ai/kg

- bw for female and male rats, respectively (MRID 41206105). Quizalofop

- ethyl was assigned a toxicity class of “slightly toxic”, based on these data. No sublethal effects were repor ted (Table 10)

.

A two

- generation rat reproduction study yielded a NOAEC of 5 mg ai/kg

- bw and a LOAEC of 20 mg ai/kg

- bw. At 20 mg ai/kg

- bw, there was a reduction in live pup births for both the

F 1 and F 2 generations. Clinical observations of the offspr ing revealed an increase in theChapter 3 Effects Characterization

64 incidence of hematomas, but it was not a dose

- responsive effect. Decreases in pup body weight were also observed at the LOAEC. Specifically, there were decreases in the weight

of the liver, kidney, heart, and spleen (Table 10)

.

Table 10 . Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluate risk for birds and mammal assessment endpoints

Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity and Effect(s) Chemical /
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and Reproduction of Birds, Reptiles and Amphibians Mortality: acute oral

avian LD 50 Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos )

Common quail ( Coturnix

coturnix ) LD 50 > 2000 mg ai /kg

- bw

NOAEL < 500 mg ai/kg

- bw

Decrease in food consumption and weight gain. Quizalofop

- ethyl technical grade, % purity not reported

MRID 00128210

Supplemental
Mortality: subacute
avian LC 50 Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos )

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) 8

- day LC 50 > 5,000 mg ai/kg

- diet

Decrease in food consumption and weight gain. Quizalofop

- ethyl technical grade, % purity not reported

MRID 00128211

Acceptable
Mortality: subacute
avian LC 50 Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) 8

- day LC 50 > 5620 mg ai/kg

- diet

NOAEC = 3160 mg ai/kg

- diet

Decrease in weight gain. Quizalofop

- ethyl technical grade,
99% ai

MRID 00147574

Acceptable
Reproduction:

chronic reproduction

NOAEC Mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) NOAEC = <269 mg ai/kg

- diet

LOAEC = 269 mg ai/kg

- diet

The most sensitive parameter was a reduction in the proportion of eggs set.

Other effects included a reduction in hatchability , percent of eggs laid and set, 14

- day old survivors, and weight in the 1030 mg ai/kg

- diet groups. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl technical grade,
98.4%

MRID 46607102

Supplemental

Reproduction:

chronic reproduction

NOAEC Bobwhite quail

( Colinus virginianus ) NOAEC = 1030 mg ai/kg

- diet

LOAEC = >1030 mg ai/kg

- diet

No effects. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl technical grade
98.4% ai

MRID 4660701

SupplementalChapter 3 Effects Characterization

65 Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity and Effect(s) Chemical /
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and Reproduction of

Mammals Mortality: acute oral

LD 50 Rat ( Rattus

norvegicus) Female LD 50 = 870 mg ai/kg

- bw

Male LD 50 = 1088 mg ai/kg

- bw

Unsteady gait, loss of righting reflex, piloerection, coma, hypothermia, respiratory stress, and urinary incontinence appeared after

1

- hour of dosing. Quizalofop

- ethyl technical grade, 97

%

MRID 41206105

Acceptable
Reproduction:

chronic reproduction

NOAEC Rat ( Rattus

norvegicus) NOAEC = 100 mg/kg

- diet (5 mg/kg

- bw )

(2 generation reproduction study)

LOAEC = 400 mg/kg

- diet (20 mg/kg

- bw)

Decreases in male and female pup body weight and reduced number of live pup births in F 1 and F 2 generations. Quizalofop

- ethyl technical grade,
99.1%

MRID 00153351

Acceptable



### Terrestrial Invertebrate Toxicology

There was on e acute contact toxicity study available for the honeybee (Table 11) . The LD 50 was > 50 μg ai/bee, which classifies quizalofop

- ethyl as “practically non

- toxic” to bees. No

sublethal effects were observed an d there were two mortalities (one in the lowest dose group and one in the highest dose group), that were considered incidental. The study was classified as “supplemental” because raw data were n ot included with the submission to verify the study’s results

.

Table 1 1 . Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluate risk for honey bees

Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity, and Effect(s) (μg ai/bee) Chemical /
Source /

Acute Contact Toxicity Mortality: acute

contact LD 50 Honey Bee

( Apis mellifera ) LD 50 > 50

No effects. Quizalofop

- ethyl technical grade,
99.1%

MRID 00150942

SupplementalChapter 3 Effects Characterization

66 

### Aquatic Vertebrate (Fish) Toxicology

Effects to Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians Data from seven studies are available for acute effects of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and quizalofop

ethyl to warm and cold water species of freshwater fish. The most sensitive endpoint (LC 50 = 0.21 mg ai/L (MRID 47408 413) was derived from a rainbow trout study that used a quizalofop

- p

- ethyl typical end

- use product. Endpoints from aquatic studies that use a typical

end

- use product are not used for risk quotient calculations ; therefore, MRID 47408402 was

used instead wi th its LC 50 of 0.72 mg ai/L for the rainbow trout. Sub

- lethal effects ( e.g. , quiescence, sounding, weak, ceased swimming, loss of balance, dark discoloration and irregular respiration) were documented. Based on this toxicity value, quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is classified as “highly toxic” on an acute basis to freshwater fish. In addition to the two rainbow trout studies already described, there were three other studies performed with rainbow trout, which yielded toxicity endpoints that were higher (quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

– MRID 47408405; quizalofop

- ethyl

– MRIDs 00128207, 00146680). Two bluegill sunfish studies were available (MRIDs 00128207, 00128208), both conducted with quizalofop

- ethyl. Toxicity values ranged from < 0.46 to < 0.28 mg ai/L (Table 12).

Chronic data were available from an early

- life stage study with the fathead minnow (MRID 00150109). The most sensitive endpoints were length and wet weight. Length was reduced by 10% at the LOAEC (0.030 mg ai/L) and weight by 18%. Larval survival was affected a t the highest dose level (0.157 mg ai/L). Chronic data were not available for the rainbow trout, the most sensitive acute toxicity species. In these circumstances, an acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) is calculated using the relationship between the acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for a pair of species. In the case of quizalofop, chronic data were only available for the fathead minnow and there was not an acute study available for this species. Instead, freshwater fish data for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, a str ucturally similar chemical, were considered to derive a NOAEC for the rainbow trout with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. In general, the fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl acute toxicity data for rainbow trout was slightly more sensitive than that for quizalofop (quizalofop

- p

- ethyl LC 50 = 0.72 mg ai/L compared with fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

LC 50 = 0.46 mg ai/L). Thus the use of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl data to derive the ACR was considered reasonable and protective. The chronic quizalofop

- p

- ethyl NOAEC was derived
as follows:

LC 50(fenox. fathead) = LC 50 (quiz. trout) = 0.466 = 0.72 = 0.068 = NOAEC (quiz. trout) NOAEC (fenox. fathead) NOAEC (quiz. trout) 0.044 X

However, when the ACR

- derived NOAEC for rainbow trout was compared with the NOAEC from the quizalofop fathead minnow study, it was found to be more sensitive (0.010 mg ai/L). Consequently, the fathead minnow NOAEC was used in the risk assessment for risk quotient calculations.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

67 Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Fish

There were no estuarine/marine fish acute tox icity data available for quizalofop. To fill the data gap, toxicity information from fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl (two structurally similar chemicals) were examined. Neither chemical had an appropriate set of acute and chronic toxicity informa tion for estuarine/marine fish that could be used to derive an ACR. Fenoxaprop

- ethyl was the only chemical with an acute estuarine/marine value. Its

LC 50 was less toxic than the most sensitive value for freshwater fish. It was assumed that this

same tox icity relationship would hold true for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl; thus it was considered protective and appropriate to use the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl acute toxicity value for rainbow trout as a surrogate for an estuarine/marine fish LC 50 (Table 12)

.

One study is ava ilable for the chronic effects of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl to estuarine/marine fish (MRID 47910503). The endpoints are based on effects to larval survival and hatchability.

No treatment

- related effects were detected for time to hatch, but larval survival was a ffected

in the 0.167 mg ai/L treatment group. The study was classified as “supplemental” because the solvent appeared to promote growth in fish. The hatchability and survival endpoints were not affected by the solvent, thus only these endpoints are consi dered valid for consideration in the risk assessment. The effect of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl on the growth of estuarine/marine fish remains uncertain, although based on the results of the chronic freshwater fish study, a decrease in growth could be expected (Ta ble 12)

.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

68 Table 1 2 . Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluate risk for fish and amphibian assessment endpoints

Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity,

and Effect(s) (mg ai/L) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and reproduction of
freshwater fish Acute mortality:

most se nsitive acute
freshwater fish 96

- hour LC 50 Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 96

- hour LC 50 = 0.72

Quiescence, sounding, weakness, swimming cessation, loss of balance, dark discoloration, and irregular respiration. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

MRID 47408402

Acceptable

Chronic Early Life Stage:
most sensitive

NOAEC Fathead minnow

( Pimphales promelas ) NOAEC = 0.010

LOAEC = 0.030

Decreased length and weigh t
, and larval mortality. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

MRID 00150109

Acceptable

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Acute

- to

- Chronic Ratio

NOAEC = 0.068 Fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl

MRIDs 48417901,

48492501

Survival and reproduction of
estuarine/marine
fish Acute mortality:

most sensitiv e acute
estuarine/marine
fish 96

- hour LC 50 N/A

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) data used
instead 48

- hour LC 50 = 0.72 Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

MRID 47408402

Acceptable

Chronic Early Life Stage: most
sensitive NOAEC Sheepshead

minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) NOAEC = 0.083

Survival, decreased larval size, and larval lethargy Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

MRID 47910503

Supplemental



### Aquatic Invertebrate Toxicology

Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates Information is available for four acute toxicity studies conducted using D. magna

– two with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and two with quizalofop

- ethyl. The lowest toxicity endpoint was generated by MRID 47408410. The EC 50 was 0.35 mg ai/L, and suble thal effects (slow swimming and lying on the bottom of the test vessel) were observed at the 0.28 and 0.51 mg ai/L treatment levels. The study was classified as “supplemental” because it did not provide

measured concentrations for all of the treatment sol utions; however, the toxicity values are considered reliable because the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl recovery concentrations in the chambers that were tested were within acceptable limits (86% to 113%). The two studies withChapter 3 Effects Characterization

69 quizalofop

- ethyl (MRIDs 00128109, 001469 51) were classified as “supplemental” because precipitate was observed in the test solutions. Measured samples were not centrifuged before quantitation, thus there is uncertainty surrounding the EC 50 values (2.12 and 6.4 mg ai/L). Finally, MRID 47408407 was classified as “acceptable,” but yielded a much less toxic value (EC 50 = 51.9 mg ai/L). Sublethal effects were confined to one daphnid floating in the 11.8 and 22.9 mg ai/L treatment groups. Together, these studies classify quizalofop as “ slightly

tox ic to highly toxic ” (Table 13)

.

Two chronic freshwater invertebrate studies were available for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. Both studies were scientifically sound, but classified as “supplemental” because they did not measure certain chronic endpoints (MRID 47408 409

– growth; MRID 47910501

– growth, time to first brood, and offspring immobility). Consequently, it is possible that one of these endpoints (growth, in particular, since neither study measured it) could be the most sensitive endpoint. Both studies fou nd that parental survival was the most sensitive endpoint. Effects were also noted in the number of offspring per adult; there was a 34% reduction in offspring

at 72

- 74 mg ai/L (Table 13)

.

Effects to Estuarine

- Marine Invertebrates

Three studies examined the acute effects of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (MRID 40242204) and quizalofop

- ethyl (MRIDs 40242205, 40242207) on estuarine/marine invertebrates. All of the studies were classified as “supplemental”

– the two shrimp studies because of uncertainty regarding the r ate of hydrolysis of the test compound and the oyster study because of observations of precipitate in the diluter chamber. The LC 50 s from the studies produced a tight range of 0.15 to 0.25 mg ai/L. The most sensitive endpoint for these studies was

mortali ty; sublethal effects were not observed for either the shrimp or the oyster . All three studies classify quizalofop as “highly toxic” to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis (Table 13)

.

Estuarine/marine invertebrate chronic toxicity data were not available. A toxicity value can be estimated based on the assumption that the acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) for freshwater invertebrates applies to estuarine/marine invertebrates also. Thus, the following equation

w as used to estimate a NOAEC for mys id shrimp, the most sensitive estuarine/marine species

on an acute basis (Table 13)

.

LC 50(mysid) = EC 50 (waterflea) = 0.15 = 0.35 = 0.34 = NOAEC (mysid) NOAEC (mysid) NOAEC (waterflea) X 0.787Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

70 Table 13

. Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluate risk for aquatic invertebrate assessment endpoints

Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity,

and Effect(s) (mg ai/L) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and reproduction of
freshwater
invertebrates Acute mortality:

most sensitive acute
freshwater
invertebrate 48

- hour

EC 50 Water flea ( D.

magna ) 48

- hour EC 50 = 0.35

Slow swimming, lying on the bottom of
the test chamber Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, technical grade,
5.07%

MRID 47408410

Supplemental

Chronic effects:
most sensitive

NOAEC Water flea ( D.

magna ) NOAEC = 26.6

Parental mortality Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, technical grade,

96.9%

MRID 4740809

Supplemental

Survival and reproduction of
estuarine/marine
invertebrates Acute mortality:

most sensitive
estuari ne/marine
invertebrate 96

- hour

E C 50 Mysid shrimp

( Americamysis
bahia ) EC 50 = 0.15

Mortality Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, technical grade,
99.1%

MRID 40242204

Supplemental
Acute growth: most
sensitive
estuarine/marine
invertebrate 96

- hour

EC 50 Eastern oyster

( Crassostrea virginianus ) EC 50 = 0.19*

Shell growth Quizalofop

- ethyl, technical grade,
99.1%

MRID 40242207

Supplemental

Chronic effects:
most sensitive

NOAEC Mysid shrimp

( Americamysis
bahia ) Acute

- to

- Chronic Ratio

NOAEC = 0.34 Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, technical grade, 5.07

- 99.1%.

MRIDs 47408410, 40242204, 4740809

Supplemental

*U sed in the Risk Description section of the assessment.



### Terrestrial Plant Toxicology
Several plant studies were available for quizalofop typical end

- use products (quizalofop

- p

ethyl

– MRIDs 48038101, 47910505 , 48038102 ; quizalofop

- ethyl

– MRIDs 47408411, 47408412); only the most sensitive endp oints are presented in Table 14 . MRID 47910505Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

71 yielded the most sensitive vegetative vigor endpoints. Wheat was the most sensitive monocot, based on dry weight. Similarly, dry weight was the most sensi tive parameter in

dicots (cucumber). Plant height was also af fected in both the cucumber and wheat. Signs of phytotoxicity included: necrosis, chlorosis, and leaf curl.

For seedling emergence, MRID 4708411 presented the lowest monocot endpoints. Fresh weight in corn (23

- 78% reduction) and oat (3

- 35%) was the m ost sensitive parameter. Seedling inhibition and survival ranged from

- 3 to 12% in treated plants compared to the controls. Some phytotoxic effects were also observed (chlorosis, necrosis, and growth reduction). The study was classified as “supplemental ” because it only tested three monocot species whereas the guidelines require data on four species.

MRID 4708411 also presented the most sensitive toxicity data for dicot seedling emergence; however, the values were non

- definitive. Given that no effects were observed in the species tested, the other seedling emergence study (MRID 48038101) was considered. This study tested higher concentrations of quizalofop; however, it also reached a non

- definitive EC 25 and based its NOAEC on the highest concentration tested. The study was classified supplemental in part because only four species of dicots were tested instead of six (including soybean, which is a required species). Given that no effects were seen and that quizalofop is an herbicide that targets monoco ts, the less sensitive toxicity values will be used in the risk assessment as it is believed that they more accurately reflect the true toxicity of quizalofop

on dicots.Chapter 3 Effects Characterization

72 Table 14

. Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to evaluat e risk

f or terrestrial plant assessment endpoints

Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity,

and Effect(s) (lb ai/A) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Effects to terrestrial plants Vegetative vigor:

dicot EC 25 and

NOAEC Cucumber

( Cucumis sativa ) EC 25 = 0.0931

NOAEC = 0.0477

Dry weight. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl typical end

- use product, 10.13%

MRID 47910505

Acceptable
Vegetative vigor:

monocot EC 25 and

NOAEC Wheat ( Triticum

aestivum ) EC 25 = 0.00146

NOAEC = 0.000791

Dry weight. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl typical end

- use product, 10.13%

MRID 47910505

Acceptable

Effects to terrestrial plants Seedling

emergence: dicot

EC 25 and NOAEC Cabbage ( Brassica

oleracea ), carrot ( Daucus carota ),
cucumber ( Cucumis sativa ), soybean ( Glycine

max ), sunflower ( Helianthus

annuus ), cotton ( Gossypium
hirsutum ), and flax ( Linum

usitatissimum ) EC 25 > 0.086

NOAEC = 0.086

None. Quizalofop

- ethyl typical end

- use product, 5.07%

MRID 47408411

Supplemental

Seedling emergence: dicot

EC 25 and NOAEC Cabbage ( Brassica

oleracea ),
sunflower ( Helianthus

annuus ), carrot ( Daucus carota ),
cucumber ( Cucumis sativa ) EC 25 > 0.127

NOAEC = 0.127 Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl typical end

- use product, 5%

MRID 48038101

Supplemental

Seedling

emergence: monocot EC 25 and

NOAEC Corn ( Zea mays ) EC 25 = 0.019

NOAEC = 0.0096

Fresh weight Quizalofop

- ethyl typical end

- use product, 5.07%

MRID 47408411

SupplementalChapter 3 Effects Characterization

73 

### Aquatic Plant Toxicology

Aquatic plant toxicity data (Table 15 ) are available for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl from five studies (gree n algae

– 2; freshwater diatom

– 1; blue

- green algae

– 1; and estuarine/marine diatom

– 1). A limit test (Tier 1) with a freshwater diatom showed 3.66% inhibition at 0.098 mg ai/L (MRID 43270901). F our T ier 2 studies were available for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, given that it is

an herbicide. Three of the se studies yielded non

- definitive (greater than) toxicity values; the

EC 50 s ranged from > 0.082 to > 1.09 mg ai/L (MRIDs 48041401, 43235602, 43270902). No
effects were documented in these studies and it was believed that the non

- definitive values
were much more conservative than a definitive value would be. To justify the use of a less sensitive endpoi nt, non

- vascular plant studies from two structurally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl) were considered. These chemicals showed a

similar trend

– non

- definit ive toxicity values at low test concentrations and definitive

numbers at higher test concentrations . In addition, the fenoxaprop toxicity values were within the same order of magnitude as the quizalofop values. The European Footprint

database 5 reported a toxicity value (EC 50 = 23 μg ai/L) that was lower than the most sensitiv e definitive toxicity value for algae (4100 μg ai/L). This value could not be used in this risk assessment because the Agency did not have access to the original study for an independent evaluation. Although substantially lower, the 23 μg ai/L does not r esult in a risk quotient

above the LOC for non

- vascular plants. Thus, it was determined that using the definitive quizalofop

- p

- ethyl toxicity value was a reasonable approach

.

The most sensitive definitive quizalofop

- p

- ethyl value was from a green algae study. The

EC 50 of 41 mg ai/L was based on a reduction in cell density. Biomass and growth rate were also affected. The study was classified as “supplemental” because the duration of the study was 72 hours (per OECD guidelines). A 96

- hour value would likely be only slightly more
sensitive than a 72 hour EC 50 (MRID 48037501).

Two studies with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl were available for non

- vascular plants. A special study (MRID 48356801) on a monocot aquatic plant (rice) was requested because quizalofop

- p

ethyl is an herbicide that primarily targets monocots. This study yielded the most sensitive

EC 50 of 34.5 μg ai/L for dry weight. Number of leaves per plant, number of tillers per plant, and plant height also were affected (EC 50 s = 41, 58, a nd 66 μg ai/L, respectively). Other effects included chlorosis, necrosis, leaf curl, and mortality. A duckweed study (MRID 48037504) was also available, but was considered incomplete because of a solvent effect in frond development and frond growth rate; these endpoints were not useable. In this study, frond biomass was the most sensitive parameter (consistent with the rice study); however, the

EC 50 was much higher (>658 μg ai/L). The greater sensitivity of aquatic monocots to quizalofop compared to dic ots parallels the pattern seen in terrestrial plants (Table 15 ).

5 http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htmChapter 3 Effects Characterization

74 Table 15

. Summary of specific measurement endpoint values selected to calculate risk quotient values to evaluate risk for aquatic plant assessment endpoints

Assessment Endpoint Measurement

Endpoint Selected Measurement Endpoint Value and Source

Species Endpoint , Toxicity, and Effect(s) (μg ai/L) Chemical/
Source / Study
Classification

Survival and

biomass of aquatic vascular

and non

- vascular plants Non

- vascular species: the

most sensitive productivity

EC 50 Green algae ( Selenastrum capricornutum ) 72

- hour EC 50 = 41000

Cell density Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, technical grade,
95.9%

MRID 48037501

Supplemental
Vascular species: endpoints based on mortality EC 50 Rice ( Oryza

sativa ) EC 50 = 34.5

Dry weight Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, typical end

- use product, 10.4%

MRID 48356801

Acceptable75



# Results: Risk Characterization

Risk Estimation

As described in the Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Work Plan, estimates of exposure and ecotoxicity of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl are integrated using standard risk quotient (RQ) methods to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects to mammalian, avian, and other non

- target species. Risk quotient results for non

- target ter restrial and aquatic animals and plants are described in this section. Risk quotient results in this case represent expected direct effects to organisms ( i.e . effects from direct toxicity to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl exposure) in contrast to indirect effects

to an organism resulting from a modification of a resource such as loss of their prey or

habitat.

Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Vertebrates

D IRECT E FFECTS TO B IRDS , R EPTILES , AND ( LAND
- PHASE ) A MPHIBIANS Risk quotients were not calculated for acute dose

- based or acute dietary

- based risks because all of the toxicity data were non

- definitive. Risks from these potential exposure pathways ar e evaluated and discussed in the Risk Description Section.

Chronic dietary risk quotients were calculated with T

- REX for the maximum usage rates of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl for all uses (Table 16 ). Risk quotients ranged from 0.01 to 0.52; no uses yielded risk quotients that exceeded the chronic LOC of 1.

Table 16 . Upper bound chronic dietary

- based risk quotients for birds derived from T

REX Risk Quotients Based on Kenaga Upper

Bound EEC Chronic Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard All states, food item: sugar beets 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)
Short grass 0.21 Tall grass 0.10 Broadleaf plants 0.12 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.08 Except New York Barley, wheat76

Risk Quotients Based on Kenaga Upper

Bound EEC Chronic Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients

1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Short grass 0.09 Tall grass 0.04 Broadleaf plants 0.05 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.04

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.15 Tall grass 0.07

Broadleaf plants 0.09 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.06

Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant)

1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A Short grass 0.11 Tall grass 0.05 Broadleaf plants 0.06 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.04
Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant)

1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.17 Tall grass 0.08 Broadleaf plants 0.10 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.07

Cotton 3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.13 Tall grass 0.06

Broadleaf plants 0.08 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.05
Dry beans 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days)77

Risk Quotients Based on Kenaga Upper

Bound EEC Chronic Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients

Short grass 0.22 Tall grass 0.10 Broadleaf plants 0.12 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.09

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.11 Tall grass 0.05 Broadleaf plants 0.06 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.04

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.23 Tall grass 0.11 Broadleaf plants 0.13 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.09 Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.21 Tall grass 0.10 Broadleaf plants 0.12 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.08 Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.17 Tall grass 0.08 Broadleaf plants 0.10 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.07
Mint (spearmint and peppermint)78

Risk Quotients Based on Kenaga Upper

Bound EEC Chronic Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients

2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.23 Tall grass 0.11 Broadleaf plants 0.13 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.09

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas)

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.28 Tall grass 0.13 Broadleaf plants 0.16 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.02 Arthropods 0.11

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.52 Tall grass 0.24 Broadleaf plants 0.29 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.03 Arthropods 0.20 Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A
Short grass 0.14 Tall grass 0.07 Broadleaf plants 0.08 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.01 Arthropods 0.06 Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Short grass 0.17 Tall grass 0.08 Broadleaf plants 0.10 Fruits/pods/seeds 0.0179

Risk Quotients Based on Kenaga Upper

Bound EEC Chronic Dietary

- Based Risk Quotients

Arthropods 0.07

No scenarios e xceed ed the chronic LOC of 1.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO M AMMALS Acute Effects
Acute dose

- based risk quotients were calculated for the maximum application rates for all quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses (Table 17 ). Risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 0.05; none of the

uses produced risk quotients that exceeded the acute listed species LOC of 0.1.

Chronic Effects
Chronic dose

- based risk quotients ranged from 0.01 to 8.10 (Table 17) . All uses exceeded the LOC (1) for small and medium

- sized mammals consuming diets of short gr ass. Most
uses exceeded the LOC for large mammals and/or additional food items in the small and

medium

- sized mammal classes as well. Risk quotients for mammals consuming fruits, pods, or seeds never exceeded the LOC of 1. Chronic dietary

- based risk quot ients were also calculated. These ranged from 0.01 to 0.93; none of the uses produced risk quotients that
exceeded the LOC of 1.

Table 17. Dietary upper bound risk quotients for mammals
Risk Quotients

Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red

beets, spinach, Swiss chard All states, food item: sugar beets 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval) Short grass 0.02 3.25*** 0.02 2.77*** 0.01 1.49*** 0.37 Tall grass 0.01 1.49*** 0.01 1.27*** <0.01 0.68 0.17 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.83*** 0.01 1.56*** < 0.01 0.84 0.21 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.20 <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.09 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 1.27*** 0.01 1.09*** <0.01 0.58 0.15

Seeds <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Except New York Barley, wheat 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A80

Risk Quotients

Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Short grass 0.01 1.45*** 0.01 1.24*** <0.01 0.66 0.17 Tall grass <0.01 0.66 <0.01 0.57 <0.01 0.30 0.08 Broadleaf plants <0.01 0.81 <0.01 0.70 <0.01 0.37 0.09 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.09 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 0.04 0.01 Arthropods <0.01 0.57 <0.01 0.48 <0.01 0.26 0.07

Seeds <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.01 2.39*** 0.01 2.04*** 0.01 1.09*** 0.28 Tall grass 0.01 1.09*** 0.01 0.93 <0.01 0.50 0.13 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.34*** 0.01 1.15*** <0.01 0.61 0.15 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.15 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.07 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 0.93 <0.01 0.80 <0.01 0.43 0.11

Seeds <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02

Field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant)

1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A

Short grass 0.01 1.74*** 0.01 1.48*** <0.01 0.80 0.20 Tall grass <0.01 0.80 <0.01 0.68 <0.01 0.36 0.09 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.98 <0.01 0.83 <0.01 0.45 0.11 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 <0.01 0.05 0.01 Arthropods <0.01 0.68 <0.01 0.58 <0.01 0.31 0.08

Seeds <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 2.70*** 0.01 2.31*** 0.01 1.24*** 0.31 Tall grass 0.01 1.24*** 0.01 1.06*** <0.01 0.57 0.14 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.52*** 0.01 1.30*** <0.01 0.70 0.17 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.14 <0.01 0.08 0.02 Arthropods <0.01 1.06*** 0.01 0.90 <0.01 0.48 0.12

Seeds <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02

Cotton 3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Short grass 0.01 2.10*** 0.01 1.79*** 0.01 0.96 0.24 Tall grass 0.01 0.96 <0.01 0.82 <0.01 0.44 0.1181

Risk Quotients

Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.18*** 0.01 1.01*** <0.01 0.54 0.14 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.06 0.02 Arthropods <0.01 0.82 <0.01 0.70 <0.01 0.38 0.09

Seeds <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.02
Dry beans 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 3.45*** 0.02 2.95*** 0.01 1.58*** 0.40 Tall grass 0.01 1.58*** 0.01 1.35*** <0.01 0.72 0.18 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.94*** 0.01 1.66*** 0.01 0.89 0.22 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.22 <0.01 0.18 <0.01 0.10 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 1.35*** 0.01 1.16*** <0.01 0.62 0.16

Seeds <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.01 1.74*** 0.01 1.48*** <0.01 0.80 0.20 Tall grass <0.01 0.80 <0.01 0.68 <0.01 0.36 0.09 Broadleaf plants 0.01 0.98 <0.01 0.83 <0.01 0.45 0.11 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 <0.01 0.05 0.01 Arthropods <0.01 0.68 < 0.01 0.58 <0.01 0.31 0.08

Seeds <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 3.66*** 0.02 3.13*** 0.01 1.68*** 0.42 Tall grass 0.01 1.68*** 0.01 1.43*** <0.01 0.77 0.19 Broadleaf plants 0.01 2.06*** 0.01 1.76*** 0.01 0.94 0.24 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.20 <0.01 0.10 0.03 Arthropods 0.01 1.43*** 0.01 1.22*** <0.01 0.66 0.17

Seeds <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.03
Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 3.25*** 0.02 2.77*** 0.01 1.49*** 0.37 Tall grass 0.01 1.49*** 0.01 1.27*** <0.01 0.68 0.17 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.83*** 0.01 1.56*** <0.01 0.84 0.2182

Risk Quotients

Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Fruits/pods <0.01 0.20 < 0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.09 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 1.27*** 0.01 1.09*** <0.01 0.58 0.15

Seeds <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 2.71*** 0.01 2.31*** 0.01 1.24*** 0.31 Tall grass 0.01 1.24*** 0.01 1.06*** <0.01 0.57 0.14 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.52*** 0.01 1.30*** <0.01 0.70 0.18 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.14 <0.01 0.08 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 1.06*** 0.01 0.91 <0.01 0.49 0.12

Seeds <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02
Mint (spearmint and peppermint) 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 3.66*** 0.02 3.13*** 0.01 1.68*** 0.42 Tall grass 0.01 1.68*** 0.01 1.43*** <0.01 0.77 0.19 Broadleaf plants 0.01 2.06*** 0.01 1.76*** 0.01 0.94 0.24 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.20 <0.01 0.10 0.03 Arthropods 0.01 1.43*** 0.01 1.22*** <0.01 0.66 0.17

Seeds <0.01 0.05 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.03

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas)

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 4.32*** 0.02 3.69*** 0.01 1.98*** 0.50 Tall grass 0.01 1.98*** 0.01 1.69*** 0.01 0.91 0.23 Broadleaf plants 0.01 2.43*** 0.01 2.08*** 0.01 1.11*** 0.28 Fruits/pods 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.03 Arthropods 0.01 1.69*** 0.01 1.45*** 0.00 0.78 0.20

Seeds 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.03
Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.05 8.10*** 0.04 6.92*** 0.02 3.71*** 0.93 Tall grass 0.02 3.71*** 0.02 3.17*** 0.01 1.70*** 0.4383

Risk Quotients

Based on Kenaga Upper Bound EEC Dose

- Based RQs Chronic Dietary

Based RQs 15 g 35 g 1000 g

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

Broadleaf plants 0.03 4.56*** 0.02 3.89*** 0.01 2.09*** 0.53 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.51 <0.01 0.43 <0.01 0.23 0.06 Arthropods 0.02 3.17*** 0.02 2.71*** 0.01 1.45*** 0.37

Seeds <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.10 <0.01 0.05 0.06
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A Short grass 0.01 2.25*** 0.01 1.92*** 0.01 1.03*** 0.26 Tall grass 0.01 1.03*** 0.01 0.88 <0.01 0.47 0.12 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.26*** 0.01 1.08*** <0.01 0.58 0.15 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.14 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 0.06 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 0.88 <0.01 0.75 <0.01 0.40 0.10

Seeds <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.01 0.02
Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed

2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short grass 0.02 2.71*** 0.01 2.31*** 0.01 1.24*** 0.31 Tall grass 0.01 1.24*** 0.01 1.06*** <0.01 0.57 0.14 Broadleaf plants 0.01 1.52*** 0.01 1.30*** <0.01 0.70 0.18 Fruits/pods <0.01 0.17 <0.01 0.14 <0.01 0.08 0.02 Arthropods 0.01 1.06*** 0.01 0.91 <0.01 0.49 0.12

Seeds <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02

Bold text indicates an LOC was exceeded. * Exceeds the acute listed species LOC of 0.1
**Exceeds the acute non

- listed species LOC of 0.5
***Exceeds the chronic LOC of 1

Direct Effects to Non

- Target Terrestrial Invertebrates Only non

- definitive honeybee toxicity data were available for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. Risk quotients cannot be calculated from non

- definitive values. A qualitative description of the

risk is a vailable in the Risk Description Section of this document.

Direct Effects to Terrestrial and Wetland/Riparian Plants TerrPlant was used to model potential runoff and spray drift effects from the different quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses (Table 18 ). The maximum application rate for each crop was used to calculate risk quotients for semi

- aquatic and upland terrestrial plants . Insufficient data were84

available to calculate risk quotients for non

- listed monocots; thus this group is discussed in the Risk Description Section.

Monocots were more sensitive than dicots. Ground application risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 1.42 while aerial application risk quotients ranged from 0.11 to 13.15. All ground and aerial spray drift scenarios exceeded the LOC (1) for list ed and non

- listed monocots. Application rates of 0.0695 lb ai/A and higher yielded risk quotients that exceeded the LOCs in additional scenarios. Dicots did not exceed the LOC of 1 for any scenario. For ground applications, risk quotients ranged from < 0.01 to 0.18. For aerial applications, risk quotients ranged from 0.01 to 0.25.

Table 18 . Summary of risk quotient values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to quizalofop

- p
- ethyl th rough runoff and spray drift

Plant Type Listed

Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard 1 app at 0.0834 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.26 0.48 0.66 0.57 2.86*

Monocot listed 0.17 0.52 0.96 1.30* 1.05* 5.27*

Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Except New York Barley, wheat 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.22 0.40 0.55 0.48 2.38*

Monocot listed 0.14 0.43 0.80 1.09* 0.88 4.39*

Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers, field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant) , sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) , dry beans, dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas), mint (spearmint and peppermint), sugar

beet 1 app at 0.0834

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.26 0.48 0.66 0.57 2.86*

Monocot listed 0.17 0.52 0.96 1.30* 1.05* 5.27*
Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.185

Plant Type Listed

Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial

Cotton 1 app at 0.034

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.11 0.20 0.27 0.23 1.16*

Monocot listed <0.1 0.21 0.39 0.53 0.43 2.15*
Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

Fallow 1 app at 0.0834

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.26 0.48 0.66 0.57 2.86*

Monocot listed 0.17 0.52 0.96 1.30* 1.05* 5.27*

Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.22 0.40 0.55 0.48 2.38*

Monocot listed 0.14 0.43 0.80 1.09* 0.88 4.39*

Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) 1 app at 0.111 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed 0.12 0.35 0.64 0.88 0.76 3.80*

Monocot listed 0.23 0.69 1.27* 1.73* 1.40* 7.02*
Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 <0.1

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple

1 app at 0.208 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed 0.22 0.66 1.20* 1.64* 1.42* 7.12*

Monocot listed 0.43 1.30* 2.38* 3.25* 2.63* 13.15*

Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 0.11
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 0.18 0.25 <0.1 < 0.1

Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A86

Plant Type Listed

Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial

Monocot non

- listed 0.11 0.34 0.63 0.85 0.74 3.70*

Monocot listed 0.23 0.68 1.24* 1.69* 1.37* 6.83*
Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.13 <0.1 <0.1
Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A

Monocot non

- listed <0.1 0.22 0.40 0.55 0.48 2.38*

Monocot listed 0.14 0.43 0.80 1.09* 0.88 4.39*

Dicot non

- listed N/A N/A N/A N/A <0.1 <0.1
Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

N/A

– RQ could not be calculated because of a non

- definitive EC 25 Bold text indicates an LOC was exceeded.
*Exceeds LOC of 1.

Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish (Amphibians), Invertebrates and Estuarine

Marine Fish (Amphibians) and Invertebrates, and Aquatic Plants Risk quotients for aquatic organisms are calculated using aquatic EECs derived as described in the exposure analysis using PRZM/EXAMS in conjunction with selected acute and chronic fish, aquatic invertebrate, and aquatic plant toxicity v alues. The calculated risk quotients are based on total toxic residue exposure from the parent quizalofop

- p

- ethyl and its major degradates ( quizalofop acid and 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid) for the aquatic environment

.

Freshwater Fish and Aquatic

- Phase Amphibian s

– Acute Risk For freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic

- phase amphibians), acute risk quotients ranged from 0.001 to 0.028 and did not exceed the listed species acute LOC of 0.05 for any registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses (Table 19 ).

Freshwater Fish an d Aquatic

- Phase Amphibians

– Chronic Risk For freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic

- phase amphibians), chronic risk quotients ranged from 0.069 to 1.86. Two uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1): pineapple (ground and aerial), and paved areas (ground and ae rial). All other quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses were below the LOC of 1 (Table 19 ).

Estuarine/Marine Fish

– Acute Risk87

For estuarine/marine fish, acute risk quotients ranged from 0.001 to 0.028 and did not exceed the listed species acute LOC of 0.05 for any registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses (Table 19 ).

Estuarine/Marine Fish

– Chronic Risk For estuarine/marine fish, chr onic risk quotients ranged from 0.007 to 0.224 and did not exceed the chronic LOC of 1 (Table 19 ).

Table 19 . Acute and chronic risks from quizalofop

- p - ethyl to freshwater fish, estuarine/marine fish, and amphibians

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

Alfalfa (MN alfalfa OP) A

G 0.005

0.003 0.303

0.223 0.005

0.003 0.037

0.027

Carrot (CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.273

0.217 0.004

0.003 0.033

0.026 Chinese cabbage (CA Cole Crop RLF ) A

G 0.009

0.008 0.614

0.563 0.009

0.008 0.074

0.068

Garlic (CA Garlic RLF ) A

G 0.004

0.004 0.298

0.233 0.004

0.004 0.036

0.028

Onion and Radish ( CA onion W / irrig

STD ) A

G 0.003

0.002 0.171

0.106 0.003

0.002 0.021

0.013

Red beets (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.273

0.217 0.004

0.003 0.033

0.026 Spinach (CA lettuce STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 0.455

0.393 0.007

0.006 0.055

0.047

Swiss chard (CA lettuce STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 0.455

0.393 0.007

0.006 0.055

0.047
All states, food item 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)88

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L
S ugar beets ( CA sugar beet W / irrig

OP ) A

G 0.002

0.001 0.165

0.092 0.002

0.001 0.020

0.011

S ugar beets (MN sugar beet STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 0.459

0.389 0.007

0.006 0.055

0.047
Except New York 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Barley and Wheat ( CA Wheat RLF ) A

G 0.003

0.002 0.190

0.164 0.003

0.002 0.023

0.020 Barley and Wheat ( ND wheat STD ) A

G 0.003

0.003 0.200

0.172 0.003

0.003 0.024

0.021 Barley and Wheat ( OR wheat OP ) A

G 0.002

0.002 0.137

0.108 0.002

0.002 0.017

0.013 Barley and Wheat ( TX wheat OP ) A

G 0.003

0.003 0.180

0.160 0.003

0.003 0.022

0.019
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Canola/rape ( ND canola STD ) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.238

0.179 0.004

0.003 0.029

0.022

Crambe ( CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.003

0.003 0.221

0.176 0.003

0.003 0.027

0.021

Crambe ( MI beans STD ) A

G 0.006

0.005 0.373

0.320 0.006

0.005 0.045

0.039 Soybeans ( MS soybean STD ) A

G 0.010

0.009 0.622

0.591 0.010

0.009 0.075

0.071

Sunflowers ( CA corn OP ) A

G 0.003

0.002 0.193

0.161 0.003

0.002 0.023

0.019

Sunflowers ( IL Corn STD) A

G 0.006

0.005 0.382

0.338 0.006

0.005 0.046

0.041

Sunflowers ( IN Corn Std) A

G 0.004

0.004 0.300

0.263 0.004

0.004 0.036

0.032

Sunflowers ( KS Corn Std) A

G 0.008

0.008 0.555

0.520 0.008

0.008 0.067

0.06389

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L
Sunflowers ( MS corn STD) A

G 0.008

0.007 0.525

0.492 0.008

0.007 0.063

0.059

Sunflowers ( NC corn E STD) A

G 0.003

0.003 0.229

0.181 0.003

0.003 0.028

0.022

Sunflowers ( NC corn W OP) A

G 0.006

0.006 0.437

0.394 0.006

0.006 0.053

0.047

Sunflowers ( ND corn OP) A

G 0.005

0.004 0.352

0.299 0.005

0.004 0.042

0.036

Sunflowers ( OH Corn STD) A

G 0.006

0.005 0.380

0.336 0.006

0.005 0.046

0.040

Sunflowers ( PA corn STD) A

G 0.005

0.004 0.323

0.271 0.005

0.004 0.039

0.033

Sunflowers ( TX corn OP) A

G 0.007

0.006 0.442

0.413 0.007

0.006 0.053

0.050
1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A

Field Corn ( CA corn OP ) A

G 0.002

0.002 0.127

0.105 0.002

0.002 0.015

0.013

Field Corn ( IL Corn STD) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.243

0.214 0.004

0.003 0.030

0.026

Field Corn ( IN Corn Std) A

G 0.003

0.002 0.185

0.163 0.003

0.002 0.022

0.020

Field Corn ( KS Corn Std) A

G 0.005

0.005 0.368

0.342 0.005

0.005 0.044

0.041

Field Corn ( MS corn STD) A

G 0.005

0.005 0.342

0.321 0.005

0.005 0.041

0.039

Field Corn ( NC corn E STD) A

G 0.002

0.002 0.163

0.130 0.002

0.002 0.020

0.016

Field Corn ( NC corn W OP) A

G 0.004

0.004 0.280

0.251 0.004

0.004 0.034

0.030

Field Corn ( ND corn OP) A

G 0.003

0.003 0.228

0.192 0.003

0.003 0.027

0.02390

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L
Field Corn ( OH Corn STD) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.237

0.205 0.004

0.003 0.029

0.025

Field Corn ( PA corn STD) A

G 0.003

0.003 0.201

0.169 0.003

0.003 0.024

0.020

Field Corn ( TX corn OP) A

G 0.004

0.004 0.272

0.251 0.004

0.004 0.033

0.030
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Sorghum (TXsorghumOP) A

G 0.008

0.008 0.564

0.530 0.008

0.008 0.068

0.064
3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Cotton ( CA cotton W / irrig

STD ) A

G 0.002

0.001 0.109

0.055 0.002

0.001 0.013

0.007

Cotton ( MS cotton STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 0.464

0.428 0.007

0.006 0.056

0.052

Cotton ( NC cotton STD) A

G 0.007

0.007 0.484

0.446 0.007

0.007 0.058

0.054

Cotton ( TX cotton OP) A

G 0.006

0.005 0.389

0.355 0.006

0.005 0.047

0.043
2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Dry beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.005

0.004 0.316

0.258 0.005

0.004 0.038

0.031 Dry beans (MI beans STD) A

G 0.008

0.007 0.580

0.506 0.008

0.007 0.070

0.061
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Dry and succulent peas

and lentils ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.003

0.002 0.182

0.149 0.003

0.002 0.022

0.018 Snap beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.004

0.004 0.286

0.231 0.004

0.004 0.034

0.028 Snap beans (MI beans STD) A

G 0.008

0.007 0.518

0.452 0.008

0.007 0.062

0.05491

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Fallow ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.260

0.188 0.004

0.003 0.031

0.023
2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Flax (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.273

0.217 0.004

0.003 0.033

0.026 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.273

0.217 0.004

0.003 0.033

0.026 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (MI beans STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 0.508

0.440 0.007

0.006 0.059

0.051
Maine and Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations ( PA apple STD V2 ) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.289

0.222 0.004

0.003 0.034

0.026
2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) ( CA lettuce STD ) A

G 0.008

0.007 0.566

0.500 0.008

0.007 0.066

0.058

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days)92

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) (CA right

- of

- way RLF) A

G 0.010

0.009 0.624

0.574 0.010

0.009 0.075

0.069

Non

- crop areas ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 0.004

0.003 0.291

0.206 0.004

0.003 0.035

0.025

Non

- crop areas ( FL turf STD ) A

G 0.002

0.001 0.144

0.061 0.002

0.001 0.017

0.007

Non

- crop areas (PA turf STD) A

G 0.003

0.002 0.229

0.117 0.003

0.002 0.028

0.014
Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Ornamental and/or shade trees ( CA

nursery STD ) A

G 0.006

0.004 0.425

0.251 0.006

0.004 0.050

0.029 Pineapple ( MS cotton STD ) A

G 0.03

0.02 1.82 ***

1.70 *** 0.03

0.02 0.220

0.204
1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (CA Impervious RLF) A

G 0.027

0.028 1.83***

1.86*** 0.027

0.028 0.220

0.224
Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Perennial ryegrass grown for seed (ND wheat STD) A

G 0.006

0.005 0.413

0.358 0.006

0.005 0.500

0.43193

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater
Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L 1 Freshwater Fish

Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC) NOAEC = 10 μg

ai/L 2 Estuarine /

Marine Fish Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 720 μg

ai/L Estuarine /

Marine Fish Chronic RQ (60

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC = 83 μg ai/L
Bold text indicates an LOC was exceeded. *Exceeds acute listed species LOC (0.05)

**Exceeds acute non

- listed species LOC (0.5) ***Exceeds chronic LOC (1)

RLF = red legged frog OP = organophosphate

STD = standard94

Freshwater Invertebrates

– Acute Risk For freshwater invertebrates, the acute risk quotients ranged from 0.002 to 0.057. Two uses exceeded the acute listed species LOC (0.05): pineapple (ground and aerial), and paved areas (ground and aerial). All other quizalofop

- p

- et hyl uses were below the LOC of 0.05 (Table

2 0).

Freshwater Invertebrates

– Chronic Risk For freshwater invertebrates, the chronic risk quotients were all < 0.001. None of them

e xceeded the chronic LOC (1) for any registered us e of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (Table 2 0).

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

– Acute Risk For estuarine/marine invertebrates, the acute risk quotients ranged from 0.004 to 0.133. Two

uses exceeded the acute listed s pecies LOC (0.05): pineapple (ground and aerial), and paved areas (ground and aerial). All other quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses wer e below the LOC of 0.05 (Table 2 0).

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

– Chronic Risk For estuarine/marine invertebrates, the chronic risk quotients ranged from 0.002 to 0.057. None of them exceeded the chronic LOC (1) for any registered us e of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (Table 2 0).

Table 2 0. Acute and chronic risks from quizalofop

- p - ethyl to freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

Alfalfa (MN alfalfa OP) A

G 0.009

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.022

0.016 0.009

0.007

Carrot (CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.008

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.019

0.016 0.008

0.00795

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L Chinese cabbage (CA Cole Crop RLF ) A

G 0.019

0.017 <0.001

<0.001 0.043

0.040 0.019

0.017

Garlic (CA Garlic RLF ) A

G 0.009

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.021

0.017 0.009

0.007

Onion and Radish ( CA onion W / irrig

STD ) A

G 0.005

0.003 <0.001

<0.001 0.012

0.008 0.005

0.003

Red beets (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.008

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.019

0.016 0.008

0.007 Spinach (CA lettuce STD) A

G 0.014

0.012 <0.001

<0.001 0.032

0.028 0.014

0.012

Swiss chard (CA lettuce STD) A

G 0.014

0.012 <0.001

<0.001 0.032

0.030 0.014

0.012
All states, food item 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

S ugar beets ( CA sugar beet W / irrig

OP ) A

G 0.005

0.003 <0.001

<0.001 0.012

0.007 0.005

0.003

S ugar beets (MN sugar beet STD) A

G 0.014

0.012 <0.001

<0.001 0.033

0.028 0.014

0.012
Except New York 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Barley and Wheat ( CA Wheat RLF ) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.014

0.012 0.006

0.005 Barley and Wheat ( ND wheat STD ) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.014

0.012 0.006

0.005 Barley and Wheat ( OR wheat OP ) A

G 0.004

0.004 <0.001

<0.001 0.009

0.007 0.004

0.003 Barley and Wheat ( TX wheat OP ) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.014

0.013 0.006

0.005
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days)96

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L Canola/rape ( ND canola STD ) A

G 0.007

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.017

0.013 0.007

0.006

Crambe ( CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.007

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.016

0.012 0.007

0.005

Crambe ( MI beans STD ) A

G 0.011

0.010 <0.001

<0.001 0.026

0.022 0.011

0.010 Soybeans ( MS soybean STD ) A

G 0.020

0.019 <0.001

<0.001 0.046

0.043 0.019

0.018

Sunflowers ( CA corn OP ) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.014

0.011 0.006

0.005

Sunflowers ( IL Corn STD) A

G 0.011

0.010 <0.001

<0.001 0.027

0.024 0.011

0.010

Sunflowers ( IN Corn Std) A

G 0.009

0.008 <0.001

<0.001 0.022

0.019 0.009

0.008

Sunflowers ( KS Corn Std) A

G 0.017

0.016 <0.001

<0.001 0.039

0.036 0.017

0.016

Sunflowers ( MS corn STD) A

G 0.016

0.015 <0.001

<0.001 0.037

0.035 0.016

0.015

Sunflowers ( NC corn E STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 <0.001

<0.001 0.016

0.013 0.007

0.006

Sunflowers ( NC corn W OP) A

G 0.013

0.012 <0.001

<0.001 0.031

0.028 0.013

0.012

Sunflowers ( ND corn OP) A

G 0.011

0.009 <0.001

<0.001 0.025

0.021 0.011

0.009

Sunflowers ( OH Corn STD) A

G 0.012

0.010 <0.001

<0.001 0.027

0.024 0.012

0.010

Sunflowers ( PA corn STD) A

G 0.010

0.008 <0.001

<0.001 0.022

0.019 0.010

0.008

Sunflowers ( TX corn OP) A

G 0.014

0.013 < 0.001

<0.001 0.032

0.030 0.014

0.013
1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A97

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L
Field Corn ( CA corn OP ) A

G 0.004

0.003 <0.001

<0.001 0.009

0.007 0.004

0.003

Field Corn ( IL Corn STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 <0.001

<0.001 0.017

0.015 0.007

0.006

Field Corn ( IN Corn Std) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.013

0.011 0.006

0.005

Field Corn ( KS Corn Std) A

G 0.011

0.010 <0.001

<0.001 0.026

0.024 0.011

0.010

Field Corn ( MS corn STD) A

G 0.010

0.010 <0.001

<0.001 0.024

0.023 0.010

0.010

Field Corn ( NC corn E STD) A

G 0.005

0.004 <0.001

<0.001 0.012

0.009 0.005

0.004

Field Corn ( NC corn W OP) A

G 0.009

0.008 <0.001

<0.001 0.020

0.018 0.008

0.007

Field Corn ( ND corn OP) A

G 0.007

0.006 <0.001

<0.001 0.016

0.013 0.007

0.006

Field Corn ( OH Corn STD) A

G 0.007

0.006 <0.001

<0.001 0.017

0.014 0.007

0.006

Field Corn ( PA corn STD) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.014

0.012 0.006

0.005

Field Corn ( TX corn OP) A

G 0.028

0.008 <0.001

<0.001 0.020

0.019 0.009

0.008
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Sorghum (TXsorghumOP) A

G 0.017

0.016 <0.001

<0.001 0.041

0.038 0.018

0.016
3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Cotton ( CA cotton W / irrig

STD ) A

G 0.003

0.002 <0.001

<0.001 0.008

0.004 0.003

0.002

Cotton ( MS cotton STD) A

G 0.014

0.013 <0.001

<0.001 0.034

0.031 0.014

0.01398

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L
Cotton ( NC cotton STD) A

G 0.015

0.014 <0.001

<0.001 0.034

0.032 0.015

0.014

Cotton ( TX cotton OP) A

G 0.012

0.011 <0.001

<0.001 0.028

0.026 0.012

0.011
2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Dry beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.010

0.008 <0.001

<0.001 0.023

0.019 0.010

0.008 Dry beans (MI beans STD) A

G 0.017

0.015 <0.001

<0.001 0.041

0.035 0.018

0.015
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days) Dry and succulent peas

and lentils ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.006

0.005 <0.001

<0.001 0.013

0.011 0.006

0.005 Snap beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.009

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.021

0.017 0.009

0.007 Snap beans (MI beans STD) A

G 0.016

0.014 <0.001

<0.001 0.036

0.032 0.016

0.014
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Fallow ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 0.008

0.006 <0.001

<0.001 0.018

0.013 0.008

0.006
2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Flax (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.008

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.019

0.016 0.008

0.007 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.008

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.019

0.016 0.008

0.007 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (MI beans STD) A

G 0.015

0.013 <0.001

<0.001 0.037

0.030 0.015

0.01399

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L Maine and Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations ( PA apple STD V2 ) A

G 0.008

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.020

0.015 0.009

0.007

2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) ( CA lettuce STD ) A

G 0.017

0.014 <0.001

<0.001 0.039

0.035 0.017

0.015

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) (CA right

- of

- way RLF) A

G 0.020

0.018 <0.001

<0.001 0.046

0.042 0.020

0.018

Non

- crop areas ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 0.009

0.006 <0.001

<0.001 0.020

0.014 0.009

0.006

Non

- crop areas ( FL turf STD ) A

G 0.004

0.002 <0.001

<0.001 0.010

0.005 0.004

0.002

Non

- crop areas (PA turf STD) A

G 0.007

0.004 <0.001

<0.001 0.016

0.008 0.007

0.004

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Ornamental and/or shade trees ( CA

nursery STD ) A

G 0.013

0.007 <0.001

<0.001 0.029

0.017 0.012

0.007100

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )

Freshwater

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 350 μg ai/L Freshwater

Invertebrates

Chronic R Q (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

26600 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Acute RQ (Peak

EEC/LC 50 )

LC 50 = 150 μg ai/L Estuarine /

Marine

Invertebrates Chronic RQ (21

- Day EEC/ NOAEC)

NOAEC =

340 μg ai/L Pineapple ( MS cotton STD ) A

G 0.055*

0.051* <0.001

<0.001 0.130*

0.119* 0.055

0.051
1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (CA Impervious RLF) A

G 0.056*

0.057* <0.001

<0.001 0.131*

0.133* 0.056

0.057
Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Perennial ryegrass grown for seed (ND wheat STD) A

G 0.013

0.011 <0.001

<0.001 0.030

0.026 0.013

0.011

Bold text indicates an LOC was exceeded. *Exceeds acute listed species LOC (0.05)

**Exceeds acute non

- listed species LOC (0.5) ***Exceeds chronic LOC (1) RLF = red legged frog OP = organophosphate

STD = standard

Aquatic Vascular and Non

- vascular Plants Aquatic vascular plant risk quotients ranged from 0.015 to 0.580. Aquatic non

- vascular plant risk quotients were all < 0.001. None of the aquatic plant risk quotients exceeded the LOC of 1 for any registered us e of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (Table 2 1 ).

Table 2 1 . Risks from quizalofop

- p - ethyl to aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants

Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )101 Aquatic

Vascular

Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 34.5 μg ai/L Aquatic Non

Vascular Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 41000 μg ai/L

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

Alfalfa (MN alfalfa OP) A

G 0.090

0.068 <0.001

<0.001

Carrot (CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.085

0.069 <0.001

<0.001 Chinese cabbage (CA Cole Crop RLF ) A

G 0.189

0.173 <0.001

<0.001

Garlic (CA Garlic RLF ) A

G 0.092

0.073 <0.001

<0.001

Onion and Radish ( CA onion W / irrig

STD ) A

G 0.052

0.034 < 0.001

<0.001

Red beets (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.085

0.069 <0.001

<0.001 Spinach (CA lettuce STD) A

G 0.138

0.120 <0.001

<0.001

Swiss chard (CA lettuce STD) A

G 0.138

0.120 <0.001

<0.001
All states, food item 2 apps @ 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval)

S ugar beets ( CA sugar beet W / irrig

OP ) A

G 0.051

0.029 <0.001

<0.001

S ugar beets (MN sugar beet STD) A

G 0.143

0.120 <0.001

<0.001
Except New York 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A
Barley and Wheat ( CA Wheat RLF ) A

G 0.060

0.052 <0.001

<0.001 Barley and Wheat ( ND wheat STD ) A

G 0.063

0.053 <0.001

<0.001102 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )
Aquatic

Vascular

Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 34.5 μg ai/L Aquatic Non

Vascular Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 41000 μg ai/L

Barley and Wheat ( OR wheat OP ) A

G 0.041

0.032 <0.001

<0.001 Barley and Wheat ( TX wheat OP ) A

G 0.060

0.055 <0.001

<0.001
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days)
Canola/rape ( ND canola STD ) A

G 0.074

0.056 <0.001

<0.001

Crambe ( CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.068

0.054 <0.001

<0.001

Crambe ( MI beans STD ) A

G 0.115

0.099 <0.001

<0.001 Soybeans ( MS soybean STD ) A

G 0.198

0.188 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( CA corn OP ) A

G 0.059

0.048 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( IL Corn STD) A

G 0.116

0.103 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( IN Corn Std) A

G 0.094

0.082 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( KS Corn Std) A

G 0.169

0.158 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( MS corn STD) A

G 0.161

0.151 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( NC corn E STD) A

G 0.072

0.057 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( NC corn W OP) A

G 0.134

0.121 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( ND corn OP) A

G 0.108

0.091 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( OH Corn STD) A

G 0.119

0.106 <0.001

<0.001103 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )
Aquatic

Vascular

Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 34.5 μg ai/L Aquatic Non

Vascular Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 41000 μg ai/L

Sunflowers ( PA corn STD) A

G 0.099

0.084 <0.001

<0.001

Sunflowers ( TX corn OP) A

G 0.138

0.129 <0.001

<0.001
1 app at 0.0834 lb ai

/ A

Field Corn ( CA corn OP ) A

G 0.039

0.032 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( IL Corn STD) A

G 0.074

0.065 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( IN Corn Std) A

G 0.058

0.049 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( KS Corn Std) A

G 0.113

0.106 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( MS corn STD) A

G 0.104

0.098 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( NC corn E STD) A

G 0.051

0.041 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( NC corn W OP) A

G 0.086

0.078 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( ND corn OP) A

G 0.070

0.059 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( OH Corn STD) A

G 0.073

0.063 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( PA corn STD) A

G 0.062

0.053 <0.001

<0.001

Field Corn ( TX corn OP) A

G 0.087

0.081 <0.001

<0.001
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Sorghum (TXsorghumOP) A

G 0.177

0.166 <0.001

<0.001
3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days)104 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )
Aquatic

Vascular

Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 34.5 μg ai/L Aquatic Non

Vascular Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 41000 μg ai/L

Cotton ( CA cotton W / irrig

STD ) A

G 0.034

0.017 <0.001

<0.001

Cotton ( MS cotton STD) A

G 0.146

0.135 <0.001

<0.001

Cotton ( NC cotton STD) A

G 0.150

0.137 < 0.001

<0.001

Cotton ( TX cotton OP) A

G 0.121

0.111 <0.001

<0.001
2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Dry beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.101

0.083 <0.001

<0.001 Dry beans (MI beans STD) A

G 0.176

0.154 <0.001

<0.001
1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days) Dry and succulent peas

and lentils ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.056

0.046 <0.001

<0.001 Snap beans ( CA Row Crop RLF ) A

G 0.090

0.074 <0.001

<0.001 Snap beans (MI beans STD) A

G 0.159

0.138 <0.001

<0.001
Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only

2 a pps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Fallow ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 0.080

0.057 <0.001

<0.001
2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Flax (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.085

0.069 <0.001

<0.001105 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )
Aquatic

Vascular

Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 34.5 μg ai/L Aquatic Non

Vascular Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 41000 μg ai/L

Garbanzos (including chick peas) (CA Row Crop RLF) A

G 0.085

0.069 <0.001

<0.001 Garbanzos (including chick peas) (MI beans STD) A

G 0.015

0.130 <0.001

<0.001
Maine and Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations ( PA apple STD V2 ) A

G 0.086

0.066 <0.001

<0.001

2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) ( CA lettuce STD ) A

G 0.168

0.150 <0.001

<0.001

2 app s at 0.111 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) (CA right

- of

- way RLF) A

G 0.202

0.184 <0.001

<0.001

Non

- crop areas ( CA Turf RLF ) A

G 0.089

0.062 <0.001

<0.001

Non

- crop areas ( FL turf STD ) A

G 0.046

0.020 <0.001

<0.001106 Use (Scenario) Ariel (A) or

Ground (G) 1

- in

- 10

- year Aquatic EECs ( μ g/ L )
Aquatic

Vascular

Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 34.5 μg ai/L Aquatic Non

Vascular Plants RQ (Peak

EEC/E C 50 )

E C 50 = 41000 μg ai/L

Non

- crop areas (PA turf STD) A

G 0.070

0.036 <0.001

<0.001
Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Ornamental and/or shade trees ( CA

nursery STD ) A

G 0.127

0.075 <0.001

<0.001 Pineapple ( MS cotton STD ) A

G 0.554

0.516 <0.001

<0.001
1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A
Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) (CA Impervious RLF) A

G 0.568

0.580 <0.001

<0.001
Minnesota, only 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days)

Perennial ryegrass grown for seed (ND wheat STD) A

G 0.130

0.111 <0.001

<0.001

***Exceeds the LOC (1) RLF = red legged frog OP = organophosphate
STD = standard

Probit Slope Response Analysis of LOC Values and Acute RQ Values As part of the risk estimation, the probability of mortality associated with the listed acute LOC values is estimated along with the probability of acute mortality occurring if exposure at the EEC actually occurs. The probability of mortality calculations are based on the probit slope dose

- response relationship. The probability of mortality for an exposed individual is calculated using an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model107

Version 1.1) developed by EFED of the U.S. EPA, OPP, En vironmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004).

The model provides the option of inserting taxa

- specific probit slopes and confidence intervals. If specific information is not available, the model uses a default value of 4.5 for the probit slope a nd 2 and 9 for the upper and lower 95% confidence interval bounds. For quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, taxa

- specific data were only available for freshwater invertebrates; default values were used for other taxonomic groups.

Probabilities of mortality were only ca lculated for scenarios where the risk quotient exceeded the acute listed species LOC. For quizalofop

- p

- ethyl there were only two groups that met

this criterion

– freshwater invertebrates and estuarine/marine invertebrates. All scenarios with risk quotien ts that exceeded the acute LOC were modeled (Table 22).

Table 22 . Odds of mortality for an individual freshwater or estuarine/marine invertebrate for quizalofop

- p - ethyl
RQ Slope 95% Confidence

Interval Odds

(1 in...)

Freshwater invertebrates (pineapple

- aerial) 0.055 7.82 4.56

- 11.1 2.93 x 10 22

Freshwater invertebrates (pineapple

- ground) 0.051 7.82 4.56

- 11.1 3.88 x 10 23

Freshwater invertebrates (paved areas

- aerial) 0.056 7.82 4.56

- 11.1 1.60 x 10 22

Freshwater invertebrates (paved areas

- ground) 0.057 7.82 4.56

- 11.1 8.82 x 10 21

Estuarine/marine invertebrates (pineapple

- aerial) 0.130 4.5 2

- 9 29,900

Estuarine/marine invertebrates (pineapple

- ground) 0.119 4.5 2

- 9 62,900

Estuarine/marine invertebrates (paved areas) 0.131 4.5 2

- 9 28,100

Estuarine/marine invertebrates (paved areas) 0.133 4.5 2

- 9 24,800



### Risk Description
The following risk description explains the overall direct effect conclusions regarding the potential ecological risk from the various uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. The risk conclusions take into consideration all lines of evidence, such as the risk estimates (risk quotient results); information on the odds of mortality for the acute risk quotient values; comparisons of non

-108

definitive endpoints ( i.e ., limit tests) to EECs ; information such as monitoring data, field studies, and incident data that may provide additional insights into the likelihood of exposure; and other factors that modify the likelihood of exposure such as timing of application, overlap of area affected and the degree of effect with the presence/absence of taxa, species sensitivity distribution, and presence/absence of dietary items.

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL B IRDS , R EPTILES , AND A MPHIBIANS Acute Risk
Acute dose

- based and dietary

- based risk quotien ts could not be calculated to evaluate the risks to birds because only non

- definitive acute toxicity data were available. Instead, the

non

- definitive toxicity values were directly compared to the EECs (Table 23 ). In all cases, none of the dietary EECs we re larger than the non

- definitive toxicity values for mallard duck, the most sensitive. Thus, the potential for risk is considered to be low for acute dose

- based and dietary

- based exposure of birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians from quizalofop

- p

et hyl for all registered uses.

Table 23 . Comparison of the highest calculated EEC for each use of quizalofop

- p
- ethyl to the most sensitive avian acute toxicity values

Application Scenario Dietary

Item EEC (mg ai/kg

- bw) LD 50 (mallard) mg ai/kg

- bw EEC

(mg ai/kg

diet) LC 50

(mallard) mg ai/kg

- diet

Idaho, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard All states, food item: sugar beets 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- day interval) Short

grass 42.64 >2000 37.44 >5000

Except New York Barley, wheat 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A Short

grass 19.00 >2000 16.68 >5000

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.042 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 31.33 >2000 27.50 >5000

Field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant) 1 app at 0.0834 lb ai/A Short

grass 22.80 >2000 20.02 >5000

Sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.057 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 35.43 > 2000 31.10 >5000

Cotton 3 apps at 0.034 and 1 app at 0.023 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 27.55 >2000 24.19 >5000109 Application Scenario Dietary

Item EEC (mg ai/kg

- bw) LD 50 (mallard) mg ai/kg

- bw EEC

(mg ai/kg

diet) LC 50

(mallard) mg ai/kg

- diet

Dry beans 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.03 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 45.32 >2000 39.79 >5000

Dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans 1 app at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.01 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 22.80 >2000 20.02 >5000

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, only
Fallow 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 48.06 >2000 42.19 >5000

Flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) 2 apps at 0.0834 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 42.64 >2000 37.44 >5000

Maine and Minnesota, only Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations 1 app at 0.0695 lb ai/A Short

grass 35.53 >2000 31.20 >5000

Mint (spearmint and peppermint) 2 apps at 0.0834 and 1 app at 0.04 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 48.06 >2000 42.19 >5000

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) 1 app at 0.111 lb ai/A Short

grass 30.34 >2000 26.64 >5000

Puerto Rico (pineapple only) and Hawaii, only Ornamental and/or shade trees, pineapple 2 apps at 0.208 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 106.35 >2000 93.38 >5000

Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) 1 app at 0.108 lb ai/A Short

grass 29.52 >2000 25.92 >5000

Minnesota, only Perennial ryegrass grown for seed 2 apps at 0.0695 lb ai/A (7

- days) Short

grass 35.53 >2000 31.20 >5000

Chronic Risk Risk quotients were calculated for dietary

- based chronic risks. None of the uses exceeded the LOC of 1; consequently, effects to listed and non

- listed avian, reptile, and terrestrial

phase amphibian species are considered unlikely.

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for acute and chronic risks to birds (surrogates for reptiles and

land

- phase amphibians) is listed below:

The potential for acute risk to non

- listed birds (surrogates for reptiles and land

- phase amphibians) i s low, based on comparisons between dose

- based and dietary

- based110 EECs and toxicity data. For all uses, the EECs are much lower than the toxicity
value. The potential for chronic risk to birds (reptiles and land

- phase amphibians) is low for all quizalofo p

- p

- ethyl uses, based on risk quotients not exceeding the LOC (1).

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL M AMMALS Acute Risk Risk quotients were calculated for dietary and dose

- based acute exposures. None of the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses exceeded the LOC of 0.1, for listed species. Therefore, effects to

listed and non

- listed mammals are not expected.

Chronic Risk Risk quotients were calculated for dietary and dose

- based chronic exposures. None of the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses yielded chronic dietary RQs that exc eeded the LOC (1); however, all uses had multiple scenarios that exceeded the chronic dose

- based LOC of 1. Specifically, all uses had risk quotients that exceeded the LOC for small (15 g) and medium

- sized (35 g) mammals consuming diets of short grass. Most uses yielded risk quotients that exceeded the LOC for other food items and the large (1000 g) mammal size class (Table 24). The NOAEL for mammals is 5 mg ai/kg

- bw and the LOAEL is 20 mg ai/kg

- bw. For scenarios with risk quotients that exceeded the L OC, EECs ranged from 17.08 to 89.03 mg ai/kg

- bw. Essentially, the EECs are approximately 1 to 4 times the lowest dose tested in which effects were observed (3 to 18 times higher than the dose at which no effects were observed).

Effects included decreases in male and female pup body weight and reduced number of live pup births in F 1 and F 2 generations. Chronic r isk quotients for mammals consuming fruits, pods, or seeds never exceeded the LOC of 1.111

Table 24 Quizalofop

- p - ethyl uses that exceeded the chronic dose

- based LOC (1) for mammals

Use Dose

- based RQs Short grass Tall grass Broadleaf plants Arthropods 15 g 35 g 1000 g 15 g 35 g 1000 g 15 g 35 g 1000 g 15 g 35 g 1000 g
ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only:

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard TX, OK, KS, CO, only: fallow All states, food item: sugar beets, dry beans, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas), mint (spearmint and peppermint) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No

Except New York: barley, wheat All states: field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant), dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No

Canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers, paved areas (private roads/sidewalks) Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No

N on

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations MN, only: perennial ryegrass grown for seed All states: sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No

Cotton Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No No Puerto Rico, only: pineapple HI, only: pineapple, ornamental and/or shade trees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes112

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for acute and chronic risks to mammals is listed below:

The potential for acute risk to mammals is low for all quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses, based on risk quotients not exceeding the listed species LOC ( 0. 1). There is the potential for chronic risk to listed and non

- listed mammals for all quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses based on the dose

- based risk quotients exceeding the LOC (1).

D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL I NVERTEBRATES There is no defined LOC for non

- listed terrestrial insects; the interim listed terrestrial
invert ebrate LOC is 0.05. Currently, there is no established threshold for risk to terrestrial invertebrates. As such, the level of direct effects to terrestrial invertebrates necessary to indirectly affect other taxa that rely on terrestrial invertebrates as a food source or for pollination has not been established on a national level, and the use of the interim LOC of 0.05 will apply to all terrestrial invertebrates without the demarcation of non

- listed and listed.

The acute contact toxicity value for the ho neybee study with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl was non

definitive (LD 50 > 50 μg ai/bee); therefore, risk quotients were not calculated. The toxicity value was converted to mg/kg

- bee, based on the weight of one bee (0.128 g). The extrapolated acute contact LD 50 val ues for terrestrial invertebrates was calculated as > 391 mg ai/kg

- diet 6 and compared to the arthropod predicted EEC. The highest EEC (36.57 mg ai/kg

- diet) was derived from the pineapple and ornamental and/or sha de trees application scenario (two applicat ions at 0.208 lb ai/A, 7

- days apart). This value was much lower than the extrapolated acute contact LD 50 (391 mg ai/kg

- diet) that was calculated for the honeybee. Given that the other quizalofop

- p

- ethyl application rates are lower, it is unlikely that th e registered uses will adversely affect terrestrial insects

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for acute risks terrestrial invertebrates is listed below:

The potential for acute risk to terrestrial invertebrates is not expect ed, based on honeybee acute contact LD 50 data.

6113 D IRECT E FFECTS TO T ERRESTRIAL P LANTS Risk quotients were calculated for listed dicots and listed and non

- listed monocots. For dicots, risk quotients did not exceed the LOC (1) for listed species. The most sensitive EC 25 for dicots was non

- definitive; consequently, risk quotients could not be calculated for non

listed dicot species. However; given that a NOAEC was available for the dicot listed species calculations and that the risk quotients from these sc enarios did not exceed the LOC, non

listed dicots are also not expected to be at risk from any of the registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl

uses.

A ll ground and aerial spray drift scenarios exceeded the LOC (1) for listed and non

- listed monocots. Application rat es of 0.0695 lb ai/A and higher yielded risk quotients that

exceeded the LOCs in additional scenarios (Table 25)

. Further, there was one major incident reported in the EIIS database for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. The incident (# I016677

- 001) occurred when spray drift from an application of Assure II (quizalofop

- p

- ethyl) and Flexstar (sodium fomesafen) to soybeans came into contact with a garden in the vicinity of the soybean field. Hundreds of herbaceous plants in a home herb garden (20 ft away) and various veg etables in another garden (150 ft away) were reported to have been damaged (leaf burn and spotting). The incident occurred on 8/2/05 in Missouri and is classified as “possible” to have been caused by quizalofop

- p

- ethyl; however there is some uncertainty g iven that sodium fomesafen was also applied. There was one minor incident listed in the Aggregate Summary Module of OPP’s Incident Database for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. The formulation, Assure II, was associated with minor plant damage between 7/1/01 and 9/30 /01. No further information was
available.114

Table 25. Quizalofop

- p - ethyl application scenarios that exceeded the LOC for listed and non

- listed monocots

Use Non

- listed monocot Listed monocot Dry Semi

- aquatic Spray drift Dry Semi

- aquatic Spray drift

Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial Ground Aerial
ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only:

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss

chard TX, OK, KS, CO, only: fallow All states: canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers, field corn seed production (herbicide

tolerant), sorghum (herbicide

tolerant), dry beans, dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas), mint ( spearmint and peppermint), sugar beet) No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations MN only: perennial ryegrass grown for seed Except NY: barley, wheat No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes

Cotton No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes

Non

- crop areas, paved areas No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Puerto Rico only: pineapple HI only: pineapple and

ornamental and/or shade trees No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes115

Buffers may offer a potential mitigation strategy to reduce the concentration of quizalofop

- p

ethyl that reaches non

- target monocots. Spray drift from ground and aerial applications was

modeled to estimate the distance that spray applications can drift from the treated area and still be present at concentrations that exceed levels of concern. A quantitative analysis of spray drift distances was completed using AgDRIFT (v. 2.11 ) using default inp uts for ground applications (i.e., high boom, ASAE droplet size distribution = Very Fine to Fine, 90 th data percentile) and aerial applications (i.e., ASAE Very Fine to Fine). The results indicate that buffers could be set to mitigate adverse effects to n on

- target species from ground applications (spray drift only

– runoff is not considered); however, buffers for aerial application would need to be greater than 1000 ft (Table 26). These results should be
considered with the caveat that the most conservati ve application assumptions were used as inputs to the model.

Table 26. Buffer distances for terrestrial monocot scenarios with risk quotients that exceeded the spray drift LOC

Use Single application Rate (lb ai/A) Fraction of

Applied Buffer Distance

(ft)

Ground Aerial

Listed Monocots ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard

TX, OK, KS, CO, only: fallow

All states: canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers, field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant), sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant), dry beans, dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) mint (spearmint and peppermint), sugar
beet 0.0834 0.009 213 >1000

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations

MN only: perennial ryegrass grown for seed

Except New York: barley, wheat 0.0695 0.011 180 >1000

Cotton 0.034 0.023 95 >1000

Non

- crop areas 0.111 0.007 262 >1000 Puerto Rico: pineapple

HI, only: pineapple and ornamental and/or shade 0.208 0.004 394 >1000116

trees
Paved areas 0.108 0.007 262 >1000

Non

- Listed Monocots ID, MT, WA, OR, WY, only

Non

- food/non

- feed seed production: alfalfa, carrot, Chinese cabbage, garlic, onion, radish, red beets, spinach, Swiss chard

TX, OK, KS, CO, only: fallow

All states: canola/rape, crambe, soybeans, sunflowers, field corn seed production (herbicide

- tolerant), sorghum (herbicide

- tolerant), dry beans, dry and succulent peas, lentils, snap beans, flax, garbanzos (including chick peas) mint (spearmint and peppermint), sugar
beet 0.0834 0.018 118 >1000

ME, MN, only: hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations

MN only: perennial ryegrass grown for seed

Except New York: barley, wheat 0.0695 0.021 102 >1000

Cotton 0.034 0.043 52 >1000

Non

- crop areas 0.111 0.013 157 >1000 Puerto Rico: pineapple

HI, only: pineapple and ornamental and/or shade

trees 0.208 0.007 262 >1000

Paved areas 0.108 0.014 148 >1000

Summary of Risks from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for risks terrestrial plants is listed below:

The potential for direct effects to listed and non

- listed terrestrial dicot plants from all registered uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is not expected, based on the risk quotients not exceeding the LO C (1). The potential for direct effects to listed and non

- listed terrestrial monocots plants is expected to occur for all registered uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, based on the risk quotients exceeding the LOC (1) and plant incident data.117

D IRECT E FFECTS TO A QUATIC F ISH , I NVERTEBRATES , AND P LANTS Freshwater Fish and Amphibians (Aquatic

- Phase), and Estuarine

- Marine Fish
Acute Risk Acute risk quotients for freshwater fish did not exceed the LOCs for listed (0.05) or non

listed (0.5) species. No incidents with freshwater fish or aquatic

- phase amphibians were reported, thus adverse effects to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis are not expected

for registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses.

Acute data were not available for estuarine/marine fish; however the freshwater fish acute data were determined to be sufficiently protective to use as a surrogate (see Effects Characterization Section) . As with the freshwater fish, risk quotients for estuarine/marine fish did not exceed the LOCs for listed (0.05) or non

- l isted (0.5) species. No incidents with estuarine/marine fish were reported, thus adverse effects to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis are not expected from the registered uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl.

Chronic Risk
Chronic freshwater fish dat a were available and used to represent aquatic

- phase amphibians in addition to fish. Specifically, data from the fathead minnow were used, although th e rainbow trout presented a more sensitive acute toxicity value. When the acute

- to

- chronic

ratio method was used to estimate a NOAEC for the rainbow trout, it was less conservative than the NOAEC in the existing fathead minnow study. Two uses exceeded the chronic LOC (1): pineapple (ground and aerial), and paved areas (ground and aerial).

The pineapple use is geographically restricted to Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The NOAEC and LOAEC for freshwater fish was 10 and 30 μg ai/L, respectively. Risk quotients that exceeded the LOC had EECs ranging from 17.8 to 19.1 μg ai/L

– about half the value of the

LOAEC a nd double the value of the NOAEC. Effects for freshwater fish included decreased length and weight, and larval mortality.

The paved area use is nation

- wide; however, the model was run with the conservative assumption that 100% of the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl a pplied to an acre was available for off

- site transport. In reality, this number is probably much lower. Quizalofop is being used as a spot treatment for weeds that are present in cracks within a paved area. It is unlikely that it would be applied over a n entire acre of paved area. EECs for risk quotients that exceeded the LOC (100% paved area treated) ranged from 19.6 to 20.0 μg ai/L

– about half the value of the LOAEC and double the value of the NOAEC (see above paragraph on pineapple use). Table

27 c ompares the risk quotients for ground and aerial paved area scenarios with less conservative assumptions. Using an assumption that 50% of an acre is treated with quizalofop (still a very conservative assumption), the EECs fall below the LOC, indicating

ri sk to listed and non

- listed species is unlikely from the paved area use.118

All other quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses were below the LOC of 1 and do not present a chronic
concern for freshwater fish.

Chronic estuarine/marine fish data were available for risk anal ysis. Risk quotients did not exceed the LOC of 1 and no incidents have been reported. Therefore, adverse effects to estuarine/marine fish on a chronic basis are not expected from the registered uses of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl.

Table 27. Risk quotients for a lternative quizalofop

- p - ethyl offsite transport availability for the paved area scenario [bolded values exceed the LOC (acute = 0.05; chronic = 1)]

Scenario 100% 75% 50% 25%

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
Aerial (freshwater fish

– chronic) 18.33 1.83 13.74 1.37 9.17 0.917 4.58 0.458 Ground (freshwater fish

- chronic) 18.62 1.86 13.97 1.40 9.31 0.931 4.66 0.458 Aerial (freshwater invert

– acute) 19.65 0.056 14.73 0.042 9.83 0.028 4.91 0.014 Ground (freshwater invert

– acute) 19.96 0.057 14.97 0.043 9.98 0.029 4.99 0.014 Aerial (estuarine/ marine invert

– acute) 19.65 0.131 14.73 0.098 9.83 0.066 4.91 0.033 Ground (estuarine/ marine invert

– acute) 19.96 0.133 14.97 0.100 9.98 0.067 4.99 0.033

Freshwater and Estuarine

- Marine Invertebrates
Acute Risk Acute quizalofop

- p

- ethyl toxicity data for freshwater invertebrates were available. Two uses exceeded the acute listed species LOC (0.05), but none exceeded the acute non

- listed species LOC (0.5 ). The first use, pineapple, is geographically restricted to Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The other use, paved areas, is nation

- wide. The paved area scenario was modeled using the conservative assumption that 100 percent of the applied material is available for off

- site transport. In reality, it is probably a much lo wer percentage. Quizalofop is being used as a spot treatment for weeds that are present in cracks within a paved area. It is unlikely that it would be applied over an entire acre of paved area. Table 27 presents the EECs and risk quotients that would be derived from less conservative scenarios. Given that a 75% offsite transport assumption (still very conservative) results in risk quotients below the LOC, it is unlikely that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl applications to paved areas would result in adverse acute

ri sks to freshwater invertebrates. There was a 1 in 2.93 x 10 22 chance of an individual being affected by the pineapple use and a 1 in 8.82 x 10 21 chance of an individual being affected by the paved area use. All other quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses presented risk quotients below the LOC of 0.05, indicating these uses are not expected to affect freshwater invertebrates on an

acute basis.

Acute quizalofop

- p

- ethyl toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates were available. Two uses exceeded the acute listed species LOC (0.05), but none exceeded the acute non

-119

listed species LOC (0.5). The first use, pineapple, is geographically restricted to Hawaii an d Puerto Rico. The other use, paved areas, is nation

- wide. The paved area scenario was modeled using the conservative assumption that 100 percent of the applied material is

available for off

- site transport. In reality, it is probably a much lower percen tage. Quizalofop is being used as a spot treatment for weeds that are present in cracks within a paved area. It is unlikely that it would be applied over an entire acre of paved area. Table 27 presents the EECs and risk quotients that would be derived f rom less conservative scenarios. Given that a 25% offsite transport assumption (reasonably conservative assumption) results in risk quotients below the LOC, it is unlikely that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl applications to paved
areas would result in adverse acute r isks to estuarine/marine invertebrates. There is a 1 in 29,900 chance of an individual being affected by the pineapple use and a 1 in 24,800 chance of an individual being affected by the paved area use. All other quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses presented risk qu otients below the LOC of 0.05, indicating these uses are not expected to
affect estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis.

Acute toxicity data were available for estuarine/marine mollusks (Eastern oyster). The data were based on shell growth and w ere not the most sensitive endpoint (EC 50 = 0.19 mg ai/L), thus risk quotients were not calculated. However, to refine the risk assessment, the oyster endpoint was considered to determine if mollusks could be removed from the pool of species potential at

- risk from registered quizalofop uses. In particular, pineapple is the only use where risk quotients exceeded the LOC for acute exposures to freshwater and
estuarine/marine invertebrates. The difference between the most sensitive EC 50 (mysid shrimp = 0.15 mg ai/L) and the oyster EC 50 is small and still results in risk quotients above the LOC for the pineapple use. The value is used as a surrogate for freshwater mollusks because data are not otherwise available. Consequently, freshwater and estuarine/mari ne mollusks may be adversely affected by the pineapple use on an acute basis.

As with plants, AgDrift (ver. 2.11) was used to determine a buffer distance at which quizalofop

- p

- ethyl residues from spray drift would be below the acute listed species LOC (0. 05). The default inputs for ground applications ( i.e ., high boom, ASAE droplet size distribution = Very Fine to Fine, 90 th data percentile) and aerial applications ( i.e ., ASAE Very Fine to Fine) were used. The results (0 ft buffers) indicated that spray drift is not the driving force for the scenarios that produced risk quotients that exceeded the LOC (Table 28).

Table 28. Buffer distances for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate scenarios with risk quotients that exceeded the LOC

Use Single

a pplication Rate (lb ai/A) Initial Average Concentration (ng ai/L) at

acute listed LOC (0.05). FW = 17500; E/M =

7500120 Freshwater Invert. Buffer (ft) Estuarine/ Marine

Invert. Buffer (ft)
Paved areas (ground) 0.108 0 0 Paved areas (aerial) 0.108 0 0 Pineapple (ground) 0.208 0 0 Pineapple (aerial) 0.208 0 0

Chronic Risk Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl chronic toxicity data for freshwater invertebrates were available. Risk quotients were all quite low (< 0.001) and did not exceed the LOC of 1 for any registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses.

Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates were not available; thus, the acute

- to

- chronic ratio method was used to estimate a NOAEC. The risk quotients did not exceed the LOC (1) for an y of the registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses.

Aquatic Plants

– Vascular and Non

- vascular Data were available for aquatic vascular and non

- vascular plants. Risk quotients for both groups were below the LOC of 1. Thus adverse effects to listed species from registered quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses are not expected to occur.

Summary of Risk from Direct Effects A summary of the potential for risks to aquatic organisms is listed below:

Risk is unlikely for acute exposures to freshwater fish, aquatic

- phase amphibians, and
estuarine/marine fish. Risk is unlikely for chronic exposures to freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and estuarine/marine fish. There is the potential for a cute risks for freshwater invertebrates for the pineapple (Hawaii and Puerto Rico) and the paved areas (nation

- wide) uses. There is the potential for a cute risks for estuarine/marine invertebrates for the pineapple (Hawaii and Puerto Rico) and paved areas (nation

- wide) uses.

There is the potential for c hronic risks for freshwater fish for the pineapple (Hawaii and Puerto Rico) and paved areas (nation

- wide) uses.

Listed Species Effects Analysis The direct and indirect effects analysis for general taxa of listed species is summariz ed in

Table 29 , for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses. The analysis is based on the direct and indirect effects concluded from the analysis of risk estimates.121

Table 2 9. Summary of indirect and direct effects to listed species and preliminary effects det ermination for quizalofop

- p
- ethyl

uses
Listed species

group Direct Effect

Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect

Effects Effects Determination

Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant Species Primary productivity No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic
environments. It could affect non

- vasc ular plant habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. Therefore, indirect effects to aquatic non

- vascular plants from effects to terrestrial plants

may occur.

However, currently, there are no listed non

- vascular aquatic plant species,
therefore adverse effects to listed non

- vascular plants are not expected. No Effect

Vascular Aquatic Plant Species Primary productivity

assessed from effects on main stem length, total stem length (main + laterals), and fresh weight No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed monocots terrestrial may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments. It could affect vascular plant habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. Therefore, indirect effects to aquatic vascular plants f rom effects to terrestrial plants may occur.

May affect and likely affected based on indirect effects from direct effects on
terrestrial monocots. May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Freshwater
Fish and Amphibians Acute mortality No Effect

– risk

q uotients below

LOC. Adverse direct effects may be expected to aquatic organisms [fish (chronic),

invertebrates (acute), terrestrial monocots] as potential food sources.

Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic
environments. It could affect fr eshwater fish and amphibian habitat by May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect122

Listed species

group Direct Effect

Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect

Effects Effects Determination

Chronic survival, growth and reproduction May Affect, Likely to Adversely Effect

risk quotients above

LOC. changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc.

Therefore, indirect effects to freshwater fish and amphibians from effects to terrestrial monocots may occur.

Indirect effects to aquatic habitats from terrestrial monocots could indirectly affect aquatic organism availability as a food source for other organisms. This could adversely affect freshwater fish and amphibians by altering prey populations.

The may affect, likely to adversely a ffect determination is based on direct chronic effects to freshwater fish and amphibians as well as indirect effects from direct effects on aquatic organisms (fish, invertebrates, terrestrial monocots), if the species is dependent on them as a food source, and from adverse effects on terrestrial monocots which may affect habitat and/or aquatic prey populations

Freshwater
Invertebrates Acute mortality May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

– risk quotients above

LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. It could result in reduced growth of

non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments. This could affect freshwater invertebrate habitat by changing the water temperature, dissol ved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. Therefore, indirect effects to freshwater invertebrates from effects to terrestrial monocots may

occur.

Indirect effects to aquatic habitats from terrestrial monocots could indirectly affect aquatic organism availab ility as a food source for other organisms. This could adversely affect freshwater invertebrates affected by changing prey populations.

The may affect and likely to adversely affect determination is based on direct
acute effects to freshwater invertebra tes and indirect effects from direct effects on terrestrial monocots, which may affect habitat and and/or aquatic prey populations. May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Chronic survival and reproduction No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC.123

Listed species

group Direct Effect

Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect

Effects Effects Determination

Estuarine/
Marine Fish Acute mortality No Effect

– risk quotients below LOC (based on surrogate data). Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments. It could affect estuarine/marine fish habitat by changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc. Therefore,
indirect effects to estuarin e/marine fish from effects to terrestrial monocots

may occur.

Indirect effects to aquatic habitats from terrestrial monocots could indirectly affect aquatic organism availability as a food source for other organisms. This could adversely affect estuarine /marine fish by altering prey populations.

Direct effects to estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute basis could decrease the food supply for estuarine/marine fish.

The may affect and likely to adversely affect determination is based on
indirect effe cts from direct effects to terrestrial monocots and aquatic organisms, which may affect habitat and and/or aquatic prey populations. May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Assessment of chronic growth and survival No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC.

Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates Acute mortality May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

risk quotients above

LOC Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat near aquatic environments. It could affect estuarine/marine invertebrate habitat by May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect124

Listed species

group Direct Effect

Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect

Effects Effects Determination

Assessment of chronic growth and reproductive

effects May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

– risk quotients above LOC (ba sed on

acute

- to

- chronic ratio). changing the water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, sedimentation, etc.

Therefore, indirect eff

ects to estuarine/marine invertebrates from effects to terrestrial monocots may occur.

Indirect effects to aquatic habitats from terrestrial plants could indirectly affect aquatic organism availability as a food source for other organisms. Thus, estuarin e/marine invertebrates may be adversely affected by changes in prey populations.

The may affect and likely to adversely affect determination is based on direct
acute and chronic risks to estuarine/marine invertebrates and indirect effects
from direct effects on terrestrial monocots, which may affect habitats and/or aquatic prey populations

Non

- target plants in
terrestrial and
semi

- aquatic

areas Primary productivity

assessed from effects on
biomass as measured using survival and dry weight; incident data. May Affect and Likely to Adversely
Affect

– Risk quotients above
LOC for monocots Direct chronic effects to mammals may adversely affect plants because some

mammals act as seed dispersers and pollinators. A reduction in these services could affect plant reproduction and establishment.

The may affect and likely to adversely affect determination is based on direct
risks to terrestrial monocots and indirect effects from direct effects to mammals (chronic), which may act as pollinators and seed dispersers. May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Birds, Reptiles, and
Land

- Phase Acute mortality No Effect

– EECs
below LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- tar get plants and modify the structural habitat. Resources for nests, May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect125

Listed species

group Direct Effect

Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect

Effects Effects Determination

Amphibians Chronic r eproduction No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. food, or camouflage may be diminished. Therefore, indirect effects to birds,

reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians from effects to terrestrial monocots may

occur.

Direct chronic effects to mammals may reduce prey availability for birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amphibians. These mammals may also provide habitat by modifying the environment (e.g., building a burrow that is later used by a reptile).

Aquatic food sources may also be affect ed because of direct effects to aquatic invertebrates (acute), and freshwater fish (chronic). This may decrease food availability for those birds, reptiles, and land

- phase amph ibians that rely on aquatic organisms.

The may a ffect and likely adversely affect determination is based on indirect effects from direct effects to terrestrial monocots, mammals (chronic), aquatic invertebrates (acute), and freshwater fish (chronic).

Mammals Acute mortality No Effect

– risk quotients below

LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift or runoff. This could result in reduced growth
of non

- target plants and modify the structural habitat. Resources for nests, food, or camouflage may be diminished. Therefore, indirect effects to mammals from effects to terrestrial monocots may occur.

Aquatic food sources may also be affected because of direct effects to aquatic invertebrates (acute), and freshwater fish (chronic). This may decrease food availability for those mammals that rely on aquatic organisms.

The may affect and likely to adversely affect determination is based on indirect effects from direct effects to terrestrial monocots, aquatic invertebrates (acute), and freshwater fish (chronic). May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Chronic Reproduction May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

– risk quotients above

LOC.126

Listed species

group Direct Effect

Assessment Endpoints Direct Effects Indirect

Effects Effects Determination

Terrestrial

Insects Acute mortality based on

contact No Effect

– EECs
below LOC. Direct effects to non

- listed and listed terrestrial monocots may occur from

quizalofop

- p

- ethyl spray drift and runoff exposure; therefore, indirect effects could occur from an alteration in habitat in which a species relies on for forage, shelter, and/or reproduction needs.

The may affect and likely to adversely affect determination is based on
indirect effects from direct effects to terrestrial monocots. Ma y Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect127 A CTION A REA In the case of a nation

- wide risk assessment conducted under registration review, the action area will encompass the entire U.S. and its territories. The purpose of defining the action

area as the entire U.S. and its territories is to ensure that the initial area of consideration encompasses all areas where the pesticide may be used now and in the future, including the potential for off

- site transport via spray drift and downstream dilution. Additionally, the concept of a nation

- wide action area takes into account the potential for direct and indirect effects and any potential modification to critical habitat based on ecological effect measures associated with reduction in survival, growth, and reproduction, as well as the full suite of

sub

- lethal effects available in the effects literature.

It is important to note that the nationwide action area does not imply that direct and/or indirect effects and critical habitat modification are expect ed to or are likely to occur over the full extent of the action area, but rather to identify all listed species and critical habitat that may potentially be affected by the action. The Agency will use more rigorous analysis including consideration of avai lable land cover data, toxicity data, and exposure information to determine areas where individual listed species and designated critical habitat may be affected or modified via endpoints associated with reduced survival, growth, or reproduction.

E FFECTS A REA D ETERMINATION The potential for direct and/or indirect effects is possible to listed species from exposure to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl.

Direct Effects

There are potential direct effects to listed species for the following taxa:

Mammals (based on chronic risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

Terrestrial Monocots (based on risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

Freshwater Fish (based on chronic risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

Freshwater Invertebrates (based on acute risk quotients exceeding the LOC)

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (based on acute risk quotients exceeding the LOC)128

Indirect Effects As there are potential direct effects to mammals, terrestrial monocots, freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, and estuarine/marine invertebrates, indirect effects could occur to

other taxa.

Indirect effects to listed fish, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and other terrestrial organisms ( e.g . birds, mammals and other invertebrates) that are dependent on aquatic invertebrates and plants for food. Indirect effects to terrestrial plants for which terrestrial animals ( e.g . birds and mammals) are needed for reproduction ( e.g . pollination, seed dispersal) as there may be a potential change in terrestrial animal communities/populations.

Indir ect effects to a listed species that is dependent on a mammal, freshwater fish, or aquatic invertebrate. Indirect effects to listed species that are dependent on a monocot in terrestrial or

semi

- aquatic areas during some phase of their life

- cycle for thing s such as food, shelter, and reproductive habitats.

The following table shows the potential taxa indirectly affected by direct effects ( Table 3 0)

Table 3 0. Organism groups that are potentially indirectly affected by direct effects to other organisms (specific to quizalofop

- p
- ethyl uses)

Taxon Directly Affected Taxon Indirectly Affected Reason for Indirect Effect

Mammals Reptiles, Birds, Plants, Amphibians Change in prey population (food source); Reduction in potential pollinators/seed dispersers Aquatic Invertebrates Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, Plants,
Mammals Change in prey population (food source)

Fish Reptiles, Fish, Amphibians, Mammals, Birds Change in prey population (food source)

Terrestrial Monocots All taxa (birds, mammals, reptiles,

amp hibians, fish, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates) Change in food sources; change in
habitats

Based on this screening

- level assessment, there are potential risks of direct effects to listed mammals, monocots, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and freshwater fish and non

- listed monocots, mammals, and freshwater fish from the use of quizalofop

- p

ethyl on some of its registered use sites. Listed species of all taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because of the poten tial direct effects on listed and non

- listed species. Potential direct effects on listed mammals, monocots, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and freshwater fish and non

- listed monocots, mammals, and freshwater fish from the use of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl may be associated with modificati on of primary constituent elements of designated critical habitats, where such designations have been made. However, a t this current stage of the Registration Review process, it is129

premature to make effects determinations for listed species until further refinements are conducted. To make effects determinations for individual species, useful refinements may include analyses of 1) more detailed, species

- specific ecological and biological data; 2) more detailed and accurate information on quizalofop

- p

- ethyl use patterns; and 3) sub

- county level spatial proximity data for the co

- occurrence of potential effects areas and listed species and any designated critical habitat. Examples of such refinements are described below.

EFED is currently developing tools th at are expected to further refine the assessment and are designed to support effects determinations for individual federally listed species and their designated critical habitats (where applicable). Scientific information obtained from the U.S. Fish & Wil dlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other reliable sources is being collated by EFED to address all currently listed species. The information will be stored in an Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticide Registration Inf ormation SysteM (PRISM) knowledgebase. The listed species knowledgebase will consist of an information repository that houses biological and behavioral information relevant to individual species ( e.g. , habitat, diet, and life history, including specific t emporal and spatial associations) and a document repository that contains supporting documents ( e.g ., USFWS recovery plans) and electronic information ( e.g ., GIS data files). For terrestrial taxa, the biological information relevant to risk quotient (RQ) calculations ( e.g ., diet and body weight) will be used to parameterize exposure estimates to derive species

- specific RQs using a method consistent with currently used methods in the T

- REX and T

- HERPS models.

Refinements may also include more detailed an alyses of the registered uses and their use patterns that result in LOC exceedances for federally listed species in the screening

- level assessment. The analyses may include more information on where, when, and how quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is used on all use sit es

. Actual usage data (when available) and national land

- cover datasets that indicate potential use sites [ e.g ., national land cover datase t (NLCD), crop data layer (CDL)] may be used to support a more refined analysis of where quizalofop

p

- ethyl is reaso nably expected to be used. Similarly, refinements for the timing of applications and how quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is used may be based on the analysis of additional usage data, beyond what were available at the time of the screening

- level assessment, and a

more in

- depth exploration of agronomic practices.

In addition, a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) has been tasked with providing advice on ecological risk assessment tools and scientific approaches under ESA and FIFRA (Project Identification Number DELS

- BEST

- 11

- 01). The committee has been asked to review the use of “best available data ; ” methods for evaluating sublethal, indirect, and cumulative effects; the state of the science regarding assessment of mixtures and pesticide inert ingredient s; the development, application, and interpretation of results from predictive models; uncertainty factors; and what constitutes authoritative geospatial and temporal information for the assessment of individual species and habitat effects. The Agency ant icipates that this NRC report, tentatively expected in Spring 2013, will provide recommendations to ensure the scientific soundness and maximize the utility of risk assessment refinements for listed species.130

The refinements based on individual species dat a; additional, detailed usage information, when available; and further recommendations from the NRC report are expected to help to more accurately identify potential areas of effect and to better inform effects and habitat determinations for listed species and any designated critical habitats. For example, if quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is used when a particular species of concern is not present ( e.g ., it is migratory) or is not co

- located in space, then risk of potential direct effects to the species may often be precluded. If LOCs are still exceeded for monocots, mammals, freshwater invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and freshwater fish after conducting the refined analyses, further analyses of the potential spatial and temporal co

- occurrence of liste d species of concern (and any designated critical habitat) may be conducted. The extent of possible refinement in the analyses of spatial/temporal co

- occurrence will largely depend on the scale and quality of the available sub

- county level use site ( e.g ., NLCD, CDL) and species location data

.
The Agency has made several refinements to the list of endangered and threatened species that may be affected by quizalofop

- p

- ethyl uses. To date, there are 1442 listed species identified in the LOCATES database (v. 2.2.4, derived from USFWS and NMFS)

. For 1295

o f these, a “no effect” determination for direct and indirect effects can be made based on a lack of geographical overlap

, based on a county level of resolution, between the species and quizalofop

- p

- ethyl use s (Appendix J, Table J

- 1 ). A further 26 species can be eliminated from consideration of direct effects (i.e., “no effects”) based on species specific ecological and bio logical information from listed species trustee agencies (Appendix J, Table J

- 2). The remaining 121 species will need to be considered in more depth before effects calls are made (Appendix J, Table J

- 3) . The biological, geographical, and use pattern information outlined above will be necessary to refine the a ssessment.131



# Uncertainties

A description of assumptions, uncertainties, strengths, and limitations of the basic risk assessment performed is described in Chapter 6 of the Agency’s Overview Document (EPA, 2004) and includes those related to exposure for all taxa, those related to exposure for aquatic species, those related to exposure for terrestrial animals, those related to the effects assessment, and those associated with the acute LOC values. This Chapter discusses
additional uncertainties associated wi th refinements made to the basic risk assessment.



### Effects and Risk Assessment Uncertainties

Ecotoxicity Data Gaps There were several ecotoxicity endpoints for which data were not available or available data

were non

- definitive.

Estuarine/Marine Fish ( Acute) OPPTS 850.1075. In the Problem Formulation, data were not requested because a registrant study had recently been submitted for this endpoint. A detailed review of the study at a later date indicated that it was “invalid”

and thus not useable for r isk assessments. To fill this data gap, freshwater and estuarine/marine acute fish toxicity studies for two structurally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl) were reviewed. The fenoxaprop

- ethyl
data indicated that freshwater fish a re more sensitive than estuarine/marine fish. A comparison of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl acute freshwater fish data to fenoxaprop

- ethyl indicated that quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is more toxic than fenoxaprop

- ethyl. Thus it was
determined that acute freshwater fish data from quizalofop

- p

- ethyl would be a protective surrogate for the missing estuarine/marine data. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate (Chronic) OPPTS 850.1350. In the Problem Formulation, data were not requested because it was possible to calculate an acute

- to

c hronic ratio using freshwater invertebrates (waterflea) as a surrogate. Freshwater Fish (Chronic) OPPTS 850.1400. Chronic data are available for the fathead minnow; however, the most sensitive acute freshwater fish endpoint is for the
rainbow trout. Ac ute toxicity information is not available for the fathead minnow. To ensure that the most sensitive chronic endpoint for freshwater fish was employed in the risk assessment, the acute to chronic ratio methodology was applied. An acute

chronic pair of dat a was available for the fathead minnow for fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl, a structurally similar chemical to quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. The ratio between the fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl fathead minnow endpoints was applied to the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl acute freshwater fish endpoint to derive a protective freshwater fish chronic endpoint. Avian (Acute) (L D50 ) OPPTS 850.2100. Definitive data were not available for either

the L D 5 0 or NOEL. EECs, based on the highest application rate, were less than one132 tenth of the L D 5 0 (>2000 mg ai/kg

- bw), indicating that more refined, definitive data were not necessary for this assessment. Passerine Birds (Acute) (LD 50 ) OPPTS 850.2100. Data were not available. At the time the Problem Formulation was written, passerine bird data were no t required. In lieu of this endpoint, the acute oral toxicity of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl to the mallard duck and common quail was used to evaluate risk. Avian (Chronic) (NOAEC) OPPTS 850.2300. The mallard duck study presented a

non

- definitive (less than) NOA EC. Given that the NOAEC was a “less than” value it presents uncertainty as to the true NOAEC and cannot be used in the risk assessment to calculate risk quotients. Mallard duck data from two structurally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxap rop

- ethyl) were considered as potential surrogates for the toxicity data. Fenoxaprop

- ethyl yielded a NOAEC (180 mg ai/kg

- diet) that was below the quizalofop

- p

- ethyl value (< 296 mg ai/kg

- diet). Given the similarity between fenoxaprop and quizalofop, it w as decided that the fenoxaprop

- ethyl mallard duck NOAEC could be used in place of the non

- definitive quizalofop

- p

- ethyl value. Aquatic Non

- Vascular Plants (E C50 ) OPPTS 850.5400

. Three of the four Tier 2

studies for non

- vascular plants were non

- definitiv e (greater than); these were also the most sensitive toxicity values. To justify the use of a less sensitive endpoint, non

vascular studies from two structurally similar chemicals (fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl and fenoxaprop

- ethyl) were considered. These chemicals showed a similar trend

– non

definitive toxicity values for the more toxic endpoints and definitive numbers at higher values. In addition, the fenoxaprop toxicity values were within the same order of magnitude as the quizalofop values. Thus, it was dete rmined that using the definitive quizalofop

- p

- ethyl toxicity value was a reasonable approach, given that the lower toxicity values were all “greater than” values

.

Application Rates

Several labels did not include the seasonal maximum application rate for q uizalofop

- p

- ethyl. In these cases, seasonal maximum application rates were assumed based on other information from the label or similar application patterns for uses that did contain the complete

information. The Biological and Economic Division (BEAD) o f OPP was consulted and they concurred with the assumptions. The following scenarios were affected:

Non

- crop areas (uncultivated areas, fence rows, roadsides, equipment storage areas, and other similar areas)

– seasonal maximum application rate assumed to be equivalent to twice the single maximum application rate Paved areas (private roads/sidewalks)

– seasonal maximum application rate assumed to be equivalent to single maximum application rate Hybrid cottonwood/poplar plantations

– seasonal maximum applic ation rate assum ed to be equivalent to two applications at the single maximum application rate133

Fate Data Gaps Little data are available for the degradates of concern. Potentially, degradate fate data could be estimated from parent studies. However, the resulting estimates might be highly

uncertain. The 3

- OH

- quizalofop acid degradate was only found in more recent studies. Potentially, this degradate of concern is unaccounted for in the TTR calculated from older fate studies and therefore represents an ad ditional source of uncertainty.

Additionally, the parent fish bioconcentration study was not performed under conditions that did not allow the fish to be continuously exposed to the parent compound. The highest BCF
was seen in viscera in the first few da ys of the study, presumably when the parent had not yet degraded. As the test progressed, the BCFs declined.

Incomplete Life Histories of Listed Species Currently, a database of life histories for each of the listed animals and plants is not available

f or use by EFED. These life histories would include information such as body size at each life stage, food sources, relationships with other taxa, habitat, and reproductive habits. As such, conservative (protective) assumptions were made concerning the po tential relationships between species in that each species was assumed to have a relationship with the other taxa. This is assumed to be an overestimation of the actual species that have a species dependant relationship.

Locations of Listed Species

In addition, the specific occurrences of listed species are not known in some cases beyond the
county

- level. If the location of a species was not known in greater detail than the county level, the species was assumed to occur anywhere with in that county at a ny time. Likewise, crop location data are also uncertain. Crops may rotate every year and some spatial datasets combine several crop types, making it impossible to distinguish one crop from another. Further, timing may play a role in the location of spe cies and whether it overlaps with the time that a particular crop is in a field. The s e assumption s may lead to an overestimation of

co

- occurrence with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl exposure and overestimation of the number of species potentially at risk.

Other Rout es of Exposure Screening

- level risk assessments for applications of pesticides consider dietary exposure alone. Other routes of exposure, not considered in this assessment, are discussed below:

Incidental soil ingestion exposure

- This risk assessment do es not consider incidental soil ingestion. Available data suggest that up to 15% of the diet can consist of incidentally ingested soil depending on the species and feeding strategy (Beyer et al. , 1994). This route134

of exposure may be important for applica tions of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl for spray applications, especially before crops are planted.

Dermal Exposure

- The screening assessment does not consider dermal exposure, except as it is indirectly included in calculations of risk quotient’s based on lethal d oses per unit of pesticide treated area. Dermal exposure may occur through three potential sources: (1) direct application of spray to terrestrial wildlife in the treated area or within the drift footprint, (2) incidental contact with contaminated vegetat ion, or (3) contact with contaminated water or soil. As foliar applications are primary application routes on the registered labels for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl, dermal contact with quizalofop

- p

- ethyl to non

- target animals may occur.

Foliar Dissipation Half

- li fe An additional source of uncertainty is the foliar dissipation half

- life, which is useful for spray applications to foliage. No half

- life data were provided, thus a default of 35 days was used.
It is not known if this half

- life over or under

- estimates the true half

- life for quizalofop

- p

ethyl.

Species Sensitivity Although the screening

- level risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoints

r eflect the sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the overall variability among species to a partic ular chemical. In the case of listed species, there is uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species’ sensitivity and the most sensitive species tested.

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non

- standard test species when available.

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) As required by FIFRA and FFDCA, EPA reviews numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals. Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, reproductive, and general or systemic toxicity. These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cycling , sexual maturation, fertility, pregnancy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. F or ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth, developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups. As part of its recent registration on135

herbicide

- tolerant corn and sorghum, EPA review ed these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by a “naturally occurring est rogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a chemic al substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of t he EDSP where EPA will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 testing is designed to identify any adverse

endocrine

- related effects caused by the substance, and establish a dose

- response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call

- ins for the first group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 p esticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA will issue
future EDSP orders/data call

- ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for quizalofop

- p

- ethy l

. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 scre ening battery, please visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

Spatial Analysis Data are not available for the percent of cropped areas and changes in crops (e.g., crop rotation or permanent shifts) over time. This remains an uncertainty, particularly for the proximity analysis for listed species. Additionally, future expansions in the use of quizalofop

- p

- ethyl are not considered. For exam ple, many labels have geographical restrictions (e.g., ryegrass grown for seed in Minnesota). Likewise, expansions to other crops (e.g., expansion to use on herbicide

- tolerant field corn; current label only allows herbicide

tolerant field corn grown for s eed). As labels change and uses are expanded, the result may be a larger geographical area in which quizalofop

- p

- ethyl can be used.136



# References

Adams, Christopher, 1999. Chemical And Biological Modes of Action Aryl

- oxy

- phenoxy

Pesticides in Pesticide Toxicology Reviews 100: 33

- 73.

Beyer, W.N., E. Connor, and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of soil ingestion by wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management , 58:375

- 382.

Fletcher, J., Nellessen, J., & Pfleeger, T. (1994). Literature review and ev aluation of the

EPA Food

- Chain (Kenaga) Nomogram, an Instrument for Estimating Pesticide Residues

on Plants. Environ. Tox. Chem ., 13, 1383

- 1391.

Hoerger, F., & Kenaga, E.E.. (1972). Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a b asis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds

., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology . Stuttgart, West Germany: Georg Thieme Publ, pp. 9

- 28.

Tomlin, C. 1994. The Pesticide Ma nual, Tenth Edition, Crop Protection Publications; British Crop Protection Council, 49 Downing St, Farnham, Survey G U 9 7 PH , United Kingdom

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Handbook, Volume I of II. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

EPA/600/R

- 93/187a.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endan gered and Threatened Species Effects Determination. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C., January 23, 2004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. EFED problem formul ation for quizalofop

- p

- ethyl registration review PC code: quizalofop

- ethyl (PC 128711) and quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (128709) DP Barcode: D344060, D544156. Environmental Fate ane Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Prote ction Agency.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Quizalofop final work plan registration review. Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency.137

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. EFED environmental risk assessment of proposed label for Assure II (quizalofop

- p

- ethyl), new uses on rapeseed subgroup 20a, sorghum containing the DupontTM InzenTM AII herbicide tolerance trait, and corn containing DAS

- 4027809 (amended). Environmen tal Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

United States Environmental Protection Agencye (EPA). 2011b. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl screening level usage analysis (SLUA). Biological and Economic A nalysis Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Final Draf

t. March 1998.138



## Appendix A

– Bibliography of MRIDs

Ecological Effects Studies

MRID 00128207. Cameron, B.; McDougall, J.; Craig, W.; et al. (1982) The Determina

- tion of the Acute Toxicity (LC50) of NC 302 to Fish (96 Hours, Static): Report No. 2461. (Unp ublished study received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; prepared by Inveresk Research Interna

- tional, Scot., submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250071

- L)

MRID 00128208. Hutton, D.; Hall, C. (1983) 96

- hour LC50 to Bluegil l Sunfish: ?INY

6202

- 6 : Haskell Laboratory Report No. 17

- 83. (Unpublished study received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250071

- M)

MRID 00128209. Cameron, B.; McDougall, J.; Craig, W .; et al. (1983). The Determina tion of the Acute Toxicity (LC50) of NC 302 to Daphnia (96 Hours): Report No. 2460. (Unpublished study received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; prepared by Inveresk Research Interna

- tional, Scot., submitted by E.I. du Pont de N emours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250071

- N)

MRID 00128210. Cameron, B.D., and J. McDougall. 1982. The Determination of the Acute Toxicity (LD50) of NC 302 to Birds Single Oral Administration (Capsule). Unpublished study performed by Inveresk Research International, Musselburgh, Scotland. Laboratory Project No. 130194. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries Limited, Chiyoda

- ku, Tokyo, Japan. Study initiated August 25, 1982 and submitted November 1982.

MRID 00128211. Cameron, B.; McDougall, J.; Dick, A.; et al. (1983) The Determina

- tion of the Short Term Cumulative (Sub

- acute) Toxicity of NC 302 to Birds: Dietary Administration: Report No. 2446. (Unpublished st udy received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; prepared by Inver

- esk Research International, Scot., submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilmington, DE; CDL:250071

- P)

MRID 00146680. Hall, C. (1984) 96

- Hour LC50 to Rainbow Trout: INY

- 6202

- 15: R eport No. 466

- 84. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 7 p.

MRID 00146951. Wetzel, J. (1985)

. 48

- Hour EC50 to Daphnia magna: NC

- 302 Technical and DPX

- Y6202: Haskell Laboratory Report No. 458

- 84. Unpub

- lished study prepare d by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co, Inc. 7 p.

MRID 00147574. Beavers, J.B., and M. Jaber. 1984. A Dietary LC50 Study in the Bobwhite with H # 15,562. Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International Ltd., St. Michaels, Maryland. Laboratory Re port Number 12

- 158. Study sponsored by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Newark, DE. Study initiated October 2, 1984 and submitted December 10, 1984.139

MRID 00150109. Hutton, D. (1985) Early Life Stage Toxicity of Propanoic Acid, 2

- [4

- (6

- Chloroquinoxalin

- 2

- yloxy)phenoxy]

- , Ethyl Ester to Fathead Minnow: Haskell Laboratory Report No. 164

- 85: Medical Research Project No. 4581

- 253. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 23 p

.

MRID 00150942. Meade, Alston B. 1984. Acute Contact LD 50 Toxicity Study in Honey Bees ( Apis mellifera ) with INY6202. Laboratory report number ABM

- 84

- 1. Unpublished study by E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE, sponsored by E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Wilmington, DE.

MRID 00153351 . Mullin, L. 1985. Two

- generation reproduction study in rats with IN

Y6202 (HLR

- 633

- 85): Report number 633

- 85. Unpublished study prepared by Haskell Laboratory for Toxicology and Industrial Medicine. E. I du Pont de Nemours & Co., Newark, DE.

MRID 40242204. Ward, T. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Haskell Sample #15,889 to Mysids Mysidopsis bahia: Report No. HLO

- 564

- 85. Rev. Unpublished study prepared by ERCO/A Division ENSEC Inc. 19 p.

MRID 40242205. Barrows, M.E. 1987. Acute toxicity of H

- 16,481 to mysid shrimp ( Mysidopsis bahia ). Laboratory report number HLO 100

- 87. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle, New England Marine Research Lab. Sponsored by E. I. DuPont de Demours & Company, Newark, DE.

MRID 40242207. Barrows, M. (1986) The Oyster Shell Deposition Test to Assess the Acute Effects of H

- 16,481 on Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea virgi

- nica): Project No. N

- 0799

- 8303. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle, New England Marine Research Lab. 27 p.

MRID 4323560 2. Hughes, J.S. and T.L. Williams. 1994. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (DPX 79376): Toxicity to Anabaena flos

- aquae . Unpublished study performed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Tarrytown, NY. Laboratory report number B382

- 167

- 2. Study sponsored by E.I. du Pont de Nemo urs and Company, Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE. Study completed April 26, 1994.

MRID 43270901. Hughes, J.; Williams, T. (1994) Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (DPX 79376): Toxicity to Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: B382

- 167

- 3: AMR 2842

- 93. Unpubli shed study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 29 p.

MRID 43270902. Hughes, J.S. and T.L. Williams. 1994. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl (DPX 79376): Toxicity to Skeletonema costatum . Unpublished study performed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Tarrytown, NY. Laboratory r eport number B382

- 167

- 4. Study sponsored by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Agricultural Products, Wilmington, DE. Study completed May 16, 1994.140

MRID 46607101. Frey, L., K. Martin, J. Beavers, et al. 1999. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl: a reproduction stu dy with the northern bobwhite. Project number: 221/112,071598/QR/WC/SUB221. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

MRID 46607102. Frey, L., K. Martin, J. Beavers, et al. 1999. Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl: a reproduction study with the ma llard. Project number: 221/113,071598/MR/WC/SUB221. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

MRID 47408402

. Croudace, C.P. 1992. Quizalofop

- Ethyl Technical D+ Isomer: Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ). Unpublished study performed by Imperial Chemical Industries PLC, Brixham Devon TQ5 8BA, UK, Laboratory report number W326/C. Study sponsored by Schering Agrochemicals Ltd., Chesterford Park Research Station, Saffron Walden, Essex CB10 1XL, UK. Study com pleted May 1, 1992

MRID 47408405. Jenkins, C. (1997) Quizalofop

- P: Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout: Determination of 96

- Hour (Lethal Concentrations 50): Final Report. Project Number: NAS/213, NAS213/970303, 970303. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdo n Life Sciences, Ltd. 28 p.

MRID 47408407. Jenkins, C.A. 1997. Quizalofop

- P: Acute toxicity to Daphnia magna

Determination of 48

- hour EC 50 under static conditions. Unpublished study performed by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd., Suffolk, England. Labor atory report number NAS214/970304. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Agricultural Division, Tokyo, Japan. Study completed June 6, 1997.

MRID 47408409. Jenkins, C.A. 1999. Quizalofop

- P: Daphnia Magna Reproduction Test Final Report. Unpublished study performed by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd., Eye, Suffolk, England. Laboratory Study No. NAS240. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Chiyoda

- ku, Tokyo, Japan. Study initiated October 20, 1998 and submitted February 25 , 1999.

MRID 47408410. Sowig, P. and H. Gosch. 2002. Acute toxicity to Daphnia magna (Waterflea) under static testing conditions

- Quizalofop

- P

- ethyl 50 g ai/L EC. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience GmbH, Ecotoxicology, D

- 65926 Frankfurt am Main, Federal Republic of Germany. Laboratory report number CE02/019. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. Study completed on October 31, 2002.

MRID 47408411. Spatz, B. 2003. Effects of Targa Super (Quizalo fop

- P

- ethyl 50 g/L EC) on Terrestrial (Non

- Target) Plants: Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth Test. Unpublished study performed by Institut fur Biologische Analytik und Consulting IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany. Laboratory Project No.: 13841086. Stu dy submitted by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan. Study completed January 30, 2003.141

MRID 47408412. Spatz, B. (2003) Effects of Targa Super (Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl 50 g/L EC) on Terrestrial (Non

- Target) Plants: Vegetative Vigour Test: Final Report. Project Number: 13842087. Unpublished study prepared by Institut fuer Biologische Analytik und Consulting IBACON. 64 p.

MRID 47408413. Sowig, P.; Gosch, H. (2002) Acute Toxicity to Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) Under Static Testing Conditio ns: Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl 50g ai/L EC. Project Number: CE02/018. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer Cropscience Gmbh. 33 p.

MRID 47910501. Jenkins, C.A. 1999. Quizalofop

- P: Daphnia magna Reproduction Test. Unpublished study performed by Huntington Life Sciences Ltd., Suffolk, England. Laboratory Report No. NAS240/992114. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Chiyoda

- ku, Tokyo, Japan. Final report submitted February 25, 1999.

MRID 47910503. Minderhout, T., J.A. MacGregor, and H.O. Krueger. 2009. Quizalofop

P

- Ethyl: An Early Life

- Stage Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ). Unpublished study performed by Wildlife Int ernational, Ltd., Easton, MD. Laboratory Project No. 221A

- 101. Study submitted by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Chiyoda

- ku, Tokyo, Japan. Study initiated October 17, 2007 and completed June 1, 2009.

MRID 47910505. Porch, J.R., Martin, K.H., and Krueger, H.O. 2009. Quizalofop

- P

- ethyl 10.3% EC (Targa): A toxicity test to determine the effects of the test substance on vegetative vigor of ten species of plants. Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, Maryland. Laboratory Project Number: 221

- 116. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. Study completed July 23, 2009.

MRID 48037501. Jenkins, C.A. 1997. Quizalofop

- P: Determination of 72

- hour EC 50 to Selenastrum capricornutum . Unpublished study performed by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd., Suffolk, England. Laboratory project no.: NAS212/970302. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan. Study completed June 6, 1997.

MRID 48037504. Cockroft, R. 2004. Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl: Higher Plant ( Lemna ) Growth Inhibition Test. Unpublished study performed by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd., Cambridgeshire, England. Laboratory project no.: NAS/647. Study sponsored by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Chiyoda

- ku, Tokyo, Japan. Study com pleted October 29,
2004.

MRID 48038101. Friedrich, Sabine. 2009. Terrestrial (non

- target) plant test with Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl 5% EC: Seedling emergence and seedling growth test. Unpublished study performed by BioChem agrar, Gerichshain, Germany. Laborat ory project no.: 08 10 48 012 S. Study sponsored by Sharda Worldwide Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, India. Study completed March 31, 2009.142

MRID 48038102. Friedrich, S. (2009) Terrestrial (Non

- Target) Plant Test with Quizalofop

P

- Ethyl 5% EC: Vegetative Vig our Test: Final Report. Project Number: 08/10/48/013/S. Unpublished study prepared by Biochem Agrar, Labor fuer Biologische und Chemische. 79 p.

MRID 48041401. Sloman, T.; Leva, S. (1998) Quizalofop P

- Ethyl 10.9% EC Formulation: Influence on Growth and G rowth Rate of the Green Alga Selenastrum Capricornutum. Project Number: AMR/4468/97, MR/11401. Unpublished study prepared by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 33 p.

MRID 48356801. Porch, J.R. and T.Z. Kendall. 2011. Quizalofop P

- Ethyl (DPX

- 79376) 10EC: A Greenhouse Study to Investigate the Effects on the Vegetative Vigor of an Emergent Macrophyte under Static

- Renewal Conditions. Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International, Ltd., Easton, Maryland. S tudy Project Number: 112

- 671. Study sponsored by E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Wilmington, Delaware and Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., Chiyoda

- ku, Tokyo, Japan. Study completed January 14, 2011.

MRID 48417901. Bomke, C. 2008. Early

- Life Stage Toxicity of Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl (technical) to Fish (Pimephales promelas). Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience AG, Development

- Environmental SafetyEcotoxicology (BCS

- D

- EnSa

ETX), 40789. Monheim am Rhein, Germany. Laboratory Study Number: EBFPL009. Study sponsored/submitted by Bayer CropSciences AG. Study initiated on Nov 15, 2010 and completed on March 8, 2011 (MRID 484179

- 01).

MRID 48492501. Bomke, C. 2011. Acute toxicity of fenoxaprop

- p

- ethyl to fish ( Pimphales promelas ) under flow

- through conditions. Laboratory project number: EBFPL012/E 280 3970

- 9. Bayer CropScience AG Development

– Environmental Safety

– Ecotoxicoloty, Monheim, Germany.



### Environmental Fate Studies

Quizalofop

-

p

- ethyl Studies (PC 128709)

MRID 43235603. McMillan, J. (1994) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Quinoxaline(U)

- (carbon 14))Quizalofop P

- Ethyl: Lab Project Number: AMR 2656

- 93. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Global Technology Div. 76 p.

MRID 47408414. Farr ell, P. (2003) Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl: Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study with Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl 50g AS/L EC Applied to Bare Soil in the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and South France, 2001/2002. Project Number: NAS/347/024371, NAS/347. Unpublished study pr epared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 149 p.143

MRID 47408415. Farrell, P. (2003) Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl: Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study with Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl 50 G ASL EC Applied to Bare Soil in the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and South France, 200 1/2002 (Report Amendment 1). Project Number: NAS/347/024371, NAS/347. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 16 p.

MRID 47408416. Farrell, P. (2003) Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl: Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study with Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl 50 G AS/L EC Applied to Bare Soil in Spain, 2002. Project Number: NAS/404/033001, NAS/404. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 97 p.

MRID 47408417. Tate, S. (2003) Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl: Development and Validation of Methodology for th e Determination of Residues of Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl and Its Two Major Metabolites Quizalofop and 3

- OH

- Quizalofop in Soil. Project Number: NAS/351/022689, NAS/351. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd. 119 p.

Quiza lofop

- ethyl Studies (PC 128711)

MRID 00128214. Cadwgan, G. (1983) Hydrolysis of [ 14 C]

- quinoxaline

- labeled DPX

Y6202: Document No. AMR

- 127

- 83. (Unpublished study received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wil mington, DE; CDL:250071

- S)

MRID 00131585. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1983) (Study

-- Residue: DPX

Y6202 on Soybeans and Other Rotational Crops). (Compilation; unpublished study received Oct 14, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 115; CDL: 072026

- B)

MRID 00146693. Ryan, D. (1984?) Photolysis of [Carbon 14]

- DPX

- Y6202 in Water: AMR

275

- 84. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 19 p.

MRID 00146694. Wakabayashi, T.; Hirata, H.; Takano, S. (1985) Environmental Chem

istry of NC

- 302

-- Photolysis of NC

- 302 on Soil. Unpublished study prepared by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. 14 p.

MRID 00146948. Ryan, D. (1985) Photodegradation of [Quinoxaline

- [Carbon 14]] DPX

Y6202 on Soil: Document No. AMR

- 289

- 84. Unpublished study pre

- pared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 21 p.

MRID 40336002. Ryan, D.; Atkins, B. (1986) Photodegradation of [Phenyl(U)

- [Carbon 14]
DPX

- Y6202 and [Quinoxaline(U)

- [Carbon 14] DPX

- Y6202 on Soil: Laboratory Project
ID: AMR

- 576

- 86. Unpublished study prepare d by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 38 p.144

MRID 00128213. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. (19??) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of [ 14 C]

- phenyl

- labeled DPX

- Y6202: ?Submitter| Document No. AMR

- 126

- 83. (Unpublished study received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; submitted by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Wilming

- ton, DE; CDL:250071

- R)

MRID 00131585. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1983) (Study

-- Residue: DPX

Y6202 on Soybeans and Other Rotational Crops). (Compilation; unpublished study received Oct 14, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 115; CDL: 072026

- B)

MRID 00146695. Cadwgan, G.; McFetridge, R. (1985?) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of [Phenyl

- [carbon 14](U)] DPX

- Y6202: AMR

- 329

- 85. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 43 p.

MRID 001 46696. Hirata, H.; Wakabayashi, T.; Takano, S.; et al. (1985) Environmen

- tal Chemistry of NC

- 302

-- Degradation of NC

- 302 in Soil. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. 27 p.

MRID 00150937. Cadwgan, G. (1984) Aerobic Soil Metab olism of [Carbon

- 14

- Quinoxa

line

- Labeled]

- DPX

- Y6202. Unpublished study prepared by E.I. du

- Pont de Nemours and Co. Inc. 46 p.

MRID 00146696. Hirata, H.; Wakabayashi, T.; Takano, S.; et al. (1985) Environmental Chemistry of NC

- 302

-- Degradation of NC

- 302 in Soil. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. 27 p.

MRID 00146697. Cadwgan, G.; McFetridge, R. (1985?) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [Quinoxaline

- carbon 14] DPX

- Y6202 and [Phenyl

- carbon 14(U)] DPX

- Y6202: AMR

350

- 85. Unpubl ished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 51 p.

MRID 00146698. Priester, T. (1985?) Batch Equilibrium (Absorption/Desorption) and Soil
Thin

- layer Chromatography Studies with [Quinoxaline

- phenyl

- carbon 14(U)] DPX

Y6202: AMR

- 314

- 85. Unp ublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 32 p.

MRID 00146700. Wakabayashi, T.; Hirata, H.; Takano, S. (1985) Environmental Chem

istry of NC

- 302

-- Soil Adsorption and Desorption of NC

- 302 in Soil. Unpublished study prepared by Nissa n Chemical Industries, Ltd. 17 p.

MRID 00146699. Wakabayashi, T.; Hirata, H.; Takano, S. (1985) Environmental Chemistry of NC

- 302

-- Mobility of NC

- 302 in Soil. Unpublished study prepared by Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. 20 p.

MRID 00146947. Priester, T. (1985) Batch Equilibrium (Adsorption/Desorption) and Soil
Thin

- Layer Chromatography Studies with [Quinoxaline

- [Carbon 14]] 2

- [4

- (6

- Chloroquinoxalin

- 2

- yloxy)Phenoxy] Propanoic Acid ("DPX

- Y6202 Acid"): Document145

No. AMR

- 336

- 85. Unpublished stud y prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 57 p.

MRID 00146949. Monson, K. (1985) Soil Column Leaching Behavior of [Quinoxaline

- [Carbon 14]] DPX

- Y6202: Document No. AMR

- 357

- 85. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 3 0 p.

MRID 00146698. Priester, T. (1985?) Batch Equilibrium (Absorption/Desorption) and Soil
Thin

- layer Chromatography Studies with [Quinoxaline

- phenyl

- carbon 14(U)] DPX

Y6202: AMR

- 314

- 85. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.,
Inc . 32 p.

MRID 00128215. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (1983) [Soil Recovery Analyses:
DPX

- Y6202]. (Unpublished study received May 2, 1983 under 352

- EX

- 112; CDL:250071

- T)

MRID 00146950. Cadwgan, G.; Atkins, B. (1985) Field Soil Dissipation [Phenyl

- [Carbon 14](U)] and [Quinoxaline

- [Carbon 14]] DPX

- Y6202 in Delaware, North Carolina, Illinois and Mississippi: Document No. AMR

- 333

- 85. Unpublished study prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. 39 p.

MRID 40336001. Ryan, K. (1987) Field Dissip ation of DPX

- Y6202 (Assure): Laboratory Project ID: AMR

- 921

- 87. Unpublished study prepared by Bio

- spherics Inc. 191 p.

MRID 00131583. Hutton, D.G. 1983. DPX

- Y6202 Residue studies with Bluegill sunfish.146



## Appendix B

– Aryloxyphenoxypropionate Chemical Family (“FOPs”)

Table B

- 1. Structures of the Aryloxyphenoxypropionate Chemical Family parents and corresponding primary degradate, which is the active ingredient.

Parent Primary Degradate (Active Ingredient) Clodinafop

- propargyl Clodinafop

Cyhalofop

- butyl Cyhalofop

Diclofop

- methyl Diclofop

Fenoxaprop

- P

- ethyl Fenoxaprop

- P

Fluazifop

- P

- butyl Fluazifop

- P

Haloxyfop

- R

- methyl Haloxyfop

- R

Propaquizafop Quizalofop

Quizalofop

- P

- ethyl Quizalofop

Based on pesticides included as aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides ( http://pested.okstate.edu/pdf/herbicide%20moa.pdf ).147



## Appendix C

– Chemical Structures and Maximum Degradate Formation

Table C

- 1. Chemical Names and Structures of Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl and its Degradates

Chemical Name Structure

Quizalofop

- p
- ethyl

IUPAC name: ethyl ( R )

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloroquinoxalin

- 2

- yloxy)phenoxy]propionate

CAS name: ethyl (2R)

- 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoate
Quizalofop acid

IUPAC name: ( RS

)

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloroquinoxalin

- 2

- yloxy)phenoxy]propionic acid

CAS name: 2

- [4

- [(6

- chloro

- 2

- quinoxalinyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid

3

- OH

- quizalofop acid

CAS name: ( R )

- 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 3

- hydroxyquinoxalin

- 2

- yloxy)phenoxy]propionic acid

Phenol 1

Hydroxylated Phenol 1

Phenol 2

Hydroxy phenol 2

CAS name: 6

- chloroquinoxaline

- 2,3

- diol148

Chemical Name Structure

Phenol 3

Phenol 4149

Table C

- 2. Maximum Reported Amounts of Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl Degradation Products.

Degradate Maximum % of Applied

(μg/L or μg/kg in Field Studies) Study Type MRID Quizalofop acid Laboratory studies

~100% 4.1% (28 d) 7.2% (15 d) 78.3% (2 d) 62.6% (15 d) 80.2% (2 d) 51% of residues in viscera Hydrolysis Aqueous photolysis Soil photolysis Aerobic soil metabolism Aerobic soil metabolism Anaerobic soil metabolism Fish bioaccumulation 00131583 00146693 40336002 00146695 43235603 00146697 00131583 Terrestrial field dissipation studies 79.7 ng/g Southern France Soil 474084146

3

- OH

quizalofop acid Laboratory studies

20.8% (60 d) Aerobic soil metabolism 43235603

Terrestrial field dissipation studies 5.4 ng/g United Kingdom Soil 47408414 6

Phenol 1 Laboratory studies

5.1% (28 d) 6.1% (24 d) 2.3% (30 d) 9.5% (52 d) Aqueous photolysis Aerobic soil metabolism Aerobic soil metabolism Anaerobic soil metabolism 00146693 00146695 43235603 00146697

Phenol 2 Laboratory studies

2.7% (22 d) 5.0% (60 d) 13.2% (6 d) Aqueous photolysis Aerobic soil metabolism Anaerobic soil metabolism 00146693 43235603 00146697 Hydroxy phenol
2 Laboratory studies

11.2% (91 d) 25.4% (52 d) Aerobic soil metabolism Anaerobic soil metabolism 43235603 00146697

Phenol 3 Laboratory studies

2.0% (53 d) Aerobic soil metabolism 00146695

Phenol 4 Laboratory studies

31.1% (5 d) Aerobic soil metabolism 00146695

Unextracted Residue Laboratory studies

29.9% (53 d) 26.6% (91 d) 34.0% (30 d) Aerobic soil metabolism Aerobic soil metabolism Anaerobic soil metabolism 00146695 43235603 00146697

Carbon Dioxide Laboratory studies

22.3% (32 d) 41.1% (53 d) 8.3% (91 d) Soil photolysis Aerobic soil metabolism Aerobic soil metabolism 40336002 00146695 43235603 d = days; m = months150151



## Appendix D

– ECOTOX Literature Search

Papers That Were Accepted

Ahemad, M. and Khan, M. S. Toxicity Assessment of Herbicides Quizalafop

- p

- Ethyl and Clodinafop Towards

Rhizobium Pea Symbiosis. BCM,GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2009; 82, (6): 761

- 766.
Notes: EcoReference No.: 150237 Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Rejected because units were not convertable to lb ai/A.

De, R. K.; Mandal, R. K.; Sarkar, S., and Ghorai, A. K. Non

- Target Effect of Herbicides on Macrophomina

phaseolina Causing Stem Rot of Jute. POP ENV; 2007; 25S, (2): 475

- 478. Notes: EcoReference No.: 100606 Chemical of Concern: QZFE,TFN

Rejected because the units are not convertable to lb ai/A

Dear, B. S.; Sandral, G. A., and Wilson, B. C. D. Tolerance of Perennial Pasture Grass Seedlings to Pr e

- and

Post

- Emergent Grass Herbicides. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2006; 46, (5): 637

- 644. Notes: EcoReference No.: 86670 Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CLT,CSF,CZE,DFPM,FNPPE,FZFB,MBZ,PDM,PZM,QZFE,SXD,SZ,TFN,TKY,TRL,TS
F

Rejected because the units are not convertible to lb ai/A

Eleftherohorinos, I. G. and Dhima, K. V. Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Control in Rice (O. sativa) with

Preemergence and Postemergence Herbicides. POPAQUA; 2002; 16, (3): 537

- 540. Notes: EcoReference No.: 95840 Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,DMM,GFS,G YP,MTL,PQT,QZFE

Rejected because the test duration was too long.

Hall, L. M.; Moss, S. R., and Powles, S. B. Mechanisms of Resistance to Aryloxyphenoxypropionate

Herbicides in Two Resistant Biotypes of Alopecurus myosuroides (Blackgrass): Herbicide
Me tabolism as a Cross

- Resistance Mechanism. GROSOIL,ENV; 1997; 57, (2): 87

- 98. Notes: EcoReference No.: 108307 Chemical of Concern: DFPM,FNPE,QZFE,SXD,TKY

Rejected because an EC 25 endpoint was needed

Heap, I. M. and Morrison, I. N. Resistance to Aryloxyphenoxypropionate and Cyclohexanedione Herbicides in

Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis). GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 44, (1): 25

- 30. Notes: EcoReference No.: 120407 Chemical of Concern: CLFP,CLT,CTL,DFPM,EFL,FNPPE,QZFE,SXD,TKY

Rejected because an EC 25 endpoint was needed

Kuk, Y. I.; Wu, J.; Derr, J. F., and Hatzios, K. K. Mechanism of Fenoxaprop Resistance in an Accession of

Smooth Crabgrass (Digitaria ischaemum). ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1999; 64, (2): 112

- 123. Notes: EcoReference No.: 109535 Che mical of Concern: FNPE,FNPPE,QZFPE,SXD152

Rejected because the endpoint was not an EC 25

Matthews, N.; Powles, S. B., and Preston, C. Mechanisms of Resistance to Acetyl

- Coenzyme A Carboxylase

Inhibiting Herbicides in a Hordeum leporinum Population. ACC,BCM,MO RSOIL,ENV; 2000; 56, 441

- 447. Notes: EcoReference No.: 63953 Chemical of Concern: CLT,DFP,FZFB,QZFPE,SXD,TKY

Rejected because the endpoint was not an EC 25

Pannacci, E.; Graziani, F., and Covarelli, G. Use of Herbicide Mixtures for Pre and Post

- Emergen ce Weed

Control in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 26, (8): 1150

- 1157. Notes: EcoReference No.: 101888 Chemical of Concern: FFC,LNR,MTC,OXF,PDM,QZFPE

Rejected because it was not the lowest endpoint

Rea, B. L.; Mayes, A. J ., and Marshall, J. FBC 32197 for Annual and Perennial Grass Weed Control in Oilseed

Rape. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1984; 6, 191

- 198. Notes: EcoReference No.: 31475 Chemical of Concern: CPR,FZFB,QZFE

Rejected because the test duration was too long

Sakata , G.; Makino, K.; Kusano, K.; Satow, J.; Ikai, T., and Suzuki, K. Preparation of Optically Pure Ethyl (R)

-

(+) and (S)

- (

- )

- 2

- (4

- (6

- Chloro

- 2

- Quinoxalinyloxy)Phenoxy]Propanoate by Resolution Method and Their Herbicidal Activities. GROSOIL,ENV; 1985; 10, 75

- 79. Notes: EcoReference No.: 100574 Chemical of Concern: QZFE,QZFPE

Rejected because the units were not convertible to lb ai/A

Sakata, G.; Makino, K.; Morimoto, K.; Ikai, T., and Hasebe, S. Synthesis and Herbicidal Activity of Optically

Active Ethyl 2

- [4

- (6

- Chloro

- 2

- Quinoxalinyloxy)Phenoxy]Propanoate. GROSOIL,ENV; 1985; 10, (1): 69

- 73. Notes: EcoReference No.: 100572 Chemical of Concern: QZFE,QZFPE

Rejected because the units were not convertible to lb ai/A

Soltani, N.; Robinson, D. E.; Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis) Responses to

Post

- Emergence Herbicides. BCM,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 25, (6): 613

- 617. Notes: EcoReference No.: 100593 Chemical of Concern: BT,FSF,IZX,QZFPE,SXD

Rejected because there was already a lower endpoint

Zhang, X.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y.; Xia, T.; Chen, J., and Cai, X. Differential Enantioselectivity of Quizalofop

Ethyl and Its Acidic Metabolite: Direct Enantiomeric Separation and Assessment of Multiple Toxicological Endpoints. PHY, POPAQUA; 2011; 186, (1): 876

- 882. Notes: EcoReference No.: 154896 Chemical of Concern: QZFE,QZFPE153 Rejected because it was not the lowest endpoint



### Papers That Were Not Accepted
Accepted for EcoTox but not OPP
De Prado, R. ; Gonzalez

- Gutierrez, J.; Mene ndez, J.; Gasquez, J.; Gronwald, J. W., and Gimenez

- Espinosa, R.

Resistance to Acetyl CoA Carboxylase

- Inhibiting Herbicides in Lolium multiflorum, ACC,MOR: SOIL,ENV,TOP; 2000UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 59397 Chemical of Concern: CLT,DFPM,HF PM,QZFE,SXD

Hanin, O.; Rubin, B.; Applebaum, S. W., and Rafaeli, A. Structure

- Activity Relationships of Pheromonostasis

Induced by ACCase

- Inhibitor Herbicides in the Moth Helicoverpa armigera, MOR: ORAL;
2008UR ECOTOX,EFED,INSECT. Notes: EcoReference No.: 154892 Chemical of Concern: DFP,DFPM,QZFE,TKY

Hautier, L.; Jansen, J. P.; Mabon, N., and Schiffers, B. Selectivity Lists of Pesticides to Beneficial Arthropods

for IPM Programs in Carrot

- First Results, MOR,POP: ENV,MIXTURE; 2005TV [Okapi] ECOTOX,EFED,BEE S,INSECT. Notes: EcoReference No.: 104765 Chemical of Concern: AZX,CMZ,CPP,DFC,DM,DMT,FZFB,IPD,LCYT,LNR,MYC,PIM,PQT,PRIG,QZFPE,SFR,TE
Z

Hidayat, I. and Preston, C. Enhanced Metabolism of Fluazifop Acid in a Biotype of Digitaria sanguinalis

Resistant to the Herbicide Fluazifop

- P

- Butyl, ACC,BCM,MOR. cpreston@walte.adelaide.edu.au//C. Preston, CRC for Weed Management Systems, Department of Crop Protection, University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE,TOP; 1997UR ECOTOX,EFED,P.
Not es: EcoReference No.: 64594 Chemical of Concern: CLT,FZFB,HFPM,MLN,PPB,QZFPE,SXD,TKY

Kawahigashi, H.; Hirose, S.; Inui, H.; Ohkawa, H., and Ohkawa, Y. Enhanced Herbicide Cross

- Tolerance in

Transgenic Rice Plants Co

- Expressing Human CYP1A1, CYP2B6, and CYP2 C19, CEL,GRO,REP: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 115263 Chemical of Concern: ACO,MTL,NFZ,QZFE

Kawahigashi, H.; Hirose, S.; Ohkawa, H., and Ohkawa, Y. Transgenic Rice Plants Expressing Human CYP1A1

Exude Herbicide Metabolit es from Their Roots, REP: SOIL,ENV; 2003UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 101467 Chemical of Concern: ATZ,NFZ,QZFE

Kawahigashi, H.; Hirose, S.; Ohkawa, H., and Ohkawa, Y. Evaluation of Herbicide Metabolism in Transgenic

Rice Plants Expressing CYP1 A1 and CYP2B6, ACC: SOIL,ENV; 2005UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 101418 Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,CPP,Kusanagi, T. Herbicides: Upland Crops, NOC:154 SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 117867 Chemical of Concern: ACR,BT,DU,FSF,LNR,MTL,ODZ,PMT,QZFE,TRB DU,MTL,NFZ,PDM,QZFE,TFN

Kawahigashi, H.; Hirose, S.; Ohkawa, H., and Ohkawa, Y. Transgenic Rice Plants Expressing Human P450

Genes Involved in Xenobiotic Metabolism for Phytoremediation, GRO: SOIL,ENV; 2008UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 118859 Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,ATZ,DU,MTL,NFZ,QZFE,SZ,TFN

Luo, X. Y.; Sunohara, Y., and Matsumoto, H. Fluazifop

- Butyl Causes Membrane Peroxidation in the Herbicide

Susceptible Broad Leaf Weed Bristly Starbur (Ac anthospermum hispidum), BCM,GRO,PHY. hmatsu@biol.tsukuba.ac.jp//H. Matsumoto, Institute of Applied Biochemistry, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305

- 8572, Japan//: SOIL,ENV; 2004UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 109549 Chemical of Concern : AVIG,FNPE,FZFB,QZFE,SXD

Makino, K.; Sakata, G.; Kawamura, Y., and Ikai, T. Quantitative Structure

- Activity Relationships of 2

- [4

- (2

-

Quinoxalinyloxy)Phenoxy]Propanoic Acid Derivatives, Using a Convenient Parameter, Retention Volume, in High

- Performance Li quid Chromatography, GRO: SOIL,ENV; 1986UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 100573 Chemical of Concern: QZFE

Qasem, J. R. Chemical Weed Control in Seedbed Sown Onion (Allium cepa L.), POP: SOIL,ENV; 2006UR

ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 873 96 Chemical of Concern: DCPA,MBZ,ODZ,OXF,PAQT,PDM,PMT,PQT,PYZ,PZM,QZFE,TFN

Samsoe

- Petersen, L. Effects of 67 Herbicides and Plant Growth Regulators on the Rove Beetle Aleochara

bilineata (Col.: Staphylinidae) in the Laboratory, MOR,REP: ENV,MIXTURE; 1995T V [BMN, DPP2, EFS, FZFB, MCPA, NAA, NAD, TSF, Gallant super, quinmerac, Starane 180, rh 0265, Goltix, Tribunil, Ustinex PA, pyridate

- terbuthylazine mixt., pyridate

- terbuthylazine

metolachlor mixt., fluoroglycofen, cga 1136872, Ioxynil, Faneron] ECOTOX,EFED ,INSECT. Notes: EcoReference No.: 63490 Chemical of Concern: ATZ,BMC,BMN,BT,CBL,CQTC,DFPM,DMDP,DPP1,DPP2,EFS,FXP,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI, MCPA,MCPP1,MCPP2,MLNR,MTL,MTSM,NAA,NAD,PDM,PYD,PZM,QZFE,SZ,TKY,TSF

Schumacher, C. E. and Hatterman

- Valenti, H. M. Effect of Dos e and Spray Volume on Early

- Season

Broadleaved Weed Control in Allium Using Herbicides, GRO,POP: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE;
2007UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 154894 Chemical of Concern: BMN,CLT,MZB,OXF,PDM,QZFPE

Soltani, N.; Shropshire, C., and Sikkema , P. H. Control of Volunteer Glyphosate

- Tolerant Maize (Zea mays) in

Glyphosate

- Tolerant Soybean (Glycine max), GRO,POP: SOIL,ENV; 2006UR ECOTOX,EFED,P. Notes: EcoReference No.: 114183 Chemical of Concern: CLT,FNPPE,GYP,QZFPE,SXD155

Excluded

3

- Toxic and Dan gerous Properties . Oxford: William Andrew Publishing; 2011: 81

- 213.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Aliferis, Konstantinos A. and Jabaji, Suha. Metabolomics : a robust bioanalytical approach for the discovery of

the modes

- of

- action of pesticides: A rev iew. 2011 Jun; 100, (2 ): 105

- 117. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Alikhanidi, Sokratis and Takahashi, Yoshimasa. Pesticide persistence in the environment

- collected data and

structure

- based analysis. 2004; 3, (2): 59

- 70. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Appendix B

- Toxicity values for five ECOTOX data sets for pesticide. Emilio Benfenati and Emilio Benfenati.

Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007: 323

- 461. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Barnwell, Philip and Cobb, Andrew H. An investigation of aryloxyphenoxypropionate antagonism of auxin

type herbicide action on proton

- efflux. 1993; 47, (2): 87

- 97. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Belfroid, A. C.; van Drunen, M.; Beek, M. A.; Schrap, S. M.; van Gestel, C. A. M., and van Hattum, B. Relative

ri sks of transformation products of pesticides for aquatic ecosystems. 1998; 222, (3): 167

- 183. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Bolognesi, C. and Merlo, F. D. Pesticides: Human Health Effects. Editor

- in

- Chief:

- á

- áJerome O. Nriagu.

Burlington: Elsevier; 2011: 438

- 453. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Borreani, Giorgio; Chion, Andrea Revello; Colombini, Stefania; Odoardi, Miriam; Paoletti, Renato, and

Tabacco, Ernesto. Fermentative profiles of field pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and white l upin (Lupinus albus) silages as affected by wilting and inoculation. 2009 May 26

- ; 151, (3

- 4): 316

- 323. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Bourgeois, Luc and Morrison, Lan N. Mapping risk areas for resistance to ACCase inhibitor herbicides in

Manitoba. 199 7; 77, (1): 173

- 179. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Butz, S. and Stan, H.

- J. Screening of 265 Pesticides in Water by Thin

- Layer Chromatography with Automated

Multiple Development. 1995; 67, (3): 620

- 30. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Cao, X. H.; Li, S. Y.; Wang, C. L., and Lu, M. F. Potential Use of the Herbicide Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl for

Eicosapentaenoic Acid Overproduction by the Diatom Nitzschia Laevis. 2007; 23, (5): 885

- 890(CHI) (ENG ABS). 139414. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Chen, Guoqiang ; Cao, Pengying, and Liu, Renjiang. A multi

- residue method for fast determination of pesticides

in tea by ultra performance liquid chromatography electrospray tandem mass spectrometry combined with modified QuEChERS sample preparation procedure. 2011 Apr 1 5

- ; 125, (4):
1406

- 1411. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Chu, Xiao

- Gang; Hu, Xiao

- Zhong, and Yao, Hui

- Yuan. Determination of 266 pesticide residues in apple juice

by matrix solid

- phase dispersion and gas chromatography

- mass selective detection. 2005;156 10 63, (1

- 2): 201

- 210. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Colbach, N.; Kurstjens, D. A. G.; Munier

- Jolain, N. M.; Dalbies, A., and Dore, T. Assessing Non

- Chemical

Weeding Strategies Through Mechanistic Modelling of Blackgrass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.) D ynamics. SOIL; 2010; 32, (3): 205

- 218. Notes: Chemical of Concern: CMZ,CPR,FXP,MCPA,NPP,QZFE,TFN

Curini, R.; Gentili, A.; Marchese, S.; Marino, A., and Perret, D. Solid

- phase extraction followed by high

performance liquid chromatography

- ionspray interface

- mass spectrometry for monitoring of herbicides in environmental water. 2000; 874, (2): 187

- 198. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

D'Ascenzo, Giuseppe; Gentili, Alessandra; Marchese, Stefano, and Perret, Daniela. Determination of

arylphenoxypropionic her bicides in water by liquid chromatography

- electrospray mass spectrometry. 1998; 813, (2): 285

- 297. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

de Julian

- Ortiz, J. V.; Garcia

- Domenech, R.; Galvez, J., and Pogliani, L. Predictability and prediction of lowest

observe d adverse effect levels in a structurally heterogeneous set of chemicals. 2005; 16, (3):
263

- 272. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Dogan, Ergun; Kirnak, Halil, and Copur, Osman. Deficit irrigations during soybean reproductive stages and

CROPGRO

- soybean simulations under semi

- arid climatic conditions. 2007 Aug 30

- ; 103, (2): 154

- 159. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Elefsiniotis, I. S.; Liatsos, G. D.; Stamelakis, D., and Moulakakis, A. Case Report: Mixed

Cholestatic/Hepatocellular Liver Injury Induced by the Herbicide Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl. 2007; 115, 1479

- 1481. 143010. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

European Commission DG Environment. Endocrine Disrupters: Study on Gathering Information on 435

Substances with Insufficient Data. 2002: 279 p.
Notes: E coReference No.: 110504 Chemical of Concern: 24DB,ABM,ADC,AMZ,AZD,Al,BAP,BFT,BMC,BMN,BMY,BTN,CBF,CBL,CPY,CPZ,CT Z,CZE,Cd,Cu,DDT,DDVP,DFC,DFZ,DM,DMBA,DMT,ECZ,EDB,EFV,EFX,ETU,FGSNH, FML,FNB,FNT,FPN,FRM,FRN,FTF,FVL,FYC,FZFB,GFS,GYP,Hg,ILL,IODN,LCYT,MBZ ,MEM,MLT, MOM,MVP,MXC,MYC,MZB,NATL,Nabam,OXD,OXN,OYZ,PAH,PCL,PCP, PCZ,PDM,PHTH,PL,PMR,PMT,PPB,PPCP,PPHD,PYN,Pb,QZFE,RSM,SMT,TCF,TDM,TE Z,TFN,TPZ,TVP,TZA

Fratev, F.; Lo Piparo, E.; Benfenati, E., and Mihaylova, E. Toxicity study of allelochemical

- like pesticides by a

combination of 3D

- QSAR, docking, Local Binding Energy (LBE) and GRID approaches. 2007; 18, (7&8): 675

- 692. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Garcia

- Domenech, R.; Julian

- Ortiz, J. V., and Besalu, E. True prediction of lowest observed adverse effect

levels. 2006; 10, (2): 159

- 168. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Gebhardt, W.; Genin, E.; Ghosh, D.; Churchill, M.; Klein, J., and Alder, L. Dete ction of 88 pesticides on the

Finnigan TSQ quantum discovery using a novel LC

- MS/MS method. Water Contamination157 Emergencies. 2006: 324

- 327. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Gelsomino, Antonio; Petrovicova, Beatrix; Tiburtini, Simona; Magnani, Ermenegil do, and Felici, Marcello.

Multiresidue analysis of pesticides in fruits and vegetables by gel permeation chromatography followed by gas chromatography with electron

- capture and mass spectrometric detection. 1997; 782, (1): 105

- 122. Notes: Chemical of Conc ern: QZFPE

Gupta, P.K. Chapter 39

- Herbicides and fungicides. Ramesh C. Gupta. San Diego: Academic Press; 2011: 503

-

521. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hajslova, J.; Pudil, F.; Jehlickova, Z.; Viden, I., and Davidek, J. Gas chromatographic

- mass spect rometric

investigation of phenoxypropanoic acid derivatives possessing herbicidal activity. 1988; 438, (1): 55

- 60. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hatzios, K. K . Cases and mechanisms of resistance to ACCase

- inhibiting herbicides. 2002; 808, (Agrochemi cal

Resistance): 135

- 149. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hernandez, F. ; Pozo, O. J.; Sancho, J. V.; Bijlsma, L.; Barreda, M., and Pitarch, E. Multiresidue liquid

chromatography tandem mass spectrometry determination of 52 non gas chromatography

amena ble pesticides and metabolites in different food commodities. 2006; 1109, (2): 242

- 252. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hiroyuki, Kawahigashi. Transgenic plants for phytoremediation of herbicides: Food biotechnology / Plant

biotechnology. 2009 Apr; 20, (2): 225

- 230. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hu, Jian

- Ying ; Aizawa, Takako, and Magara, Yasumoto. Analysis of pesticides in water with liquid

chromatography/atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass spectrometry. 1998; 33, (2):
417

- 425.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hu, Xiaozhong ; Yu, Jianxin; Yan, Zhigang; Ni, Lansun; Lin, Yanfei; Wang, Peng; Jing, Li; Xin, Huang; Chu,

Xiaogang, and Zhang, Yibin. Determination of multiclass pesticide residues in apple juice by gas chromatography

- mass sele ctive detection after extraction by matrix solid

- phase dispersion. 2004; 87, (4): 972

- 985. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Huijbregts, Mark A. J.; Rombouts, Linda J. A.; Ragas, Ad M. J., and van de Meent, Dik. Human toxicological

effect and damage fact ors of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic chemicals for life cycle impact assessment. 2005; 1, (3): 181

- 244. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hull, M. R. and Cobb, A. H. The effect of graminicides on plant plasma membrane H+

- ATPase activity in vitro.

1997 (Vol. 2): 819

- 824. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Hull, M. R. and Cobb, A. H. An Investigation of Herbicide Interaction with the H+

- ATPase Activity of Plant

Plasma Membranes. SOIL; 1998; 53, (2): 155

- 164. Notes: Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,ACR,BT, CPR,CSF,DFPM,DPPI,EPTC,FNPE,FXP,HFPM,IZT,MCPA,MCPPI,158 MTSM,PHMD,QZFE,SXD,TFN,TRL

Huuskonen, Jarmo. Prediction of Soil Sorption Coefficient of a Diverse Set of Organic Chemicals From

Molecular Structure. 2003; 43, (5): 1457

- 1462. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Huwe, Janice K.; Clark, George C.; Chu, Andrew C., and Garry, Vincent. CALUX and high resolution GC/MS

analysis of dioxin

- like compounds in chlorophenoxy pesticide formulations . 2003; 60, 227

- 230. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Inui, Hideyuki ; Shiota, Noriaki; Motoi, Yukiko; Ido, Yoshiko; Inoue, Tomomi; Kodama, Takuya; Ohkawa,

Yasunobu, and Ohkawa, Hideo. Metabolism of herbicides and other chemicals in human cytochrome P450 species and in transgenic potato plants co

- expressing human CYP1A1,
CY P2B6 and CYP2C19. 2001; 26, (1): 28

- 40. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Itoh, T. TARGA, a New Post Emergence Grass Killer. SOIL; 1986; 48, 13

- 15.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 31261 Chemical of Concern: QZFE

Jehlickova, Zuzana; Hajslova, Jana; Poustka, Jan; Pudil, Frantisek, and Davidek, Jiri. Determination of

aryloxyphenoxypropanoic acid derivatives in crops treated with herbicidal sprays. 1990; 190, (5): 436

- 40. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Jiang, Xiao

- Xue; Shi, Hai

- Yan; Wu, Ni, and Wang, Ming

- H ua. Development of an enzyme

- linked

immunosorbent assay for diniconazole in agricultural samples. 2011 Apr 15

- ; 125, (4): 1385

- 1389. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Kamrin, M. A. Pesticide Profiles Toxicity Environmental Impact and Fate. 1997; London, england, uk. Isbn 1

-

56670

- 190

- 2.; 0, (0): Xix+676p. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Kawahigashi, H.; Hirose, S.; Ohkawa, H., and Ohkawa, Y. Herbicide Resistance of Transgenic Rice Plants

Expressing Human CYP1A1. SOIL; 2007; 25, (1): 75

- 84. Notes: Chem ical of Concern: ATZ,CPP,DU,NFZ,PDM,QZFE,SZ

Khalaf, Ali; Gr+_e, Danielle; Abdallah, Hassan; Jaber, Nada ; Hachem, Ali, and Gr+_e, Ren+. A new flexible

strategy for the synthesis of gem

- difluoro

- bisarylic derivatives and heterocyclic analogues. 2011 May 27

- ; 67, (21): 3881

- 3886. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Klein, Jeannette and Alder, Lutz. Applicability of gradient liquid chromatography with tandem mass

spectrometry to the simultaneous screening for about 100 pesticides in crops. 2003; 86, (5):
1015

- 1 037. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Knudsen, Thomas B.; Houck, Keith A.; Sipes, Nisha S.; Singh, Amar V.; Judson, Richard S.; Martin, Matthew

T.; Weissman, Arthur; Kleinstreuer, Nicole C.; Mortensen, Holly M.; Reif, David M.; Rabinowitz, James R.; Set zer, R. Woodrow; Richard, Ann M.; Dix, David J., and Kavlock, Robert J. Activity profiles of 309 ToxCast äó chemicals evaluated across 292 biochemical targets. 2011 Mar 28

- ; 282, (1

- 2): 1

- 15. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE159

Lewosz, W. The Influence of S ome Post

- Emergence Herbicides on the Incidence of Blackleg and Soft Rot in

the Potato. 1989(1): 241

- 242. 152172. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Liao, Wenta; Joe, Ton, and Cusick, William G. Multiresidue screening method for fresh fruits and vegetables

w ith gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric detection. 1991; 74, (3): 554

- 65. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Liman, Recep; Aky

- _l, Dilek; Eren, Yasin, and Konuk, Muhsin . Testing of the mutagenicity and genotoxicity

of metolcarb by using both Ames/Salm onella and Allium test. 2010 Aug; 80, (9): 1056

- 1061. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Linden, Rafael; Feltraco, Lilian L.; Comerlato, Luana Christine; Kellermann, Estef+ónio, and Antunes, Marina

V. Computer assisted substance identification in systemati c toxicological analysis: New life for old methods? 2010 Oct 10

- ; 202, (1

- 3): e53

- e60. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Liu, Zhen

- Jiang; Yu, Peng

- Min; Fang, Song; Fan, Jia

- qin, and Wang, Ming

- Hua. Development of an enzyme

linked immunosorbent assay for d etermination of pretilachlor in water and soil. 2011 Sep; 74, (6): 1595

- 1599. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Louie, Theola ; Goodman, C. Dean; Holloway, Georgina A.; McFadden, Geoffrey I.; Mollard, Vanessa, and

Watson, Keith G. Dimeric cyclohexane

- 1,3

- dione oximes inhibit wheat acetyl

- CoA carboxylase and show anti

- malarial activity. 2010 Aug 1

- ; 20, (15): 4611

- 4613. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Lupwayi, N. Z.; Hanson, K. G.; Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; Blackshaw, R. E.; O ÇÖDonovan, J. T.;

Joh nson, E. N.; Gan, Y.; Irvine, R. B., and Monreal, M. A. Soil microbial biomass, functional diversity and enzyme activity in glyphosate

- resistant wheat canola rotations under low

disturbance direct seeding and conventional tillage. 2007 Jul; 39, (7): 1418

- 1 427. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Mac+_, Karen; Morlon, Pierre; Munier

- Jolain, Nicolas, and Qu+_r+_, Lionel. Time scales as a factor in

decision

- making by French farmers on weed management in annual crops. 2007 Mar; 93, (1

- 3): 115

- 142.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Makino, Kenzi ; Sakata, Gozyo; Kuramoto, Junji, and Nakayama, Mitsuru. Crystal structure of a new herbicide,

ethyl 2

- [4

- (6

- chloro

- 2

- quinoxalinyloxy)phenoxy]propanoate. 1986; 11, (2): 237

- 43. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Ma rchese, Stefano; Perret, Daniela; Gentili, Alessandra; Curini, Roberta, and Marino, Aldo. Development of a

method based on accelerated solvent extraction and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry for determination of arylphenoxypropionic herbicides in so il. 2001; 15, (6): 393

- 400. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Martens, D. A. and Bremner, J. M. Effects of preemergence and postemergence herbicides on urea hydrolysis

and nitrification of urea nitrogen in soil. 1994; 17, (4): 309

- 13. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

McDuffie, Helen H.; Pahwa, Punam; Robson, Diane; Dosman, James A.; Fincham, Shirley; Spinelli, John J.,

and McLaughlin, John R. Insect Repellents, Phenoxyherbicide Exposure, and Non

- Hodgkin's Lymphoma. 2005; 47, (8): 806

- 816. Notes: Chemi cal of Concern: QZFPE160

Menard, C+ line; Heraud, Fanny; Nougadere, Alexandre; Volatier, Jean

- Luc, and Leblanc, Jean

- Charles.

Relevance of integrating agricultural practices in pesticide dietary intake indicator. 2008 Oct; 46, (10): 3240

- 3253. Notes: Chemi cal of Concern: QZFPE

Miyake, K.; Araki, O., and Matsumura, M. Crystallization behaviors of a

- and b

- quizalofop

- ethyl polymorphs

in homogeneous nucleation. 1997; 667, (Separation and Purification by Crystallization): 101

- 110. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Montoro, Elena Pastor; Gonzalez, Roberto Romero; Frenich, Antonia Garrido; Torres, M. Elena Hernandez,

and Vidal, Jose Luis Martinez. Fast determination of herbicides in waters by ultra

performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. 2007 ; 21, (22): 3585

- 3592. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Mueller, Markus D. and Bosshardt, Hans Paul. Enantiomer resolution and assay of propionic acid

- derived

herbicides in formulations by using chiral liquid chromatography and achiral gas chromatograph y. 1988; 71, (3): 614

- 17. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Mumtaz, M. M. ; Knauf, L. A.; Reisman, D. J.; Peirano, W. B. ; DeRosa, C. T.; Gombar, V. K.; Enslein, K.;

Carter, J. R.; Blake, B. W., and et al. Assessment of effect levels of chemicals from

qu antitative structure

- activity relationship (QSAR) models. I. Chronic lowest

- observed

adverse

- effect level (LOAEL). 1995; 79 , (1

- 3): 131

- 43. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Nakahira, Kunimitsu. Mode of action of a herbicide, quizalofop

- ethyl. 1998; 23, (3): 357

- 366.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Nakahira, Kunimitu; Haga, Megumi; Uchiyama, Masaaki, and Suzuki, Koichi. Action Mechanism of the

herbicide quizalofop

- ethyl. IV. Comparative effects of quizalofop and its esters on acetyl

CoA carboxylase and fatty acid biosynthesis in corn leaf chloroplasts. 1990; 15, (2): 189

- 97. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Nilsson, Hjalmar. Persistence and mobility of herbicides in arable soils. Investigations during 1984

- 1985. 1987;

28th, (1): 207

- 14.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Nougad+żre, Alexandre; Reninger, Jean

- C+ dric; Volatier, Jean

- Luc, and Leblanc, Jean

- Charles. Chronic

dietary risk characterization for pesticide residues: A ranking and scoring method integrating agricultural uses and food cont amination data. 2011 Jul; 49, (7 ): 1484

- 1510. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Omote, M.; Harayama, K.; Sasaki, T.; Mochizuki, N., and Yamashita, H. Analysis of simultaneous screening

for 277 pesticides in malt and beer by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. 2006; 64, (3): 139

- 150. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Ono, Yukiko; Yamagami, Takashi; Nishina, Takeshi, and Tobino, Toshiaki. Pesticide multiresidue analysis of

303 compounds using supercritical fluid extraction. 2006; 22, (11): 1473

- 1476. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Pang, G.

- F.; Fan, C.

- L.; Liu, Y.

- M.; Cao, Y.

- Z.; Zhang, J.

- J.; Fu, B.

- L.; Li, X.

- M.; Li, Z.

- Y., and Wu, Y.

- P.

Multi

- residue method for the determination of 450 pesticide residues in honey, fruit juice an d wine by double

- cartridge solid

- phase extraction/gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry and161 liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry. 2006; 23, (8): 777

- 810. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Pang, Guo

- Fang; Cao, Yan

- Zhong; Zhang, Jin

- Jie; Fan, Chu n

- Lin; Liu, Yong

- Ming; Li, Xue

- Min; Jia, Guang

Qun; Li, Zeng

- Yin; Shi, Yu

- Qiu; Wu, Yan

- Ping, and Guo, Tong

- Tong. Validation study on 660 pesticide residues in animal tissues by gel permeation chromatography cleanup/gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry. 2006; 1125, (1): 1

- 30. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Pang, Guo

- Fang; Fan, Chun

- Lin; Liu, Yong

- Ming; Cao, Yan

- Zhong; Zhang, Jin

- Jie; Li, Xue

- Min; Li, Zeng

Yin; Wu, Yan

- Ping, and Guo, Tong

- Tong. Determin ation of residues of 446 pesticides in fruits and vegetables by three

- cartridge solid

- phase extraction

- gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry. 2006; 89, (3): 740

- 771. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Pang , Guo

- Fang; Liu, Yong

- Ming; Fan, Chun

- Lin; Zhang, Jin

- Jie; Cao, Yan

- Zhong; Li, Xue

- Min; Li, Zeng

Yin; Wu, Yan

- Ping, and Guo, Tong

- Tong. Simultaneous determination of 405 pesticide residues in grain by accelerated solvent extraction then gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry or liquid chromatography

- tandem mass spectrometry. 2006; 384, (6): 1366

- 1408. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Papa, Ester; Castiglioni, Sara; Gramatica, Paola; Nikolayenko, Victor; Kayumov, Odil, and Calamari, Davide.

Screening the le aching tendency of pesticides applied in the Amu Darya Basin (Uzbekistan). 2004; 38, (16): 3485

- 3494. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Pesticide tolerance for quizalofop ethyl. 1988; 53, (120): 23391

- 3.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Pesticide toler ance for quizalofop

- p ethyl ester. 1992; 57, (112): 24553

- 4.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Quizalofop ethyl; Pesticide tolerance. 2006; 71, (187): 56374

- 56378.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Quizalofop ethyl; tolerance for use on pineapple. 1996 ; 61, (119): 31041

- 31042.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Quizalofop

- p ethyl ester; pesticide tolerance. 1998; 63, (115): 32753

- 32760.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Quizalofop

- P ethyl ester; pesticide tolerance and feed additive regulation. 1996; 61, (116): 30171

- 30175.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Rao, A. N.; Johnson, D. E.; Sivaprasad, B.; Ladha, J. K., and Mortimer, A. M. Weed Management in

Direct Seeded Rice. Donald L. SparksVolume 93 ed. Academic Press; 2007: 153

- 255. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Rissato, Sandra R.; Galhiane, Mario S.; Apon, Benhard M., and Arruda, Maria S. P. Multiresidue Analysis of

Pesticides in Soil by Supercritical Fluid Extraction/Gas Chromatography with Electron

Capture Detection and Confirmation by Gas Chr omatography

- Mass Spectrometry. 2005; 53, (1): 62

- 69. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE162

Rissato, Sandra Regina; Galhiane, Mario Sergio; de Souza, Antonio G., and Apon, Bernhard M. Development

of a supercritical fluid extraction method for simultaneous det ermination of organophosphorus, organohalogen, organonitrogen and pyretroids pesticides in fruit and vegetables and its comparison with a conventional method by GC

- ECD and GC

- MS. 2005; 16, (5): 1038

- 1047. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Rissato, Sandra R.; Galhiane, Mario S.; Knoll, Fatima R. N., and Apon, Bernhard M. Supercritical fluid

extraction for pesticide multiresidue analysis in honey: determination by gas chromatography with electron

- capture and mass spectrometry detection. 2004; 1048, (2): 153

- 159. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Roebuck, J. F. and Flint, C. E. A review of agricultural development and advisory service trials for recently

introduced specific grass weed herbicides for winter oilseed rape and the effect on yield of the timing of removal of volunteer cereals. 1983

- 1985. 1985(1): 199

- 207. Notes: Ch emical of Concern: QZFPE

Ruizzo, Michael A. and Gorski, Stanley F. Inhibition of chloroplast

- mediated reactions by quizalofop herbicide.

1988; 36, (6): 713

- 18. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Russom, C. L. ; Bradbury, S. P., and Carlson, A. R. Use of knowledge bases and QSARS to estimate the

relative ecological risk of agrichemicals: a problem formulation exercise. 1995; 4, (2

- 3): 83

- 95. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Sanchez

- Bayo, Francisco. Comparative acute toxicity of organic pollutants and re ference values for

crustaceans. I. Branchiopoda, Copepoda and Ostracoda. 2006; 139, (3): 385

- 420. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Sandra, Pat; Tienpont, Bart, and David, Frank. Stir bar sorptive extraction (Twister) RTL

- CGC

- MS. A versatile

method to mo nitor more than 400 pesticides in different matrices (water, beverages, fruits, vegetables, baby food). New Horizons and Challenges in Environmental Analysis and Monitoring, [Workshop], Gdansk, Poland, Aug. 18

- 29, 2003 . 2003: 338

- 354. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Santier, S. and Chamel, A. Penetration of Triolein and Methyl Oleate Through Isolated Plant Cuticles and Their

Effect on Penetration of (14C)Quizalofop

- Ethyl and (14C)Fenoxaprop

- Ethyl. Lab. Transferts dans les Systemes Veg., CEArenoble, D BMS, 17 rue des Martyrs, 38054 Grenoble Cedex 9, France////: SOIL; 1996; 36, (2): 167

- 174. Notes: Chemical of Concern: FNP,QZFE

Serafimova, R.; Walker, J., and Mekenyan, O. Androgen receptor binding affinity of pesticide \ "active \ "

formulation ingredients . QSAR evaluation by COREPA method. 2002; 13 , (1): 127

- 134. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Serre, I.; Cabanne, F., and Gauvrit, C. Behavior of alkyl oleates on leaf surfaces in relation to their influence on

herbicide penetration. 1996(Vol. 3): 807

- 8 12. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Shiroishi, Akihiro; Hashiba, Isao; Kokubo, Ryo; Miyake, Kazuo, and Kawamura, Yuji. Semi

- batch cooling

crystallization of quizalofop

- ethyl with polymorphism. 1990; 438, (Cryst. Sep. Process): 261

- 70. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE163

Simon, S.; Defrance, H., and Sauphanor, B. Effect of Codling Moth Management on Orchard Arthropods. 2007;

122, (3): 340

- 348. Notes: Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,ACP,ALSV,AMTL,AZ,CPY,CYF,Captan,Cu,DMT,DOD,DU,FRM,GFSNH,G YP,HCZ,IMC,MOIL ,MP,MZB,OXD,PHSL,PRB,QZFE,RTN,SFR,SZ,TDF,THM,TPM

Stan, Hans

- Jurgen. Pesticide residue analysis in foodstuffs applying capillary gas chromatography with mass

spectrometric detection. State

- of

- the

- art use of modified DFG

- multi

- method S19 and automated data e valuation. 2000; 892, (1+2): 347

- 377. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Stan, Hans

- Juergen and Linkerhaegner, Manfred. Pesticide residue analysis in foodstuffs applying capillary gas

chromatography with atomic emission detection. State

- of

- the

- art use of modified multimethod S19 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and automated large

- volume injection with programmed

- temperature vaporization and solvent venting. 1996; 750, (1+2, 4th International Symposium on Hyphenated Techniques in Chromatography and H yphenated Chromatographic Analyzers, 1996): 369

- 390. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Tao, Shu; Piao, Haishan; Dawson, R.; Lu, Xiaoxia, and Hu, Haiying. Estimation of Organic Carbon Normalized

Sorption Coefficient (KOC) for Soils Using the Fragment Cons tant Method. 1999; 33, (16): 2719

- 2725. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Tetsuo, Satoh. Chapter 8

- Global Epidemiology of Organophosphate and Carbamate Poisonings. Ramesh C.

Gupta. Burlington: Academic Press; 2006: 89

- 100. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Tian, Qin; Lv, Chunguang; Wang, Peng; Ren, Liping; Qiu, Jing; Li, Li, and Zhou, Zhiqiang. Enantiomeric

separation of chiral pesticides by high performance liquid chromatography on cellulose tris

3,5

- dimethyl carbamate stationary phase under reversed phase conditions. 2007; 30, (3): 310

- 321. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Tice, Colin M . Selecting the right compounds for screening: use of surface

- area parameters. 2002; 58, (3): 219

-

233.
Notes: C hemical of Concern: QZFPE

Tolerances for quizalofop ethyl. 1988; 53, (120): 23386

- 7.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Undevia, Samir D.; Innocenti, Federico; Ramirez, Jacqueline; House, Larry; Desai, Apurva A.; Skoog, Linda

A.; Singh, Deepti A.; Karri son, Theodore; Kindler, Hedy L., and Ratain, Mark J. A phase I and pharmacokinetic study of the quinoxaline antitumour Agent R(+)XK469 in patients with advanced solid tumours. 2008 Aug; 44, (12): 1684

- 1692. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Vilar, Santiag o; Quezada, Elias; Alcaide, Carlos; Orallo, Francisco; Santana, Lourdes, and Uriarte, Eugenio.

Quantitative structure vasodilatory activity relationship

- synthesis and \ "in silico \ " and \ "in vitro \ " evaluation of resveratrol

- coumarin hybrids. 2007; 26, (3 ): 317

- 332. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Volante, Marco; Pontello, Mirella; Valoti, Laura; Cattaneo, Manuela; Bianchi, Mascia, and Colzani, Luisa.

Application of solid phase micro

- extraction (SPME) to the analysis of pesticide residues in vegetables . 2000; 56, (7): 618

- 636.164 Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Wang, C. J. and Liu, Z. Q. Foliar uptake of pesticides ÇöPresent status and future challenge. 2007 Jan; 87, (1):

1

- 8. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Wang, Jian

- Hua; Zhang, Yi

- Bing, and Wang, Xiu

- Lin. Determination of multiclass pesticide residues in apple

juice by gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry with large

- volume injection. 2006; 29, (15):
2330

- 2337. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Wang, Jun

- Dong; Bao, Hua

- Jun; Shi, Hai

- Yan, and Wang , Ming

- Hua. Development of an enzyme

- linked

immunosorbent assay for quantitative determination of cyhalofop

- butyl. 2010 Sep; 98, (1):
68

- 72. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Wang, Peng; Jiang, Shuren; Liu, Donghui; Shan, Weili; Zhang, Hongjun, and Zhou, Zhiqiang. Chiral

separations of pesticide enantiomers by high

- performance liquid chromatography using cellulose triphenylcarbamate chiral stationary phase. 2006; 44, (10): 602

- 606. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Wang, Peng; Liu, Donghui; Jiang, Shuren ; Xu, Yangguang; Gu, Xu, and Zhou, Zhiqiang. The chiral resolution

of pesticides on amylose

- tris(3,5

- dimethylphenylcarbamate) CSP by HPLC and the enantiomeric identification by circular dichroism. 2008; 20, (1): 40

- 46. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Y

- _ld

- _z, Mustafa; Ci

- erci, brahim Hakk; Konuk, Muhsin ; Fatih Fidan, A., and Terzi, Hakan. Determination

of genotoxic effects of copper sulphate and cobalt chloride in Allium cepa root cells by chromosome aberration and comet assays. 2009 May; 75, (7): 93 4

- 938. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Zeng, Deyi; Shi, Haiyan; Li, Bo; Wang, Minghua, and Song, Baoan. Development of an Enzyme

- Linked

Immunosorbent Assay for Quantitative Determination of Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl. 2006; 54, (23):
8682

- 8687. Notes: Chemical of Concern: QZFPE

Zuther, E.; Johnson, J. J.; Haselkorn, R.; McLeod, R., and Gornicki, P. Growth of Toxoplasma gondii is

inhibited by aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides targeting acetyl

- CoA carboxylase. 1999; 96, (23): 13387

- 13392. Notes: Chemical of C oncern: QZFPE165



## Appendix E

– SIP and STIR Model Output

STIR 

## Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Quizalofop

- p

ethyl
Enter Chemical Use Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 372.8 Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 3.00E

- 07 Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.667

Toxicity Properties

Bird
Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 2000 Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 1.58
Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD 50 (mg/kg bw) 870

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC 50 (mg/L) 5119 Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4
Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35



## Output
Results Avian (0.020 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 6.02E

- 03
Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 7.57E

- 04
Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 4.73E+04
Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.60E

- 08 Exposure not Likely Significant
Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 7.05E

- 02 Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 1.49E

- 06 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m 3 ) 6.02E

- 03
Maximum 1

- hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 9.51E

- 04
Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 3.05E+05
Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD 50 3.12E

- 09 Exposure not Likely Significant
Maximum Post

- treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 8.86E

- 02
Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 2.91E

- 07 Exposure not Likely Significant166

LD 50

SIP Table 1. Inputs
Parameter Value
Chemical name Quizalofop

- p

- ethyl Solubility (in water at 25 o C; mg/L) 0.4

Mammalian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 870 Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg

- bw) 5
Mammalian test species laboratory rat Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD 50 (mg/kg

- bw) 2000 Avian test species mallard duck Body weight (g) of "other" avian species Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 180 Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) 1030 NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for other bird species Body weight (g) of other avian species NOAEC (mg/kg

- diet) for 2nd other bird species Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results
Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 0.0688 0.0688 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 669.1697 3.8458 Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0001 0.0179

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for mammals Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results
Parameter Acute Chronic Upper bound exposure (mg/kg

- bw) 0.3240 0.3240 Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg

- bw) 1038.4508 8.9303167

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0003 0.0363

Conclusion* Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for birds Drinking water exposure alone is NOT a potential concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with other routes ( i.e ., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potentia l for effects to non

- target animals.168



## Appendix F

– Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern

The Risk Quotient Method is the means by which the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) integrates the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data. In this method, both acute and chronic risk quotients are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by the most sensitive ecotoxicity values derived from the studies. Calculated risk quotients are then compared to OPP's levels of concern. The level s of concern are the criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non

- target organisms and the need to consider regulatory action. EFED has defined levels of concern for acute risk, potential restricted use, and for listed species. Risk presumptions , along with the corresponding risk quotients and levels of concern are summarized in the table below.



### Levels of Concern for Assessed Taxa

Risk Presumption Risk Quotient Level of Concern

Birds

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Mammals

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50 mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Aquatic Animals

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.1

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.05

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 25 1

Acute Listed Species EEC/EC 05 or NOAEC 1169 Risk Presumption Risk Quotient Level of Concern

Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 50 1

Acute Listed Species EEC/EC 05 or NOAEC 1170



## Appendix G

– Surface Water Model Results and Sample Input and Outputs

This expample output (inputs included at end of output) is for the first scenario presented in Table 5, the aerial alfalfa scenario (MN alfalfa OP; 2 applications at 0.0834 lb ai/A with a 7

- day re

- application interval).

stored as Quiz.out Chemical: Quizalofop
PRZM environment: MNalfalfaOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:21:44 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08
Metfile: w14914.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:16 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly
1961 0.6225 0.6176 0.6011 0.5749 0.5616 0.297
1962 1.816 1.798 1.744 1.72 1.692 1.145
1963 1.978 1.965 1.927 1.833 1.818 1.578

1964 2.714 2.694 2.616 2.471 2.419 1.953
1965 2.43 2.421 2.385 2.303 2.267 2.079
1966 2.217 2.206 2.165 2.079 2.048 1.916
1967 2.08 2.07 2.037 1.967 1.919 1.737
1968 1.853 1.843 1.808 1.743 1.7 1.528

1969 2.361 2.346 2.283 2.185 2.119 1.733
1970 2.316 2.303 2.264 2.214 2.16 1.9 94
1971 2.657 2.642 2.587 2.479 2.407 2.17
1972 2.417 2.406 2.358 2.267 2.231 2.077

1973 2.137 2.128 2.086 2.001 1.96 1.857
1974 2.65 2.633 2.565 2.446 2.399 2.032
1975 3.615 3.597 3.496 3.303 3.197 2.588
1976 2.884 2.871 2.816 2.712 2.649 2.46

1977 3.295 3.272 3.185 3.029 2.946 2.539
1978 3.201 3.183 3.112 3.001 2.948 2.665
1979 2.835 2.822 2.772 2.716 2.715 2.553
1980 2.694 2.681 2.629 2.544 2.481 2.407

1981 3.243 3.223 3.142 3.001 2.924 2.448
1982 2.569 2.558 2.513 2.445 2.407 2.314
1983 2.614 2.6 2.557 2.502 2.498 2.336
1984 3.198 3.177 3.096 2.943 2.845 2.473
1985 3.244 3.226 3.161 3.06 3.019 2.681171

1986 2.969 2.954 2.899 2.825 2.789 2.587
1987 2.908 2.892 2.838 2.722 2.691 2.451
1988 2.452 2.438 2.383 2.287 2.221 2.163

1989 2.483 2.47 2.422 2.325 2.265 2.144
1990 2.625 2.611 2.553 2.496 2.436 2.156

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly
0.032258064516129 3.615 3.597 3.496 3.303 3.197 2.681
0.0645161290322581 3.295 3.272 3.185 3.06 3.019 2.665
0.0967741935483871 3.244 3.226 3.161 3.0 29 2.948 2.588
0.129032258064516 3.243 3.223 3.142 3.001 2.946 2.587
0.161290322580645 3.201 3.183 3.112 3.001 2.924 2.553
0.193548387096774 3.198 3.177 3.096 2.943 2.845 2.539
0.225806451612903 2.969 2.954 2.899 2.825 2.789 2.473
0.258064516129032 2.908 2 .892 2.838 2.722 2.715 2.46
0.290322580645161 2.884 2.871 2.816 2.716 2.691 2.451
0.32258064516129 2.835 2.822 2.772 2.712 2.649 2.448
0.354838709677419 2.714 2.694 2.629 2.544 2.498 2.407
0.387096774193548 2.694 2.681 2.616 2.502 2.481 2.336
0.419354838709677 2.657 2.642 2.587 2.496 2.436 2.314
0.451612903225806 2.65 2.633 2.565 2.479 2.419 2.17
0.483870967741936 2.625 2.611 2.557 2.471 2.407 2.163
0.516129032258065 2.614 2.6 2.553 2.446 2.407 2.156
0.548387096774194 2.569 2.558 2.513 2.445 2. 399 2.144
0.580645161290323 2.483 2.47 2.422 2.325 2.267 2.079
0.612903225806452 2.452 2.438 2.385 2.303 2.265 2.077
0.645161290322581 2.43 2.421 2.383 2.287 2.231 2.032
0.67741935483871 2.417 2.406 2.358 2.267 2.221 1.994
0.709677419354839 2.361 2.346 2.2 83 2.214 2.16 1.953
0.741935483870968 2.316 2.303 2.264 2.185 2.119 1.916
0.774193548387097 2.217 2.206 2.165 2.079 2.048 1.857
0.806451612903226 2.137 2.128 2.086 2.001 1.96 1.737
0.838709677419355 2.08 2.07 2.037 1.967 1.919 1.733
0.870967741935484 1.978 1.965 1.927 1.833 1.818 1.578
0.903225806451613 1.853 1.843 1.808 1.743 1.7 1.528
0.935483870967742 1.816 1.798 1.744 1.72 1.692 1.145
0.967741935483871 0.6225 0.6176 0.6011 0.5749 0.5616 0.297

0.1 3.2439 3.2257 3.1591 3.0262 2.9478 2.5879172 Average o f yearly averages: 2.10203333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: Quiz

Metfile: w14914.dvf

PRZM scenario: MNalfalfaOP.txt
EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv
Chemical Name: Quizalofop Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 344.8 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm

- m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3e

- 7 torr Solubility sol 0.4 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 256 mg/L Photolysis half

- life kdp 85.4 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabo lism kbacw 814 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 420 days Halfife
Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 390 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI cm Application Rate: TAPP .093 k g/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF .95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT .05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15

- 05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm Interval 1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF
Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT
FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)173



## Appendix H

– TerrPlant Output

Example output for a single application of quizalofop

- p - ethyl at 0.108 lb ai/A (paved areas, private roadways)

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Parameter User Inputs

Chemical Name quizalofop

- p - ethyl
PC code 128709
Use Herbicide for grasses Application Method Spray Application Form Liquid Solubility in Water (ppm) 0.4

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value (user inputs) Units
Application Rate A 0.108 Incorporation I 1 none Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Table 3. EECs for quizalofop

- p - ethyl. Units in .

Description Equation EEC
Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00108
Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0108 Spray drift A*D 0.0054
Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.00648
Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.0162

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in . All values are user inputs Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot 0.019 0.0096 0.00146 0.000791

Dicot 0.127 0.0931 0.0477

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to quizalofop

- p - ethyl through runoff and/or spray drift.*
Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non

- listed 0.34 0.85 3.70
Monocot listed 0.68 1.69 6.83
Dicot non

- listed #DIV/0! #DIV/0! <0.1174 Dicot listed <0.1 0.13 <0.1
*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.175



## Appendix I

– T

- REX Output

Example output from application of quizalofop

- p - ethyl at 0.0695 lb ai/A, 2 applications, 7 days apart

Summary of Risk Quotient Calculations Based on Upper Bound Kenaga EECs

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Avian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjuste

d LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods/

Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

20 0.00 35.53 #DI V/0! 16.29 #DI

V/0! 19.99 ##### 2.22 #DIV /0! 13.92 ####

# 0.49 ###

##

100 0.00 20.26 #DI V/0! 9.29 #DI

V/0! 11.40 ##### 1.27 #DIV /0! 7.94 ####

# 0.28 ###

##

1000 0.00 9.07 #DI V/0! 4.16 #DI

V/0! 5.10 ##### 0.57 #DIV /0! 3.55 ####

# 0.13 ###

##

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Subacute Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 EECs and RQs

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

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 31.20 #DIV/0! 14.30 #DIV/0! 17.55 #DIV/0! 1.95 ##### 12.22 #DIV/0!

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Avian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

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

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ176 180 31.20 0.17 14.30 0.08 17.55 0.10 1.95 0.01 12.22 0.07

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted

LD50 EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods

/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
15 1912.11 29.75 0.02 13.63 0.01 16.73 0.01 1.86 0.00 11.6511 0.0061 0.4132 0.0002

35 1547.10 20.56 0.01 9.42 0.01 11.56 0.01 1.28 0.00 8.05249 0.0052 0.2855 0.0002

1000 669.17 4.77 0.01 2.18 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.30 0.00 1.867 0.0028 0.0662 1E

- 04

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Acute Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

LC50 (ppm) EECs and RQs

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

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

0 31.2

0 #DIV/0
! 14.3
0 #DIV/0
! 17.5 5 #DIV/0
! 1.95 ##### 12.2
2 #DIV/0
!

Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dietary Based Risk Quotients

NOAEC (ppm) EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods/Seeds/Lar

ge Insects Arthropods

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

100 31.2

0 0.31 14.3

0 0.14 17.5

5 0.18 1.95 0.02 12.2
2 0.12 Size class not used for dietary risk quotients

Table X. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose

- Based Risk Quotients

Size Class (grams) Adjusted

NOAEL EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf
Plants Fruits/Pods

/Seeds Arthropods Granivore

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ
15 10.99 29.75 2.71 13.63 1.24 16.73 1.52 1.86 0.17 11.65 1.06 0.41 0.04

35 8.89 20.56 2.31 9.42 1.06 11.56 1.30 1.28 0.14 8.05 0.91 0.29 0.03177

1000 3.85 4.77 1.24 2.18 0.57 2.68 0.70 0.30 0.08 1.87 0.49 0.07 0.02178



## APPENDIX J

– Listed Species Analysis

Table J

- 1. “No Effects” (Direct and Indirect Effects) Determination for Listed Species Outside the Geographical Range of Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Uses

Common and Scientific Name (ncn) Tetraplasandra bisattenuata (ncn) Tetraplasandra lydgatei (ncn) Platydesma cornuta var. cornuta (ncn) Platydesma cornuta var. decurrens (ncn) Lysimachia vinosa (ncn) Phyllostegia hispida (ncn) Schiedea attenuata (ncn) Stenogyne kealiae (ncn) Keysseria (=Lagenifera) erici (ncn) Keysseria (=Lagenifera) helenae (ncn) Cyanea kolekoleensis (ncn) Lysimachia iniki (ncn) Lysimachia pendens (ncn) Lysimachia scopulensis (ncn) Phyllostegia renovans (ncn) Tetraplasandra flynnii (ncn) Diellia mannii (ncn) Doryopteris takeuchii (ncn) Doryopteris angelica Abalone, Black Haliotis cracherodii Abalone, White Haliotis sorenseni Abutilon eremitopetalum (ncn) Abutilon eremitopetalum Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) Abutilon sandwicense Achyranthes mutica (ncn) Achyranthes mutica Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata (ncn) Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin Pseudobahia peirsonii
a'e Zanthoxylum oahuense A'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum) Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum A'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) Zanthoxylum hawaiiense
'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) Nothocestrum breviflorum 'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) Nothocestrum peltatum
Akekee Loxops caeruleirostris 'Akepa, Hawaii Loxops coccineus coccineus 'Akepa, Maui Loxops coccineus ochraceus 'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus) Hemignathus procerus 'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) Hemignathus munroi
Akoko Chamaesyce remyi var. kauaiensis
'akoko Chamaesyce eleanoriae 'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana) Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana
'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) Chamaesyce deppeana 'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) Chamaesyce herbstii 'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) Chamaesyce kuwaleana 'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii) Chamaesyce rockii 'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. skottsbe Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. kalaeloana 'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) Euphorbia haeleeleana Alabama pearlshell Margaritifera marrianae179 Common and Scientific Name

alani Melicope christophersenii
alani Melicope degeneri
alani Melicope makahae
alani Melicope paniculata
alani Melicope hiiakae
alani Melicope puberula Alani (Melicope adscendens) Melicope adscendens Alani (Melicope balloui) Melicope balloui Alani (Melicope haupuensis) Melicope haupuensis Alani (Melicope knudsenii) Melicope knudsenii Alani (Melicope lydgatei) Melicope lydgatei Alani (Melicope mucronulata) Melicope mucronulata Alani (Melicope munroi) Melicope munroi Alani (Melicope ovalis) Melicope ovalis Alani (Melicope pallida) Melicope pallida Alani (Melicope quadrangularis) Melicope quadrangularis
Alani (Melicope reflexa) Melicope reflexa Alani (Melicope saint

-

johnii) Melicope saint

- johnii Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) Melicope zahlbruckneri Albatross, Short

- tailed Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis Allocarya, Calistoga Plagiobothrys strictus Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) Alsinidendron obovatum Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) Alsinidendron trinerve Alsinidendron viscosum (ncn) Alsinidendron viscosum Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus
Amaranthus brownii (ncn) Amaranthus brownii Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila Ambrosia, South Texas Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Amphianthus, Little Amphianthus pusillus Amphipod, Hay's Spring Stygobromus hayi Amphipod, Illinois Cave Gammarus acherondytes Amphipod, Noel's Gammarus desperatus Amphipod, Peck's Cave Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki 'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) Lepidium arbuscula Anole, Culebra Island Giant Anolis roosevelti 'Anunu (Sicyos alba) Sicyos alba Asplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn) Asplenium fragile var. insulare Aster, Decurrent False Boltonia decurrens Aster, Florida Golden Chrysopsis floridana Aster, Ruth's Golden Pityopsis ruthii Auerodendron pauciflorum (ncn) Auerodendron pauciflorum aumakua, Palapalai Dryopteris crinalis podosorus Aupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) Isodendrion hosakae Aupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium) Isodendrion laurifolium Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) Isodendrion longifolium Avens, Spreading Geum radiatum
awikiwiki Canavalia napaliensis 'Awikiwiki (Canavalia molokaiensis) Canavalia molokaiensis 'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) Centaurium sebaeoides 'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) Hedyotis cookiana180 Common and Scientific Name Ayenia, Texas Ayenia limitaris Baccharis, Encinitas Baccharis vanessae Bankclimber, Purple Elliptoideus sloatianus Barbara Buttons, Mohr's Marshallia mohrii Barberry, Island Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Barberry, Nevin's Berberis nevinii
Bariaco Trichilia triacantha Bat, Little Mariana Fruit Pteropus tokudae Bat, Mariana Fruit (=Mariana Flying Fox) Pteropus mariannus mariannus Bear, American Black Ursus americanus Bear, polar Ursus maritimus Bearclaw poppy, Dwarf Arctomecon humilis Beardtongue, Penland Penstemon penlandii Bedstraw, El Dorado Galium californicum ssp. sierrae Bedstraw, Island Galium buxifolium Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Beetle, Casey's June Dinacoma caseyi Beetle, Coffin Cave Mold Batrisodes texanus Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid Stygoparnus comalensis Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle Heterelmis comalensis Beetle, Delta Green Ground Elaphrus viridis Beetle, Helotes Mold Batrisodes venyivi Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling Water Brychius hungerfordi Beetle, Kretschmarr Cave Mold Texamaurops reddelli Beetle, Mount Hermon June Polyphylla barbata Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Beetle, Ohlone Tiger Cicindela ohlone Beetle, Puritan Tiger Cicindela puritana Beetle, Salt Creek Tiger Cicindela nevadica lincolniana Beetle, Tooth Cave Ground Rhadine persephone Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Bellflower, Brooksville Campanula robinsiae Birch, Virginia Round

- leaf Betula uber
Bird's

- beak, Palmate

- bracted Cordylanthus palmatus
Bird's

- beak, Pennell's Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris
Bird's

- beak, salt marsh Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus
Bird's

- beak, Soft Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis
Birds

- in

- a

- nest, White Macbridea alba Bittercress, Small

- anthered Cardamine micranthera Blackbird, Yellow

- shouldered Agelaius xanthomus blackline Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion nigrohamatum nigrolineatum Bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs Lesquerella congesta Bladderpod, Kodachrome Lesquerella tumulosa Bladderpod, Lyrate Lesquerella lyrata Bladderpod, Missouri Lesquerella filiformis Bladderpod, San Bernardino Mountains Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina Bladderpod, Spring Creek Lesquerella perforata Bladderpod, White Lesquerella pallida Bladderpod, Zapata Lesquerella thamnophila Blazing Star, Ash Meadows Mentzelia leucophylla Blazing Star, Heller's Liatris helleri Blazing Star, Scrub Liatris ohlingerae181 Common and Scientific Name Bluecurls, Hidden Lake Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum
Blue

- star, Kearney's Amsonia kearneyana Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Boa, Mona Epicrates monensis monensis Boa, Puerto Rican Epicrates inornatus Boa, Virgin Islands Tree Epicrates monensis granti Bobwhite, Masked Colinus virginianus ridgwayi Bonamia menziesii (ncn) Bonamia menziesii Bonamia, Florida Bonamia grandiflora Boxwood, Vahl's Buxus vahlii Broom, San Clemente Island Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae Buckwheat, Cushenbury Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Buckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill) Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. prostratum) Buckwheat, Scrub Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Buckwheat, Southern Mountain Wild Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum Buckwheat, Steamboat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae
Bush

- mallow, San Clemente Island Malacothamnus clementinus
Bush

- mallow, Santa Cruz Island Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. nesioticus Buttercup, Autumn Ranunculus aestivalis (=acriformis) Butterfly [Cassius Blue, Ceraunus Blue, Nickerbean Blue] Leptotes and Hemiargus and Cyclargus genus Butterfly Plant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Butterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's euphydryas) Euphydryas editha bayensis Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot Speyeria zerene behrensii Butterfly, Callippe Silverspot Speyeria callippe callippe Butterfly, Ceranus Blue Hemiargus ceraunus antibubastus Butterfly, El Segundo Blue Euphilotes battoides allyni Butterfly, Fender's Blue Icaricia icarioides fenderi Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Butterfly, Lange's Metalmark Apodemia mormo langei Butterfly, Lotis Blue Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Butterfly, Miami Blue Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Butterfly, Mission Blue Icaricia icarioides missionensis Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Butterfly, Myrtle's Silverspot Speyeria zerene myrtleae Butterfly, Nickerbean Blue Cyclargus ammon Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Butterfly, Palos Verdes Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Butterfly, Quino Checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti) Butterfly, Saint Francis' Satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Butterfly, San Bruno Elfin Callophrys mossii bayensis Butterfly, Schaus Swallowtail Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus Butterfly, Smith's Blue Euphilotes enoptes smithi Butterfly, Uncompahgre Fritillary Boloria acrocnema Butterweed, Layne's Senecio layneae Butterwort, Godfrey's Pinguicula ionantha
Button

- celery, San Diego Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus Cactus, Bakersfield Opuntia treleasei Cactus, Black Lace Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii Cactus, Brady Pincushion Pediocactus bradyi Cactus, Bunched Cory Coryphantha ramillosa182 Common and Scientific Name Cactus, Chisos Mountain Hedgehog Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis Cactus, Cochise Pincushion Coryphantha robbinsorum Cactus, Colorado hookless Sclerocactus glaucus Cactus, Key Tree Pilosocereus robinii Cactus, Knowlton Pediocactus knowltonii Cactus, Kuenzler Hedgehog Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri Cactus, Lee Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. leei Cactus, Lloyd's Mariposa Echinomastus mariposensis Cactus, Mesa Verde Sclerocactus mesae

- verdae Cactus, Nellie Cory Coryphantha minima Cactus, Nichol's Turk's Head Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Cactus, Pariette Sclerocactus brevispinus Cactus, Peebles Navajo Pediocactus peeblesianus peeblesianus Cactus, Pima Pineapple Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina Cactus, San Rafael Pediocactus despainii Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri Cactus, Sneed Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Cactus, Star Astrophytum asterias Cactus, Tobusch Fishhook Ancistrocactus tobuschii Cactus, Uinta Basin hookless Sclerocactus wetlandicus Cactus, Winkler Pediocactus winkleri Cactus, Wright Fishhook Sclerocactus wrightiae Calyptranthes Thomasiana (ncn) Calyptranthes thomasiana Campeloma, Slender Campeloma decampi Campion, Fringed Silene polypetala Capa Rosa Callicarpa ampla Caracara, Audubon's Crested Polyborus plancus audubonii Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Catesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn) Catesbaea melanocarpa Catfish, Yaqui Ictalurus pricei
Cat's

- eye, Terlingua Creek Cryptantha crassipes Cavefish, Alabama Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni Cavefish, Ozark Amblyopsis rosae Cavesnail, Tumbling Creek Antrobia culveri Ceanothus, Coyote Ceanothus ferrisae Ceanothus, Pine Hill Ceanothus roderickii Ceanothus, Vail Lake Ceanothus ophiochilus Centaury, Spring

- loving Centaurium namophilum Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Chamaecrista glandulosa (ncn) Chamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilis Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) Chamaesyce halemanui
Checker

- mallow, Keck's Sidalcea keckii
Checker

- mallow, Kenwood Marsh Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida
Checker

- mallow, Nelson's Sidalcea nelsoniana
Checker

- mallow, Pedate Sidalcea pedata
Checker

- mallow, Wenatchee Mountains Sidalcea oregana var. calva
Choctaw Bean Villosa choctawensis Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans Chub, Borax Lake Gila boraxobius Chub, Chihuahua Gila nigrescens Chub, Gila Gila intermedia Chub, Humpback Gila cypha183 Common and Scientific Name Chub, Hutton Tui Gila bicolor ssp. Chub, Mohave Tui Gila bicolor mohavensis Chub, Oregon Oregonichthys crameri Chub, Owens Tui Gila bicolor snyderi Chub, Pahranagat Roundtail Gila robusta jordani
Chub, Slender Erimystax cahni Chub, Sonora Gila ditaenia Chub, Spotfin Erimonax monachus Chub, Virgin River Gila seminuda (=robusta)
Chub, Yaqui Gila purpurea Chucky Madtom Noturus crypticus Chumbo, Higo Harrisia portoricensis Chupacallos Pleodendron macranthum Cladonia, Florida Perforate Cladonia perforata Clarkia, Pismo Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Clarkia, Presidio Clarkia franciscana Clarkia, Springville Clarkia springvillensis Clarkia, Vine Hill Clarkia imbricata Cliffrose, Arizona Purshia (=cowania) subintegra Clover, Fleshy Owl's Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Clover, Monterey Trifolium trichocalyx Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Clover, Showy Indian Trifolium amoenum Cobana Negra Stahlia monosperma Combshell, Southern (=Penitent mussel) Epioblasma penita Combshell, Upland Epioblasma metastriata Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus Coneflower, Smooth Echinacea laevigata Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) Fulica americana alai Coral, Elkhorn Acropora palmata Coral, Staghorn Acropora cervicornis Cordia bellonis (ncn) Cordia bellonis Coyote

- thistle, Loch Lomond Eryngium constancei Crane, Mississippi Sandhill Grus canadensis pulla Crane, Whooping Grus americana Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus aculabrum) Cambarus aculabrum Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus zophonastes) Cambarus zophonastes Crayfish, Nashville Orconectes shoupi Crayfish, Shasta Pacifastacus fortis Creeper, Hawaii Oreomystis mana Creeper, Molokai (Kakawahie) Paroreomyza flammea Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) Paroreomyza maculata Crimson Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion leptodemas Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) Corvus hawaiiensis Crow, Mariana Corvus kubaryi Crownbeard, Big

- leaved Verbesina dissita Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley Atriplex coronata var. notatior
Cui

- ui Chasmistes cujus
Cumberland darter Etheostoma susanae184 Common and Scientific Name Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Cyanea undulata (ncn) Cyanea undulata Cycladenia, Jones Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis) Cypress, Gowen Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Cypress, Santa Cruz Cupressus abramsiana Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis Dace, Blackside Phoxinus cumberlandensis Dace, Clover Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus Dace, Desert Eremichthys acros Dace, Foskett Speckled Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Dace, Independence Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus Dace, Kendall Warm Springs Rhinichthys osculus thermalis Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea Daisy, Lakeside Hymenoxys herbacea Daisy, Parish's Erigeron parishii Daisy, Willamette Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Damselfly, Flying Earwig Hawaiian Megalagrion nesiotes Damselfly, Pacific Hawaiian Megalagrion pacificum Daphnopsis hellerana (ncn) Daphnopsis hellerana Darter, Amber Percina antesella Darter, Bayou Etheostoma rubrum Darter, Bluemask (=jewel) Etheostoma sp. Darter, Boulder Etheostoma wapiti Darter, Cherokee Etheostoma scotti Darter, Duskytail Etheostoma percnurum Darter, Etowah Etheostoma etowahae Darter, Fountain Etheostoma fonticola Darter, Goldline Percina aurolineata Darter, Leopard Percina pantherina Darter, Maryland Etheostoma sellare Darter, Niangua Etheostoma nianguae Darter, Okaloosa Etheostoma okaloosae Darter, Relict Etheostoma chienense Darter, Slackwater Etheostoma boschungi Darter, Snail Percina tanasi Darter, Vermilion Etheostoma chermocki Darter, Watercress Etheostoma nuchale
Dawn

- flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed) Hymenoxys texana DeBeque phacelia Phacelia submutica Delissea rhytodisperma (ncn) Delissea rhytidosperma Diellia erecta (ncn) Diellia erecta Diellia falcata (ncn) Diellia falcata Diellia pallida (ncn) Diellia pallida Diellia unisora (ncn) Diellia unisora Diplazium molokaiense (ncn) Diplazium molokaiense Dogweed, Ashy Thymophylla tephroleuca Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Somatochlora hineana Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Dubautia latifolia (ncn) Dubautia latifolia Dubautia pauciflorula (ncn) Dubautia pauciflorula Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) Anas wyvilliana Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis185 Common and Scientific Name Dudleya, Conejo Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva Dudleya, Marcescent Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley Dudleya setchellii Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island Dudleya nesiotica Dudleya, Santa Monica Mountains Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia Dudleya, Verity's Dudleya verityi Dugong Dugong dugon
Dwarf

- flax, Marin Hesperolinon congestum Eider, Spectacled Somateria fischeri Eider, Steller's Polysticta stelleri Elepaio, Oahu Odocoileus virginianus clavium Elepaio, Oahu Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis Elimia, Lacy Elimia crenatella Elktoe, Appalachian Alasmidonta raveneliana
Erubia Solanum drymophilum Eugenia Woodburyana Eugenia woodburyana Evening

- primrose, Antioch Dunes Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Evening

- primrose, Eureka Valley Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis Evening

- primrose, San Benito Camissonia benitensis Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Fairy Branchinecta conservatio Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Branchinecta longiantenna Fairy Shrimp, Riverside Streptocephalus woottoni Fairy Shrimp, San Diego Branchinecta sandiegonensis Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Branchinecta lynchi Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis
Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Fatmucket, Arkansas Lampsilis powelli Fern, Adiantum vivesii Adiantum vivesii Fern, Alabama Streak

- sorus Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis Fern, Aleutian Shield Polystichum aleuticum Fern, American hart's

- tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Fern, Elaphoglossum serpens Elaphoglossum serpens Fern, Pendant Kihi (Adenophorus periens) Adenophorus periens Fern, Thelypteris inabonensis Thelypteris inabonensis Fern, Thelypteris verecunda Thelypteris verecunda Fern, Thelypteris yaucoensis Thelypteris yaucoensis Fiddleneck, Large

- flowered Amsinckia grandiflora Finch, Laysan Telespyza cantans Finch, Nihoa Telespyza ultima Flannelbush, Mexican Fremontodendron mexicanum Flannelbush, Pine Hill Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens Fleabane, Zuni Erigeron rhizomatus Fly, Delhi Sands Flower

- loving Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila aglaia Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila heteroneura Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila montgomeryi Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila mulli Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila musaphilia Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila neoclavisetae Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila obatai Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila substenoptera Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila tarphytrichia186 Common and Scientific Name Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila hemipeza Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila ochrobasis Fly, Hawaiian picture

- wing Drosophila differens Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus
Four

- o'clock, Macfarlane's Mirabilis macfarlanei Frankenia, Johnston's Frankenia johnstonii
Fri nge Tree, Pygmy Chionanthus pygmaeus Fringepod, Santa Cruz Island Thysanocarpus conchuliferus Frog, California Red

- legged Rana aurora draytonii Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Rana chiricahuensis Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) Rana capito sevosa Frog, Mountain Yellow

- legged Rana muscosa Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum fuzzy pigtoe Pleurobema strodeanum Gahnia Lanaiensis (ncn) Gahnia lanaiensis Gambusia, Big Bend Gambusia gaigei Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia heterochir Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis Gambusia, San Marcos Gambusia georgei Gecko, Monito Sphaerodactylus micropithecus Geranium, Hawaiian Red

- flowered Geranium arboreum Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Gesneria pauciflora (ncn) Gesneria pauciflora Gilia, Hoffmann's Slender

- flowered Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii Gilia, Monterey Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Gnatcatcher, Coastal California Polioptila californica californica Goby, Tidewater Eucyclogobius newberryi Goetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey) Goetzea elegans Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's Pseudobahia bahiifolia Goldenrod, Blue Ridge Solidago spithamaea Goldenrod, Houghton's Solidago houghtonii Goldenrod, Short's Solidago shortii Goldenrod, White

- haired Solidago albopilosa Goldfields, Burke's Lasthenia burkei Goldfields, Contra Costa Lasthenia conjugens Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis Gooseberry, Miccosukee Ribes echinellum Gouania hillebrandii (ncn) Gouania hillebrandii Gouania meyenii (ncn) Gouania meyenii Gouania vitifolia (ncn) Gouania vitifolia Gourd, Okeechobee Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis Grass, Hairy Orcutt Orcuttia pilosa Grass, Sacramento Orcutt Orcuttia viscida Grass, Slender Orcutt Orcuttia tenuis Grasshopper, Zayante Band

- winged Trimerotropis infantilis
Ground

- plum, Guthrie's Astragalus bibullatus Groundsel, San Francisco Peaks Senecio franciscanus Gumplant, Ash Meadows Grindelia fraxino

- pratensis
ha`iwale Cyrtandra kaulantha
ha`iwale Cyrtandra sessilis
Haha Cyanea lanceolata
Haha Cyanea calycina187 Common and Scientific Name

haha Cyanea purpurellifolia
Haha Cyanea kuhihewa
haha Cyanea eleeleensis
Haha Cyanea dolichopoda Haha (Cyanea acuminata) Cyanea acuminata Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) Cyanea asarifolia Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii) Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa) Cyanea (=Rollandia) crispa Haha (Cyanea dunbarii) Cyanea dunbarii Haha (Cyanea glabra) Cyanea glabra Haha (Cya nea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae) Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. Carlsonii Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora) Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora Haha (Cyanea humboldtiana) Cyanea humboldtiana Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) Cyanea koolauensis Haha (Cyanea lobata) Cyanea lobata Haha (Cyanea longiflora) Cyanea longiflora Haha (Cyanea Macrostegia var. gibsonii) Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii Haha (Cyanea mannii) Cyanea mannii Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) Cyanea mceldowneyi Haha (Cyanea pinnatifida) Cyanea pinnatifida Haha (Cyanea platyphylla) Cyanea platyphylla Haha (Cyanea procera) Cyanea procera
Haha (Cyanea recta) Cyanea recta Haha (Cyanea remyi) Cyanea remyi Haha (Cyanea shipmanii) Cyanea shipmannii Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) Cyanea stictophylla Haha (Cyanea St

- Johnii) (=Rollandia St

- Johnii) Cyanea st

- johnii Haha (Cyanea superba) Cyanea superba Haha (Cyanea truncata) Cyanea truncata
haiwale Cyrtandra waiolani
haiwale Cyrtandra gracilis
haiwale Cyrtandra paliku Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra crenata) Cyrtandra crenata Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra dentata) Cyrtandra dentata Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) Cyrtandra giffardii Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra limahuliensis) Cyrtandra limahuliensis Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra munroi) Cyrtandra munroi Ha'iwale (Cyrtandra oenobarba) Cyrtandra oenobarba Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) Cyrtandra polyantha Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) Cyrtandra subumbellata Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) Cyrtandra tintinnabula Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) Cyrtandra viridiflora Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) Haplostachys haplostachya Harebells, Avon Park Crotalaria avonensis Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Harvestman, Bee Creek Cave Texella reddelli Harvestman, Bone Cave Texella reyesi Harvestman, Cokendolpher Cave Texella cokendolpheri Hau Kauhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) Hibiscadelphus woodii188 Common and Scientific Name Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) Hibiscadelphus distans Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus giffardianus) Hibiscadelphus giffardianus Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis) Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis Hawaiian picture

- wing Fly Drosophila sharpi Hawk, Hawaiian (Io) Buteo solitarius Hawk, Puerto Rican Broad

- winged Buteo platypterus brunnescens Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp

- shinned Accipiter striatus venator Hayun Lagu (Tronkon Guafi) Serianthes nelsonii Heartleaf, Dwarf

- flowered Hexastylis naniflora Heather, Mountain Golden Hudsonia montana Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) Exocarpos luteolus Hedyotis degeneri (ncn) Hedyotis degeneri Hedyotis parvula (ncn) Hedyotis parvula Hedyotis St.

- Johnii (ncn) Hedyotis st.

- johnii Hesperomannia arborescens (ncn) Hesperomannia arborescens Hesperomannia arbuscula (ncn) Hesperomannia arbuscula Hesperomannia lydgatei (ncn) Hesperomannia lydgatei Hibiscus, Clay's Hibiscus clayi Higuero De Sierra Crescentia portoricensis
ho'awa Pittosporum napaliense Holei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) Ochrosia kilaueaensis Holly, Cook's Ilex cookie Honeycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe) Palmeria dolei Hornsnail, rough Pleurocera foremani Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis Hypericum, Highlands Scrub Hypericum cumulicola Iguana, Mona Ground Cyclura cornuta stejnegeri 'Ihi'Ihi (Marsilea villosa) Marsilea villosa Ilex sintenisii (ncn) Ilex sintenisii Iliau (Wilkesia hobdyi) Wilkesia hobdyi Ipomopsis, Holy Ghost Ipomopsis sancti

- spiritus Isopod, Lee County Cave Lirceus usdagalun Isopod, Madison Cave Antrolana lira Isopod, Socorro Thermosphaeroma thermophilus Ivesia, Ash Meadows Ivesia kingii var. eremica Jacquemontia, Beach Jacquemontia reclinata Jewelflower, California Caulanthus californicus Jewelflower, Metcalf Canyon Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Jewelflower, Tiburon Streptanthus niger
Joint

- vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica
kamakahala Labordia helleri
kamakahala Labordia pumila Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) Labordia cyrtandrae Kamakahala (Labordia lydgatei) Labordia lydgatei Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis) Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaen) Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis Kamakahala (Labordia triflora) Labordia triflora Kanaloa kahoolawensis (ncn) Kanaloa kahoolawensis Kauai creeper Oreomystis bairdi Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) Colubrina oppositifolia
kaulu Pteralyxia macrocarpa Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) Pteralyxia kauaiensis1 89 Common and Scientific Name Kidneyshell, Triangular Ptychobranchus greenii Kingfisher, Guam Micronesian Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) Hedyotis coriacea Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) Phyllostegia racemosa Kite, Everglades Snail Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus
ko`oko`olau Bidens amplectens Koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) Kokia drynarioides Koki'o (Kokia kauaiensis) Kokia kauaiensis Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus) Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae) Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae Koki'o, Cooke's (Kokia cookei) Kokia cookie
kolea Myrsine mezii
Kolea Myrsine knudsenii Kolea (Myrsine juddii) Myrsine juddii Kolea (Myrsine linearifolia) Myrsine linearifolia Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha) Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha Ko'oko'olau (Bidens wiebkei) Bidens wiebkei Ko'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii) Abutilon menziesii Kopa (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi) Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi kopiko Psychotria grandiflora kopiko Psychotria hobdyi Kuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides) Alsinidendron lychnoides Kulu'I (Nototrichium humile) Nototrichium humile Larkspur, Baker's Delphinium bakeri Larkspur, San Clemente Island Delphinium variegatum ssp. kinkiense Larkspur, Yellow Delphinium luteum Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago hawaiensis) Plantago hawaiensis Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago princeps) Plantago princeps Laulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) Schiedea stellarioides
Laurel dace Chrosomus aylori Layia, Beach Layia carnosa
Lead

- plant, Crenulate Amorpha crenulata
Leather

- flower, Alabama Clematis socialis
Leather

- flower, Morefield's Clematis morefieldii
lehua makanoe Lysimachia daphnoides Leptocereus grantianus (ncn) Leptocereus grantianus Lessingia, San Francisco Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germanorum) Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare Liliwai (Acaena exigua) Acaena exigua Limpet, Banbury Springs Lanx sp. Lipochaeta venosa (ncn) Lipochaeta venosa Liveforever, Laguna Beach Dudleya stolonifera Liveforever, Santa Barbara Island Dudleya traskiae Lizard, Blunt

- nosed Leopard Gambelia silus Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe

- toed Uma inornata Lizard, Island Night Xantusia riversiana Lizard, St. Croix Ground Ameiva polops Lo`ulu (Pritchardia munroi) Pritchardia munroi
Lo`ulu (Pritchardia remota) Pritchardia remota Lobelia monostachya (ncn) Lobelia monostachya Lobelia niihauensis (ncn) Lobelia niihauensis190 Common and Scientific Name Lobelia oahuensis (ncn) Lobelia oahuensis Locoweed, Fassett's Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Logperch, Conasauga Percina jenkinsi Logperch, Roanoke Percina rex Lomatium, Bradshaw's Lomatium bradshawii Lomatium, Cook's Lomatium cookii Loosestrife, Rough

- leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia Lousewort, Furbish Pedicularis furbishiae Lupine, Clover Lupinus tidestromii

Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) Lupine, Nipomo Mesa Lupinus nipomensis Lupine, Scrub Lupinus aridorum Lyonia truncata var. proctorii (ncn) Lyonia truncata var. proctorii Lysimachia filifolia (ncn) Lysimachia filifolia Lysimachia lydgatei (ncn) Lysimachia lydgatei Lysimachia maxima (ncn) Lysimachia maxima Madtom, Neosho Noturus placidus Madtom, Pygmy Noturus stanauli Madtom, Scioto Noturus trautmani Madtom, Smoky Noturus baileyi Madtom, Yellowfin Noturus flavipinnis Mahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) Alectryon macrococcus Makou (Peucedanum sandwicense) Peucedanum sandwicense Malacothrix, Island Malacothrix squalida Malacothrix, Santa Cruz Island Malacothrix indecora Mallow, Kern Eremalche kernensis Mallow, Peter's Mountain Iliamna corei Manioc, Walker's Manihot walkerae Manzanita, Del Mar Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Manzanita, Ione Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Manzanita, Morro Arctostaphylos morroensis Manzanita, Pallid Arctostaphylos pallida Manzanita, Presidio (=Raven's) Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii Manzanita, Santa Rosa Island Arctostaphylos confertiflora Ma'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus brackenridgei) Hibiscus brackenridgei Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos) Schiedea apokremnos Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae) Schiedea kealiae Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) Cyrtandra cyaneoides Marstonia, Royal (=Royal Snail) Pyrgulopsis ogmorhaphe Meadowfoam, Butte County Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica Meadowfoam, Large

- flowered Woolly Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Grandiflora Meadowfoam, Sebastopol Limnanthes vinculans Meadowrue, Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Megapode, Micronesian (La Perouse's) Megapodius laperouse Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) Flueggea neowawraea Meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave Cicurina venii Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave Cicurina vespera Meshweaver, Madla's Cave Cicurina madla Meshweaver, Robber Baron Cave Cicurina baronia Milkpea, Small's Galactia smallii

Milk

- vetch, Applegate's Astragalus applegatei191 Common and Scientific Name

Milk

- vetch, Ash Meadows Astragalus phoenix
Milk

- vetch, Braunton's Astragalus brauntonii
Milk

- vetch, Clara Hunt's Astragalus clarianus
Milk

- vetch, Coachella Valley Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae
Milk

- vetch, Coastal Dunes Astragalus tener var. titi
Milk

- vetch, Cushenbury Astragalus albens
Milk

- vetch, Deseret Astragalus desereticus
Milk

- vetch, Fish Slough Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis
Milk

- vetch, Heliotrope Astragalus montii
Milk

- vetch, Holmgren Astragalus holmgreniorum
Milk

- vetch, Jesup's Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi
Milk

- vetch, Lane Mountain Astragalus jaegerianus
Milk

- vetch, Mancos Astragalus humillimus
Milk

- vetch, Osterhout Astragalus osterhoutii
Milk

- vetch, Pierson's Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii
Milk

- vetch, Sentry Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax
Milk

- vetch, Shivwits Astragalus ampullarioides
Milk

- vetch, Triple

- ribbed Astragalus tricarinatus
Milk

- vetch, Ventura Marsh Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Milkweed, Welsh's Asclepias welshii Millerbird, Nihoa Acrocephalus familiaris kingi Minnow, Devils River Dionda diaboli Minnow, Loach Tiaroga cobitis Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery Hybognathus amarus Mint, Garrett's Dicerandra christmanii Mint, Lakela's Dicerandra immaculata Mint, Longspurred Dicerandra cornutissima Mint, Otay Mesa Pogogyne nudiuscula Mint, San Diego Mesa Pogogyne abramsii Mint, Scrub Dicerandra frutescens Mitracarpus Maxwelliae Mitracarpus maxwelliae Mitracarpus Polycladus Mitracarpus polycladus Monardella, Willowy Monardella linoides ssp. viminea Monkey

- flower, Michigan Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Moorhen, Hawaiian Common Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis Moorhen, Mariana Common Gallinula chloropus guami Morning

- glory, Stebbins Calystegia stebbinsii Moth, Blackburn's Sphinx Manduca blackburni Moth, Kern Primrose Sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe Mountainbalm, Indian Knob Eriodictyon altissimum
Mountain

- mahogany, Catalina Island Cercocarpus traskiae Mouse, Key Largo Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola Mucket, Orange

- nacre Lampsilis perovalis Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta
Munroidendron racemosum (ncn) Munroidendron racemosum Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus Mussel, Acornshell Southern Epioblasma othcaloogensis Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Mussel, Black (=Curtus' Mussel) Clubshell Pleurobema curtum Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava192 Common and Scientific Name Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell Medionidus parvulus Mussel, Cumberland Combshell Epioblasma brevidens Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe Alasmidonta atropurpurea Mussel, Cumberland Pigtoe Pleurobema gibberum Mussel, Dark Pigtoe Pleurobema furvum Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Mussel, Fat Threeridge Amblema neislerii Mussel, Fine

- lined Pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Mussel, Fine

- rayed Pigtoe Fusconaia cuneolus Mussel, Flat Pigtoe (=Marshall's Mussel) Pleurobema marshalli Mussel, Georgia pigtoe Pleurobema hanleyianum Mussel, Gulf Moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus Mussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge Tait's Mussel) Pleurobema taitianum Mussel, Heelsplitter Carolina Lasmigona decorata Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated Potamilus inflatus Mussel, Ochlockonee Moccasinshell Medionidus simpsonianus Mussel, Oval Pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme Mussel, Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema perovatum Mussel, Oyster Epioblasma capsaeformis Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly) Obovaria retusa Mussel, Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Mussel, Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe Fusconaia cor Mussel, Shiny

- rayed Pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata Mussel, snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Mussel, Southern Clubshell Pleurobema decisum Mussel, Southern Pigtoe Pleurobema georgianum Mussel, Speckled Pocketbook Lampsilis streckeri Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Mustard, Carter's Warea carteri Mustard, Penland Alpine Fen Eutrema penlandii Mustard, Slender

- petaled Thelypodium stenopetalum Myrcia Paganii Myrcia paganii
Na`ena`e Dubautia waialealae
na`ena`e Dubautia imbricata imbricata
na`ena`e Dubautia plantaginea magnifolia
Naenae Dubautia kalalauensis
Naenae Dubautia kenwoodii Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) Dubautia herbstobatae Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis Nani Wai'ale'ale (Viola kauaensis var. wahiawaensis) Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis Nanu (Gardenia mannii) Gardenia mannii
Narrow Pigtoe Fusconaia escambia Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) Gardenia brighamii Naucorid, Ash Meadows Ambrysus amargosus Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) Scaevola coriacea Navarretia, Few

- flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Pauciflora Navarretia, Many

- flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha Navarretia, Spreading Navarretia fossalis Nehe (Lipochaeta fauriei) Lipochaeta fauriei Nehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis) Lipochaeta kamolensis Nehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla) Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla193 Common and Scientific Name Nehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) Lipochaeta micrantha Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) Lipochaeta tenuifolia Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) Lipochaeta waimeaensis Neraudia angulata (ncn) Neraudia angulata Neraudia ovata (ncn) Neraudia ovata Neraudia sericea (ncn) Neraudia sericea Nesogenes rotensis (ncn) Nesogenes rotensis Nightjar, Puerto Rico Caprimulgus noctitherus Nioi (Eugenia koolauensis) Eugenia koolauensis Niterwort, Amargosa Nitrophila mohavensis
nohoanu Geranium kauaiense Nohoanu (Geranium multiflorum) Geranium multiflorum Nuku Pu'u, Kauai Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe Nuku Pu'u, Maui Hemignathus lucidus affinus
Oahu wild coffee Psychotria hexandra ssp. Oahuensis Oak, Hinckley Quercus hinckleyi
Oceanic Hawaiian damselfly Megalagrion oceanicum 'Oha (Delissea rivularis) Delissea rivularis 'Oha (Delissea subcordata) Delissea subcordata 'Oha (Delissea undulata) Delissea undulata 'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis
'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) Clermontia drepanomorpha 'Oha Wai (Clermontia lindseyana) Clermontia lindseyana 'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes) Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes 'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis) Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis 'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana) Clermontia peleana 'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) Clermontia pyrularia 'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) Clermontia samuelii 'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) Sesbania tomentosa
'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa 'Olulu (Brighamia insignis) Brighamia insignis 'O'o, Kauai (='A'a) Moho braccatus Opuhe (Urera kaalae) Urera kaalae Osmoxylon mariannense (ncn) Osmoxylon mariannense Otter, Northern Sea Enhydra lutris kenyoni 'O'u (Honeycreeper) Psittirostra psittacea Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis caurina Oxytheca, Cushenbury Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana
Ozark Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi Pagosa Skyrocket Ipomopsis polyantha Paintbrush, Ash

- grey Indian Castilleja cinerea Paintbrush, Golden Castilleja levisecta Paintbrush, San Clemente Island Indian Castilleja grisea Paintbrush, Soft

- leaved Castilleja mollis Paintbrush, Tiburon Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta
Palila Loxioides bailleui Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) Ternstroemia luquillensis
Palo de Jazmin Styrax portoricensis Palo de Nigua Cornutia obovata
Palo de Ramon Banara vanderbiltii
Palo de Rosa Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon194 Common and Scientific Name Pamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana) Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana Papala Charpentiera densiflora Parachute Beardtongue Penstemon debilis Parrot, Puerto Rican Amazona vittata Parrotbill, Maui Pseudonestor xanthophrys Pauoa (Ctenitis squamigera) Ctenitis squamigera Pawpaw, Beautiful Deeringothamnus pulchellus Pawpaw, Four

- petal Asimina tetramera Pawpaw, Rugel's Deeringothamnus rugelii Pearlshell, Louisiana Margaritifera hembeli Pearlymussel, Alabama Lamp Lampsilis virescens Pearlymussel, Appalachian Monkeyface Quadrula sparsa Pearlymussel, Birdwing Lemiox rimosus Pearlymussel, Cracking Hemistena lata Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean Villosa trabalis Pearlymussel, Cumberland Monkeyface Quadrula intermedia Pearlymussel, Curtis' Epioblasma florentina curtisii Pearlymussel, Dromedary Dromus dromas Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Pearlymussel, Green

- blossom Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye Lampsilis higginsii Pearlymussel, Little

- wing Pegias fibula Pearlymussel, Orange

- footed Plethobasus cooperianus Pearlymussel, Pale Lilliput Toxolasma cylindrellus Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Pearlymussel, Tubercled

- blossom Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Pearlymussel, Turgid

- blossom Epioblasma turgidula Pearlymussel, White Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua Pearlymussel, White Wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus Pearlymussel, Yellow

- blossom Epioblasma florentina florentina Pebblesnail, Flat Lepyrium showalteri Penny

- cress, Kneeland Prairie Thlaspi californicum Pennyroyal, Todsen's Hedeoma todsenii Penstemon, Blowout Penstemon haydenii Pentachaeta, Lyon's Pentachaeta lyonii Pentachaeta, White

- rayed Pentachaeta bellidiflora Peperomia, Wheeler's Peperomia wheeleri Peppergrass, Slick Spot Lepidium papilliferum Petrel, Hawaiian Dark

- rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Phacelia, Clay Phacelia argillacea Phacelia, Island Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis Phacelia, North Park Phacelia formosula Phlox, Texas Trailing Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Phlox, Yreka Phlox hirsuta Phyllostegia hirsuta (ncn) Phyllostegia hirsuta Phyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn) Phyllostegia kaalaensis Phyllostegia knudsenii (ncn) Phyllostegia knudsenii Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) Phyllostegia mannii Phyllostegia mollis (ncn) Phyllostegia mollis Phyllostegia parviflora (ncn) Phyllostegia parviflora Phyllostegia velutina (ncn) Phyllostegia velutina Phyllostegia waimeae (ncn) Phyllostegia waimeae195 Common and Scientific Name Phyllostegia warshaueri (ncn) Phyllostegia warshaueri Phyllostegia wawrana (ncn) Phyllostegia wawrana Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain Columba inornata wetmorei Pilo (Hedyotis mannii) Hedyotis mannii pilo kea lau li`i Platydesma rostrata Pinkroot, Gentian Spigelia gentianoides Pitaya, Davis' Green Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii
Pitcher

- plant, Alabama Canebrake Sarracenia rubra alabamensis
Pitcher

- plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila
Pitcher

- plant, Mountain Sweet Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Plum, Scrub Prunus geniculata Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) Portulaca sclerocarpa Polygala, Lewton's Polygala lewtonii Polygala, Tiny Polygala smallii Polygonum, Scott's Valley Polygonum hickmanii Polystichum calderonense (ncn) Polystichum calderonense Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Pondweed, Little Aguja Creek Potamogeton clystocarpus Poolfish, Pahrump (= Pahrump Killifish) Empetrichthys latos
Po'ouli Melamprosops phaeosoma Popcornflower, Rough Plagiobothrys hirtus Popolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum sandwicense) Solanum sandwicense Popolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum) Solanum incompletum Poppy, Sacramento Prickly Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta Poppy

- mallow, Texas Callirhoe scabriuscula
Potato

- bean, Price's Apios priceana Potentilla, Hickman's Potentilla hickmanii
Prairie

- chicken, Attwater's Greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri Prickly

- apple, Fragrant Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans Prickly

- ash, St. Thomas Zanthoxylum thomasianum Primrose, Maguire Primula maguirei Pseudoscorpion, Tooth Cave Tartarocreagris texana Pteris lidgatei (ncn) Pteris lidgatei Pua'ala (Brighamia rockii) Brighamia rockii Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans Pupfish, Desert Cyprinodon macularius Pupfish, Devils Hole Cyprinodon diabolis Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus Pupfish, Owens Cyprinodon radiosus Pupfish, Warm Springs Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis Purple Bean Villosa perpurpurea Pussypaws, Mariposa Calyptridium pulchellum Quillwort, Black

- spored Isoetes melanospora Quillwort, Louisiana Isoetes louisianensis Quillwort, Mat

- forming Isoetes tegetiformans Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Rabbitsfoot, Rough Quadrula cylindrica strigillata Rail, California Clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus Rail, Guam Rallus owstoni196 Common and Scientific Name Rail, Light

- footed Clapper Rallus longirostris levipes Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge

- nosed Crotalus willardi obscurus Rattleweed, Hairy Baptisia arachnifera Rayed Bean Villosa fabalis
Reed

- mustard, Barneby Schoenocrambe barnebyi
Reed

- mustard, Clay Schoenocrambe argillacea
Reed

- mustard, Shrubby Schoenocrambe suffrutescens Remya kauaiensis (ncn) Remya kauaiensis Remya montgomeryi (ncn) Remya montgomeryi Remya, Maui Remya mauiensis Rhadine exilis (ncn) Rhadine exilis Rhadine infernalis (ncn) Rhadine infernalis Rhododendron, Chapman Rhododendron chapmanii Rice Rat (=Silver Rice Rat) Oryzomys palustris natator Ridge

- cress (=Pepper

- cress), Barneby Lepidium barnebyanum Riffleshell, Northern Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Riffleshell, Tan Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri) Riversnail, Anthony's Athearnia anthonyi
Rock

- cress, Braun's Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. ampla Rollins
Rock

- cress, Hoffmann's Arabis hoffmannii
Rock

- cress, McDonald's Arabis mcdonaldiana
Rock

- cress, Santa Cruz Island Sibara filifolia
Rock

- cress, Shale Barren Arabis serotina

Rock

- cress, Small Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata Fernald Rockfish, Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Rockfish, Canary Sebastes pinniger
Rock

- pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) Arkansia wheeleri Rocksnail, interrupted Leptoxis foremani Rocksnail, Painted Leptoxis taeniata Rocksnail, Plicate Leptoxis plicata Rocksnail, Round Leptoxis ampla Rosemary, Apalachicola Conradina glabra Rosemary, Cumberland Conradina verticillata Rosemary, Etonia Conradina etonia Rosemary, Short

- leaved Conradina brevifolia Roseroot, Leedy's Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi Round Ebonyshell Fusconaia rotulata
Rush darter Etheostoma phytophilum
Rush

- pea, Slender Hoffmannseggia tenella
Rush

- rose, Island Helianthemum greenei Salamander, Barton Springs Eurycea sosorum Salamander, California Tiger Ambystoma californiense Salamander, Cheat Mountain Plethodon nettingi Salamander, Desert Slender Batrachoseps aridus Salamander, Frosted Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Salamander, Red Hills Phaeognathus hubrichti Salamander, Reticulated flatwoods Ambystoma bishopi Salamander, San Marcos Eurycea nana Salamander, Santa Cruz Long

- toed Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum
Salamander, Shenandoah Plethodon shenandoah197 Common and Scientific Name Salamander, Sonora Tiger Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi Salamander, Texas Blind Typhlomolge rathbuni Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Salmon, Chum Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta Salmon, Coho Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch Salmon, Sockeye Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka
San Francisco manzanita Arctostaphylos franciscana Sandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi) Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense
Sandlace Polygonella myriophylla
Sand

- verbena, Large

- fruited Abronia macrocarpa Sandwort, Bear Valley Arenaria ursina Sandwort, Cumberland Arenaria cumberlandensis Sandwort, Marsh Arenaria paludicola Sanicula mariversa (ncn) Sanicula mariversa Sanicula purpurea (ncn) Sanicula purpurea Sawfish, Smalltooth Pristis pectinata Schiedea haleakalensis (ncn) Schiedea haleakalensis Schiedea helleri (ncn) Schiedea helleri Schiedea hookeri (ncn) Schiedea hookeri Schiedea kaalae (ncn) Schiedea kaalae Schiedea kauaiensis (ncn) Schiedea kauaiensis Schiedea lydgatei (ncn) Schiedea lydgatei Schiedea membranacea (ncn) Schiedea membranacea Schiedea nuttallii (ncn) Schiedea nuttallii Schiedea sarmentosa (ncn) Schiedea sarmentosa Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (ncn) Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina (ncn) Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina Schiedea verticillata (ncn) Schiedea verticillata Schiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea adamantis) Schiedea adamantis Schoepfia arenaria (ncn) Schoepfia arenaria
Scrub

- Jay, Florida Aphelocoma coerulescens Sculpin, Pygmy Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus) Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii
Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Sea turtle, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea
Sea

- blite, California Suaeda californica Sheepnose mussel Plethobasus cyphyus Shiner, Arkansas River Notropis girardi Shiner, Beautiful Cyprinella formosa Shiner, Blue Cyprinella caerulea Shiner, Cahaba Notropis cahabae Shiner, Cape Fear Notropis mekistocholas Shiner, Palezone Notropis albizonatus Shiner, Pecos Bluntnose Notropis simus pecosensis Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi Shrimp, Alabama Cave Palaemonias alabamae Shrimp, California Freshwater Syncaris pacifica198 Common and Scientific Name Shrimp, Kentucky Cave Palaemonias ganteri Shrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave Palaemonetes cummingi Silene alexandri (ncn) Silene alexandri Silene hawaiiensis (ncn) Silene hawaiiensis Silene lanceolata (ncn) Silene lanceolata Silene perlmanii (ncn) Silene perlmanii Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense) Argyroxiphium kauense Silversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicense Skink, Blue

- tailed Mole Eumeces egregius lividus
Sk ink, Sand Neoseps reynoldsi Skipper, Carson Wandering Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Skipper, Laguna Mountain Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Skipper, Pawnee Montane Hesperia leonardus montana Skullcap, Florida Scutellaria floridana Skullcap, Large

- flowered Scutellaria montana Slabshell, Chipola Elliptio chipolaensis Smelt, Delta Hypomesus transpacificus Snail, Armored Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta Snail, Bliss Rapids Taylorconcha serpenticola Snail, Chittenango Ovate Amber Succinea chittenangoensis Snail, Flat

- spired Three

- toothed Triodopsis platysayoides Snail, Iowa Pleistocene Discus macclintocki Snail, Lioplax Cylindrical Lioplax cyclostomaformis Snail, Morro Shoulderband Helminthoglypta walkeriana Snail, Noonday Mesodon clarki nantahala Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella abbreviata) Achatinella abbreviata Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella apexfulva) Achatinella apexfulva Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bellula) Achatinella bellula Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella buddii) Achatinella buddii Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bulimoides) Achatinella bulimoides Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella byronii) Achatinella byronii Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella caesia) Achatinella caesia Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella casta) Achatinella casta Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella cestus) Achatinella cestus Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella concavospira) Achatinella concavospira Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella curta) Achatinella curta Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decipiens) Achatinella decipiens Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decora) Achatinella decora Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella dimorpha) Achatinella dimorpha Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella elegans) Achatinella elegans Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fulgens) Achatinella fulgens Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fuscobasis) Achatinella fuscobasis Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juddii) Achatinella juddii Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juncea) Achatinella juncea Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lehuiensis) Achatinella lehuiensis Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella leucorraphe) Achatinella leucorraphe Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lila) Achatinella lila Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella livida) Achatinella livida Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lorata) Achatinella lorata Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella m ustelina) Achatinella mustelina199 Common and Scientific Name Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella papyracea) Achatinella papyracea Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella phaeozona) Achatinella phaeozona Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pulcherrima) Achatinella pulcherrima Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pupukanioe) Achatinella pupukanioe Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella rosea) Achatinella rosea Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella sowerbyana) Achatinella sowerbyana Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella spaldingi) Achatinella spaldingi Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella stewartii) Achatinella stewartii Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella swiftii) Achatinella swiftii Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella taeniolata) Achatinella taeniolata Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella thaanumi) Achatinella thaahumi Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella turgida) Achatinella turgida Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella valida) Achatinella valida Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella viridans) Achatinella viridans Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vittata) Achatinella vittata Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella vulpina) Achatinella vulpina Snail, Painted Snake Coiled Forest Anguispira picta Snail, Pecos Assiminea Assiminea pecos Snail, Snake River Physa Physa natricina Snail, Stock Island Tree Orthalicus reses (not incl. nesodryas) Snail, Tulotoma Tulotoma magnifica Snail, Virginia Fringed Mountain Polygyriscus virginianus Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh Nerodia clarkii taeniata Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Snake, Giant Garter Thamnophis gigas Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Snake, San Francisco Garter Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia
Snakeroot Eryngium cuneifolium Sneezeweed, Virginia Helenium virginicum Snowbells, Texas Styrax texanus Southern Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus jonesi
Southern Sandshell Hamiota australis Sparrow, Cape Sable Seaside Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Sparrow, San Clemente Sage Amphispiza belli clementeae Spectaclecase mussel Cumberlandia monodonta Spermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn) Spermolepis hawaiiensis Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave Neoleptoneta microps Spider, Kauai Cave Wolf Adelocosa anops Spider, Spruce

- fir Moss Microhexura montivaga Spider, Tooth Cave Leptoneta myopica Spikedace Meda fulgida Spinedace, Big Spring Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis Spinedace, Little Colorado Lepidomeda vittata Spinedace, White River Lepidomeda albivallis Spineflower, Ben Lomond Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana Spineflower, Howell's Chorizanthe howellii Spineflower, Monterey Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Spineflower, Orcutt's Chorizanthe orcuttiana Spineflower, Robust Chorizanthe robusta va r. robusta Spineflower, Scotts Valley Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii Spineflower, Slender

- horned Dodecahema leptoceras200 Common and Scientific Name Spineflower, Sonoma Chorizanthe valida Spinymussel, Altamaha Elliptio spinosa Spinymussel, James River Pleurobema collina Spinymussel, Tar River Elliptio steinstansana Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Springfish, Hiko White River Crenichthys baileyi grandis Springfish, Railroad Valley Crenichthys nevadae Springfish, White River Crenichthys baileyi baileyi Springsnail, Alamosa Tryonia alamosae Springsnail, Bruneau Hot Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis Springsnail, Chupadera Pyrgulopsis chupaderae Springsnail, Koster's Juturnia kosteri Springsnail, Roswell Pyrgulopsis roswellensis Springsnail, San Bernardino Pyrgulopsis bernardina Springsnail, Socorro Pyrgulopsis neomexicana Springsnail, Three Forks Pyrgulopsis trivialis Spurge, Deltoid Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Spurge, Garber's Chamaesyce garberi Spurge, Hoover's Chamaesyce hooveri Spurge, Telephus Euphorbia telephioides Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Starling, Ponape Mountain Aplonis pelzelni
Steelhead Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Stenogyne angustifolia (ncn) Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia Stenogyne bifida (ncn) Stenogyne bifida Stenogyne campanulata (ncn) Stenogyne campanulata Stenogyne kanehoana (ncn) Stenogyne kanehoana Stickleback, Unarmored Threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Stickseed, Showy Hackelia venusta Stickyseed, Baker's Blennosperma bakeri Stilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o) Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Stirrupshell Quadrula stapes Stonecrop, Lake County Parvisedum leiocarpum Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Sturgeon, Alabama Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Sturgeon, North American green Acipenser medirostris Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Sturgeon, Shovelnose Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Sturgeon, White Acipenser transmontanus Sucker, June Chasmistes liorus Sucker, Lost River Deltistes luxatus Sucker, Modoc Catostomus microps Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Sucker, Santa Ana Catostomus santaanae Sucker, Shortnose Chasmistes brevirostris Sucker, Warner Catostomus warnerensis Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly Eriophyllum latilobum Sunflower, Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii201 Common and Scientific Name Sunray, Ash Meadows Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata Swiftlet, Mariana Gray (=Vanikoro) Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool Lepidurus packardi Tapered Pigtoe Fusconaia burkei Taraxacum, California Taraxacum californicum Tarplant, Gaviota Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa Tarplant, Otay Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens Tarplant, Santa Cruz Holocarpha macradenia
Tectaria Estremerana Tectaria estremerana Tern, California Least Sterna antillarum browni Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Ternstroemia subsessilis (ncn) Ternstroemia subsessilis Tetramolopium arenarium (ncn) Tetramolopium arenarium Tetramolopium capillare (ncn) Tetramolopium capillare Tetramolopium filiforme (ncn) Tetramolopium filiforme Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (ncn) Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum Tetramolopium remyi (ncn) Tetramolopium remyi Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) Tetramolopium rockii Thelypody, Howell's Spectacular Thelypodium howellii spectabilis Thistle, Chorro creek Bog Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Thistle, Fountain Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Thistle, La Graciosa Cirsium loncholepis Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcher Thistle, Sacramento Mountains Cirsium vinaceum Thistle, Suisun Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Thornmint, San Diego Acanthomintha ilicifolia Thornmint, San Mateo Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii Thrush, Large Kauai Myadestes myadestinus Thrush, Molokai (Oloma'o) Myadestes lanaiensis rutha Thrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) Myadestes palmeri Toad, Arroyo Southwestern Bufo californicus (=microscaphus) Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis Toad, Wyoming Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys) Topminnow, Gila (Yaqui) Poeciliopsis occidentalis Torreya, Florida Torreya taxifolia Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizi Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus Towhee, Inyo Brown Pipilo crissalis eremophilus Townsendia, Last Chance Townsendia aprica Tree Fern, Elfin Cyathea dryopteroides Trematolobelia singularis (ncn) Trematolobelia singularis Trout, Apache Oncorhynchus apache Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Trout, Gila Oncorhynchus gilae Trout, Greenback Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Trout, Little Kern Golden Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei Trout, Paiute Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris Tuctoria, Green's Tuctoria greenei Turtle, Alabama Red

- bellied Pseudemys alabamensis Turtle, Bog Clemmys muhlenbergii202 Common and Scientific Name Turtle, Flattened Musk Sternotherus depressus Turtle, Plymouth Red

- bellied Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi Turtle, Ringed Map Graptemys oculifera Turtle, Yellow

- blotched Map Graptemys flavimaculata Twinpod, Dudley Bluffs Physaria obcordata Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) Caesalpinia kavaiense Ulihi (Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis) Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis Umbel, Huachuca Water Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva
Uvillo Eugenia haematocarpa Vernonia Proctorii (ncn) Vernonia proctorii Vervain, California Verbena californica Vetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) Vicia menziesii Vigna o

- wahuensis (ncn) Vigna o

- wahuensis Viola helenae (ncn) Viola helenae
Viola lanaiensis (ncn) Viola lanaiensis Viola oahuensis (ncn) Viola oahuensis Vireo, Black

- capped Vireo atricapilla Vireo, Least Bell's Vireo bellii pusillus Wahane (Pritchardia aylmer

- robinsonii) Pritchardia aylmer

- robinsonii Wahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium) Isodendrion pyrifolium Wallflower, Ben Lomond Erysimum teretifolium Wallflower, Contra Costa Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum Wallflower, Menzie's Erysimum menziesii Warbler (=Wood), Golden

- cheeked Dendroica chrysoparia Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii Warbler, Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii Warbler, nightingale reed (old world warbler) Acrocephalus luscinia Warea, Wide

- leaf Warea amplexifolia Watercress, Gambel's Rorippa gambellii
Water

- willow, Cooley's Justicia cooleyi Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Huperzia) mannii) Huperzia mannii Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Lycopodium) nutans) Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus) nutans Whale, Blue Balaenoptera musculus Whale, Bowhead Balaena mysticetus Whale, North Pacific right Eubalaena japonica Whipsnake (=Striped Racer), Alameda Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
White

- eye, Bridled (Nossa) Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus
White

- eye, Ponape greater Rukia longirostra
White

- eye, Rota Bridled Zosterops rotensis
Whitlow

- wort, Papery Paronychia chartacea
Wild

- buckwheat, Clay

- loving Eriogonum pelinophilum
Wild

- buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum
Wings, Pigeon Clitoria fragrans
Wire

- lettuce, Malheur Stephanomeria malheurensis
Wireweed Polygonella basiramia
Woodland

- star, San Clemente Island Lithophragma maximum Woodpecker, Ivory

- billed Campephilus principalis Woodpecker, Red

- cockaded Picoides borealis Woodrat, Key Largo Neotoma floridana smalli Woolly

- star, Santa Ana River Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Woolly

- threads, San Joaquin Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii

Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus203 Common and Scientific Name Xylosma crenatum (ncn) Xylosma crenatum
Yellowcheek darter Etheostoma moorei Yellowhead, Desert Yermo xanthocephalus Yerba Santa, Lompoc Eriodictyon capitatum Ziziphus, Florida Ziziphus celata

Table J

- 2. “No Effects” (Direct Effects Only) Determination for Listed Species Within Geographical Range of Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Uses, Based on Species Ecology and Biology

Common and Scientific Name Location Taxon Basis for “No Effects”

Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long

- nosed Leptonycteris

curasoae yerbabuenae Arizona, New Mexico Mammal Diet is seeds. 1 This dietary item does not produce EECs that yield RQs above the LOC.

Gray Wolf Canis lupus Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin Mammal Diet is mammals and fish. 2 Not likely to be exposed to residues through diet.

Jaguar Panthera onca Arizona, California, New Mexico Mammal Diet is fish, mammals, reptiles, birds. 3 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Jaguarundi, Gulf Coast Herpailurus (=Felis)

yagouaroundi cacomitli Texas Mammal Diet is mammals, birds, and reptiles. 4 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Herpailurus (=Felis)

yagouaroundi tolteca Arizona Mammal Diet is amphibian, fish, birds, seeds, mammals, and reptiles. 5 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet

route.

Killer whale, Southern Resident DPS Orcinus orca Washington Mammal Diet is fish, mammals, and aquatic invertebrates. 6 Not likely to be exposed to residues through diet.

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming Mammal Diet is mammals, carrion, and fish. 7 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.204

Common and Scientific Name Location Taxon Basis for “No Effects”

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas Mammal Diet is aquatic plants. 8 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet

route.

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis)

pardalis Arizona, Texas Mammal Diet is mammals, birds, and reptiles. 9 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Otter, Southern Sea Enhydra lutris nereis California Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 10 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Panther, Florida Puma (=Felis)

concolor coryi Arkansas, Florida Mammal Diet is mammals and reptiles. 11 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through these food sources.

Seal, Guadalupe Fur Arctocephalus

townsendi California Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 12 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Seal, Hawaiian Monk Monachus

schauinslandi Hawaii Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 13 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Seal, spotted Phoca largha Alaska Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 14 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Sea

- lion, Steller Eumetopias jubatus California Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish, may also include some mammals and birds. 15 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Squirrel,
Mount Graham Red Tamiasciurus

hudsonicus grahamensis Arizona Mammal Diet is carrion and seeds. 16 Carrion is not likely to be a source of residue exposures. Seeds yielded EECs that produced RQs below the LOC.

Whale, beluga Delphinapterus

leucas Alaska Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 17 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera

physalus California Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 18 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.205

Common and Scientific Name Location Taxon Basis for “No Effects”

Whale, Gray Eschrichtius robustus Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates. 19 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Whale, Humpback Megaptera

novaeangliae California, Georgia Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 20 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Whale, North Atlantic right Eubalaena glacialis

(incl. australis) California, Georgia Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates. 21 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Whale, Sei Balaenoptera

borealis California Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 22 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon

(=macrocephalus) California Mammal Diet is aquatic invertebrates and fish. 23 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet route.

Wolf, Red Canis rufus Kentucky, North Carolina Mammal Diet is mammals. 24 Unlikely to be exposed to residues through diet.

Guajon Eleutherodactylus

cooki Puerto Rico Amphibian Lives in caves. 25 Unlikely to be exposed to residues.

Amphipod, Kauai Cave Spelaeorchestia

koloana Hawaii Crustacean Lives in caves. 26 Unlikely to be exposed to residues.

1 USFWS. 1994. Recovery plan for the lesser long

- nosed bat.

2 USFWS . 1982. Mexican wolf recovery plan.

2 USFWS. 1987. Northern rocky mountain wolf recovery plan.

2 USFWS. 1992. Recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf.

2 USFWS. 2012. Gray wolf ( Canis lupus ).

3 USFWS . 2010. Species profile for the jaguar.

4 USFWS. 2001. Jaguarundi general species information.

5 Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2004. Herpailurus yaguarondi tolteca. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the He ritage Data Management System.

6 USN MFS. 2006. Designation of critical habitat for southern resident killer whale. Federal register. 71. No. 229.

7 USFWS. 2012. Canada lynx ( Lynx canadensis )

8 U SFWS. 2007. West indian manatee ( Trichechus manatus ) 5

- year review: summary and evaluation.

8 USFWS. 2001. Florida manatee ( Trichechus manatus latirostris ) recovery plan, third revision.

8 USFWS. Recovery plan for the Puerto Rico population of the west indian (Antillean) manatee ( Trichechus manatus manatus ).

9 USFWS. 2010. Ocelot ( Leopardus pard alis ) recovery plan, draft first revision.

10 USFWS. 2003. Final revised recovery plan for the southern sea otter ( Enhydra lutris nereis ).

11 USFWS. 2008. Third revision of the florida panther recovery plan.

12 USNMFS. Species profile: Guadalupe fur sea l. NOAA Fisheris Office of Protected Resources.

13 USNMFS. 2007. Recovery plan for the Hawaiian monk seal (revision).

14 USNMF S. 2010. Threatened status for the southern distinct population segment of the spotted seal. Federal Register. 75. No. 204.

15 USNMFS. 2008. Recovery plan for the steller sea lion eastern and western distinct population segments ( Eumetopias jubatus )

16 USFWS. 2011. Draft mount graham red squirrel recovery plan, first revision . USFS.

17 US NM FS. 2013. Species profile for the beluga whale. Office of Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries.

18 USNMFS. 2010. Recovery plan for the fin whale ( Baalaenoptera physalus ).

19 USNMFS. 1991. Endangered fish and wildlife, gray whale. Federal Register. 56. No. 226.

20 USNMFS. 1991. Fina l recovery plan for the humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ). Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.

21 USFWS. 2010. North Atlantic right whale recovery plan.

22 USNMFS. 2012. Sei wh ale ( Balaenoptera borealis ). NOAA Fisheries.206

Common and Scientific Name Location Taxon Basis for “No Effects”

23 USNMFS. 2012. Sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ). NOAA Fisheries.

24 USFWS. 1995. FR Notice of critical habitat. Federal Register. 60. No. 71.

24 Paradiso, J. L. and R. M. Nowak. 1972. Canus rufus

. The American Society of Mammologists, Mammalian Species.

25 USFWS. 2004. Recovery plan for the guajon or Puerto Rican demon ( Eleutherodactylus cooki ).

26 USFWS. 2006. Final recovery plan for the Kaua’I cave arthropods: the Kaua’I cave wolf spider ( Ade locosa anops ) and the Kaua’I cave amphipod ( Spelaeorchestia koloana ).

Table J

- 3. Listed Species Within Geographical Range of Quizalofop

- P

- Ethyl Uses that Require Additional Information for Effects Calls

Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon

Coqui, Golden Eleutherodactylus

jasperi Terrestrial,

Freshwater Puerto Rico Amphibian

Llanero coqui Eleutherodactylus

juanariveroi Terrestrial Puerto Rico Amphibian

Toad, Puerto Rican Crested Peltophryne lemur Terrestrial, Freshwater Puerto Rico Amphibian
Snail, Newcomb's Erinna newcombi Freshwater Hawaii Gastropod

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Terrestrial, Subterraneous Alabama, Arkansas,

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia Mammal

Bat, Hawaiian Hoary Lasiurus cinereus

semotus Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Hawaii Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Terrestrial, Subterraneous Alabama, Arkansas,

Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia Mammal Bat, Mexican Long

- nosed Leptonycteris

nivalis Terrestrial,

Subterraneous New Mexico, Texas Mammal

Bat, Ozark Big

eared Corynorhinus

(=Plecotus) townsendii ingens Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Arkansas, Oklahoma,

Virginia Mammal207 Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon

Bat, Virginia Big

eared Corynorhinus

(=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Terrestrial,

Subterraneous Kentucky, North

Carolina, West Virginia Mammal

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos

horribilis Terrestrial Idaho, Montana, Washington Mammal
Bear, Louisiana Black Ursus americanus

luteolus Terrestrial Louisiana, Mississippi,
Texas Mammal

Bison, Wood Bison bison

athabascae Terrestrial Alaska Mammal Caribou, Woodland Rangifer tarandus

caribou Terrestrial Idaho, Washington Mammal

Deer, Columbian White

- tailed Odocoileus

virginianus leucurus Terrestrial Oregon, Washington Mammal

Ferret, Black

footed Mustela nigripes Terrestrial Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming Mammal Fox, San Joaquin Kit Vulpes macrotis

mutica Terrestrial California Mammal
Fox, San Miguel Island Urocyon littoralis

littoralis Terrestrial California Mammal Fox, Santa Catalina Island Urocyon littoralis

catalinae Terrestrial California Mammal Fox, Santa Cruz Island Urocyon littoralis

santacruzae Terrestrial California Mammal
Fox, Santa Rosa Island Urocyon littoralis

santarosae Terrestrial California Mammal

Kangaroo Rat,
Fresno Dipodomys

nitratoides exilis Terrestrial California Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Giant Dipodomys ingens Terrestrial California Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay Dipodomys

heermanni
morroensis Terrestrial California Mammal Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Merriam's Dipodomys

merriami parvus Terrestrial California Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' Dipodomys

stephensi (incl. D. cascus) Terrestrial California Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Tipton Dipodomys

nitratoides nitratoides Terrestrial California Mammal Mountain Beaver, Point Arena Aplodontia rufa

nigra Terrestrial,

Freshwater California Mammal208 Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon

Mouse, Alabama Beach Peromyscus

polionotus ammobates Terrestrial,

Coastal Alabama Mammal Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach Peromyscus

polionotus phasma Terrestrial,

Coastal Florida Mammal

Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Peromyscus

polionotus allophrys Terrestrial,

Coastal Florida Mammal

Mouse, Pacific Pocket Perognathus

longimembris pacificus Terrestrial California Mammal

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach Peromyscus

polionotus trissyllepsis Terrestrial,

Coastal Alabama, Florida Mammal

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius

preblei Terrestrial Colorado, Wyoming Mammal
Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest Reithrodontomys

raviventris Terrestrial California Mammal

Mouse, Southeastern Beach Peromyscus

polionotus
niveiventris Terrestrial,

Coastal Florida Mammal

Mouse, St. Andrew Beach Peromyscus

polionotus peninsularis Terrestrial,

Coastal Florida Mammal

Prairie Dog, Utah Cynomys parvidens Terrestrial, Subterraneous Utah Mammal

Pronghorn,
Sonoran Antilocapra

americana
sonoriensis Terrestrial Arizona Mammal

Puma (=Cougar),
Eastern Puma (=Felis)

concolor (all subsp. except coryi) Terrestrial Florida, North Carolina, Rhode Island Mammal

Rabbit, Pygmy Brachylagus

idahoensis Terrestrial Washington Mammal
Rabbit, Riparian Brush Sylvilagus

bachmani riparius Terrestrial California Mammal
Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn Ovis canadensis

nelsoni Terrestrial California Mammal
Sheep, Sierra Nevada Bighorn Ovis canadensis

sierrae Terrestrial California Mammal
Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate Sorex ornatus

relictus Terrestrial California Mammal
Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys

sabrinus coloratus Terrestrial North Carolina, Tennesee, Virginia Mammal
Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger

cinereus Terrestrial Delaware, Maryland, Virginia Mammal Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground Spermophilus

brunneus brunneus Terrestrial Idaho Mammal209 Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon
Squirrel, Virginia Northern Flying Glaucomys

sabrinus fuscus Terrestrial Virginia Mammal

Vole, Amargosa Microtus

californicus scirpensis Terrestrial California Mammal

Vole, Florida Salt Marsh Microtus

pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli Terrestrial,

Brackish Florida Mammal

Vole, Hualapai Mexican Microtus mexicanus

hualpaiensis Terrestrial Arizona Mammal

Woodrat, Riparian Neotoma fuscipes

riparia Terrestrial California Mammal

Alopecurus,
Sonoma Alopecurus

aequalis var.
sonomensis Unattributed

Wetland Status California Monocot

Amole, Cammatta Canyon Chlorogalum

purpureum var. reductum Unattributed

Wetland Status California Monocot

Amole, Purple Chlorogalum

purpureum var.
purpureum Unattributed

Wetland Status California Monocot
Aristida chaseae (ncn) Aristida chaseae Unattributed Wetland Status Puerto Rico Monocot

Arrowhead, Bunched Sagittaria

fasciculata Wetland North Carolina, South Carolina Monocot

Beaked

- rush, Knieskern's Rhynchospora

knieskernii Wetland New Jersey Monocot Beargrass, Britton's Nolina brittoniana Unattributed Wetland Status Florida Monocot
Beauty, Harper's Harperocallis flava Wetland Florida Monocot
Bluegrass, Hawaiian Poa sandvicensis Wetland Hawaii Monocot
Bluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) Poa mannii Wetland Hawaii Monocot

Bluegrass, Napa Poa napensis Wetland California Monocot
Bluegrass, San Bernardino Poa atropurpurea Wetland California Monocot

Brodiaea, Chinese Camp Brodiaea pallida Wetland California Monocot Brodiaea, Thread

leaved Brodiaea filifolia Wetland California Monocot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus

ancistrochaetus Wetland Alabama, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia Monocot210 Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon

Cranichis Ricartii Cranichis ricartii Unattributed Wetland Status Puerto Rico Monocot Fritillary,
Gentner's Fritillaria gentneri Unattributed Wetland Status Oregon Monocot
Grass, California
Orcutt Orcuttia californica Wetland California Monocot

Grass, Colusa Neostapfia

colusana Wetland California Monocot Grass, Eureka
Dune Swallenia

alexandrae Unattributed

Wetland Status California Monocot
Grass, Fosberg's
Love Eragrostis fosbergii Unattributed Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot
Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Orcuttia inaequalis Wetland California Monocot

Grass, Solano Tuctoria mucronata Wetland California Monocot Grass, Tennessee Yellow

- eyed Xyris tennesseensis Wetland Alabama, Georgia,
Tennessee Monocot Hala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) Pleomele

hawaiiensis Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot

Hilo Ischaemum (Ischaemum byrone) Ischaemum byrone Wetland Hawaii Monocot
Iris, Dwarf Lake Iris lacustris Wetland Michigan, Wisconsin Monocot

Irisette, White Sisyrinchium

dichotomum Unattributed

Wetland Status North Carolina, South

Carolina Monocot

Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides) Cenchrus

agrimonioides Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot

Ladies'

- tresses, Canelo Hills Spiranthes

delitescens Wetland Arizona Monocot

Ladies'

- tresses, Navasota Spiranthes parksii Unattributed Wetland Status Texas Monocot

Ladies'

- tresses, Ute Spiranthes

diluvialis Wetland Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Washington, Wyoming Monocot

Lau'ehu (Panicum niihauense) Panicum

niihauense Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot
Lepanthes eltorensis (ncn) Lepanthes

eltoroensis Unattributed

Wetland Status Puerto Rico Monocot Lily, Minnesota
Trout Erythronium

propullans Unattributed

Wetland Status Minnesota Monocot

Lily, Pitkin Marsh Lilium pardalinum

ssp. pitkinense Unattributed

Wetland Status California Monocot211 Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon

Lily, Tiburon Mariposa Calochortus

tiburonensis Unattributed

Wetland Status California Monocot
Lily, Western Lilium occidentale Wetland California, Oregon Monocot

lo`ulu Pritchardia hardyi Wetland Hawaii Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia affinis) Pritchardia affinis Wetland Hawaii Monocot
Lo`ulu (Pritchardia kaalae) Pritchardia kaalae Wetland Hawaii Monocot
Lo`ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) Pritchardia

napaliensis Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot
Lo`ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri) Pritchardia

schattaueri Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot
Lo`ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) Pritchardia viscosa Wetland Hawaii Monocot

Manaca, palma de Calyptronoma

rivalis Wetland Puerto Rico Monocot

Mariscus fauriei (ncn) Mariscus fauriei Unattributed Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot
Mariscus pennatiformis (ncn) Mariscus

pennatiformis Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot

Onion, Munz's Allium munzii Unattributed Wetland Status California Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera

leucophaea Wetland Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia, Wisconsin Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera

praeclara Unattributed

Wetland Status Iowa, Kansas,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wyoming Monocot

Pa'iniu Astelia waialealae Wetland Hawaii Monocot
Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var.carteri) Panicum fauriei

var. carteri Unattributed

Wetland Status Hawaii Monocot

Pelos del Diablo Aristida

portoricensis Unattributed

Wetland Status Puerto Rico Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Wetland Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia Monocot

Piperia, Yadon's Piperia yadonii Unattributed Wetland Status California Monocot212 Common and Scientific Name Habit Location Taxon

Platanthera holochila (ncn) Platanthera

holochila Wetland Hawaii Monocot Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) Poa siphonoglossa Wetland Hawaii Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Wetland Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia Monocot Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) Cyperus

trachysanthos Wetland Hawaii Monocot Seagrass, Johnson's Halophila johnsonii Wetland Florida Monocot

Sedge, Golden Carex lutea Unattributed Wetland Status North Carolina Monocot
Sedge, Navajo Carex specuicola Wetland Arizona, Utah Monocot
Sedge, White Carex albida Wetland California Monocot
Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens Unattributed Wetland Status Georgia, South

Carolina Monocot

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum Unattributed Wetland Status Alabama, Georgia,

South Carolina Monocot

Walnut, Nogal Juglans jamaicensis Unattributed Wetland Status Puerto Rico Monocot

Water

- plantain, Kral's Sagittaria

secundifolia Wetland Alabama, Georgia Monocot

Wild

- rice, Texas Zizania texana Wetland Texas Monocot