# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of Indaziflam

Indaziflam N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H- inden-1-yl]-6-[(1RS)-1-fluoroethyl]- 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine CAS Registry Number 950782-86-2

PC Code 080818

Prepared by: Reuben Baris, Physical Scientist Alicia Korol, Biologist

Reviewed by: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist
Marietta Echeverria, Senior Environmental Scientist
Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P Washington DC 20460

### -Page 2 of 292- 

# 1. Executive Summary

1.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor

Bayer CropScience is seeking registration fo r the new chemical herbicide indaziflam (BCS-AA10717), N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-di hydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl ]-6-[(1RS)-1-fluoroethyl]- 1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine. Indaziflam is a fluoroa lkyltriazine herbicide, part of the broader triazine herbicide family. It differs from other triazine herbicides, with a fluoroethyl group in place of a chloride in the chlorotriazines (e.g., atra zine). Indaziflam controls weeds by inhibiting cellulose biosynthesis (CB Inhibitors). Inda ziflam’s primary modes of action are through inhibition of seedling emergence a nd root development. For most effective control, indaziflam needs to be applied prior to weed germination since indaziflam has low post emergent activity. Technical grade indaziflam is a mixture of two active diastereoisomers, which are present in the technical grade product as 95-100% isomer A and 0-5%, isomer B.

This assessment is for a national registration request for selective, pre emergence and post emergence control of many annual grasses and broadleaf weeds including crabgrass, goosegrass, annual bluegrass, and annual sedges. Proposed use sites include turf, home lawns, citrus fruit, stone fruit, pome fruit, grapes, tree nuts, pistach ios, olives, ornamentals, trees (e.g., Christmas trees, and other commercial forested areas), residential orna mentals, non-crop areas (e.g. railway yards), and on hards capes. Post emergence control claims refer primarily to the

herbicidal action of mixtures of other active in gredients in formulations with multiple active ingredients (e.g., indaziflam pl us 2,4-D, dicamba, mecoprop, or penoxsulam), or in tank mixes where indaziflam provides resi dual control for the re-emergen ce of many annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. The Agency does not routinely in clude in its risk assess ments an evaluation of mixtures of active ingredients, either those mi xtures of multiple activ e ingredients in product formulations or those in the applicator’s tank. In the case of the product formulations of active ingredients (that is, a registered product contai ning more than one active ingredient), each active ingredient is subject to an indi vidual risk assessment for regula tory decision regarding the active ingredient on a particular use site. The availa ble effects data on multiple active ingredients were submitted as requirements for the new registrations of indaziflam’s formulated products. The

effects data include acute oral toxicity studies using the rat an d demonstrate that indaziflam, when used in combination with other active ingredie nts, is not more toxic that the technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) alone.

Eleven end-use formulations of indaziflam are proposed for registration in the United States. According to proposed labeling, indaziflam can be applied to foliage and soil via granule treatments, via ground spray as broadcast and ba nded treatments, and via aerial applications (broadcast). Ground applications are proposed with maximum annual application rates ranging from 0.089 to 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr. Aerial applic ations are proposed with a maximum annual application rate of 0.125 lbs a.i./A/yr.

The major transformation products resulti ng from the environmental degradation of indaziflam are: triazine-indanone; indazifl am-carboxylic acid; indaziflam-hydroxyethyl;

### -Page 3 of 292- 

## indaziflam-olefin; fluoroethyl diaminotriazine (FDAT, fluoroet hyl diamino s-triazine); and fluoroethyltriazinanedione. Ec o-toxicity data are available for the first five of these transformation products (degradates). The toxi city data show that indaziflam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl are of si milar toxicity to the TGAI, ba sed on the most sensitive taxa tested, while indaziflam-hydroxyethyl, FDAT, and triazine indanone demons trate toxicities at magnitudes 2-7 times less than that of the parent . Aquatic exposure estimates are thus based on a total toxic residue approach of indaziflam + residues of concern (two major photodegradates: indaziflam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl). Terrestrial exposure estimates are based on the

residue levels of indaziflam alone. While data are not generally available for screening level assessments to assess the terrestrial exposure and effects of degradates, as is the case for this assessment of indaziflam, the conservative 35- day foliar dissipation half-life used in the terrestrial modeling may account for the formation and toxicity of the degradates (assuming the degradates are not any more toxic than the parent). Any effects of degradates to terrestrial plants that might occur over a 21 day time period would be captured by the nature of the terrestrial plant studies conducted on indaziflam’s form ulated products (those without multiple active ingredients). However, any signs of toxicity in these studies would be as sumed to result from the parent indaziflam.

1.2. Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms

The results of this baseline assessm ent on the proposed indaziflam uses indicate that risk

of adverse effects exists to te rrestrial monocotyledons (monocots ) and dicotyledons (dicots), and aquatic vascular plants. The proposed uses of i ndaziflam may also have the potential to cause

adverse direct effects on Federa lly-listed threatened/endangered (listed) nonvascular plants. A submitted Tier III aquatic microcosm study pr ovided confirmatory evidence for the risk determinations made to aquatic vascular and non-v ascular plants. Due to lack of available data or inadequacy of data to demons trate otherwise, direct risk from chronic expos ure is presumed to non-listed and listed species of estuarine/marine inve rtebrates and birds. Di rect risk to mammals (non-listed and listed) is not e xpected from proposed indaziflam use based on this screening level

assessment. Direct adverse effects on terrestrial invertebrates (non-listed and listed) are also not expected.

The results of AgDRIFT m odeling, as depicted in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 below, illustrate that non-listed and listed species RQs based on ground and aerial broadcast applications to roadsides/rights-of-ways, site preparation, and fo rested areas exceed the LOC for distances at or greater than 900 feet from the e dge of field. Spray drift buffe rs ranging from 49-259 feet for orchard uses would be necessary to reduce spra y drift deposition below the non-listed species LOC, and buffers ranging from 89-334 feet would be necessary for listed species. For turf uses, buffers of 341 feet would be necessary to create spray drift deposit ion below the non-listed species LOC, while buffers of 528 feet would be necessary to reduce RQs below the listed species LOC. Thus, buffers of ~350 feet and bu ffers of ~550 feet for br oadcast applications of indaziflam would reduce RQs below the non-listed and listed species LOCs, respectively, for all

turf and food uses. These buffers would not be protective of all listed and non-listed species for

### -Page 4 of 292- 

## the other proposed broadcast uses of indaziflam, but they are expected to reduce the number of species ultimately affected.

0.1

1 10 100 1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000



### Distance From Edge Of FieldRQ Food - Normal Orchard

Food- Sparse Orchard

Turf

Roadsides/Rights-of-ways/Site Prep

Forested Areas-Ground

Forested Areas - Aerial



## Figure 1.1: RQs for the most sensitive nonlis ted terrestrial plant exposed to spray drift from propsed broadcast uses of indaziflam. The ri sk to nonlisted species LOC is 1.0 (RQ = 1.0).

0.1

1 10 100 1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance From Edge of Field (feet)RQ Food - Normal Orchard Food- Sparse Orchard

Turf NonCrop

Forested Areas-Ground

Forested Areas - Aerial



## Figure 2.2: RQs for the most sensitive listed terrestrial plant exposed to spray drift from proposed broadcast uses of indaziflam. The risk to non-listed sp ecies LOC is 1.0 (RQ = 1.0).

### -Page 5 of 292- 

## Potential “may affect” determinations from di rect and indirect eff ects to Federally-listed species based on LOC exceedances require an ev aluation of the potential co-occurrence with areas where indaziflam is proposed for use: proposed uses include both agricultural and nonagricultural areas, where non-agricultural use patterns repres ent the highest annual application rates. For purposes of this assessment, it is as sumed that indaziflam may be used nationwide for non-agricultural uses. Based on the proposed uses, it is assumed that indaziflam’s risk to listed species may extend nationwide. T hus, there is a “may affect” de termination made for all listed species found to be at risk from indaziflam use. Identified potential direct and indirect risks to listed species are summarized in Table 1.1

.

Table 1.1. Potential Effects to Federally List ed Taxa Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects from the Proposed New Uses of Indaziflam.

Listed Taxon Direct

Effects Uses of Concern Indirect

Effects 1 

### Uses of Concern

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants - monocots Yes All uses Yes b 

### All uses

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants - dicots Yes All uses Yes b 

### All uses

Terrestrial inverteb rates No None Yes All uses

Birds* Yes All uses Yes All uses Terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles* Yes All uses Yes All uses

Mammals No None Yes All uses

Aquatic nonvascular plants Yes Home lawn,

Ornamentals Yes a 

### All uses

Aquatic vascular plants Yes All uses Yes b 

### All uses

Freshwater fish No All uses Yes All uses Aquatic-phase amphibians No All uses Yes All uses

Freshwater crustaceans No All uses Yes All uses

Mollusks** Yes All uses Yes All uses

Marine/estuarine fish No All uses Yes All uses

Marine/estuarine

invertebrates** Yes All uses Yes All uses

* Due to presumed chronic risks to birds from inadequacy of data ** Due to presumed chronic risk from lack of data

a Potential for indirect adverse effects to those listed species that rely on a specific plant species in their life cycle (terme d plant species obligates).

b Potential for adverse effects to those lis ted species that rely either on a specific plant species (plant species obligate) or multiple plant species (plant dependent) for some important aspect of their life cycle.

1 Potential indirect effects on a taxon attributable to direct e ffects on that respective taxon and/or direct effects on aquatic and terrestrial plants.



## 1.3. Conclusions - Exposure Characterization

Indaziflam is expected to be moderately mobile to mobile in soil (Koc < 1000 mL/g oc), moderately persistent to persiste nt in aerobic soil (hal f-lives > 150 days), pe rsistent in anerobic soil (stable), and persistent in aerobic (half- lives > 200 days) and anaer obic (stable) aquatic environments. Indaziflam is subject to aqueous photolysis in clear shal low waters (half-life < 5 days). Indaziflam is not vola tile and therefore it is not likely to be transported via atmospheric processes following application. It is a weak aci d, and is moderately so luble at environmental pH values. Indaziflam dissipates in the envi ronment primarily through biotic degradation and leaching. Indaziflam degradates are more mobile than the parent (K

oc 

## < 100 mL/g oc), and were

### -Page 6 of 292- 

## detected in field studies at th e deepest depths sampled (105-120 cm ). Particularly, the degradate fluoroethyldiaminotraizine (FDAT) whic h is mobile to highly mobile (K

oc 

## ranged from 10 – 50 mL/g oc), and is a similar to other triazine degrad ates with the diaminotriazine structure, with the exception of the fluoroethyl group in place of the chloride for the chlorotriazine herbicides. Field and laboratory data, and th e fate properties of the degr adate show that FDAT has a potential to leach to ground water. These key li nes of evidence show that residues of indaziflam, particularly fluoroethyldiami notriazine, are a concern fo r exposure via ground water.

Aquatic exposure estimates are based on a to tal toxic residue approach of indaziflam +residues of concern (two major photodegradates, indaziflam-olefin and indaziflamhydroxyethyl). There were significant amount s of unextrated residues reported in the degradation studies, and only a sing le extraction method was used. It is uncertain whether these residues are parent residues, or degradate residues, and/or b ound residues that are no longer biologically available. Therefor e, aquatic exposure estimates were generated using two sets of

environmental half-lives to account for this uncerta inty: 1) parent + residu es of concern, and 2) parent + residues of concern + un-extracted residues. Acute 1-in-10 year estimated environmental concentrations (EEC s) in surface water for parent + residues of concern for all uses of indaziflam ranged from 0.35 ug/L to 2.66 ug/L; acute 1-in-10 year EECs in surface water for parent + residues of concern + unextracted residues ranged from 0.47 ug/L to 6.19 ug/L.

Terrestrial exposure estimates are based on th e residue levels of indaziflam alone, as described above. Spray (aerial and ground) and gr anule (ground) applicat ions were considered as exposure methods of indaziflam to terrestrial environments. For exposures to terrestrial birds and mammals from spray applications, pesticide residues in food items we re calculated: 0.30 to 31.7 mg/kg-diet for birds on a dietary basis; and 0.01 - 30.1 mg/kg bw for mammals on a dosebasis. For exposures to terrestri al birds and mammals from granul ar applications, estimates of indaziflam loadings per unit area were calculated: 0.83 mg a.i./ft 2 

## for birds and mammals. Exposure to terrestrial plants wa s estimated from residue concentr ations in off-field runoff as well as from spray drift. Estimates of indazi flam exposures to plan ts ranged from 0.00017 –

0.01875 lbs a.i./A.

1.4. Conclusions - Effects Characterization

Aquatic Organisms

Indaziflam is categorized highly toxic (EC 50 

## = 0.1 – 1 mg a.i./L) to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, moderately toxic (EC 50 

## = 1 -10 mg a.i./L) to highly toxic (EC 50 

## = 0.1 – 1 mg a.i./L) to estuarine inverteb rates, and slightly toxic (EC 50 

## = 10 - 100 mg a.i./L) to moderately toxic (EC 50 

## = 1 -10 mg a.i./L) to freshwater inverteb rates on an acute exposure basis. Chronic toxicity studies are only availa ble for freshwater fish and invertebrates using the species P. promelas and D. magna , respectively. The one chronic freshw ater fish toxicity endpoint used in this assessment was based on fry survival, total length, and dry weight, with sublethal effects immediately preceding mortality at the highest concentrations tested. Of the parameters assessed in the one submitted invertebrate life cycle study, indaziflam inhibited the parameters measuring both parental (F 0 

## ) growth and reproduction. Effects to offspring (F 1 

## ) were not evaluated. Results

### -Page 7 of 292- 

## of toxicity studies of techni cal grade indaziflam in freshw ater and marine nonvascular and vascular plants indicate that inda ziflam is toxic to a quatic plants. This de termination is based on the magnitude of EC 50 

## values in the parts per billion (a quatic vascular plants) and parts per trillion range (aquatic nonvascular plants).

Degradate toxicity data on aquatic vasc ular and nonvascular pl ants indicate that indaziflam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl are of equal or similar toxicity to the parent indaziflam. Indaziflam-hydroxye thyl, FDAT, and triazine inda none demonstrate toxicity to these same taxa at magnitudes 2-7 times less than the parent. Toxicity data for freshwater fish are available for the degradates FDAT and carboxy lic acid, which show toxicities of 3 times less than that of the parent and ar e categorized as practic ally non-toxic to fish on an acute exposure

basis.

Available studies demonstrate that certain formulations of indaziflam are of similar toxicity (within the same order of magnitude) to freshwater fish, freshwat er invertebrates, and aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants.

Terrestrial Organisms Indaziflam is categorized practically nontoxic (LD 50 

## /LC 50 

## > 2,000 mg a.i./L) to birds on

both an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis. For ch ronic studies, treatment-related effects on adult female weight gain, adult male weight gain, and adult food consumption were observed in avian reproduction studies using mallard duck. Indaziflam is categorized practically non-toxic (LD 50 

## > 2,000 mg a.i./L) to mammals on an acute exposure basis. In a reproduction test using the rat, parental, offspring, and repr oductive toxicity was observed. Parental effects included course tremors in females, decrease d body weights and body wei ght gains, decreased food consumption, and effects on kidneys in male s. Offspring effects included decreased body weights, body weight gains, and secondary dela ys in sexual maturation. Reproductive toxicity was based on delayed sexual maturation in F 1 

## and F 2 

## pups. Results of available toxicity studies

on terrestrial invertebrates indi cate that the TGAI is practi cally nontoxic to honey bees and earthworms on an acute contact basis; however, studies demonstrated subacute effects (i.e. weight reduction) in earthworms. Tier II studies of the effects of indaziflam formulations BCSAA10717 20WSP and Indaziflam 500 SC on seedling emergence and vegetative vigor in terrestrial plants indicated that terrestrial plants are sensitive to indaziflam at application rates much less than the proposed registration uses.

1.5. Uncertainties and Data Gaps

For purposes of this assessment, data gaps re fer to the absence of required data for a new chemical registration as specifi ed in 40 CFR Part 158. Without data or sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise, risk to non-listed and lis ted species of a taxon is presumed. Only one ecological effects data gap for i ndaziflam was identified: Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Life Cycle (OPPTS 850.1350). Although an early life st age estuarine/marine fish study was not submitted as is required for a new chemical regi stration, sufficient data based on freshwater fish provided the basis to make a risk determination to this taxon. As such, an early life stage

### -Page 8 of 292- 

## estuarine/marine fish study is not considered a data gap. An area of considerable uncertainty for this assessment surrounds the potenti al chronic risk to birds. Cu rrent data on mallard duck were inadequate to derive a definitive NOAEC or make a definitive determina tion of risk. A second avian reproduction study on mallard duck would reduce uncertainty and obviate the need to presume risk to this taxon. The adequacy of data for making risk determinations is discussed in

the context of all lines of evidence in the Risk Characterization.

There were no environmental fate data gaps identified, however there is considerable uncertainty regarding the charac terization and quantification of the degradation of indaziflam and its transformation products. Degradation quantification was conf ounded by reported large

amounts of un-extracted material in the degradation studies conducted in soil and aquatic systems. To address this uncertainty estimat ed environmental concen trations (EECs) were completed using two sets of environmental half- lives: 1) high-end conservative estimates which were completed using half-lives that included un -extracted residues and 2) the low-end estimates

based on half-lives that excluded un-extracted residues. It is un certain whether the un-extracted residues were parent (indaziflam), degradate residues, or bound residues that are no longer biologically available.

Concentrations of indaziflam and its majo r transformation products were quantitatively reported in all field studies when detected between the LOD (0.3 ng·g -1 

## ) and the LOQ (1.5 ng·g 1 

## ). Detections below the LOQ are not well charac terized because there is a large gap between the LOD and the LOQ. Therefore, the analytical method may have been too insensitive to accurately describe the leaching potential of indaziflam and its major transformation products. Replicate values below the LOQ were assumed at 1⁄2(LOQ + LOD) for calculations of dissipation

half-lives.

The high mobility and persistence of the degr adates, and data from field studies indicate that degradates of indaziflam, particularly FDAT, are likely to leach to ground water. FDAT was detected at deeper depths in the field studies compared to the othe r degradates, and is expected to be highly mobile. A prospective ground water study (PGW) would help to characterize potential

contamination associated with labeled use of indaziflam.

### -Page 9 of 292- 

## Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor........................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms ...................................................................................

. 3 1.3. Conclusions - Exposure Characterization...................................................................................

. 5

1.4. Conclusions - Effects Characterization ....................................................................................

... 6 1.5. Uncertainties and Data Gaps ...............................................................................................

........ 7

2. Problem Formulation ..................................................................................................

.................. 11 2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action ..................................................................................................... 11

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution ..........................................................................................

..... 11

2.2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor .............................................................................................

.. 11 2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage .............................................................................................

. 12 2.3. Receptors .........................................................................................................

........................ 14 2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects .........................................................................................

.. 14 2.3.2. Ecosystems Po tentiall y at Risk ..........................................................................................

. 15 2.4. Assessment Endpoints ......................................................................................................

......... 15 2.5. Conceptual Model...................................................................................................

.................. 15

2.5.1. Risk Hy potheses.................................................................................................................. 16 2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram ......................................................................................................

..... 16 2.6. Analysis Plan ......................................................................................................

...................... 18 2.6.1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps and Uncertainties ................................................ 18 2.6.2. Evaluation of Multiple Active Ingredients and Mixtures.................................................... 19 2.6.3. Measures of Exposure....................................................................................................

..... 20

2.6.4. Measure s of Effect

...................................................................................................... ........ 21 2.6.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects.................................................................................... 22 3. Analysis .............................................................................................................

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

3.1. Use Characterization......................................................................................................

............ 23 3.2. Exposure Characterization.................................................................................................

........ 26 3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization .......................................................... 26 3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure ........................................................................................... 35

3.2.3. Measures of Te rrestrial Ex posure ....................................................................................... 42 3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization .......................................................................................

... 46 3.3.1. Aquatic T oxicity Assessment.............................................................................................

. 47

3.3.2 Terrestrial Eff ects Characterization

.................................................................................... 59

4. Risk Characteriz ation...................................................................................................................... 67

4.1. Risk Estimation ...........................................................................................................

.............. 67 4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms......................................................................................................

........ 68 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms..................................................................................................

........ 72 4.2. Risk Description ..........................................................................................................

.............. 76 4.2.1 Exposure to Aquatic Organisms ......................................................................................... 77 4.2.2 Risks to Aquatic Animals .................................................................................................

.. 78 4.2.3 Risks to Aquatic Plants ..................................................................................................

..... 80

4.2.4. Risks to Mammals........................................................................................................

....... 81

4.2.5. Risk to Birds ...........................................................................................................

............ 82

4.2.6. Risk to Terrest rial Invertebrates

....................................................................................... ... 84

4.2.7. Risk to Terrestri al & Semi-Aquatic Plants

.......................................................................... 85 4.3. Uncertainties and Data Gaps ...............................................................................................

...... 88 4.3.1. Aquatic Exposure........................................................................................................

........ 88

### -Page 10 of 292- 

### 4.3.2. Effects Uncertainties...................................................................................................

........ 90 4.4. Addressing Risk Hypotheses................................................................................................

..... 92

5. Federally Threatened and Endang ered (Listed) Spe cies Concern s............................................. 92

5.1. Action Area ...............................................................................................................

................ 93 5.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk...................................................................................... 93

5.2.1. Probit Dose- Response An alysis.......................................................................................... 95 5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence A ssociated with Indaziflam Use.............................................. 96

6. References

..................................................................................................................... .................... 98 6.1. Submitted Product Chemistry a nd Envir onmental Fate Studies.............................................. 100 6.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies................................................................................................. 102 Appendix A. Chemical Names, Structures, and Maximum Reported Amounts of Indaziflam and Its Degradates.

.............................................................................................................................................. 108 Appendix B. Catalog of Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Indaziflam................................. 122 Appendix C. Summaries of Ecological Effects Studies Submitted for Indaziflam .......................... 127 Appendix D. Catalogue of Submitted Environmental Fate Studies for Indaziflam. ....................... 191 Appendix E. Product Chemistry and Envi ronmen tal Fate Summary of Indaziflam ...................... 195 Appendix F. Residential Modeling Approach ..................................................................................... 221 Appendix G. Scenario Selection and Rationale..................................................................................

. 227 Appendix H. Aquatic Mo del Input/Ou tput Data. ............................................................................... 234 Appendix I. Example T-REX Output for Indaziflam......................................................................... 238 Appendix J. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.1) Input and Output for Indaziflam .................................. 239 Appendix K. Earthworm Fugacity................................................................................................

....... 240 Appendix L. LOCATES Out put of Listed Species.

............................................................................ 244

### -Page 11 of 292- 

# 2. Problem Formulation

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for the regi stration of the new chemical indaziflam (also known as BCS AA10717; N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro- 2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden- 1-yl]-6-[(1RS)-1- fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diamine; CAS#: 950782-86-2; PC code: 080818). The problem formulation sets the objectives for the risk assess ment, evaluates the nature of the problem, and provides a plan for analyzing the data and charac terizing the risk associated with the proposed use of indaziflam (USEPA, 1998).

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure that the newly proposed

use of indaziflam as an herbicide does not ha ve the potential to cau se unreasonable adverse

effects to the environment. In addition to non- target animals and plants , potential effects to listed species ( i.e. , species on the Federal list of endangered and threaten ed wildlife and plants) and their designated critical ha bitat are also considered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in order to ensure that the registration of ind aziflam is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such listed species or adversely modify their critical habitat. In order to meet the requirements of FIFRA and the ESA, this as sessment follows EPA guidance on conducting ecological risk assessments (USEPA, 1998) a nd Office of Pesticide Program’s Overview Document, which contains guida nce for assessing pesticide ri sks to non-target and listed organisms (USEPA, 2004).

The end result of the EPA pesticide registration process ( i.e. , the FIFRA regulatory action) is an approved product labe l. The label is a legal documen t that stipulates how and where a given pesticide may be used. Product labels (also known as end-use labels) describe the formulation type ( e.g. , liquid or granular), acceptable methods of application, approved use sites, and any restrictions on how applications may be c onducted. Therefore, the us e, or potential use, described by the pesticide’s labels is consider ed “the action” being assessed. This assessment was prepared to support the new chem ical registration of indaziflam.

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

2.2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor

Indaziflam (BCS-AA10717), N-[(1R,2S)- 2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl]-6- [(1RS)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine; CAS#: 950782-86-2; PC code: 080818) is an fluoroalkyltriazine herbicide for selective pr e-emergence and post-emer gence control of many annual grasses and broadleaf weeds including cra bgrass, goose grass, annual bluegrass, and annual sedges in residen tial turf, ornamentals, hardscapes, go lf courses, ball parks, commercial

### -Page 12 of 292- 

## forests, Christmas tree farms, citrus fruit, stone fruit, pome fruit, grapes, tree nuts, pistachios, and olives. BCS-AA10717 controls weeds by inhibiti ng cellulose biosynthesis (CB Inhibitor) and subsequently affecting seedling emergence and root development. In some cases, necrosis or yellowing may be observed if the herbicide is app lied to herbaceous tissu e such as leaves and

green stems.

Indaziflam belongs to the chemical class know n as fluoroalkyltriazines which are part of the broader group of triazine herbicides. It inhibits cell wall biosynthesis and acts on meristematic cell growth (CB inhibi tor). Indaziflam is a persistent herbicide with residual control that affects germinating weed seeds.

Major degradates of indaziflam (constituting greater than 10% of the applied radiation from environmental fate studies, or of toxicol ogical concern) include triazine indanone, FDAT, indaziflam-carboxylic acid, indaziflam-ole fin, indaziflam-hydroxye thyl, fluoroethyltriazinanedione, and carbon dioxide (chemical names, chemical structures, and data on the formation of these degradates are provided in Appendix A .). Indaziflam-hydroxyethyl and

indaziflam-olefin were included as residues of concern in the aquatic exposure modeling. The most sensitive toxicity data for aquatic vascul ar and nonvascular plants show that indaziflamolefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl are of equal toxi city or are within an order of magnitude of toxicity lower than that of the parent indaziflam. These tw o compounds are photolytic products that only formed in the aqueous photolysis study (MRID 47443208). These photodegradates are an exposure concern where indaziflam quickly reaches shallow relatively clear water bodies.

2.2.2. Overview of Pesticide Usage

Eleven end-use formulations of indaziflam are proposed for registration in the United States that include the following:

1. BCS AA10717 20 WSP: 20% indaziflam; used on athletic tu rf (sports turf), golf courses (prohibited on greens), sod farms, ornament als, nurseries, Christmas trees, landscape plantings, forestry, and non-crop areas.

2. Esplanade F: 19.05% indaziflam; used on forested areas.

3. Esplanade 200 SC: 19.05% indaziflam; used on non-crop areas, railroad and rail yards, managed roadsides, established ornamental a nd perennial plantings, fence rows, utilities, hardscapes and other industrial, municipal and government sites, and under asphalt or concrete as part of site preparation.

4. Lawn 3FL Herbicide (Ready-to-Use ): 0.0031% indaziflam; 0.309% 2,4-D, dimethylaminie salt; 0.034% dicamba, potassium salt; 0.073% mecoprop-p, potassium salt; used on establishe d southern home lawns.

5. Lawn 3FL Herbicide Granule: 0.05% indaziflam; 0.11% dicamba acid; 0.06% penoxsulam; used on established southern home lawns.

6. Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate (Ready- to-Spray): 0.25% indaziflam, 4.89% 2,4-D, dimethylaminie salt, 0.54% dicamba, potassi um salt, 1.15% mecoprop-p, potassium salt; used on established southern home lawns, ornamentals, and hardscapes.

### -Page 13 of 292- 

## 7. BCS-AA10717 0.0284% Plus Turf Fertilizer (Granule): 0.0284% indaziflam; used on athletic turf (sports turf ), golf courses (prohibited on greens), and sod farms

8. BCS-AA10717 0.0213% Plus Turf Fertilizer (Granule): 0.0213% indaziflam; used on athletic turf (sports turf ), golf courses (prohibited on greens), and sod farms

9. BCS-AA10717 0.0142% Plus Turf Fertilizer (Granule): 0.0213% indaziflam; used on athletic turf (sports turf ), golf courses (prohibite d on greens), and sod farms

10. Indaziflam 200 SC Herbicide: 19.05% indaziflam; used on citrus fruit, stone fruit, pome fruit, grapes, tree nuts, pi stachios, and olives.

11. Indaziflam 500 SC Herbicide: 45.05% indaziflam; used on citrus fruit, stone fruit, pome fruit, grapes, tree nuts, pi stachios, and olives.

Indaziflam is formulated as water so luble packets (WSP; (BCS-AA10717 20WSP) a flowable product (Esplanade F), three suspen sion concentrate products (Esplanade 200SC, Indaziflam 200SC, and Indaziflam 500 SC) thre e herbicide plus fertilizer formulations (BCSAA10717 0.0284% Plus Turf Fertilizer, BCS-A A10717 0.0213% Plus Turf Fertilizer, and BCSAA10717 0.0142% Plus Turf Fertil izer), a ready-to-use (RTU ) multi-herbicide formulation (Lawn 3FL Herbicide Ready-to-Use), a ready-to -spray (RTS) multi-herbicide formulation (Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate) flowable liquid (FL), and a spreadable multi-herbicide granular formulation (Lawn 3FL Herbicide Granule).

BCS-AA10717 20WSP, Esplanade 200SC, I ndaziflam 200SC, and Indaziflam 500 SC end-use products are applied by ground broadcast spray methods. BCS-AA10717 0.0284% Plus Turf Fertilizer, BCS-AA10717 0.0213% Plus Turf Fertilizer, BCS-AA10 717 0.0142% Plus Turf Fertilizer, and Lawn 3FL Herbic ide Granule end-use products are dry granular formulations and are applied by ground broadcast ap plication methods (e.g., spreader). Lawn 3FL Herbicide Ready-to-Use end-use product will be available for home use in a pre-packaged battery-operated trigger sprayer, which is applied directly from the container using a battery-operated trigger sprayer. Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate end-us e product is available as a sprayer pump, hoseend sprayer concentrate, or as a pre-packaged hos e-end ready-to-spray pro duct that is applied by ground broadcast applications. Esplanade F, used on forested areas, is the only end-use product of indaziflam that is proposed for both aerial and ground applications.

The proposed maximum annual application ra tes on non-agricultural areas for indaziflam formulations with a single active ingredient include 0.089 lbs a.i./A/yr (non-crop areas), 0.10 lbs a.i./A/yr (turf), and 0.125 lbs a.i./A/yr (forested ar eas). The end-use formulations with multiple active ingredients (2,4-D, mecoprop-p, dicamba, and penoxsulam) intended for non-agricultural

areas, i.e ., Lawn 3FL ready-to-use and concentrat e (2,4-D, mecoprop-p, and dicamba), and granule products (dicamba and penoxsulam). These three products have a proposed maximum annual application rate of 0.094 lbs a.i./A/yr for ho me lawn, ornamentals, and hardscapes uses. Indaziflam 200SC, and Indaziflam 500 SC have a proposed maximum annual application rate of 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr for selected agricultural crop uses (citrus fruit, stone fruit, pome fruit, grapes, tree nuts, pistachios, and olives). Applic ation rates for each use are summarized in Table 3.1

. Usage data are not available for indaziflam becau se it is a new active ingredient proposed for use

in the United States.

### -Page 14 of 292- 

## 2.3. Receptors

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA, 1998). Consistent with the process described in th e Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), this risk assessment uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of indazi flam. Toxicity data generated using surrogate test species, whic h are intended to be re presentative of broad taxonomic groups, are used to extrapolate to poten tial effects on a variety of species (receptors)

included under these broa der taxonomic groupings. Table 2.1 provides the taxonomic groups and surrogate species tested to evaluate the potential ecological effects of indaziflam to these non-target taxonomic groups. Within each of th ese very broad taxonomic groups, a measure of

effect is selected from the available test data.

Table 2.1. Taxonomic Groups and Test Sp ecies Evaluated for Assessing Potential Ecological Effects of indaziflam.

Taxonomic Group Surrogate Species

Birds 1 

### Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus )

Mammals Wistar rat ( Ratus norvegicus ) Sprague-Dawley rat ( R. norvegicus )

Insects Honey bee ( Apis mellifera L. ) Earthworm ( Eisenia fetida andrei)

Freshwater fish 2 

### Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas )

Freshwater invertebrates Water flea ( Daphnia magna ) Midge ( Chironomus riparius )

Estuarine/marine fish Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus )

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Mysid ( Americamysis bahia ) Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) Amphipid ( Leptocheirus plumulosus ) Terrestrial plants 3 

### Monocots – Crop species, such as corn ( Zea mays ) Dicots – Crop Species, such as soybean ( Glycine max ) Aquatic plants and algae Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) Freshwater Algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) Saltwater Diatom ( Skeletonema costatum ) Freshwater Diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) Freshwater Cyanobacteria ( Anabaena flos-aquae )

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrest rial-phase amphibians and reptiles.

2 Freshwater fish may be surroga tes for aquatic-phase amphibians.

3 Four species of two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six species of at least four dicot families, of which one is s oybeans.

### -Page 15 of 292- 

## 2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems potentially at risk are often ex tensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify specific ecosystems during th e development of a nation-wide ecological risk assessment. However, in general terms, terrest rial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the treated field and immediately adjacent areas that may receive drift or runoff. Areas adjacent

to the treated field could incl ude cultivated fields, fencerow s and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats, and other un cultivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to, or down stream from, the treated site and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing waterways such as streams or rivers in cluding all adjacent off-channel habitats that are permanently or intermittently connected to flowin g waters. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat also includes marine ecosystems, incl uding estuaries, embayment’s, and near shore

environments.

2.4. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual envi ronmental value that is to be protected, defined by an ecological entity (species, comm unity, or other entity) and its attribute or characteristics (USEPA, 1998). For indaziflam, th e ecological entities include the following: birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, non-target terr estrial plants, insects, and aq uatic vascular and non-vascular plants. The attributes for each of these entiti es may include growth, survival, and reproduction ( Table 2.2 in Section 2.6.2 for further discussion).

2.5. Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological ris k, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically significant c oncentrations. An exposure pathway is the means by which a pesticide

moves in the environment from a source to an eco logical receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete, it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, and a feasible route of exposure.

The conceptual model is intended to pr ovide a written description and visual representation of the predicted relationships between indaziflam, potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for the assessment endpoi nts. The conceptual model consists of two major components: risk hypotheses and a conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998).

### -Page 16 of 292- 

## 2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses

For indaziflam, the following ecological ri sk hypotheses are being employed for this

baseline risk assessment:

Given the uses of indaziflam and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of exposure to non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

When used in accordance with the label, inda ziflam results in potential adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terr estrial and aquatic organisms.

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram

The conceptual model is a graphic representa tion of the predicted relationships between the ecological entities, both listed (threatened and endangered) and non-li sted species, and the stressors to which they may be exposed. The conceptual model sp ecifies the potential routes of exposure, biological receptor type s, and effects endpoints of poten tial concern. Indaziflam is applied to crop and non-crop areas and given the pe rsistence and mobility of indaziflam and its degradates, these chemicals are expected to move off-site via spraydrift and run-off. Table 2.1 depicts the stressors, exposure pathways, and pot ential effects to terrestrial organisms from proposed uses of indaziflam as a pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicide to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. Figure 2.2 depicts the stressors, exposur e pathways, and potential effects to aquatic organisms from proposed uses of indaziflam. Indaziflam and its degradates are also expected to leach into ground water which may in turn contribute to exposure of aquatic organism in areas where there is interchange of surface and ground water. For both figures, dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that ha ve a low likelihood of c ontributing to ecological

risk.

### -Page 17 of 292- 

## Stressor

Source

Attribute Change Indaziflam and Residues of Concern applied to use site

Direct application Spray drift

Terrestrial

vertebrates Terrestrial

inverts

Individual organisms

Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in prey and food

Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover Community change

Modification of PCEs related

to habitat Terrestrial plants grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds (trees, shrubs) Runoff

Terrestrial

Vertebrates 

## Exposure Media & Receptors Soil

Ingestion Ingestion Ingestion Dermal uptake/Ingestion Atmospheric transport

Root uptake/contact

Wet/dry deposition

Ingestion Leaching to

Groundwater Irrigation

water



## Figure 2.1. Conceptual model depicting stresso rs, exposure pathways, and potential effects to terrestrial organisms fr om the use of indaziflam.

### -Page 18 of 292- 

## Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute Change Indaziflam and Residues of Concern applied to use site

Spray drift

Aquatic animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates

Individual organisms

Reduced survival Reduced growth Reduced reproduction Food chain Reduction in algae and

vascular plants Reduction in prey

Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover Community change

Modification of PCEs related to

habitat Surface water/

Sediment Runoff

Aquatic Animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates 

## Exposure

Media

Uptake/gills or integument

Ingestion Ingestion Atmospheric transport

Wet/dry deposition Soil Leaching to

Groundwater

Uptake/gills or integument

Aquatic Plants

Non-vascular

Vascular Uptake/cell,
roots, leaves Riparian plants

terrestrial

exposure pathways see

Figure 2.1



## Figure 2.2. Conceptual model depicting stresso rs, exposure pathways, and potential effects to aquatic organisms from the proposed uses of indaziflam.

2.6. Analysis Plan

2.6.1. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps and Uncertainties

A catalog of submitted ecological effects studies for indaziflam, its degradates, and formulations, along with review classifications (e.g. Acceptable to meet guidelines), can be

found in Appendix B . For the purposes of this assessment, data gaps refer to the absence of required data for a new chemical registration as specified under 40 CFR Part 158; without data or evidence to demonstrate otherwise, risk to non-li sted and listed species of a taxon is presumed. Although an early life stage estuarine/marine fi sh study was not submitted as is required for a new chemical registration, suffici ent data based on freshwater fi sh provided the basis to make a risk determination to this taxon. As such, an ea rly life stage estuarine/marine fish study is not considered a data gap. An area of considerab le uncertainty for this assessment surrounds the potential ecological chronic risk to birds. Current data on Ma llard duck were inadequate to

derive a definitive NOAEC or make a definiti ve determination of risk. A second avian

### -Page 19 of 292- 

## reproduction study on mallard duck would reduce un certainty and obviate th e need to assume risk to this taxon. The adequacy of data for making risk determinations is discussed in the

context of all lines of eviden ce in the Risk Characterization. Complete summaries of all

submitted effects data are included in Appendix C

.

The following ecological effects data gaps for indaziflam were identified:

• Estuarine/Marine Invert ebrate Life Cycle (850.1350) : These data are required because the proposed use patterns specifi c to indaziflam’s registration, terrestrial, forestry, and residential outdoor use, indicat e indaziflam may enter estuar ine/marine environments. Acute toxicity data also dem onstrate indaziflam to be highl y toxic to estuarine/marine organisms.

No environmental fate data gaps were identified. For the purposes of risk assessment the submitted data are adequate. The quality of th e submitted data is generally good. A catalog of submitted environmental fate studies for indaziflam and its degradates, along with justified review classifications, can be found in Appendix D . A complete summary of all submitted

environmental fate data is included in Appendix E

.

In addition, the relative pers istence and high mobility of th e degradates, and data from field studies indicate that degrad ates of indaziflam is likely to leach to ground water, particularly the degradate FDAT, as it was det ected at deeper depths in the field studies compared to the other degradates and is highly mobile. A pr ospective ground water study (PGW) would help to

characterize the extent of potential ground water impacts.

2.6.2. Evaluation of Multiple Acti ve Ingredients and Mixtures

The Agency does not routinely include in its risk assessments an ev aluation of mixtures of active ingredients, either those mixtures of multiple active ingredients in product formulations or those in the applicator’s ta nk. In the case of the product form ulations of active ingredients (that is, a registered product containing more th an one active ingredient), each active ingredient is subject to an individual risk assessment for regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on a particular use site. If effects data are avai lable for a formulated pr oduct containing more than one active ingredient, they may be used qualitatively or quantitatively in accordance with the Agency’s Overview Document and the Se rvices’ Evaluation Memorandum (U.S. EPA 2004; U.S. FWS/NMFS 2004).

Effects data are available for indaziflam’s three product formulations with multiple active ingredients: Lawn 3FL Herb icide (Ready-to-Use), MRID 47489402; Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate (Ready-to-Spray), MRID 47489302; and Lawn 3FL Herbicide Granule, MRID

47489202. The first two of these formulations contain the active ingredients 2,4-D, dimethylamine salt; dicamba, potassium salt; an d mecoprop-p potassium salt. The herbicide granule formulation includes dicam ba acid and penoxsulum. The av ailable effects data include acute oral toxicity studies using the rat, subm itted as requirements for the new registrations of

### -Page 20 of 292- 

## formulated products. These data indicate that, for acute effects to mammals, indaziflam in combination with these other active ingredients is not more toxic than the TGAI alone. This data will be used qualitatively in the risk desc ription section of this assessment.

2.6.3. Measures of Exposure

Measures of exposure are based on terrest rial and aquatic m odels that estimate

environmental concentrations of indaziflam us ing labeled application rates and methods. The measure of exposure for aquatic species in water bodies receiving runoff and/or spray drift to surface water is a return frequenc y of 1-in-10 years of the estimated environmental concentration (EEC), based on 30 years of simulations. The 1- in-10 year peak concentration is used for estimating acute effects to aquatic organisms (pla nts and animals); the 1-in -10 year 21-day mean concentration is used for assessing aquatic inve rtebrate chronic exposure; and the 1-in-10 year 60-day mean concentration is used for assessi ng chronic exposure for fish (and aquatic-phase amphibians for which fish serve as surrogates). The exposure to aquatic species from sediment

concentrations in water bodies was determined to be of concern after a re view of the appropriate fate and effects data; pore water EECs were calc ulated for maximum use patterns. The measure of exposure for aquatic species in water bodie s receiving base flow from ground water leachate originating at the site of application is the 90-day mean high concentration. The terrestrial measure of exposure for vertebrate a nd invertebrate animals is the upper 90 th 

## percentile concentration normalized for applicati on rates on various dietary items.

Exposure for terrestrial plants i nhabiting dry and semi-aquatic areas ( i.e. , low-lying wet areas that may dry up at times throughout the year) is based on the following:

(1) the pesticide's water solubility and the am ount of pesticide presen t on the soil surface and its top one centimeter, (2) potential "sheet runoff" (one treated acre to an adjacent acre) for dry areas, (3) potential "channel runoff" (10 acres to a distant low-lying acre) for semi-aquatic or wetland areas, (4) fractional runoff values of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 for pesticide water solubilities of <10, 10-100, and <100 ppm, respectively, and (5) an assumption of 1% spray drift for gr ound application and 5% for aerial, airblast, forced air, and spray chemigation applications.

Spray drift exposure to terrestrial plants is ch aracterized further in th e Risk Description if terrestrial plant RQs exceed the ri sk to plants LOC. Downwind spraydrift buffers are evaluated to determine the distance from application site re quired to dissipate spray drift to the no effect

and EC 25 

## levels where listed and non-listed species RQ values are below the LOC, respectively.

The registrant has provided a suite of studi es pertinent to most OPPTS 835 guidelines, pursuant to 40 CFR part 158 (Dat a Requirements for Pesticides), which provides environmental fate data for these measures of exposure.

### -Page 21 of 292- 

## 2.6.4. Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant-submitted guideline studies that

were conducted with a limited numb er of surrogate test species ( Table 2.1) . No additional ecotoxicity data on indaziflam were locate d, based on a November 2009 query of the open

literature in the ECOTOX database (USEPA, 2009a).

The acute measures of effect used in this baseline assessment are the LD 50 

## (median Lethal Dose), LC 50 

## (median Lethal Concentration) or EC 50 

## (median Effects Concentration). These are measures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effe ct in tested organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the no observed adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) and the no observed adverse effect le vel (NOAEL). Toxicity studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/ marine fish and inverteb rates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals, bees, and other terrestrial invertebrates. The e ndpoints used for risk

characterization are derived from studies whic h underwent review and were classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelin es but the results are considered to be scientifically valid).

Table 2.2 lists the measures of environmental exposure and ecological effects used to assess the potential risks of ind aziflam to non-target organisms. The methods used to assess the

risk are consistent with those outlined in the document “Overview of the Ecological Risk

Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs” (USEPA, 2004).

### -Page 22 of 292- 

## Table 2.2. Measures of Exposure and Measures of Effect Used in Assessing Potential Risks Associated with the Proposed Uses of Indaziflam.

Assessment Endpoint Surrogate Species and Measures of Ecological Effect 1 

### Measures of Exposure

Survival Lowest acute LD 50 

### (single oral dose test)

and LC 50 

### (subacute dietary test) Birds 2 

### Reproduction

and Growth Lowest NOAEC (21-week reproduction test)

Survival Lowest acute LD 50 

### (single oral dose test)

Mammals Reproduction

and Growth Lowest NOAEC (2-generation reproduction test) Upper-bound residues on

food items

Survival Lowest tested LC 50 

### or EC 50 

### (acute toxicity test) Peak EECs 4 

### Aquatic Animals (Freshwater fish and

inverts and estuarine/marine inverts) 3 

### Reproduction

and Growth Lowest NOAEC (early life-stage or full life-cycle tests) 21-day EECs for invertebrates and 60-day EECs for fish 4



### Terrestrial plants 5 

### Survival and growth Lowest EC 25 

### (for non-listed plants) and corresponding NOAEC (for listed plants)

(endpoints derived for monocots and dicots from seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies) Estimates of runoff and spray drift to non-target areas

Insects 6 

### Survival (not quantitatively

assessed) Lowest honeybee LD 50 

### (acute contact test)

Lowest Earthworm LC 50 

### Maximum application rate for honeybees and estimates of

soil concentrations for

earthworms

Aquatic plants (vascular and non-vascular) Survival and growth Lowest EC 25 

### (for non-listed plants) and corresponding NOAEC or EC 05 

### (for listed plants) Peak EECs 4

1 The most sensitive species tested within taxonomic groups is used for baseline risk assessments.

2 Birds represent surrogates for terrest rial-phase amphibians and reptiles.

3 Freshwater fish represent surroga tes for aquatic-phase amphibians.

4 Aquatic EECs are based on modeling described in Section 3.2.2.1

. 5 Four species of two families of monocots - one is corn, six speci es of at least four dicot families, of which one is soybeans.

6 Risk to terrestrial invertebrates from i ndaziflam use is not evaluated, rather th e potential hazard to honey bees and earthwor ms (i.e. the available data) are qualitatively assessed.



## 2.6.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non-target sp ecies. For the baseline risk assessment of indaziflam, the deterministic risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure concentrations and measured toxicity values. The RQ method involves dividing point estimates of environmental concentrations by acute and chroni c toxicity values. The resulting unitless RQs are then compared to the Agency’s Le vels of Concern (LOCs) (USEPA, 2004) ( Table 2.3 ). These criteria are used to indicate when applicati ons of indaziflam, as dir ected on the label, have the potential to cause advers e effects to listed and non-lis ted non-target organisms.

### -Page 23 of 292- 

## Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metr ics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk

Class.

RISK CLASS RISK DESCRIPTION RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 0.5

Acute

Restricted Use Potential for effects to an imals from acute exposures Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 0.1

Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 0.05

60-day EEC/NOAEC (fish) Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from chronic exposures 21-day EEC/NOAEC (invertebrates) 1

Aquatic Plants

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 1

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds)

EEC 2 

### /LC 50 

### (Dietary) Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute

exposures EEC/LD 50 

### (Dose) 0.5

EEC 2 

### /LC 50 

### (Dietary) Acute

Restricted Use Potential for effects to an imals from acute exposures Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification EEC/LD 50 

### (Dose) 0.2

EEC 2 

### /LC 50 

### (Dietary) Acute Listed Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures EEC/LD 50 

### (Dose) 0.1

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals from chronic exposures EEC 2 

### /NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants from

exposures EEC/ EC 25 

### 1

EEC/ NOAEC Listed Plant Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from

exposures EEC/ EC 05 

### 1

1 LC 50 or EC 50

. 2 Based on upper bound Kenega values for foliar exposure.



# 3. Analysis

3.1. Use Characterization

Indaziflam is proposed for use as a selective pre-emergent weed control in perennial tree and vine crops (citrus, stone fruit, pome fruit 1 

## , grapes, tree nuts, pistachios, olives), pre-emergent and post-emergent weed control on athletic turf (golf courses, at hletic fields, parks, recreation areas, and sod farms), home lawns, ornament als and hardscapes (sidewalks, driveways),

1 

### Pome fruits are defined as apples , pears, quinces, and Asian pears.

### -Page 24 of 292- 

## commercial forests, Christmas tree farms, and other non-crop areas (rail road and rail yards, managed roadsides, fence rows, utilities, other industrial, municipal, and government sites). End-use products assessed in this document are formulated as a dry granules (Lawn 3FL Herbicide Granule), water soluble packets ( BCS-AA10717 20WSP), flowable liquid concentrate (Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate), suspension concentrate (Indaziflam 500 SC Herbicide, Indaziflam 200 SC Herbicide, Esplanade 200 SC, Esplanade F), three gran ular herbicide plus fertilizer products (BCS-AA10717 0.0284% Pl us Turf Fertilizer, BCS-AA10717 0.0213% Plus Turf Fertilizer, BCS-AA10717 0.0142% Plus Turf Fertil izer), and a multi-a.i. ready-to-use spray (Lawn 3FL Ready-to-Use Spray).

Proposed maximum application rates and us e patterns listed by use according to the proposed labels are provided in Table 3.1 . Indaziflam 200SC and Indaziflam 500SC have higher single maximum application rates fo r fine textured soils than for coarse textured soils (0.085 lbs a.i/A and 0.065 lbs a.i./A, respectively). The proposed fine text ured soil application rate (0.085 lbs a.i./A) was used for aquatic exposure modeling in this assessmen t. For the purposes of this assessment, EECs are based on maximum proposed label rates for six use categories: food (citrus, stone fruit, tree nuts, a nd vine crops), turf (golf courses, athletic fields, and sod farms), residential lawns, ornamentals and hardscapes, forestry, and other non-cr op areas (railroad and rail yards, managed roadsides, fence rows, utilit ies, other industrial, m unicipal, and government sites).

Broadcast applications are pr oposed on five of the formulated product labels. Four of the five labels proposing ground applications e xplicitly discuss spray drift management ( i.e. Spray Drift Management Section on label) and direct the user to not apply when wind speeds are greater than 10 miles per hour (mph), during temperat ure inversions, or when fog is present. The four labels are Esplanade F, Esplanade 200 SC , Indaziflam 200 SC, and Indaziflam 500 SC; BCS-AA10717 20 WSP does not include language on sp ray drift management. The labels also advise that the formulated pr oducts should only be applied wh en the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g. bodies of water) is minimal (e.g. wind blowing in opposite direction). The label for proposed aerial sprayi ng, Esplanade F, include s language that directs the user to apply large droplets (e.g. 150-200 microns) under low spray pressure.

The persistence of indaziflam suggests that there would be enough carryover of phytotoxic resisdues to subsequent sensitive ro tational crops. However, the proposed labels restrict the use of indaziflam on crops not c ontained on the label, including the planting of roational crops within a 24 month period after applying indaziflam. Specifically, the label states “Do not rotate to any crops not listed on this labe l within 24 months after the last application.” These statements restricting the use of indazifl am on rotational crops prev ent injury and damage to crops not included on the labels for indaziflam.

### -Page 25 of 292- 

## Table 3.1. Proposed Maximum Use Patterns of Indaziflam.

Use Category Crop/Use Formulated

Product Formulated

Product Application

Rate Maximum Application

Rate (lbs a.i./A) Maximum

Number of Applications

(interval) Maximum Yearly Applicatio

n (lbs a.i./A/yr) Method of Application

Citrus & Pome

Fruit † Indaziflam

500 SC 2.6 fl oz/A – fine

textured soils 0.085 lbs

a.i./A 2 ‡
(30days, 90days

for FL apps) 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (broadcast or

banded)

Stone Fruit Indaziflam

500 SC 2.6 fl oz/A – fine

textured soils 0.085 lbs

a.i./A 2 ‡
(30days, 90days

for FL apps) 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (broadcast or

banded)

Tree Nuts Indaziflam

500 SC 2.6 fl oz/A – fine

textured soils 0.085 lbs

a.i./A 2 ‡
(30days, 90days

for FL apps) 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (broadcast or

banded) Food

Vine Crops (Grapes and Olives) Indaziflam

500 SC 2.6 fl oz/A – fine

textured soils 0.085 lbs

a.i./A 2 ‡
(30days, 90days

for FL apps) 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (broadcast or

banded)

Turf Turf (golf courses, athletic fields, and sod farms) BCSAA10717

0.0213%

Plus Turf

Fertilizer 377 lbs/A 0.080 lbs

a.i./A 2 ‡
(90 days) 0.1 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground (spreader, watered-in)

Residential

Lawns Residential

lawns Lawn 3FL

Herbicide

Concentrate 6.4 fl oz/1000 ft 2 0.047 lbs

a.i./A 2 (2 weeks) 0.094 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (hose-end sprayer)

Ornamentals Lawn 3FL

Herbicide

Concentrate 12.8 fl oz/1000

ft 2 0.094 lbs

a.i./A 1 0.094 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (hose-end

sprayer or hand pump) Ornamentals

& Hardscapes Hardscapes Lawn 3FL

Herbicide

Concentrate 12.8 fl oz/1000

ft 2 0.094 lbs

a.i./A 1 0.094 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (hose-end

sprayer or hand pump)

Other NonCrop Areas †† Esplanade

200 SC 6.84 fl oz/A/yr 0.089 lbs

a.i./A 1 0.089 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (broadcast)

Other Noncrop Areas Site Preparation (under asphalt and concrete) Esplanade

200 SC 6.84 fl oz/A/yr 0.089 lbs

a.i./A 1 0.089 lbs a.i./A/yr Ground Spray (broadcast)

Forestry Forested Areas Esplanade F 9.58 fl oz/A/yr 0.125 lbs

a.i./A 1 0.125 lbs a.i./A/yr Aerial or Ground Spray (broadcast or

banded)

† Pome fruit include apples, pears, quinces, loquats, mayhaws, and Asian pears.

‡ The label permits a single application at th e maximum application rate and a second app lication at a reduced rate (e.g., applic ations of indaziflam for food uses: 0.085 lbs a.i./A is the maximum application rate with a permitted second applica tion at a maximum rate of 0.05 lbs a.i./A , equaling an annual maximum rate of 0.134 lbs a.i./A). For turf uses a single maximu m application rate of 0.08 lbs a.i./A is permitted with a seco nd application of 0.02 lbs

a.i./A.

†† Other non-crop areas are, as defined by the proposed label: Railroad and Rail Yards, Managed Roadsides, Fence Rows, Utilities, Other Industrial, Municipal, and Government Sites.

### -Page 26 of 292- 

## 3.2. Exposure Characterization

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

The general physical/chemi cal properties of indaziflam are summarized in Table 3.2

. Environmental fate and transport pr operties of indaziflam are char acterized in further detail in the following sections. Our understanding of these properties is limited by the data set available. Many of the chemical properties and environmenta l fate parameters of indaziflam listed in Table

3.3 are based on single, supplemental st udies, summaries of which are in Appendix B

.

Table 3.2 General Physical and Ch emical Properties of Indaziflam

Parameter Value Reference

PC code 080818

CAS No. 730979-19-8

Structure (Isomer A)

N

N N

CH

3 CH 3

N

H NH 2 CH 3 F



### Structure (Isomer B)

Chemical name (IUPAC) N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1H-inden-1-yl]-6- [(1RS)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine

Common name Indaziflam (BCS AA10717)

Chemical formula C 16 

### H 20 

### FN 5 

### Molecular weight 301.36 g/mol 47443202

Isomer A Isomer B Water solubility (20 °C) pH 4: 4.4 mg/L pH 7: 2.2 mg/L pH 9: 2.2 mg/L pH 4: 1.7 mg/L pH 7: 1.2 mg/L pH 9: 1.2 mg/L 47443202

Isomer A 6.8 x10 -8 

### Pa (5.1e-10 mmHg) Vapor pressure (25 °C)

Isomer B 1.1 x10 -8 

### Pa (8.25e-11 mmHg) 47443202

Henry's law constant 2.62 x10 -10 

### atm-m 3 

### /mol Calculated, Episuite

v4.0

Log K OW 

### (pH 7, 40 °C) 2.8 47443202

Isomer A 3.5 Dissociation Constant (pK

a 

### ) Isomer B 3.6 47443202

### -Page 27 of 292- 

## Indaziflam is expected to be moderately mobile in soil, moderately persistent to persistent in aerobic soil, persistent in anaerobic soil, and persistent in aerobi c and anaerobic aquatic

environments. Indaziflam is a mixture of two diastereoisomers with a ratio of isomer A toisomer B as high as 19:1. Both active isomers (N-[(1R,2S)-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden1-yl]-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl ]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine and N-[(1R,2S)-2,6-dimethyl-2,3- dihydro-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-[(1S)-1 -fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine- 2,4-diamine) have similar environmental fate characteristics (aerobic soil metabolism half-lives in two soil types reported at 45 and 65 days isomer A, and 55 and 89 days isomer B; MRID 47443215). Based on the chemical structure of the compound and location of the chiral center, it is expected that the two isomers will behave similarly in the environment and have similar toxicity. Submitted fate studies were completed using isomer A.

Indaziflam and its residues of concern (i ndaziflam-hydroxyethyl a nd indaziflam-olefin) are expected to persist in both the terrestrial a nd aquatic environments (h alf-lives > 200 days); the compound is stable to hydrolysis but can de grade through aqueous ph otolysis (half-life < 5 days). Under aerobic conditi ons, the compound can be slowly metabolized (half-lives > 150 days), but it is stable to anaer obic metabolism. Indaziflam is moderately mobile to mobile (Koc’s < 1000 mL/g oc) based on the FAO So il Mobility Classification Guidance (USEPA, 2006). However, major degradates of indazi flam are more mobile than the parent (K

oc 

## for FDAT ranged from 10 - 50 mL/g oc). Indaziflam was detected in the submitted terrestrial field dissipation studies above the leve l of quantitation (LOQ) at depths up to 45-60 cm; however the majority of detections were restricted to the 0-15 cm range in the soil profile, with a few detections above LOQ in the 15-30 cm, and 30-45 cm depth, and below the LOQ at a maximum depth of 105-120 cm. Indaziflam-hydroxyethyl wa s detected in multiple studies in the top sampled segment (0-15 cm). Other major degrad ates of indaziflam, particularly FDAT, were detected in deeper segments than the parent ; FDAT was detected at a maximum depth of 105- 120 cm over multiple sampled time points.

Field dissipation data also indicate that some of the major transformation products may have a higher potential to leach compared to the pa rent and are more persistent with half-lives on an order of magnitude greater th an the calculated parent dissipat ion half-lives. Indaziflam and, more importantly, its degradates are a concern for exposure in ground water. The high mobility and persistence of the degradates, and data from field studies indicate that degradates of indaziflam will leach to ground water, specifically FDAT since it was detected at deeper depths in the field studies compared to the other degrad ates, and is expected to be highly mobile. A prospective ground water study (PGW) would help to further characteriz e the extent of the potential impact on ground water quality.

### -Page 28 of 292- 

## Table 3.3 Environmental Fate Data Summary for Indaziflam + Residues of Concern

OPPTS

Guideline Data Requirement Data Summary Source

835.2120 Hydrolysis t 1/2 at 50°C no evidence of degradation 47443207

835.2240 Aqueous photolysis t 1/2 at 25°C (TTR t 1/2 ) 3.7 days (85.5 days) 47443208

835.2410 Soil photolysis t 1/2 at 25°C 40.3 days 47443209

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism t 1/2 at 25°C Indane, Triazine label PARENT ONLY 87.7, 82.5 days (Nord sandy loam) 177.7, 147.5 days (NC sandy loam ; soil series not identified)

PARENT + UN-EXTRACTED RESIDUES 203.9, 173.3 days (Nord sandy loam) 630.1, 630.1 days (NC sandy loam ; soil series not identified) 47443210

47443211

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism t 1/2 at 20°C Indane, Triazine label PARENT ONLY 53.7, 60.3 days (Laacherhof sandy loam) 35.5, 36.1 days (Laacherhof loam) 41, 34.8 days (Wumwiese, loam) 45.3, 45.3 days (Hoefchen, silt loam)

PARENT + UN-EXTRACTED RESIDUES 101.9, 100.5 days (Laa cherhof sandy loam) 70.5, 69.3 days (Laacherhof loam) 80.6., 90.0 days (Wumwiese, loam) 91.2, 79.7 (Hoefche n, silt loam) 47443212

47443213

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism t 1/2 at 20°C FDAT (degradate as starting test substance) PARENT ONLY 42.8 days (Laacherhof sandy loam) 165 days (Wumwiese loam) 14.9 days (Hoefchen silt loam) †

PARENT + UN-EXTRACTED RESIDUES 70.8 days (Laacherhof sandy loam) 654 days (Wumwiese loam) 28.0 days (Hoefchen silt loam) 47443214

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil Metabolism t 1⁄2 at 20°C no evidence of degradation 47443216

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism t 1/2 at 20°C PARENT ONLY 119.5 days (Angler, water-s and sediment system) 239.0 days (Hoenniger, wate r-loam sediment system)

PARENT + UN-EXTRACTED RESIDUES 257.0 days (Angler, water-s and sediment system) 462.0 days (Hoenniger, wate r-loam sediment system) 47443217

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism t 1/2 at 20°C No evidence of degradation 47443218

47443219

11.1 (0.888) [426.0] (Goldsboro sandy loam) 10.3 (0.874) [395.8] (Kansas, order not identified, clay loam) 8.5 (0.867) [468.2] (Laacherhof sandy loam) 9.5 (0.885) [741.8] (Hoefchen silt loam) 6.1 (0.887) [449.7] (Wurmwiese loam) 47443203 835.1230 Batch equilibrium, K f (1/n) [K foc ]

Triazine-indanone 3.04 (0.84) [304] (Goldsboro sandy loam) 5.97 (0.85) [284] (Kansas, order not identified, clay loam) 3.00 (0.85) [250] (Laacherhof sandy loam) 5.18 (0.87) [183] (Hoefchen silt loam) 3.04 (0.86) [146] (Wurmwiese loam) 47443204

### -Page 29 of 292- OPPTS

Guideline Data Requirement Data Summary Source

FDAT 0.477 (0.86) [47.7] (Goldsboro sandy loam) 0.778 (0.86) [37.1] (Kansas, order not identified, clay loam) 0.165 (0.91) [12.6] (Laacherhof sandy loam) 0.262 (0.94) [10.1] (Hoefchen silt loam) 0.303 (0.93) [14.6] (Wurmwiese loam)

Indaziflam-carboxylic acid 1.32 (0.83) [132] Goldsboro sandy loam) 1.08 (0.83) [51] (Kansas, order not identified, clay loam) 0.47 (0.91) [32] (Laacherhof sandy loam) 0.67 (0.87) [29] (Hoefchen silt loam) 0.64 (0.91) [31] (Wurmwiese loam) 47443205

47443206

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation t 1/2 (bare ground sites, runoff not measured) 9.3 days (Porterville, CA – Nord fine sandy loam) 59.2 days (Monticello, FL – Lucy loamy sand) 45 days (Wayne County, NC – Norfolk loamy sand) 34.8 days (Ephrata, Washington – Quincy loamy sand) 21.3 days (North Rose, New York – Oakville loamy sand) 47443223

47443224

47443225

47743301

47743302

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation t 1/2 (sites cropped with Turf, runoff not measured) 25.7 days (Porterville, CA – Nord fine sandy loam)) 66.6 days (Monticello, FL – Lucy loamy sand) 69.3 days (Wayne County, NC – Norfolk loamy sand) 47443220

47443221

47443222

850.1730 Fish bioconcentration (BCF) steady state BCF (4-26 days) 46, 25, 79.2 (low-dose, 0.3 ug a. i./L) whole, edible, inedible) 64.8, 32.4, 122 (high dose, 3. 0 ug a.i./L) whole, edible, inedible) 47443237



## 3.2.1.1. Transport and Mobility

Indaziflam is not volatile, with a partial vapor pressure of 5.1 x 10 -10 

## and 8.25 x 10 -11 

## torr at 25oC, for isomer A and B, respectively (MRID 47443202). The compound exhibits acid-base behavior (pKa = 3.5 and 3.6, isomer A and B, respectively; MRID 47443202), is neutral at environmental pH values and it is moderately so luble at environmental pHs 4, 7 and 9 (isomer A: 4.4, 2.2, 2.2 mg/L, and isomer B: 1.7, 1.2, and 1.2 mg/L; MRID 47443202). . The reported K

ow 

## for indaziflam at 40oC for pH 7 was 631, where pH>pK

a 

## , and was undetermined at pH< pK

a 

## (MRID 47443202).

Indaziflam is moderately mobile to mob ile based on FAO Soil Mobility Classification Guidance (USEPA, 2006), with reporte d Freundlich adsorption values (K f 

## ) from five soils ranging from 6.1 to 11.1 (0.885) (MRID 47443203). Batc h equilibrium data for indaziflam show that adsorption to soil is not well correlated w ith organic carbon content. The coefficient of variation (CV) for K

oc 

## (27%) is larger than that for K f 

## (21%). Further, K f 

## was not well correlated with percent organic carbon (r 2 

## = 0.187, p = 0.47), nor with pH (r 2 

## = 0.001, p = 0.95), nor percent clay (r 2 

## = 0.005, p = 0.91).

Leaching and adsorption/desorption studies were conducted on the identified three major degradates 1 

## : triazine-indanone, FDAT, a nd indaziflam-carboxylic acid. These compounds are

1 

### A major degradate is defined as a compound that is detected in the fate studies at > 10% of the applied radiation, or is of toxicological concern.

### -Page 30 of 292- 

## more mobile than the parent. FDAT and i ndaziflam-carboxylic acid have low soil-water partitioning coefficients (respective K f 

## values ranged from 0.16 to 0.78 and from 0.47 to 1.32). FDAT and indaziflam-carboxylic acid are mobi le to highly mobile compounds, based on the FAO Soil Mobility Classification Guidance (USE PA, 2006). Triazine-indanone is moderately mobile in soil, although s till more mobile than th e parent indaziflam (K f 

## ranging from 3.00 to 5.97; MRID 47443204).

Compounds with K f 

## values less than five trigge r a ground water advisory (USEPA, 2008a). The major degradates of indaziflam(triazine-indanone, FDAT, and indaziflamcarboxylic acid) present a potential ground water con cern in some soils, espe cially those that are sandy and have low organi c carbon content (all K f 

## values are less than 5; MRID 47443204, 47443205, 47443206).

3.2.1.2. Degradation

Indaziflam is stable to hydrolysis; there was no evidence of degradation at pH 4, 7, and 9 at 50oC (MRID 47443207). It is rapidly photolyzed in water (combined label, corrected environmental half-life of 3.7 days at pH 7; MRID 47443208) and photodegrades comparatively slowly in soil (continuousl y irradiated, combined labe l, corrected environmental photodegredation half-life in soil of 40.3 da ys in loamy sand at pH 6.5, OC 2.4%; MRID 47443209).

Indaziflam biodegrades in 35 to 178 days in aerobic soil (parent-on ly half-lives; MRID 47443210, 47443211, 47443212, 47443213). Un-extracted resi dues were substantial (17 – 34 %) in the aerobic soil metabolism studies. Multip le solvent systems were not employed in the extraction scheme; therefore it is uncertain wh ether the un-extracted residues are parent, degradates, or bound residues. Thus half-lives were calculated for both parent-only and parent and un-extracted residues combined (parent and un- extracted residue s non-linear half -lives of 71 to 630 days).

Results from six aerobic soil metabolism studies on six different soil types show indaziflam degrades via oxidation of the indany l moiety to indaziflam -triazine indanone and indaziflam-carboxylic acid. Inda ziflam, indaziflam-t riazine indanone and indaziflam-carboxylic acid are cleaved at the N bridge to form FDAT from the triazine moiety and unidentified minor compounds from the indanyl moiety. Residues are ultimately converted to bound residues and

CO 2



## . Figure 3.1 illustrates a predicted degradat ion pathway under aerobic conditions

.

An aerobic aquatic metabolism study was c onducted for indaziflam investigating the biotransformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]- and [indane-3- 13/14 

## C]-labeled indaziflam in two watersediment systems from Germany: a sand-gravel pit lake water system (Angler Weiher), and a loam-pond water system (Hoenniger Weiher). Un -extracted residues were significant in both systems (12-15% of the applied radiation; MRID 47443217). Multiple solvent systems were not employed in the extraction scheme; therefore it is uncertain whether the un-extracted residues are parent residues, metabolite residues, or bound residue s. Half-lives were calculated for parent only, and for parent and un-extracted residues combined. The rate of biodegradation of

### -Page 31 of 292- 

## indaziflam was slower in aquatic environments than terrestrial environments (parent-only nonlinear first order half-lif e of 120 days (DT90 of 497 days) in the water-sand sediment system at pH 7.4-8.6, and 239 days (DT90 of >1000 days) in the water-loam sediment system at pH 6.2- 6.7; MRID 47443217; parent and un-e xtracted residue non-linear fi rst order half-lives of 257 days, and 462 days, respectively). The compoun d quickly dissipated out of the water column (water dissipation half-l ife of 0 to 3 days), and was detected in the sediment. The major indentified degradates were triazine-indanone , FDAT, and indaziflam-carboxylic acid. In anaerobic aquatic environments, i ndaziflam is stable to biodegrad ation; there was no evidence of degradation (MRID 47443218, 47443219).

Figure 3.1 Predicted Transformation Pathway under Aerobic Conditions

3.2.1.3. Field Studies

Eight terrestrial field dissipat ion studies were conducted for in daziflam using five sites in

the United States. Five studies were conducted on bare ground (MRID 47443223, 47443224, 47443225, 47443301, 47443302), each with four plots that had <1% slope and no runoff collection equipment. Three a dditional studies were conducted on soil cropped with turf (MRID 47443220, 47443221, 47443222), each with four plots that had <1% slope and no runoff collection equipment. In all eight studies, indaziflam was broadcas t once at a target application

### -Page 32 of 292- 

## rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.147 lb a. i./A), which is great er than the proposed maximum application rate of 0.125 lb a.i./A (for use on forested areas). Indaziflam di ssipation half-lives calculated for the total soil profile (0-120 cm) were not significantly different than those from the top 15 cm.

The results from the field studies show more ra pid dissipation under field conditions compared to the laboratory degradatio n studies (dissipation half-lives fo r indaziflam ranging from 9.3 to 69.3 days versus laboratory half-lives of 36 to 178 days). This difference could be due to off-site movement (for example leaching) which is not tracked in the laboratory degradation studies.

Field test sites were analyzed for ind aziflam and its major transformation products: indaziflam-carboxylic acid, triazine-indanone, F DAT, indaziflam-hydroxye thyl, and indaziflamolefin. The limit of detection (LOD) for parent indaziflam and its transformation products was 0.3 ng·g -1 

## , and the limit of quatitation (LOQ) was 1.5 ng·g -1 

## for all studies. A substantial number of detections of indaziflam and its major transf ormation products were repor ted at levels between the LOD and the LOQ in all field studies; replicate values below the LOQ were assumed at 1⁄2(LOQ + LOD) for calculations of dissipation half-lives. Det ections below the LOQ are not

well characterized because the method of detection may have been too insensitive to accurately quantify these values; therefore, leaching potential of indazifl am and its major transformation products may not be accurately desc ribed by the data. However, data from these eight terrestrial field dissipation studies report indaziflam was detected at th e deepest increment sampled, and major transformation products were detected at this depth at study termination (545 days). These data indicate that indaziflam and more important ly its transformation produc ts have a potential to leach to ground water.

Field dissipation half-lives describe how long residues remain on the target field and in the upper portion of the subsurface, taking into account both degr adation and off-site movement (via surface water, ground water, eroded soil or air). Under field conditions, calculated dissipation half-lives ranged from 9.3 days to 69.3 days; reported DT90s ranged from 109 to 545 days (MRID 47443220, 47443221, 47443222, 47443223, 47443224, 47443225, 47743301, and 47743302). Two studies reported calculated DT 90s after the study te rmination (554 and 545 days, MRID 47443222 and MRID 47743320). Dissipation half-lives for studi es that examined plots cropped with turf were longer than those calculated from ba re soil sites (9.3 – 59.2 days for bare soil sites and 25.7 – 69.3 days for turf sites) . However, residues were not measured in the turf at any of the three sites cropp ed with turf (MRID 47443220, 457443221, 47443222). The percent carryover for indaziflam + residues of c oncern from year to year ranged from 0.6 to 17%; total carryover for all resi dues for the entire profile ranged from 2.2 to 34%.

The most prevalent transformation products in all eight field studies were FDAT, triazine-indanone, and indaziflam -carboxylic acid. These compounds were detected in the 0-15 cm depth at maximum mean parent-equivalent co ncentrations of 17.6% (at 28 days), 9.1% (at 28 days), and 5.1% (at 28 days) of the theoretica l day-0 recovery of i ndaziflam, respectively. Triazine-indanone and indaziflam-carboxylic acid were detected above the LOQ at a maximum depth of 15-30 cm. No detections were reporte d above the LOQ at depths below 30 cm for both

triazine-indanone and indaziflam -carboxylic acid. However, FDAT was detected above the LOQ at a maximum depth of 60-75 cm 59 days af ter treatment; detections below the LOQ were reported at the bottom of the sampled soil prof ile at the study termination (545 days after

### -Page 33 of 292- 

## treatment; MRID 47743302). Studies c onsistently reported detections of FDAT at depths of 60- 75 cm, and 45-60cm clearly demonstrating that th e FDAT degradate has a potential to leach.

Detections of both triazine-indanone and inda ziflam-carboxylic acid, below the LOQ, were reported at a maximum depth of 60-75 cm at the study termination (545 days after treatment), indicating that these compounds as well have a potential to leach.

3.2.1.4. Bioconcentration

A flow-through bioconcentration study of bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) exposed to indaziflam in pH 7.5-8.0 water for 26 days indicates that the compound does not bioconcentrate. The 26-day exposure period was followed by a 14 day depuration period. Bioconcentration factors (BCF) were 46, 25, and 79x for whole fish, edible, and non-edible fish tissues, respectively, in low-dose samples (0.3 μg /L), and 65, 32, and 122 for whole fish, edible, and non-edible fish tissues, respectively, in high- dose samples (3.0 μg/L). BCF values less than 1000 do not trigger further evaluation of bioaccumulative compounds [64 Fed. Reg. 60194- 60204 (November 4, 1999)].

3.2.1.5. Environmental Degradates

The transformation products re sulting from the environmenta l degradation processes of

indaziflam are: triazine-i ndanone, indaziflam-carboxylic ac id, indaziflam-hydroxyethyl, indaziflam-olefin, FDAT, and fluor oethyltriazinanedione; all six of which were identified as major degradates ( Table 3.4 ). Peak detections of these compounds were identified at a maximum of 17.4% (90 DAT), 21.7% (30 DAT), 20.8% (study termination, 3 DAT), 53.9% (study termination, 3 DAT), 39% (study termination, 368 DAT), and 25.7% (30 DAT) of the applied, respectively. Major degradates that ar e structurally similar to the parent include triazine-indanone, indaziflam-carboxylic acid, in daziflam-hydroxyethyl, a nd indaziflam-olefin. Chemical structures, chemical names, and ot her pertinent information on these degradation products, as well as data on minor de gradation products are included in Appendix A

.

Indaziflam-hydroxyethyl and indaziflam-olefi n were included as residues of concern in the aquatic surface water exposure modeling. Available toxicity data on the degradates show

that indaziflam-olefin and indazifl am-hydroxyethyl are of equal toxici ty or are within an order of magnitude of toxicity lower than that of the parent indaziflam, based on the most sensitive taxa tested from available submitted studies, and were included as residues of concern for the exposure assessment. These two compounds are photolytic products that only formed in the aqueous photolysis study (MRID 47443208). Thes e photodegradates are an exposure concern where indaziflam quickly reaches shallow water bodies. For example, on golf courses where the proposed uses of indaziflam may be applied n ear water bodies and could be transported via runoff and spray drift (ponds and lakes occur th roughout the application s ites on golf courses).

Chemical structures for minor degradati on products were not reported in any study and the percent of formation is frequently below 1% , except in a few cases where percent of applied radiation reaches 2 to 4% (ROI2; MR ID 47443214; Reg #1; MRID 47443208). Further, unidentified products were observed at 1 to 4 % of the applied radia tion in aerobic aquatic

### -Page 34 of 292- 

## systems (MRID 47443217).

The main degradation pathway of indaziflam appears to be via oxidation of the indanyl moiety to form indaziflam-triazine indanone and indaziflam-carboxylic acid. Indaziflam,

triazine indanone and indaziflam- carboxylic acid are cleaved at the N bridge to form FDAT from the triazine moiety and unident ified minor compounds from the indanyl moiety. Residues are ultimately converted to bound residues and CO 2 

## . The maximum amounts of these degradation products observed in hydrolysis, aerobic aquatic metabolism, anaerobic aquatic metabolism, soil column leaching, and aqueous photolysis studies are summarized in Table 3.4 . Since indaziflam and, more importantly, its degradates are persiste nt in terrestrial and aq uatic environments, the degradates could contribute to the he rbicidal activity of indaziflam.

Table 3.4. Table of Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies

Common Name Chemical Name Study in Which Found (Maximum % of Parent, or equivalent) Reference

MRID

FDAT

(R)-6-(1-fluoroethyl)-[1,3,5]triazine2,4-diamine (fluoroethyldiaminotriazine, FDAT) Aerobic Soil Metabolism (39.1%) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism (4.6%) Soil Photolysis (7.4%) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (12.8%) Terrestrial Field Dissipation (17.6%) 47443211

47443216

47443209

47443217

47443223

Triazine Indanone N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-Dihydro-2,6- dimethyl-3-oxo-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine2,4-diamine (triazine indanone) Aerobic Soil Metabolism (15.8%) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism (10.2%) Soil Photolysis (7.2%) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (11.2%) Terrestrial Field Dissipation (9.1%) 47443213

47443216

47443209

47443217

47443223

Indaziflam - Carboxylic Acid (2S,3R)-3-({4-Amino-6-[(1R)-1- fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2- yl}amino)-2-methylindane-5- carboxylic acid (indaziflam-carboxylic acid) Aerobic Soil Metabolism (21.7%) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism (14.3%) Soil Photolysis (2.4%) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (20.7%) Terrestrial Field Dissipation (5.1%) 47443213

47443216

47443209

47443217

47443220

IndaziflamHydroxyethyl 1-{4-Amino-6-[(1R,2S)-2,6- dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-1- ylamino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}ethanol (indaziflam-hydroxyethyl) Aqueous Photolysis (20.8%) Terrestrial Field Dissipation (<LOQ 1 ) 47443208

47443223

Indaziflam-Olefin N-[(1R,2S)-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-vinyl1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine (indaziflam-olefin) Aqueous Photolysis (53.9%) 47443208

Fluoroethyltriazinanedione (ROI1) 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5- triazinane-2,4-dione (ROI1, fluoroethyl-triazinanedione) Aerobic Soil Metabolism (25.7%) 47443214

1 Detected between the LOD and the LOQ. Detections between the LOD and LOQ are confirmed detections, however are not quantifiabl e based on the method of detection. The method of detection may have been too insensitive to accurately characterize the leaching pote ntial of indaziflam and its degradates.

### -Page 35 of 292- 

## 3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2.1. Surface Water Exposure

The Tier II model Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2; May 12, 2005; Carousel

et al. , undated) linked with EXposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.4.6; Apr. 25, 2005; Burns, 2004) via the PRZM/EXAM S model shell (PE v5.0, Nov. 15, 2006), i.e.

, PRZM/EXAMS) was used to estimate baseline exposure concentrations in aquatic environments. 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 a ssuming a standard 1-ha pond, 2-m deep (20,000 m 3 

## )

with no outlet that borders a 10-ha treated field. Simulations are for multiple (usually 30) years, from which the Agency estimates peak values that are expected once every ten years based on the daily values estimated. The coupled PRZM /EXAMS model and users manuals are available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2009b).

Exposure estimates generated using this st andard pond are intended to represent a wide variety of vulnerable water bodies that occur at the top of waters heds including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man-made a nd 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. Stat ic water bodies that have larg er 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 sm aller in size or have large drainage areas. Smaller water bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow a nd carry pesticide in the discharge, whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a non-major single crop that is all treated simultaneously with the pes ticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations higher than the standard pond, but they likely pers ist for only short periods of time and are then carried and dissipated downstream.

The general chemical and environmenta l fate data for indaziflam listed in Table 3.2-3.3 were used for generating model input para meters for PRZM and EXAMS (listed in Table 3.5 ). Chemical specific and model input values were chosen in accordance with current divisional guidance (USEPA, 2009c). These inputs represent the residues of concern (indaziflam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl) present in the aqueous photolysis study and were determined to be of equal toxicity to the parent (MRID 47443265; MRID 47443264; MRID 47443255; MRID 47443254); therefore aqueous photolysis half-life was reca lculated using the total toxic residue approach. This modeling strategy requires an as sumption that all residu es of concern have similar physical, chemical, and pa rtitioning characteristics. The formation of persistent, toxic degradation products is expected to extend the residual effects of the parent. Therefore, methodology outlined in the “White Paper on Methods for Assessing Ecological Risks of Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Characteristics” presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisor Panel, in October, 2008, was followed to calculate total toxic residues of concern (parent plus indazifl am-hydroxyethyl, and indaziflam-o lefin) (USEPA, 2008b). This

### -Page 36 of 292- 

## modeling approach does not consid er temporal occurrence of de gradation products. These two degradates were only formed in an aqueous photolysis study, therefore only impacted the aqueous photolysis half-life, for the purposes of aquatic modeling.

The degradation studies we re characterized by large amounts of un-extracted and uncharacterized residues, thus there is consider able uncertainty regarding the degradation of indaziflam in soil and aquatic systems. Usi ng the methodology outlined in the White Paper on Methods for Assessing Ecological Risks of Pes ticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Characteristics,” model estimates were ca lculated using two sets of aerobic metabolism

half-lives for indaziflam to address this uncertain ty: 1) parent-only + residues of concern, and 2) parent + residues of concern + un-extracted residues (USEPA, 2008b). The model simulation results are bounded by the conservative upper-bound estimates using the parent + residues of

concern + un-extracted residue ha lf-lives, and the lower-bound pare nt-only + residues of concern

half-lives.

Table 3.5. PRZM and EXAMS Surface Water Chem ical Input Parameters for Indaziflam

+ Residues of Concern.

Input Parameter Value Comment Source



### Molecular Mass (g/mol) 301.36 Product Chemistry 47443202

Isomer A 5.1e-10 torr (6.8e-8 Pa) Vapor Pressure at 25°C (torr)

Isomer B 8.25e-11 torr (1.1e-8 Pa) Product Chemistry 47443202

Solubility in Water at 25 o 

### C, pH7 (mg/L) 1.2 Product Chemistry 47443202

Freundlich adsorption partition coefficient (K f 

### ) 9.1 Mean K f 

### (USEPA, 2009c) 47443203

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) (parent & unextracted residues) 89 (275.3) Represents upper 90 th 

### percentile

on the mean aerobic soil metabolism half-life (USEPA, 2009c) 47443210

47443211

47443212

47443213

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) (parent & unextracted residues) 101.6 (230.4) Represents upper 90 th 

### percentile

on the mean aerobic soil metabolism half-life (USEPA, 2009c). 47443217

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days) STABLE (0) No evidence of degradation 47443218

Hydrolysis Half-lives (days) STABLE (0) No evidence of degradation 47443207

Aqueous Photolysis

Half-life (TTR half-life) 85.5 days 1 

### Corrected TTR environmental

half-life based on combined labels

and continuous radiation. 47443208

1 Aqueous photolysis half-life was recalcula ted using the total toxic residue approach.

### -Page 37 of 292- 

## The model input parameters used in PRZM to simulate indaziflam application and management practices are provided in Table 3.6 . The initial application date was selected in order to reflect labeled crop/comm odity timing for applications, consistent with the crop timing set by the model scenarios and with crop-profile information provided by the United States Department of Agriculture. App lication rates were selected in accordance with the proposed labels to generate the most conservative estimates of aquatic exposure, which does not necessarily constitute selecting the maximum single application rate (e.g., stone fruit, grape, and turf uses). For these three uses, conservative es timates were generated using two applications at a lower rate (0.067 lbs a.i./A). Ot her agricultural uses (c itrus, pome fruit, tree nuts, olives) were modeled using the single maximu m application rate (0.085 lbs a.i. /A) with a second application at a reduced rate (0.05 lbs a.i./A ). Both simulations result in an annual maximum application rate of 0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr.

Table 3.6 PRZM/EXAMS Model Input Parameters for Indaziflam

Use Scenario Application

Rate lbs a.i./A

(kg a.i./ha)

1 st app, 2 nd app Applications per Year Application

Interval (days) Date of

Initial Application Application

Method (CAM)

Citrus FLcitrusSTD.txt 0.085, 0.05 (0.095, 0.056) 2 90 May 20 Ground Spray (2) Tree fruit (pome fruit) 1 NCappleSTD.txt 0.085, 0.05 (0.095, 0.056) 2 30 July 22 Ground Spray (2)

Stone fruit ORberriesOP.txt 0.067, 0.067 (0.075, 0.075) 2 265 March 1 2 Ground Spray (2)

Tree nuts GApecansSTD.txt 0.085, 0.05 (0.095, 0.056) 2 90 June 14 Ground Spray (2)

Grapes NYgrapesSTD.txt 0.067, 0.067 (0.075, 0.075) 2 30 August 15 Ground Spray (2)

Olives CAolivesRLF.txt 0.085, 0.05 (0.095, 0.056) 2 30 Feb 02 Ground Spray (2)

Turf (golf courses, athletic fields, and sod farms) FLturfSTD.txt 0.050, 0.050 (0.056, 0.056) 2 90 Aug 20 3 Ground Spreader (broadcast) (2)

Home lawns CAresidentiaRLF.txt CAimperviousRLF.txt 0.047 (0.053) 2 14 Jan 15 Ground Spray (2)

Ornamentals CAresidentiaRLF.txt CAimperviousRLF.txt 0.094 (0.105) 1 NA Jan 15 Ground Spray (2)

Hardscapes FLimpervious.txt 4 0.094 (0.105) 1 NA May 26 Ground Spray (2)

Forested areas (conifer and hardwood areas) NCapplesSTD.txt 5 0.125 (0.140) 1 3 months July 22 Aerial Spray (2)

NA = not applicable

1 Pome fruit are defined as apples, pears, quinces, and Asian pears.

2 Initial application was selected as March 1, with a second application 265 days later, as permitted on the proposed label (a l ate fall and an early spring application within a 12 month period.

3 Label permits two applications per year (a summer application followed by winter, or winter followed by spring, or fall follow ed by spring, or spring followed by fall). The label only permits a maximum of 473 lbs of product/A per 12 months (0.1 lb a.i./A/yr). Initial ap plication rate was chosen to coincide with peak rainfall (based on a 30-year average of rainfall events), while following label application instru ctions.

4 Florida impervious scenario is currently a provisional scenario.

5 NC apples scenario was selected as the most vulnerable scenario to represent forestry uses as crop profile for apple orchard i s similar to a profile for a commercial forest.



## The modeling for the residential uses (home lawns and ornamentals) of indaziflam uses two scenarios in tandem requiri ng post-processing of the modeled output in order to derive a

### -Page 38 of 292- 

## weighted EEC that represents the contribution of both the pervious and the impervious surfaces

that exist in a residential setti ng. The residential scenario assu mes that less than 100% of the watershed of an urban/suburban system will be treated (assuming a typical lot equals approximately 1⁄4 of an acre). In addition, this methodology assumes that there is small amount of overspray to the impervious surfaces on the lot (e.g., sidewa lk, driveway) which result from normal applications. In general, incorporati on of impervious surfaces into the exposure assessment results in increasing runoff volume in the watershed, which tends to reduce overall pesticide exposure. This is a conservative appr oach and assumes that every lawn is treated simultaneously. Additional detail regarding this modeling approach is provided in Appendix F

.

For the hardscape use, a provisional scenar io (FLimpervious.txt) was used to represent high exposure sites resulting from applications directly to impervious surfaces (e.g., patio, sidewalk and driveway cracks, on paths and grav el areas, along fence lines, and other hardscape areas). The Florida impervious scenario was modified from an exis ting California impervious scenario (CAimperviousRLF.txt) developed for endangered species assessments in California. The provisional scenario represents a conservativ e high-end exposure resulting from applications of indaziflam to hardscapes in West Palm B each, FL. West Palm Beach, FL was specifically chosen to represent conservative exposure es timates because the precipitation is on average greater in this region of the country compared to other areas (e.g., Fresno, California). The

scenario uses weather data from West Palm Beach, FL (W12844). The provisional Florida impervious scenario (FLimpervious.txt) is included in Appendix G

.

In order to conservatively estimate aquatic exposure resulting fr om applications of indaziflam to hardscapes, a number of assumpti ons were made. Fundamentally, less than 100% of the watershed of an urban/suburban system w ill be impervious (assuming a typical lot equals approximately 1⁄4 of an acre, 50% of which is pe rvious surfaces, and 50% impervious); therefore

less than 100% of the 10 ha simulated watershed will be treated with indaziflam. The assumption concerning a 1⁄4 acre re sidential lot size, with a 750 square foot driveway, a 250 square foot sidewalk, and a 300 square foot d eck was adopted from the 8/3/06 Chesapeake Bay Endangered Species Assessment, which was furthe r refined in the 10/19 /07 Pesticide Effects Determination for the Risks of Carbaryl Use to the Federally-Listed California Red Legged Frog. It was also assumed that the 300 square foot deck could be a 300 square foot patio, resulting in

12% of the 1⁄4 acre lot covered with impervious surfaces. There are approximately 58 1⁄4 acre lots in a 10 ha watershed; therefore there is appr oximately 7% of the 10 ha watershed would be impervious surface that could potentially receiv e treatment of indaziflam ([1/4 acre lot (10,890

ft 2 

## ) x 12% impervious surface x 58 lots / 1,076,391ft 2 

## x 100 = 7.0%). Additional detail for the calculation of impervious surfaces, lot size, and number of lots in the simulated watershed is

included in Appendix F

.

The conceptual model for applications to hardscapes has two conservative assumptions. First, it assumes that indaziflam could be applie d to all of the 12% impervious surfaces on a 1⁄4 acre lot. Second, it assumes th at all hardscapes are treated simultaneously. We varied the percentages of impervious surfaces that received treatment in the 1⁄4 acre lot to simulate differences in potential use practices; those percentages were 25% 50% and 100% of the total impervious surface in the 1⁄4 acre lot (12%). The following algorithm was used to calculate the aquatic EECs for hardscape applications:

### -Page 39 of 292- 

## Hardscape EEC = [(impervious EECs) x (% impervious surface treated) x (12% lot assumed impervious)]



## Further, in order to simulate adsorp tion during transport across hardscapes, the Freundlich adsorption coefficient (K f 

## ) was set to zero (0), as there is nothing for the chemical to bind to on an impervious surface (e.g., pavement or concrete). Using an adsorption coefficient greater than zero in the modeli ng results in some amount of adsorption, thus underestimating the

concentration of indaziflam in runoff. These estimates are conservative; however, it is also important to note that this approach may over es timate surface water concentrations as there is some amount of binding that would otherwise occur, and aerobic aquatic metabolism data indicate that the compound is detected in sediment in aqueous environments.

Additional detail and rationale for the selec tion and use of each scen ario environment is

also included in Appendix G

.

The modeled aquatic EECs resulting from th e proposed indaziflam use areas (listed in

Table 3.7a and 3.7b ) were used for risk estimation in this baseline assessment. The model input and output filenames supporting these values are listed in Appendix H

.

Table 3.7a. Modeled aquatic 1-in-10-year Surface Water EECs for Proposed Uses of Indaziflam + Residues of Concern (maximum values in bold) 1



### Uses Scenario Max. App. rate (lbs a.i./A/yr) Peak (ppb) 21-day (ppb) 60-day (ppb)

Citrus FL Citrus 0.134 2.46 - 3.76 2.24 - 3.66 1.94 - 3.46

Pome Fruit 2 

### NC Apples 0.134 2.61 – 3.86 2.44 – 3.74 2.31 – 3.60

Stone Fruit OR Berries 0.134 1.01 – 1.75 0.99 – 1.73 0.95 – 1.70

Tree Nuts GA Pecans 0.134 2.31 – 3.43 2.15 – 3.34 1.85 – 3.11

Grapes NY Grapes 0.134 2.15 – 4.00 2.13 – 3.98 2.09 – 3.95

Olives CA Olives 0.134 0.72 – 1.02 0.69 – 1.0 0.65 – 0.94

Turf FL Turf 0.100 0.35 - 0.47 0.33 - 0.45 0.28 - 0.39

Home Lawns 3 

### CA Residential CA Impervious 0.094 2.66 - 5.92 2.58 - 5.89 2.52 - 5.70

Ornamentals 3,4 

### CA Residential CA Impervious 0.094 2.64 – 6.19 2.58 – 6.10 2.53 – 6.05

Forested Areas NC Apples 0.125 2.66 – 4.03 2.51 – 3.98 2.30 – 3.90

1 Range in model estimates represent the upper and lower bound model results. Lower bound estimates were completed using the par ent + residues of concern, and the upper bound we re completed using parent + residues of concern + unextracted residues.

2 Pome fruit include: apples, pears, quinces, and Asian pears.

3 Assumes 50% of the watershed is pervious, 50% is impervious. A ssumes 50% of an average 1⁄4 acre ho me lot is treated with indazif lam.

4 Assumes a conservative estimate of the percent of the lot treated. A lower area treated estimates do not produce significantl y lower EECs, therefore the exposure estimates from ornamental use represent an upper bound on the 1-in-10 year estimates.

### -Page 40 of 292- 

## Table 3.7b. Modeled aquatic 1-in-10-year Surface Water EECs for Proposed Indaziflam + Residues of Concern Use on Hardscapes. 1,2



### Uses Scenario Max. App. rate (lbs a.i./A/yr) Peak (ppb) 21-day (ppb) 60-day (ppb)

Hardscapes (100%) FL Impervious 0.094 2.78 – 3.22 2.60 – 3.13 2.24 – 2.94

Hardscapes (50%) FL Impervious 0.094 1.39 – 1.61 1.30 – 1.57 1.12 – 1.47

Hardscapes (25%) FL Impervious 0.094 0.70 – 0.80 0.65 – 0.78 0.56 – 0.74

1 Actual use patterns may differ from modele d approach. Use may be selective spot treat ment (e.g., spraying cracks and crevices in driveways).

These estimates are considered reasonably conservative.

2 Range in model estimates represent the upper and lower bound model results. Lower bound estimates were completed using the par ent + residues of concern, and the upper bound we re completed using parent + residues of concern + unextracted residues.



## The ecological pond modeled with EXAMS is a static water body of fixed volume with no outlet. Since indaziflam is persistent in aquatic environments and since the ecological pond has no outlet, the modeling indicates indazifl am accumulates in the pond throughout the 30-year simulations. Exposure endpoints, in this assessment, are based on yearly peak concentrations. In the case of persistent compounds , a 1-in-10 year EEC does not reflect varying meteorological conditions that are expected once every 10 years, since the yearly peaks are not independent but are actually correlated to the previous year’s peak concentration.

3.2.2.2. Sediment Pore Water Exposure

Environmental fate data show that indaziflam dissipates quickly from the water column and was detected in sediment; therefore sedi ment exposure may be a concern for sediment dwelling organisms. Benthic sediment pore water EECs were calculated for the proposed maximum use patterns for indaziflam. Th e model simulation results are bounded by the conservative upper-bound estimates using half-lives for parent + residues of concern + unextracted residues, and the lower-bound pare nt-only + residues of concern half-lives. Pore water EECs are provided in Table 3.8.

Table 3.8. Model Benthic 1-in-10 year Benthic Pore Water EECs for Proposed

Maximum Use Patterns for Indaziflam

Uses Scenario Max. App. rate (lbs a.i./A/yr) Peak (ppb) 21-day (ppb) 60-day (ppb)

Pome Fruit 1 

### NC Apples 0.134 2.00 - 3.46 2.00 - 3.46 1.98 - 3.42

Turf FL Turf 0.100 0.22 - 0.35 0.21 - 0.35 0.21 - 0.35

Forested Areas NC Apples 0.125 2.06 - 3.70 2.06 - 3.69 2.04 - 3.67

1 Pome fruit include: apples, pears, quinces, and Asian pears.



## 3.2.2.3. Ground Water Exposure

The Tier I model Screening Concentrati on in Ground Water (S CI-GROW v2.3, Jul. 29, 2003; USEPA, 2002b) was run to estimate baselin e exposure of aquatic environments toindaziflam in base flow originating from ground water. SCI-GROW is an empirical regressionbased model that was developed by fitting a line ar model to ground water concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent variable. Ground water concentrations were based on 90-day mean high concentrations from Pr ospective Ground Water

### -Page 41 of 292- 

## studies. The RILP is a function of aerobic so il metabolism and the soil-water partition coefficient. The output of SCI-GROW represents the concentration of pesticide residue that might be expected in vulnerable shallow unconfined aquifers. Disc harge from such aquifers into nearby surficial water bodies could impact aquatic wildlife and plants. This single 90-day mean value is used to approximate both acute a nd chronic exposure. The SCI-GROW model and

user’s manual is available from the EP A Water Models web-page (USEPA, 2002b).

Input parameters for the SCI-GROW model appear in Table 3.9 . These inputs were

determined in accordance with current divisiona l guidance (USEPA, 2002b). The median of five reported organic carbon partition coe fficients and the median of twel ve half-lives (50 d) from six

aerobic soils were selected. Unextracted residues were significant in all aerobic soil metabolism studies; therefore, additional m odel simulations were completed using the median aerobic soil

metabolism half-life in cluding un-extracted residues (96 days).

Table 3.9. SCI-GROW Input Parameters for Indaziflam (Source data are in Tables 3.1-3.2)

Input Parameter Value Comments Source

Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) See table 3.10 for application

information Maximum proposed single application

rate. Proposed label.

Applications per Year See table 3.10 for application

information Maximum proposed number of applications per year at the maximum proposed single application rate. Proposed label.

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K OC 

### ) (L/kg OC 

### ) 450 Represents the median of five reported

K foc



### . MRID

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days) (including un-extracted residues) 50 (96) Represents the median half-life of

twelve values from six soils. MRID



## Three annual application rates were evaluate d: an agricultural app lication rate (0.134 lbs a.i./A/yr), a turf rate (0.1 lbs a.i./A/yr), and the highest non-ag rate (0.125 lbs a.i./A/yr for forestry). The modeled ground water EECs resul ting from the three representative indaziflam

uses are listed in Table 3.10 . The contribution of baseflow to ove rall flow in waters is variable. In some areas of the country and for certain periods of the year, baseflow can account for the total flow of some surface water systems. Ho wever, the exposure values represent potential exposure in shallow unconfined aqui fers located directly under appl ication sites; concentrations may be reduced prior to discha rge by adsorption and degrada tion during transport through the subsurface. The model input/output filename and data supporting this value are reproduced in Appendix H

.

### -Page 42 of 292- 

## Table 3.10. Estimated Environmental Concentr ations of Indaziflam in Ground Water

Use (modeled annual rate) Acute (ppb) Chronic (ppb)

Agricultural (Citrus, Stone Fruit, Pome Fruit, Grapes, Tree Nuts, Pistachios, Olives) (0.134 lbs a.i./A) 0.02 – 0.03 <0.03

Turf (0.100 lbs a.i./A) 0.01 – 0.02 <0.02

Forested Areas (0.125 lbs a.i./A) 0.02 – 0.03 <0.03

1 EECs are bounded using two sets of modele d environmental half-lives, parent-onl y and parent + un-extracted residues.



## 3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

The terrestrial exposure assessment of propos ed uses of indaziflam is based on the exposure and effects of the parent compound i ndaziflam only. However, as previously

mentioned in Section 3.2.1.5 , the major transformation produc ts of indaziflam, triazineindanone, indaziflam-carboxylic acid, indazifl am-hydroxyethyl, and indaziflam-olefin, have

been identified as residues of concern based on st ructural similarity to the parent. FDAT has

also been identified as a residue of concern. All five of these de gradates have been identified as drinking water residues of concern for humans (U SEPA, 2009d). Based on this finding, these residues could potentially be of concern for mamm als and birds, in addition to plants based on stuctural similarity. However, in a screening level assessment, fate and effects data sufficient to evaluate risk to terrestrial wildlife from exposure to degradates is generally not available, as is the case for this screening level assessment. Fu rther discussion of the uncertainties with this approach are discussed in the Risk Description, Section 4.2.

The application methods for the proposed i ndaziflam agricultural and non-agricultural uses include foliar spray (ground and aerial) a nd granular applications. Both of these applications methods are considered in the terrestrial exposure assessment.

3.2.3.1. Terrestrial Wildlife

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals, emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of the pesticide active ingredient. Birds are also considered surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphi bians as well as reptiles. For exposure to terrestrial organisms from spray applications, such as birds and mammals, estimation of pesticide residues in wildlife food items assumes organisms ar e exposed to a single pesticide residue in a given exposure scenario and focuses on the possi ble dietary ingestion of residues on vegetative matter and insects. For granular applications, es timation of loadings of indaziflam per unit area are calculated. This approach, which intends to represent exposures via multiple routes and not just direct ingestion, considers obse rved acute effects (acute oral LD 50 

## ) in terrestrial toxicology studies and relates them to the to surface area where the pesticide is applied (LD 50 

## /ft 2 

## ).

The T-REX model (v1.4.1; USEPA, 2008c) is us ed to calculate dose- and dietary-based EECs of indaziflam residues on food items via spray applications for mammals and birds, as well as estimated loadings of indaziflam per unit area via granular applicatio ns; a 1-year time period is simulated. Input values for deriving EECs in T-REX are listed in Table 3.11 . Given the

### -Page 43 of 292- 

## toxicity data available for indaziflam, only chroni c effects to birds and mammals will be assessed with the deterministic RQ method and presented in the risk estimation section; all acute effects will be assessed qualitatively in the risk de scription. EECs are thus derived in T-REX for indaziflam exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds from upper-bound Kenaga nomogram

values. Tables 3.12 and Table 3.13 summarize the chronic dose-based (mammals) and chronic dietary-based (birds) EECs used in this asse ssment to calculate RQs based on the maximum single application rates by application method for crop a nd non-crop uses. For liquid applications, consideration is given to differe nt types of feeding strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and grani vores. For dose-based exposures, three weight classes of mammals (15, 35, and 1000 g) are cons idered. Weight classes of birds are not considered for dietary-based exposures. As me ntioned above, EECs estimated from granular applications intend to represent exposures via multiple routes and not just direct ingestion (although not quantified, these routes could includ e dermal exposures, incidental soil ingestion, drinking water exposure, or inhala tion of residues from suspension of soil particles/dust). EECs for granular uses are presented as milligrams of active ingredient per s quare foot (mg a.i./ft 2 

## ), and the label rate of application for the active ingredient is the basis for the exposure term. For the one modeled granular use of indaziflam, it is assumed that 100% of the granules will be available to terrestrial organism s from a broadcast treatment.

Uncertainties in the terrestrial EECs for application of the liquid formulations are primarily associated with a lack of data on inte rception and subsequent di ssipation of indaziflam from foliar surfaces. Residue decline data was unavailable from the open literature and unavailable from magnitude of residue st udies (OPPTS 860.1500) conducted on pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, citrus, grapes, and olives 1 

## . A conservative default foliar dissipation halflife of 35 days is used based on the work of Willis and McDowell (1987). An example output from the T-REX model is provided in Appendix I

.

Indaziflam exposures to terre strial invertebrates are not quantitatively calculated for derivation of deterministic RQs. However, risk to this taxon is assessed qualitatively in the Risk Estimation, Section 4.1 , and then characterized furt her in the Risk Description, Section 4.2.

1 

### Available magnitude of residue studies with MRID numbers: pome fruit (MRID 47743402), stone fruit (MRID 47743403), tree nuts (MRID 47743404), citrus (MRID 47743405), grapes (MRID 47743406), olives (MRID 47743407)

### -Page 44 of 292- 

## Table 3.11. T-REX Input Parameters for De riving Terrestrial EECs for Indaziflam Proposed Uses
Use (Application Method) Maximum Single Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) Maximum Annual Number of Applications (Minimum Inter val Between Applications)

Food 1 

### (Ground Spray) 0.085 2 ‡


### (30 days) Home lawns (Ground Spray) 0.047 2 (14 days) Ornamentals & Hardscapes (Ground Spray) 0.094 1

Roadsides/rights-of-way 2 

### & Site Preparation 3 

### (Ground Spray) 0.089 1

Forested Areas (Aerial and Ground Spray) 0.125 1

0.080 (granule) 2 ‡ 

### (90 days) Turf 4 

### (Ground Granule and Ground Spray) 0.017 (spray) 2 ‡


### (90 days)

‡ The label permits a single application at the maximum application rate and a second application at a reduced rate (e.g., applic ations of indaziflam for food uses: 0.085 lbs a.i./A is the maximum application rate with a permitted second applicati on at a maximum rate of 0.05 l bs a.i./A, equaling an annual maximum rate of 0.134 lbs a.i./A). For athletic turf uses a single maximum application rate of 0.08 lbs a.i./A is pe rmitted for granule uses with a second application of 0.02 lbs a.i./A; a single maxi mum application rate of 0.017 lbs a.i./A is permitted for srpay uses with a second application of 0.004 lbs a.i./A.

1 Food Uses: Citrus, Pome Fruit, Stone Fruit, Tree Nuts, Vine Crops

2 Non-Crop Areas: Railroad and Rail Yards, Managed Roadsides, Fence Rows, Utilitie s, Other Industrial, M unicipal, and Government Sites

3 Site Preparation: Areas under Aspalt and Concrete

4 Turf: Golf Courses, Sport Fields, Sod farms

### -Page 45 of 292- 

## Table 3.12. Terrestrial Food-Item Residue Es timates for Mammals for Indaziflam Proposed Uses

Herbivore/Insectivore Dose-Based EECs (mg/kg-bw)

Use Size Class (grams) Short Grass Tall

Grass Broadleaf

Plants/Small

Insects Fruits/Pods/ Seeds/Large

Insects Granivore

Dose-Based

EECs (mg/kg-bw)

15 30.1 13.8 16.9 1.89 0.42

35 20.8 9.56 11.7 1.30 0.29 Food

1000 4.84 2.22 2.72 0.30 0.07

15 18.9 8.66 10.6 1.18 0.26

35 13.1 5.99 7.35 0.82 0.18 Home Lawns

1000 3.03 1.39 1.70 0.19 0.04

15 21.5 9.86 12.1 1.34 0.30

35 14.8 6.81 8.36 0.93 0.21 Ornamentals &

Hardscapes 1000 3.45 1.58 1.94 0.22 0.05

15 20.3 9.33 11.4 1.27 0.28

35 14.0 6.45 7.92 0.88 0.20 

### Roadsides/righ

ts-of-way &

Site Preparation 1000 3.26 1.50 1.84 0.20 0.05

15 28.6 13.1 16.1 1.79 0.40

35 19.7 9.06 11.1 1.24 0.27 Forested Areas

1000 4.58 2.10 2.58 0.29 0.06

15 4.54 2.08 2.56 0.28 0.06

35 3.14 1.44 1.77 0.20 0.04 Turf (Ground Spray) 1000 0.73 0.33 0.41 0.05 0.01

Turf (Granule) None Specified Granular Broadcast Appli cation = 0.83 mg a.i./ft 2



## Table 3.13. Terrestrial Food-Item Residue Estima tes for Birds for Indaziflam Proposed

Uses
Dietary-based EECs (mg/kg-diet)

Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/sm

insects Fruits/pods/ seeds/lg insects

Food 31.7 14.5 17.8 1.98

Home Lawns 19.8 9.09 11.2 1.24 Ornamentals & Hardscapes 22.6 10.3 12.7 1.41 Roadsides/rights-of-way & Site Preparation 21.4 9.79 12.0 1.34

Forested Areas 30.0 13.8 16.9 1.88 Turf (Ground Spray) 4.77 2.18 2.68 0.30

Turf (Granule) Granular Broadcast Application = 0.83 mg a.i./ft 2



## 2.3.2. Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

Exposure of naturally-occurri ng terrestrial and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is typically estimated using OPP’s TerrPlant ( v1.2.2; USEPA, 2006b) model and is assumed to encompass areas outside the immediate use site. The TerrPlant model is used to derive EECs in

### -Page 46 of 292- 

## runoff and drift for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants near areas where indaziflam has been applied. Runoff exposure is assessed in two scenar ios: sheet and channel runoff. In the sheet runoff scenario, the treated area generating runoff is assumed to drain into an area with equal size containing seedlings, resulting in 1, 2, or 5% of the amount a pplied being deposited. In the channel runoff scenario, a ten-to-one ratio of tr eatment area to receiving area results in 10, 20, or 50% of the amount applied being deposited on soil with emerging or emerged seedlings. Spray drift is also a source of pesticid e loading to non-target areas. Th e default spray drift assumptions are 1% for ground spray applications and 5% fo r aerial spray and chemigation applications.

TerrPlant estimates EECs based on application rate, application me thod, chemical solubility in water, type of runoff, and defau lt assumptions of drift. The EECs for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants for a single application of indaziflam at the maximum labe l rate for proposed agricultural and non-agricultural uses are presented in Table 3.13 . An example output from the TerrPlant model is provided in Appendix J.

In order to determine terrestr ial areas of concern due to e xposures through spray drift, it is necessary to estimate the distance that spray applications can drift fr om the treated area and still be present at concentrations that may result in an effect. An analysis of spray drift distances will be completed in the risk description secti on of this assessment using AgDRIFT (v. 2.01). The analysis does not assess potential exposure th rough runoff or other exposure pathways.

Table 3.13 EECs* for Terrestrial and Semi-Aqua tic Plants Near Indaziflam Use Areas.

EECs (lbs a.i./A)

Use and Application Single Max. Application

Rate (lbs a.i./A) Total Loading to Semi-Aquatic

Areas Spray Drift Dry Areas (Total)

Food Ground 0.085 0.00935 0.00085 0.0017

Ground 0.017 0.00187 0.00017 0.00034 Turf
Granule 0.080 0.008 N/A 0.0008

Home Lawns Ground 0.047 0.00517 0.00047 0.00094

Ornamentals/ Hardscapes Ground 0.094 0.01034 0.00094 0.00188

Roadsides/righ ts-of-way/ Site

Preparation Ground 0.089 0.00979 0.00089 0.00178

Ground 0.125 0.01375 0.00125 0.0025 Forested Areas
Aerial 0.125 0.01875 0.00625 0.0075

*based on solubility of 1.2 – 4.4 mg/L



## 3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

In baseline ecological risk assessments, e ffects characterization describes the types of effects a pesticide can have on aquatic and terrest rial organisms. To da te, toxicity tests for amphibian or reptiles are not requ ired; birds are used as surrogates for reptiles and terrestrial-

### -Page 47 of 292- 

## phase amphibians and freshwater fish are used as surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. This characterization is based on the registrant-submitte d toxicity data for on birds, mammals, fish, invertebrates, and plants for i ndaziflam (also referred to as technical grade indaziflam, or indaziflam technical grade active ingredient (TGA I)); three of its formulated products including BCS-AA10717 20WSP (20% indaziflam), Indaziflam 500 SC (45.05% indaziflam), and Indaziflam 200 SC (19.05% indaziflam); and the following degradates: tri azine indanone, FDAT, indaziflam-carboxylic acid, indazi flam-hydroxyethyl, and indaziflam -olefin. Toxicity tests for amphibian or reptiles are not requ ired; birds are used as surrogates for reptiles and terrestrialphase amphibians and freshwater fish are used as surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. No data were available in the public literature for indaziflam effects characterization (see below). Appendix C provides detailed results of all regist rant-submitted toxicity studies used to

characterize effects for this ri sk assessment. A quick reference to these studies regarding acceptibility classifications and associ ated deficiencies can be found in Appendix B

.

In addition to the data submitted in suppor t of registration, the ECOTOX (ECOTOXicity) database (USEPA, 2009a) was searched for additiona l toxicity data from the open literature. The ECOTOX database is a user-friendly, publicly-available, quality-assured, comprehensive tool for locating toxicity data from th e open literature and is mainta ined by EPA Mid-Atlantic Ecology

Division. More information on ECOTOX can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ecotox. Research papers are thoroughly screened using sta ndard procedures before being accepted into ECOTOX thereby ensuring consistent, high qualit y information. For indaziflam and its degradates, no studies were identified in ECOTOX as of November 18, 2009.

Given that indaziflam is a new active ingredient with no previous regist ration in the U.S. or any other country, a query of the Agency’s O ffice of Pesticide Programs Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) was not completed

, and it is assumed that no ecological incidents

exist for indaziflam.

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

The m ost sensitive acute and chronic effects meas urement endpoints associated with indaziflam exposure to freshwater and estuarine/ marine species are summarized in Table 3.14 The majority of available toxicity data show the degradates and formulations to be either of similar toxicity or to be much less toxic than t echnical grade indaziflam for aquatic species. For aquatic nonvascular plants, toxici ty data indicate that the toxicity of indaziflam and its degradates are of a similar order of magnitude . For vascular aquatic plants, a study on the formulated product demonstrated to xicities slightly lower than for indaziflam alone. As such, all measurement endpoints for aquatic organisms ar e based on studies of the TGAI except for aquatic vascular plants. All acceptable and supplemental studies submitted for the registration of

indaziflam are described in th e text and again summarized in Appendix C.

Results of acute toxicity studies in freshwa ter and estuarine/marine fish indicate that indaziflam is highly toxic to fish on an acute ex posure basis. Dose-dep endent sublethal effects observed in fish studies included surfacing, leth argy, erratic swimming, loss of equilibrium, loss

### -Page 48 of 292- 

## of vertical orientation, labored respiration, and lying on the bottom. Acute toxicity studies on the

freshwater invertebrate D. magna indicate that indaziflam is s lightly to moderately toxic to

freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Quiescie nce, appearing to be dosedependent, was observed in a test with the TGAI as a sublethal effect in daphnids. Acute toxicity to marine invertebrates is categrized as moderately to highly toxic on an acute exposure

basis. Sublethal effects from one of the estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity studies included surfacing, lethargy, and erratic sw imming, and appeared dose-dependent. Due to indaziflam’s solubility, 1,200 – 4,400 μg/L (MRID 47443202), effect s to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates may be limited.

Chronic toxicity studies are only available for freshwater fi sh and invertebrates using the species P. promelas and D. magna , repectively. The chronic fres hwater fish toxicity endpoint used in this assessment was based on fry surviv al, total length, and dry weight, with sublethal effects immediately preceeding mort ality at the highest concentrati ons tesed. Of the parameters

assessed in the one submitted i nvertebrate life cycle study, indaziflam inhibited the parameters measuring both parental (F 0 

## ) growth and reproduction. Effects to offspring (F 1 

## ) were not

evaluated.

Results of toxicity studie s of the TGAI to freshwater and marine nonvascular and vascular plants indicate that inda ziflam is toxic to a quatic plants. This de termination is based on the magnitude of EC 50 

## values in the parts per billion (μg/L) and parts per trillion (ng/L) range.

### -Page 49 of 292- 

## Table 3.14. Most Toxic Acute and Chronic T oxicity Data for Aquatic Organisms and Plants Exposed to Indaziflam Technical
Exposure

Scenario Species Affected Endpoint Toxicity Measurement Reference (Classification) Study Test

Substance

Freshwater Fish Acute Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis

macrochirus ) Mortality 96-hr LC 50 

### = 320 μg total a.i./L 1


### 95 % C.I.: 210-750 μg total a.i./L 1


### Slope: N/A MRID 47443233 (Supplemental)

Chronic Fathead Minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) Reproduction

& Growth 2 

### 35-day NOAEC = 464 μg total a.i./L 1


### 35-day NOAEC = 1020 μg total

a.i./L 1 

### MRID 47443236 (Supplemental)



### Freshwater Invertebrates

Acute Water flea ( Daphnia spp.) Immobility 48 hr EC 50 

### >9,880 μg total a.i./L 1



### 95 % C.I.: N/A Slope: N/A MRID 47443226 (Supplemental)

Subacute Midge ( Chironomus

tentans ) Mortality Pore WaterExposure 10 day LC 50 

### > 2,200 μg a.i./L MRID 47443238 (Supplemental)

Chronic Water flea ( Daphnia spp.) Reproduction

& Growth 21-day NOAEC = 340 μg total a.i./L 1


### 21-day LOAEC = 800 μg total a.i./L 1 

### MRID 47443235 (Supplemental)



### Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute Sheepshead

minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) Mortality 96-hr LC 50 

### = 960 μg total a.i./L 1


### 95 % C.I.: 430-1,560 μg total a.i./L 1


### Slope: N/A MRID 47443232 (Supplemental)

Chronic No studies available



### Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Acute Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) Shell Deposition 96-hr EC 50 

### = 920 μg total a.i./L 1


### 95 % C.I.: 750-1,100 μg total a.i./L 1


### Slope: 4.04 ± 0.737 MRID 47443228 (Supplemental)

Subacute Amphipod ( Leptocheirus plumulosus ) Mortality Pore WaterExposure 10-day LC 50 

### > 3,800 μg a.i./kg dw MRID 47443239 (Supplemental)

Chronic No studies available 

### Aquatic Plants 7-day

exposure Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) Frond

number 7-day EC 50 

### = 0.061 μg a.i./L* 95 % C.I.: 0.055-0.068 μg a.i./L Slope: 7.92 ± 0.931 NOAEC = 0.0194 μg a.i./L MRID 47743308 (Supplemental)

96-hour

exposure Marine Diatom ( Skeletonema

costatum ) Biomass 96-hr EC 50 

### = 27 μg a.i./L 95 % C.I.: 22-33 μg a.i./L Slope: 2.62 ± 0.232 NOAEC = 5.1 μg a.i./L MRID 47443267 (Acceptable)

*formulated product BSC-AA10717 SC 500 g/L 44.4% ai)

1 Total dissolved and undissolved

2 Chronic effects to reproduction and growth based on fry survival, and total fry length and weight.

### -Page 50 of 292- 

## 3.3.1.1 Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

Acute Effects The acute toxicity of technical grade indazifl am to freshwater fish was evaluated in three studies, with 96-hour LC 50 

## values of 320 μg total a. i./L in bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis

macrochirus ; MRID 47443233), 572 μg total a.i./L in rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ; MRID 47443234), and 770 μg total a.i./L in fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ; MRID 47443229). Based on these results, indaziflam is categ orized as highly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. Dose-dependent subl ethal effects were observed in the three highest treatment levels in the bluegi ll sunfish study, including loss of equilibrium, loss of vertical orientation, labored respiration, and lying on th e bottom. The NOAEC for this study, based on sublethal effects and mortality, was 210 μg total a.i./L. The LC 50 

## based on bluegill sunfish will

be used to assess risk of indaziflam use to fr eshwater fish. In the rainbow trout study, loss of equilibrium was only observed at the highest treatment group at 4 hours; complete mortality in this treatment group at 24 hours pr ecluded the ability to observe sublethal effe cts thereafter. The NOAEC was based on mortality, at a value of 420 μg a.i./L. Sublethal effects were observed in the three highest treatment levels in the the fa thead minnow study. Sublethal effects such as loss of equilibrium and erratic behavior were observed to be dose-dependent and resulted in a NOAEC of 270 μg total a.i./L. A ll concentrations reported from th ese studies are in units of total active ingredient per Liter (t otal a.i./L). Indaziflam was te sted up to its solubility limit and centrifugation was not conducted to determine the di ssolved concentration of indaziflam in the test media. Thus, there is uncertainty whether the reported measured concentrations in the media are equivalent to the dissolved c oncentrations that the fish are exposed to. These studies were classified Supplemental.

Two acceptable studies evaluated the toxicity of the degradates FDAT and indaziflamcarboxylic acid on freshwater fish using the fa thead minnow. Both demonstrate a toxicity 3 times less than that of indaziflam, with 96-hour LC 50 

## values of >101,000 μg a.i./L for FDAT (MRID 47443230) and >103,000 μg a.i./L for ind aziflam-carboxylic acid (MRID 47443231). There were no effects on mortality, and no sublethal effects observed in the controls or treatment levels. Based on these results, FDAT and i ndaziflam-carboxylic acid are categorized as practically nontoxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis. Both studies are scientifically sound but were classified supplemental for not fulfilling guideline re quirements for test substance (ie. studies of the TGAI, rather than of degradates or formulations, fulfill guideline requirements under 40 CFR Part 158).

One acute 96-hour freshwater fish study was submitted on the toxicity of the indaziflam formulation (SC500; 45% ai) to bluegill sunfish (MRID: 47 743305). By 48 hours onward, the percent mortalities did not change until the study was terminated at 96 hours. By 48 hours, percent mortalities were reco rded as 0 (control), 0, 0, 80, 100, and 100%, for the mean-measured treatment levels, 0 (control), 113, 225, 451, 902, a nd 1,800 μg total a.i./L, respectively. The 96-

hour LC 50 

## was 372 μg total ai/L, equiva lent to 825 μg total form /L. The NOAEC for mortality and sublethal effects was 251 μg total ai/L, equiva lent to 557 μg total form/L. Sublethal effects were dose-dependent and included fish on the bottom of the aquarium, dark coloration, hyperactivity, inactivity, labored re spiration, loss of equilibrium with lateral deviation, and/or

### -Page 51 of 292- 

## laying on their sides or backs. Th is study is scientifically sound but was classified Supplemental

because test media was not centr ifuged prior to test substance analysis which is a guideline

recommendation when test substances are tested up to their solubility limit. Thus, all reported

measured concentration values are total concentrati ons of test substance in the test media. Based on this study, both Indaziflam SC 500 g/L and indaziflam techni cal are categorized as highly toxic to bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) on an acute exposure basis.

Chronic Effects A 35-day chronic toxicity study (MRID 47443236) of indaziflam to the early-life stages of the fathead minnow ( P. promelas ) resulted in a NOAEC and LOAEC of 464 and 1020 μg total a.i./L, respectively, based on fry survival (at day 35), total length (at day 35), and dry weight (at day 35). The study be gan by exposing fertilized eggs/e mbryos to concentrations of indaziflam and ended 35 days later. The followi ng parameters were measured: alevin survival (day 5), fry survival (day 35), percent hatch (day 5), and total length and weight (day 35). Based on fry survival, the LC 50 

## value is likely to lie between 464.4 and 1020 μg total ai/L. Mortality was usually preceded by loss of equilibrium, lyin g on the bottom, and/or labored respiration. This study was classified Supplemental because a significant statistical difference (13%, p < 0.01) was found between negative and solvent controls for m ean dry weight of fish. Furthermore, centrifugation was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance; thus all reported measured concentrati on values are total concentrations of dissolved

and undissolved test substance.

No chronic toxicity studies of indaziflam’s formulations or degradates in freshwater fish

were submitted.

3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

Acute Effects An acute toxicity study with TGAI using D.magna/ water flea (MRID 47443226) yielded

a 48-hour EC 50 

## and NOAEC value (where immobility wa s a proxy for lethality) of >9,880 μg total a.i./L and 4,860 μg total a. i./L, respectively. At the highest dose tested, 9,880 μg total a.i./L, immobility occurred in 35% of daphnids suggesting that indaziflam would be categorized as moderately toxic to slightly toxic to freshwat er invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. The

observed sublethal effects were dose-dependent and included qui escence, resulting in a 48-hour NOAEC of 4,860 μg total a.i./L. While a definitive EC 50 

## could not be defined at 9,880 μg/L, the solubility of indaziflam’s isomers ra nge from 1,200 – 4,400 μg/L (MRID 47443202) which could have inhibited the testing of indaziflam’s toxicity at concentrations greater than 9,880 μg/L. This study is classified Supplemental because centrifugation was not conducted at test

termination to determine the dissolved test substa nce concentration in the test media; thus, all reported measured concentration va lues are total concentrations of test substance in the test

media.

Two studies on indaziflam formulation were submitted using D. magna /waterflea. In one study, MRID 47743303, daphnids were exposed to indaziflam SC 500g/L for 48 hours and mortality rates of 10% and 5% were observed in the highest c oncentration levels tested, 18,000

### -Page 52 of 292- 

## μg total a.i./L and 38,000 μg total a.i./L resp ectively. The 48-hour NOAEC (based on sublethal effects) and EC 50 

## values were <2,300 and >38,000 μg total ai/L, respectively, which are equivalent to <5,100 and >84,000 μg total form/L, re spectively. Sublethal e ffects such as lying on the bottom, quiescent, and paleness, were obs erved in all concentrations. The other study, MRID 47743304, evaluated the 48-hour acute toxicity of the fo rmulated product BSC-AA10717 SC 200 g/L under static c onditions. The NOAEC (bas ed on immobility) and EC 50 

## values were 8,260 and 37,500 μg total ai/L, respectively, whic h were equivalent to 43,000 and 195,000 μg

total formulation/L. Besides treatment-relate d immobility, no further behavioral effects were

observed. Both of these tests show dissolution of the active i ngredient at concentrations exceeding its solubility limit (1,200 – 4,400 μg/L; MRID 47443202). Both of these studies were classified Supplemental because the test medi a was not centrifuged at test termination to

determine the dissolved concentrations of te st substances; thus, all reported measured

concentration values are total con centrations of test substances in the test media. Based on these two studies, the formulated products do not show gr eater toxicities than the TGAI to freshwater

invertebrates.

A scientifically sound subacute freshwater w hole sediment toxicity test provided toxicity data on freshwater benthic invertebrates (MRID 47443238). Study endpoints are provided for pore water concentrations, as seen in Table 3.14 , as well as for the sediment and overlying water

concentrations. The mean measured concentrations in pore water are used to assess the potential toxicity of indaziflam to sediment-dwelling freshwater invertebrates because it is presumed that exposure occurs in the pore wate r, rather than the in sediment or water column. The study was conducted for 10 days using spiked natural sedime nt and evaluated the toxicity of the TGAI on midge ( Chironomus tentans ) survival. With two overlying water volume changes/day, and acetone used as the solvent, there were no appare nt problems with water quality. Following 10 days of exposure, percent survival averaged 91 to 98%. The 10-day LC 50 

## based on pore water concentrations was >2,200 μg a.i./L; the 10-day LC 50 

## based on mean-measured sediment concentrations was >100,000 μg a.i./kg sediment dw; the 10-day EC 50 

## based on mean-measured overlying water concentrations was >180 μg total a.i./L. Centrifugation of test media was not conducted for the overlying water; thus, there is uncertainty in the dissolved quantity of test

substance in the test media given indaziflam’s solubil ity of 1,200 – 4,400 μg/L (MRID 47443202). The overlying water endpoints from the st udy are reported as total concentrations of the test substance. For this reason, this study wa s classified Supplemental. Given indaziflam’s solubility of 1,200 – 4,400 μg/L (MRID 47443202), the pore water LC 50 

## could have been potentially limited by inhibited dissolution of the chemical.

There are no acute toxicity data to freshwat er invertebrates with indaziflam degradates.

Chronic Effects A 21-day life-cycle toxicity study with indazi flam TGAI in the water flea was submitted by the registrant to establish the chronic toxici ty of indaziflam to fr eshwater invertebrates (MRID 47443235). First-generation (F 0 

## ) survival (parental immobili zation), reproduction (time to first brood release and neonates per reproductive day), growth (total length and dry weight), and sublethal signs of toxicity were assessed. The 21-day NOAEC was 340 μg total a.i./L based upon treatment-related effects on growth and neonates per reproductive day at the 800 and 2,000

### -Page 53 of 292- 

## μg total a.i./L levels at study termination. The paramenter growth was measured as adult length, which was reduced by 2.7% (800 μg total a.i./L) and 23% (2,000 μg total a.i./L), and dry weight, which was reduced by 10% (800 μg total a.i./L) a nd 65% (2,000 μg total a.i./L). Neonates per reproductive day measured the number of young produced per adult per day, and was reduced by 15% and 65% for the 800 and 2,000 μg total a.i./L treatment levels, respectively. This study is scientifically sound but does not meet guidelin e standards because effects to offspring (F 1 

## generation), measured as number of immobilized offspring, were not re ported. Furthermore, centrifugation was not conducted to determine th e measured concentrations of indaziflam dissolved in the test media, given indaziflam ’s solubility (1,200 – 4,400 μg/L; MRID 47443202). This study was classified Supplemen tal. No precipitates in the test media were reported.

No chronic toxicity studies of indaziflam formulations or degradates using freshwater aquatic invertebrates were submitted.

3.3.1.3. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

Acute Effects An acute toxicity study on the sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) (MRID 47443232) reported a 96-hour LC 50 

## of 960 μg total a.i./L. The reported NOAEC of 430 μg total a.i./L was based on dose-dependent sublethal eff ects of loss of equilibrium, loss of vertical orientation, and lying on the bottom, as well as mo rtality. Study results indicate that indaziflam is highly toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis. Th is study was classified Supplemental because centrifugation was not conduc ted to determine the dissolved concentration

of indaziflam in the test media.

No acute toxicity studies of indaziflam form ulations or degradates using estuarine/marine

fish were submitted.

Chronic Effects No chronic toxicity tests in estuarine/ma rine fish with the TGAI, formulations, or degradates were submitted.

3.3.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarin e/Marine Invertebrates

Acute Effects Acute toxicity tests with estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to technical grade indaziflam were conducted on Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ; MRID 47443228), mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia ; MRID 47443227), and a marine amphipod ( Leptocheirus plumulosus ; MRID 47443239). Up to an 88% decrease in shell deposition from control was

observed in the 96-hour acute t oxicity test in the Easter n oyster, yielding a 96-hour EC 50 

## of 920 μg total a.i./L. The corresponding NOAEC was 470 μg total a.i./L. No mortality occurred in either the control or treatment groups. Ind aziflam is categorized as highly toxic to estuarine/marine mollusks on an acute exposure ba sis. This study is sc ientifically sound but classified Supplemental because the test media was not centrifuged to determine indaziflam’s

dissolved concentration within the test vessels ; thus, all endpoints ar e reported as total

### -Page 54 of 292- 

## concentrations of indaziflam An acute toxici ty study of indaziflam conducted on mysid shrimp reported a 96-hour LC 50 

## of 1,500 μg a.i./L, indicating that in daziflam is moderately toxic to

estuarine/marine invertebrates on an acute e xposure basis. Sublethal effects of surfacing, lethargy, and erratic swimming were observed in the two highest treatment levels. The NOAEC (sublethal effects and mortality) was determined to be 1,100 μg a.i./L. This study is classified Acceptable. A precipate was noted at the hi ghest concentration, 5,000 μg a.i./L, presumably

because this concentration exceeds indaziflam’s sol ubility limit. The study author reported that all samples were centrifuged prior to analysis and recoveries were acceptabl e (80% of nominal at

test initiation and 100% of initial at 48 hours).

A subacute whole sediment toxicity test on L.plumulosus /amphipod was submitted to provide toxicity data on marine benthic invertebrates (MRID 47443239) . Study endpoints are provided for pore water con centrations, as seen in Table 3.13, as well as for the overlying water

and sediment concentrations. The mean-measured concentrations in pore water are used to assess the potential toxicity of indaziflam to sediment-dwelling saltwater invertebrates because it is presumed that exposure occurs in the pore water, rather than in sediment or overlying water. The study was conducted for 10 days using spiked na tural sediment and eval uated the toxicity of indaziflam on amphipod survival. No apparent problems were observed with water quality throughout the study. Following 10 days of exposur e, percent survival averaged 93 to 100%. The 10-day LC 50 

## based on pore water concentrations was > 3,800 μg a.i./L; the 10-day LC 50 

## based on mean-measured sediment concentrations was >180,00 μg a.i./kg sediment dry weight; the 10-day LC 50 

## based on mean-measured overlying wate r concentrations was >1,400 μg total a.i./L. Parameters other that mortality were not measured. Centrifugati on of test media was not conducted for the overlying water; thus, there is uncertainty in the dissolved quantity of test

substance in the test media given indaziflam’s solubil ity of 1,200 – 4,400 μg/L (MRID 47443202). The overlying water endpoints from the st udy are reported as total concentrations of the test substance. For this reason, this study wa s classified Supplemental. Due to indaziflam’s solubility, the pore water LC 50 

## could have been potentially lim ited by inhibited dissolution of the chemical. This study is classified Acceptable. Based on the results of this study, indaziflam is categorized as no more than moderately toxic to benthic marine invertebrates on a sub-acute exposure basis.

No acute toxicity studies of indaziflam form ulations or degradates using estuarine/marine

invertebrates were submitted.

Chronic Effects No chronic toxicity studies of the T GAI, formulations or degradates using

estuarine/marine invertebrates were submitted.

3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

Studies were submitted for a freshwater vascular plant (duckweed, Lemna gibba ), bluegreen algae ( Anabaena flos-aquae) , a freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ), a green algae ( Pseudokirchnerie lla subcapitata ), and a marine alga ( Skeletonema costatum ) exposed to the

### -Page 55 of 292- 

## technical grade indaziflam, tr iazine indanone, FDAT, indazifl am-carboxylic acid, indaziflamhydroxyethyl, indaziflam-olefine, an d the formulations SC200 and SC500.

Vascular Aquatic Plants

Indaziflam was toxic to duckw eed as indicated by reductions in frond area observed in a tier II, 7-day study, with a reported EC 50 

## value of 0.067 μg a.i./L (MRID 47443250). The associated NOAEC was 0.031 μg a.i./L. At test termination, the test material was 87.3 to 96.5%

of nominal. Another affected measur ed endpoint was frond number, with an EC 50 

## value of 0.087 μg a.i./L. A nonguideline study using the TGAI was submitted for a 7-day static study using duckweed involving a water/sediment system (MRID 47443256). The test substance was applied directly to the water column in nominal concentrations of 0, 0.027, 0.067, 0.167, 0.419, and 1.05 μg a.i./L. At test initiation, the TGAI was 78.5 to 114% of the nominal test concentrations between 0.067 and 1.05 μg/L, and at test termination, the TGAI was 18.1 to 20.2% of nominal (the lowest test concen tration was not measured). The 7-Day EC 50 

## and NOAEC values calculated for frond number, the mo st sensitive endpoint, using mean-measured day-0 concentrations were 0.350 and 0.167 μg a.i./L , respectively. This study is classified Supplemental because it was conducted using a se diment layer and standard nutrient medium, neither of which fall under current OPPTS guideline recommendations.

An acceptable study was submitted on effects to duckweek exposed to the formulated product Indaziflam SC500 (MRID 47743308). The most sensitive endpoint was yield based on frond number, with 7-Day NOAEC and EC 50 

## values of 0.0194 and 0.061 μg ai/L, respectively, which are equivalent to 0.050 and 0.130 μg form/L, respectively. The percent inhibition in the treated cultures as compared to control ranged fro m -7 to 93%. Given th at the endpoint derived from the TGAI (EC 50 

## =0.067 μg a.i./L) is roughly equivalent to the endpoint derived from the formulated product, the lower of the two endpoints, the EC 50 

## value of 0.061 μg ai/L and associated NOAEC of 0.0194, are used to assess risk of indaziflam use to aquatic vascular plants.

Five studies were submitted on duckweed exposed to five different metabolites of technical grade indaziflam: tr iazine indanone, FDAT, indazifl am-carboxylic acid, indaziflamhydroxyethyl, and indaziflam-olefine. All but th e study on FDAT were classified Acceptable; the study with FDAT failed to determine the mo st sensitive endpoint. A comparison of just the

most sensitive EC 50 

## endpoints between the metabolites and the technical is presented in Table

3.15 . According to these endpoints, the toxicity of triazine indanone, FDAT, and carboxylic acid to duckweed is 3 – 7 orders of magnitude less than that of the parent, wh ile indaziflam-olefine and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl are on e order of magnitude less t oxic than the parent. This comparison suggests that indaziflam technical is most toxic to duckweed, and thus the toxicity endpoints for indaziflam technical will be used to assess risk of indaziflam use to aquatic vascular plants.

### -Page 56 of 292- 

## Table 3.15. Most Sensitive EC 50 

## Endpoint Comparison Between Indaziflam (TGAI) and Degradates for Aquatic Vascul ar Plants using Duckweed ( Lemna gibba )

Chemical Exposure Scenario Species Toxicity Measurement Affected Endpoint Reference (Classification) a



### Indaziflam 1 

### Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 0.061 μg a.i./L (60-74) Slope: 7.92 ± 0.931 Yield, based

on frond

number MRID: 47443308 (Acceptable)

Indaziflam 2 

### Duckweed ( L. gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 0.067 μg a.i./L (60-74) Slope: 6.05 ± 0.51 Frond Area MRID: 47443250 (Acceptable)

Indaziflam-Olefin Duckweed ( L. gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 0.34 μg a.i./L (0.16-0.74) Slope: 1.36 ± 0.21 Frond Area MRID: 47443255 (Acceptable)

IndaziflamHydroxyethyl Duckweed ( L. gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 0.51 μg a.i./L (0.47-0.55) Slope: 5.95 ± 0.50 Frond Area MRID: 47443254 (Acceptable)

Triazine-indanone Duckweed ( L. gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 12 μg a.i./L (7.5-19) Slope: 2.15 ± 0.33 Frond Area MRID: 47443251 (Acceptable)

FDAT Duckweed ( L. gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 51 μg a.i./L Slope: 1.51 ± 0.37 7-day EC 50 

### : > 35.15 μg a.i./L Slope: N/A 7-day EC 50 

### : > 35.15 μg a.i./L Slope: 5.92 ± 0.47 Frond

Number

Frond Area

Frond Area

based on growth rate MRID: 47443252 (Supplemental)

IndaziflamCarboxylic Acid Duckweed ( L. gibba ) 7-day EC 50 

### : 4,000 μg a.i./L (1,500-11,000) Slope: 1.36 ± 0.28 Frond

Number MRID: 47443253 (Acceptable)

1 This endpoint for indaziflam is derived from a study on the formulated product Indaziflam SC500.

2 This endpoint for indaziflam is derived from a study on the technical grade product.



## Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Tier II, 96-hour toxicity te sts of freshwater nonvascular plants with technical grade

indaziflam resulted in the most sensitive 96-hour EC 50 

## values ranging from 74 μg a.i./L for

reductions in biomass in Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata (MRID 47443261; Acceptable), to 77 μg a.i./L for reductions in biomass in a second study on P. subcapitata (MRID 47743309; Acceptable), to 87 μg total a.i./L for reductions in biomass in N. pelliculosa (MRID 47443266; Supplemental), and to 750 μg total a.i./L for reductions in cell density in A. flos-aquae (MRID 47443268; Supplemental). These latter two studies were classified Supplemental because indaziflam was tested up to its solubility lim it and test media was not centrifuged to determine the its dissolved concentrations; thus, concentra tions are reported as total concentration of indaziflam. A tier II, 96-hr toxic ity test with a marine diatom S. costatum resulted in an EC 50 

## value of 27 μg a.i./L based on reduced biomass (MRID 47443267; Acceptable). The corresponding NOAEC is 5.1 μg a.i./L . The study using the marine diatom will be used to assess

effects of indaziflam on a quatic nonvascular plants.

Four 72-hour toxicity studies on P. subcapitata using four different metabolites were submitted: FDAT (MRID 47443262), carboxy lic acid (MRID: 47443263), indaziflam-

### -Page 57 of 292- 

## hydroxyethyl (MRID: 47443264), and indaziflam-o lefin (MRID: 47443265). These studies were classified Supplemental for not meeting gui deline recommendations for a 96-120 hour study duration, among other minor deviations. Two 72- hour studies with formulated products were also submitted on the toxicity of BCS- AA10717 SC 500 g/L (MRID 47743310; Supplemental) and BCS-AA10717 SC 200 g/L (MRI D 47743311; Supplemental) to P. subcapitata . These studies were also classified Supplemental fo r not meeting guideline recommendations for study

duration.

A comparison of the EC 50 

## toxicity on P. subcapitata at 72 hours was made between the metabolite endpoints and the endpoints for techni cal grade indaziflam and is presented in Table

3.16 . As the endpoints indicate, indaziflam-olefin’s t oxicity is of the same order of magnitude as the TGAI, and indaziflam-hydroxyet hyl’s toxicity is of one orde r of magnitude less toxic than the parent compound. Carboxylic acid and diaminotrizaine show toxicity to P. subcapitata at 2- 3 orders of magnitude less than that of the parent.

Table 3.16. Comparison of 96-hr and 72-hr EC 50 

## values Between Indaziflam (TGAI), its Degradates, and Formuted Products, for Green Algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata )

Chemical Exposure

Scenario Species Toxicity Measurement Affected Endpoint Reference (Classification) a



### Indaziflam 1 

### Green Algae 96-hr EC 50 

### : 77 μg a.i./L (69-84) Slope: 6.34 ± 0.617 Biomass MRID: 47743309 (Acceptable)

Indaziflam 1 

### Green Algae 96-hr EC 50 

### : 74 μg a.i./L (62-88) Slope: 4.43 ± 0.56

72-hr EC 50 

### : 64 μg a.i./L (51-79) Slope: 3.71

72-hr EC 50 

### : 64 μg a.i./L (54-76) Slope: 3.49 Biomass

Cell Density

Biomass MRID: 47443261 (Acceptable)

Indaziflam 2 

### Green Algae 72-hr EC 50 

### : 51 μg a.i./L (34-75) Slope: 3.12 ± 0.553 Cell Density MRID: 47743310 (Supplemental)

Indaziflam 3 

### Green Algae 72-hr EC 50 

### : 53 μg a.i./L (39-73) Slope: 2.67 ± 0.383 Cell Density MRID: 47743311 (Supplemental)

IndaziflamOlefin Green Algae 72-hr EC 50 

### : 54 μg a.i./L (47-61) Slope: 2.66 ± 0.23 Biomass MRID: 47443265 (Supplemental)

IndaziflamHydroxyethyl Green Algae 72-hr EC 50 

### : 550 μg a.i./L (320-950) Slope: 3.20 ± 0.80 Cell Density MRID: 47443264 (Supplemental)

IndaziflamCarboxylic Acid Green Algae 72-hr EC 50 

### : > 9,400 μg a.i./L Slope: N/A Could not be

determined MRID: 47443263 (Supplemental)

Diaminotriazine Green Algae 72-hr EC 50 

### : 11,000 μg a.i./L (9400-14000) Slope: 2.86 ± 0.23 Cell Density MRID: 47443262 (Supplemental)

1 Study on technical grade indaziflam.

2 Study on the formulated product, Indaziflam SC 500 g/L.

3 Study on the formulated product, Indaziflam SC 200 g/L

### -Page 58 of 292- 

## Tier III Field Studies A 69-day field study was submitted to provide supplemental data based on the Ecological

Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 850.4450: A quatic Plants Field Study, Tier III (MRID 47443257). Although classified Supplemental, th e study does provide valuable information regarding the expected biological effects (particularly to m acrophytes) derived from nominal applications of 0 (control), 0.01, 0.032, 0.10, 0.32, 3.20, 10.0 μg a.i./L of the formulated product indaziflam 500 g/L to lentic (static), shallow macrophyte-domi nated freshwater ecosystems ( i.e

. 20 artificial freshwater ponds e xposed to natural sunlight and weather conditions). The test

substance was introduced once into the outdoor microcosms located at the Sinderhoeve Experimental Station, The Netherlands. Th e study looked at effects to macrophytes, phytoplankton, zooplantkton, and community metabol ism (assessed via the endpoints alkalinity, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and di ssolved oxygen (DO)). A parallel in situ bioassay with

duckweed was also conducted that sectioned off the duckweed from the rest of the pond, while keeping the water quality and natural conditions the same. On day 69, at the end of the experiment, approximately 14 – 23% of the nomin al concentration could still be detected. Another study was submitted (MRID 47443258) that was conducted as a non-guideline preliminary/screening test to th e aforementioned in-depth, supplemental tier III field study. In this nonguideline study, the toxicity of technical grade indaziflam was i nvestigated for 6 weeks following a single overlying water application to artifi cial outdoor ponds cont aining eight aquatic plant species. The water lily ( Nymphaea odorata ) was the most sensitive species, exhibiting red spotting of the (old growth) leaves, chlorotic leaves , and/or curled leaves at all treatment levels: control, 0.32, 1.0, and 3.2 μ g/L. The resultant NOAEC for sublethal effects was <0.32 μ g a.i./L. Terminal (day 42) dry weight biomass was also statistically-reduced compared to the control at

the 1.0 and 3.2 μ g a.i./L levels.

Overall, in the field study microcosms, macrophyte species were fa r more sensitive than phytoplankton and zooplankton taxa. Of the ma crophyte species investig ated, the lemnids ( L. gibba, Spirodela polyrhiza ) were the most sensitive, with a NOAEC of 0.01 μ g ai/L. The vast majority of non- lemnid vascular plants began to exhibit clea r effects at the 1.0 μ g ai/L level, and no recovery was indicated at the 3.2 and 10.0 μ g ai/L levels. Vascular plants that showed a relatively minor growth in controls (e.g., Ceratophyllum demersum, Ranunculus circinatus, and

Lemna trisulca ) were hardly affected by the test compound. In the microcosm community, metabolism endpoints showed re latively minor treatment-relate d effects, which may be explained by the fact that certain primary producers (e.g., Chara ) were not affected at all by the

herbicide.

The data provided are beneficial in assessi ng the effects of the te st material on various taxa, primarily macrophytes; however, the test deviates from guidelines because only two replicate microcosms (ponds) were tested for e ach treatment level, whereby limiting statistical power in assessing results on the pond community as well as on individual taxa; The num ber of replicates was not large enough to assure statistically significant results at the 90-95 percent level of confidence, nor large enough to support the 50 percent (EC 50 

## ) progression criter ia statistically. It was concluded that for all assessed endpoints for L. gibba (number of fronds, percent growth

### -Page 59 of 292- 

## of fronds, and dry weight), the NOAEC was 0.01 μ g ai/L during the first 14 days post-treatment. The difference in frond numbers at day 14 were cons iderably larger than th e difference at day 7: mean frond numbers on day 7 for the 0.01 and 0.032 μ g ai/L treatments were 96 and 86, while on day 14 the values were 211 and 83. These numbers suggest that the toxi city of the compound is not necessarily expressed early on. The NOAEC of 0.01, although derived from a longer duration exposure, corresponds in magnitude with the NOAEC of 0.031 μg a.i./L from the 7-day toxicity study using L. gibba (MRID 47443250) with a reported EC 50 

## value of 0.067 μg a.i./L.

3.3.2 Terrestrial Effects Characterization

The most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity reference values associated with indaziflam exposure to mammals, birds, and terre strial insects are summarized in Table 3.17 . The most sensitive measurement endpoints fo r tier II terrestrial pl ants toxicity data are presented in Table

3.18

.

Two studies evaluated the acute toxicity of indaziflam on ra ts and found indaziflam to be practically non-toxic. Four more studies we re submitted to evaluate four proposed enduse products’ toxicity to rats. These four formulations tested are re presentative of all proposed nonfood use formulation, and indicate that the various formulations ar e practically non-toxic to rats on an acute exposure basis. The proposed formul ations intended for food-uses are not evaluated

at this time and are not consid ered as part of this assessment. A 2-generation study on reproduction and fertility in the rat showed indazi flam to cause chronic toxicity effects in the parents and F 1 

## and F 2 

## generations that would imp act reproductive capabilities.

Studies of acute oral (dose-base d) toxicity in bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) and zebra finch ( Poephila guttata ) indicated that indaziflam is pr actically nontoxic to bobwhite quail and zebra finch when administered a single oral dose. Two subacute dietary toxicity studies

demonstrated that indaziflam TGAI is al so practically nontoxic to mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and bobwhite quail on a subacute dietary exposure basis. For chronic effects, treatment-related effects on adult female weight gain, adult food consumption, and male weight gain were observed in two repr oductive toxicity studies of indaziflam TGAI in mallard duck. No studies of the formulations or the degradates were submitted; all measurement endpoints for avian species are based on t echnical grade indaziflam.

Results of available toxicity studies indicate that indaziflam TGAI is practically nontoxic to honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) and earthworms ( Eisenia foetida ) on an acute contact exposure
basis.

Tier II studies of the effect of the in daziflam formulations BCS-AA10717 20WSP and Indaziflam 500 SC on seed emergence and vegetativ e vigor in terrestrial plants were submitted, indicating that terrestrial plants are sensitive to in daziflam at application rates much less than the proposed registration uses.

### -Page 60 of 292- 

## Table 3.17. Indaziflam Technical Grade Toxici ty Measurement Endpoints for Terrestrial

Animals.
Exposure

Scenario Species Exposure

Duration Toxicity Reference Value Reference (Classification)

Mammals

Acute (Dose-based) Laboratory rat Single oral dose LD50 > 2000 mg a.i./kg bw MRID 47443280 Acceptable

MRID 47443281 Acceptable

Chronic (Dietary-based) Laboratory rat Two-generation NOAEL = 69 mg/kg bw/day LOAEL = 317 mg/kg bw/day

Endpoints based on parental, offspring, and reproductive signs of toxicity to males MRID 47443293 Acceptable



### Birds

Acute (Dose-based) Bobwhite quail

Colinus virginianus 14-day single

oral dose LD 50 

### >2000 mg a.i./kg bw NOAEL: 2000 mg a.i./kg bw MRID 47443240 (Acceptable)

Acute (Dose-based) Zebra Finch Poephila

guttata 14-day single

oral dose LD 50 

### >2000 mg a.i./kg bw MRID 47443240 (Acceptable)

Bobwhite quail

Colinus virginianus 8-day dietary LC 50 

### : >5007 mg ai/kg diet NOAEC: 5007 mg ai/kg diet MRID 47443241 (Acceptable) Acute (Dietary-based)

Mallard duck

Anas platyrhynchos 8-day dietary LC 50 

### : >5215 mg ai/kg diet NOAEC: 2518 mg ai/kg diet (based on treatment related effects on body weight and feed consumption) MRID 47443242 (Acceptable)

Chronic 1


### (Dietary-based) Mallard duck

Anas platyrhynchos ca. 22 week

avian reproduction study LOAEC: 95 mg ai/kg diet NOAEC: < 95 mg ai/kg diet (based on female weight gain and mean food consumption) MRID 47443244 (Supplemental)

Chronic 1


### (Dietary-based) Mallard duck

Anas platyrhynchos ca. 6 week

avian reproduction study LOAEC: 44 mg ai/kg diet NOAEC: < 44 mg ai/kg diet (based on male weight gain) MRID 47443244 (Supplemental)



### Terrestrial Invertebrates

Acute (Contact) Honeybee 48-hour LD 50 

### >100 μg a.i./bee NOAEL: 100 μg ai/bee MRID 47443245 (Acceptable)

Acute (Oral) Honeybee 48-hour LC 50 

### >120 μg a.i./bee NOAEC: 120 μg ai/bee MRID 47443245 2



### Acute Earthworm 14-day LC 50 

### > 1,000 mg a.i./kg dw soil NOAEC: 316 mg a.i./kg dw soil LOAEC: 562 mg a.i./kg dw soil MRID 47443269 (Supplemental) 3

1 Both chronic avian study endpoints will be used to as sess potential chronic risk of indaziflam to birds.

2 The acute oral study was not classified because it was provided as supplemental information to the acute contact study. Acute oral honey bee studies are non-guideline studies and can at best be classifi ed Supplemental.

3 The earthworm study was conducted as an acute rather th an chronic test and is thus a non-guideline study.

### -Page 61 of 292- 

## Table 3.18. Indaziflam Toxicity Measurem ent Endpoints for Terrestrial Plants.
Exposure

Scenario Formulation Species Exposure

Duration Toxicity Reference Value Reference (Classification)

Plants – Seedling Emergence

Monocot BCSAA10717

20WSP Ryegrass 21-day test - single application EC 25 

### (survival) = 0.00016 lbs

a.i./A

95% C.I.: 0.00009 to 0.0003

lbs a.i./A Slope: 2.45

NOAEC = 0.000062 lbs a.i./A MRID 47443246 (Acceptable)

Dicot BCSAA10717

20WSP Oilseed

rape 21-day test - single application EC 25 

### (emergence) = 0.00011

lbs a.i./L

95% C.I.: 0.000053 to

0.00024 lbs a.i./A Slope: 1.81

NOAEC = 0.000062 lbs a.i./A MRID 47443246 (Acceptable)



### Plants – Vegetative Vigor

Monocot Indaziflam

500 SC Ryegrass 21-day test - single application EC 25 

### (survivial) = 0.0021 lbs

a.i./A

95% C.I.: 0.00134 to 0.0032

lbs a.i./A Slope: 2.94 ± 0.433

NOAEC: 0.000932 lbs a.i./A MRID 47443249 (Supplemental) 1



### Dicot BCSAA10717

20WSP Turnip 21-day test - single application EC 25 

### (dry weight) = >0.000906, <0.00227 lbs

a.i./A 2



### 95% C.I.: N/A Slope: N/A

NOAEC = <0.000906 lbs

a.i./A MRID 47443248 (Supplemental)

1 This study failed to define a NOAEC or EC 05 corresponding to the lowest EC 25 for dicots (ie. soybean).

2 Inhibition at 0.000906 lbs a.i./A was 18%; inhibition at 0.00227 lbs a.i./A was 31%. An adequate dose-response relationship c ould not be

constructed to calculate an EC 25 between these two concentrations.



## 3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Mammals

Acute Effects Two acceptable acute oral toxicity studies using female rats were submitted for indaziflam. One study (MRID 47443280) derived a 14-day oral LD 50 

## value of > 2,000 mg a.i./kg bw. The study was comprised of two groups of 3 female rats, each given a single oral dose of 2,000 mg/kg bw. No clinical signs or toxicological eff ects on body weight or weight gain were observed, and no gross pathological changes in animals sacrificed were observed. Another study (MRID 47443281) also derive d a 14-day oral LD 50 

## value of > 2,000 mg a.i./kg bw and was comprised of two groups of 3 female rats, each given a single oral dose. One female rat died but it was reported that no clinical signs or toxicological effects on body weight or weight gain were observed, and that no gross pathological chan ges were observed in animals sacrificed.

Four acceptable acute oral 14-day toxicity studies using rats were submitted for the following end-use products: Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate (Ready-to-Spray); Lawn 3FL Herbicide Granule; BCS AA10717 20 WSP; and BSC AA10717 2% MUP. Both the Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate (Ready-to -Spray) and the Lawn 3FL Herb icide Granule are formulated

### -Page 62 of 292- 

## products with multiple active ingredients. A study with Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate (Ready-to-Spray), MRID 47489302, a formulated product containing 2,4-D dimethylamine salt, dicamba (potassium salt), and mecoprop-P (potassi um salt), in addition to indaziflam, derived an

oral LD 50 

## value for female rats of >2,000 mg/kg bw. A study with Lawn 3FL Herbicide Granule, MRID 47489202, a formulated product containing di camba acid and penoxsulam, in addition to indazflam, derived an oral LD 50 

## value for female rats of > 2,000 mg/kg bw. For both these studies with multiple actives ingredients, all test rats survived and gained weight, no clinical signs of toxicity were observed, and no gross abnormalities were noted at necropsy. A third formulated product study with BCS AA10717 20 WSP, MRID 47488802, derived an oral LD 50 

## value for female rats of >2,000 mg/kg bw, with no clinical signs or gro ss pathological findings observed. A fourth study was conducted with the formulated product BCS-AA10717 2% MUP (2.0% indaziflam) (MRID: 47488702), indended for manufacturers’ use only for the purpose of manufacturing end-use herbicide produc ts. The study found the acute oral LD 50 

## value for female rats to be > 5,000 mg/kg bw. No gross internal findings were observed at necropsy, and while 2 out of the three 3 test animals were hypoactive immediately after dosing, both animals recovered by day 1. All test animals appeared active a nd healthy for the remai nder of the study.

An acute oral rat toxicity study was not c onducted with the formulated product Lawn 3FL Herbicide Ready-to-Use, contai ning 2,4-D dimethylamine salt, di camba (potassium salt), and mecoprop-P (potassium salt), in addition to indazi flam. Since this formulation is a dilution of the formulated product Lawn 3FL Herbicide Con centrate, the submitted data on the concentrate formula was deemed adequate to assess the potenti al toxicity of the ready-to-use formulation (MRID 47489402). The data on all three proposed formulated products with multiple active ingredients indicate that indazifl am mixed with other active ingred ients is not more toxic than

indaziflam alone based on the acute or al toxicity to the rat.

Chronic Effects An acceptable 2-generation Wistar rat ( Ratus norvegicus ) reproduction and fertility effects study using indaziflam technical was submitt ed to establish the toxicity of indaziflam to mammals over prolonged periods (MRID 47443293). The overall NOAEL and LOAEL for the study were 69/85 mg/kg bw/day (male/female ) and 317/355 mg/kg bw/day (male/female), respectively, based on parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity (sexual maturation of F 1 

## and

F 2 

## pups). Observable adverse effects for parental toxicity included course tremors in females, decreased body weights, decrease d body weight gains, and decr eased food consumption in both sexes, and effects on kidneys (tubular degeneration/regeneration; increase d kidney weights) in the males. The study did not dete rmine whether the effects on the parental generation resulted from loss of appetite due to chemical poisoning or decreased food palatability. Effects observed for offspring toxicity included decreased body wei ghts, body weight gains, and secondary delays in sexual maturation. For reproductive toxic ity, the NOAEL and LOAEL were based on delayed

sexual maturation in F 1 

## and F 2 

## pups. The male NOAEL, at 69 mg /kg bw/day, will be used to

assess chronic risk of indaziflam use to mammals.

### -Page 63 of 292- 

## 3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Birds

Acute Effects An acceptable acute oral (dose-based) toxi city study of indaziflam TGAI in bobwhite quail (MRID 47443240) was submitted. A single oral dose of 2000 mg a.i./kg body weight did not elicit any treatment-related effects on any parameter in bobw hite quail for the study duration of 14 days, indicating that indazi flam TGAI is practically nont oxic to young adult bobwhite quail on an acute oral exposure basis. A second accepta ble acute oral (dose-based) test was submitted for indaziflam on the zebra finch ( Poephila guttata ) demonstrating indaziflam to be practically non-toxic to this avian species (M RID 47743306). The 14-day acute oral LD 50 

## was >2000 mg ai/kg body weight. One mortality did occur and gr oss necropsy demonstrated that the bird’s death was related to intestinal and respiratory problems. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not this mortality and/ or intestinal and respiratory problems were

treatment-related. Observed clin ical signs of toxicity in the treatment group included slightly ruffled to ruffled appearance, reduced reaction to s timuli (i.e. sound and movement), wing droop, and lethargy. The study tested the limit dose of 2,000 mg ai/kg body weight as recommended in EPA guidelines; thus, a NOAEL coul d not be defined for sublethal effects observed at this dose

level.

Subacute (8-day) dietary toxicity studies in bobwhite quail (MRID 47443241) and mallard duck (MRID 47443242) established LC 50 

## values of >5007 mg ai/kg diet and >5215 mg ai/kg diet, respectively, indicati ng that indaziflam TGAI is pr actically nontoxic to birds on a subacute dietary basis. No mort ality, clinical signs of toxicity, or sublethal effects were observed in bobwhite quail over the 8 day study period. In the mallard study, apparently transient

treatment-related reducti ons in body weight and food consumpti on during the first three days at the 5125 mg a.i./kg diet level was reported. Th e NOAEC for this study was 2518 mg a.i./kg diet. Study details and results are summarized in Appendix C, Table C-10

.

No acute toxicity studies were submitted for birds exposed to indaziflam formulations or degradates.

Chronic Effects Two chronic studies of the reproductive toxi city of indaziflam TG AI in bobwhite quail (MRID 47443243) and mallard duck (MRID 47443244) are available. Study details and results

are summarized in Appendix C, Table C-11 . Results of the ca. 23 week one-generation reproductive toxicity study in bobw hite quail showed no treatment-related effects on any adult or offspring parameter at any concentration leve l. The LOAEC and NOAEC for this study were >1,023 mg ai/kg diet and 1,023 mg ai/kg diet, re spectively. The second reproductive toxicitiy study on mallard duck was conducted over ca. 22 weeks and established a LOAEC and NOAEC of 95 mg ai/kg diet and <95 mg ai/kg diet, respectively, based on female weight gain and adult food consumption. To clarify and reinforce conc lusions drawn from the original mallard duck study, a 19-week supplemental study was conducted on mallard duck, although the test substance (indaziflam) was only administered in the diet du ring the final 6 weeks of the test (egg-laying phase); test concentrations were also lower than the primary study. Effects to adult male weight gain were observed in the modified secondary study at all three treatment levels (44, 157, and

### -Page 64 of 292- 

## 468 mg a.i./kg) and effects to female weight ga in were observed at the two highest treatment levels (157, and 468 mg a.i./kg). However, there is uncertainty in the effects observed to male weight gain because there was a net mean weight loss, rather than weight gain, for all treatment

levels and control. The results of the secondary study ar e not directly compar able to the results from the primary study since birds in the s econdary study were only dosed for 6 weeks. However, the results of the secondary study pr ovide supporting evidence that indaziflam has effects on adult male and female weight gain. The NOAEC of <44 mg a.i./kg based on male weight gain, and the NOAEC of 44 mg a.i./kg ba sed on female weight gain in the secondary study supports the NOAEC <95 mg ai/kg determination made in the primary study based on female weight gain and adult food consumpti on. The NOAEC of <95 mg ai/kg diet from the primary study, which assessed effects over a length of time ( ca. 22 weeks) meeting guideline recommendations, will be used to assess chronic risk of proposed indaziflam use to birds. The NOAEC of <44 mg ai/kg from the secondary study, which was derived from a reproductive study of only 6 weeks, will be discussed further in the risk description to characterize chronic risk of proposed indaziflam uses to birds.

The lot of birds for the primary and secondary study was considered to be in good health, and no mortalities were reported during the acclima tion period. It should be noted that not all validity criteria were met in the primary study: egg shell thickness in control birds measured 0.33 mm, less than the definitive test criteria requir ement of 0.34 mm, indicating potential stress to the birds. Cage size was also reported to be 2410 cm 2 

## /adult bird, rather than the recommended 10,000 cm 2 

## /adult bird. The mallard duck toxici ty study (MRID 47443244) was classified Supplemental for failure to determine a defi nitive NOAEC and for not meeting all validity requirements.

No chronic toxicity studies of indaziflam formulations or degradates in avian species

were submitted.

3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates

Acute Effects An acceptable acute contact toxicity study in honey bees using technical grade indaziflam yielded a 48-hour contact LD 50 

## >100 μg a.i./bee (MRID 47443245), i ndicating that indaziflam is practically nontoxic to honey bees on an acute contact e xposure basis. No mortalities or

sublethal effects were noted in the control or single treatment level, yielding a NOAEL value of 100 μg a.i./bee. A nonguideline acute oral toxicity study (MRID 47443245) was submitted along with the acute contact study and established an acute oral 48-hour LC 50 

## >120 μg a.i./bee for indaziflam TGAI in honey bees. The co rresponding NOAEC based on lack of mortality and sublethal effects was 120 μg a.i./bee. This study was found scientific ally sound and provides useful toxicity data for risk assessment purposes.

An acceptable acute contact study and a nonguide line acute oral toxicity study in honey bees with the formulated product AE1170437 SC 500 were also submitted (submitted under the same MRID: 47743307). By 48 hours in the oral test, mortality was 0%

. There were no

sublethal effects in the control or treated groups. By 48 hours in the contact test, mortality was

### -Page 65 of 292- 

## 1.7% (one bee died). Study results include a 48-hour LD 50 

## >100 μg a.i./bee (contact study) and

an LC 50 

## >119.7 μg ai/bee (oral study). Study de tails and results are summarized in Appendix C,

Table C-12 . Uncertainties associated with the honey bee toxicity data incl ude that the studies examine effects only on young adu lt forage (female) bees and not on poten tial effects to the queen, drones (males), juvenile (nurse) and larval (brood) bees.

Five earthworm acute toxicity studies were submitted on indaziflam, the formulated product BCS-AA10717 SC 500 g/L, and the degradat es FDAT, triazine indanone, and carboxylic acid. All five studies with the technical, degr adates, and formulated product were conducted as acute 14-day studies following recommenda tions outlined in the OECD 207 guideline, “Earthworm, Acute Toxicity Tests.” O PPTS guidelines (850.6200) recommend subchronic studies with a duration of 28 days. Both O PPTS and OECD guidelines were referenced in evaluating these studies, all classified Supplemental. A comparison of the LC 50 

## values for indaziflam (based on studies of the technica l and formuated product) and the degradates demonstrate that the degradates are no more toxic to earthworms than is indaziflam.

The study with the technical (M RID 47443269) resulted in an LC 50 

## >1000 mg ai/kg dw of soil. The NOAEC and LOAEC values, based on percent body weight change, were 316 and 562 mg ai/kg dw of soil, respectively. Percen t body weight loss averag ed 5.9% in the negative control and ranged from 8.2 to 15.6% in the treatm ent levels; 15.6 % effects were observed at the LOAEC and effects appear dose-de pendent (15.0% effects observed at the 1000 mg ai/kg dw of soil treatment level). The study with the fo rmulated product BCS- AA10717 SC 500 g/L (MRID 47743315) resulted in an LC 50 

## value >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The NOAEC, based on body weight change, was 562 mg ai/kg dw soil. Mean weight loss was 10% in the negative control, and was 10, 12, 9, 12, and 15% in the nominal 100, 178, 316, 562, and 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil treatment groups, respectively. Although there is uncertainty whether effects on body weight change are dose-dependent, the percent effects observed at the highest treatment level were statistically different from the control. The acute earthworm study on FDAT (MRID 47743312) reported an LC 50 

## value of >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LOAEC and NOAEC were reported as 1000 and 500 mg ai/kg dw soil, respectively, base d on a reduction in body weight. An effect on body weight change (9% reduction) was only observed at the highe st treatment level and it is uncertain whether this effect is dose-depe ndent. The acute earthworm study on triazineindanone (MRID 47743313) reported similar results to the study on diaminotraizine. The LC 50 

## was reported as >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil, w ith corresponding LOAEC and NOAEC of 1000 and 316 mg ai/kg dw soil, respectivel y, based on body weight reducti on (10%). It is uncertain whether the weight reduction obs erved at the highest treatment level is dose-dependent. The acute earthworm study on carboxylic acid (M RID 47743314) reported that no endpoints were affected thoughout the study: the LC 50 

## was reported as >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil, with corresponding NOAEC of 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil.

Chronic Effects A 56-day toxicity study of Ind aziflam SC 500 on earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) (MRID 47743316) studied effects to earthworm survival, growth, and reproduction. Adult earthworms were exposed to the test substance for the first 28 days and then removed from the test vessels. Any offspring that had been produced in the first 28 days were then left in the test vessels for the reminaining 28 days. The earthworms were exposed to the test material at nominal

### -Page 66 of 292- 

## concentrations of 0 (nega tive control), 19.1, 34.0, 60.3, 107, and 191 mg a.i./kg dw soil. The

LC 50 

## and EC 50 

## in the study were both >191 mg a.i./ kg dw soil, based on mortality and body weight change in adult earthworms. The NOAEC, based on funcundity ( i.e. mean number of offspring produced per surviving adult), was 34.0 mg ai/kg dw soil. Relativ e to the control, the percent reductions of numb er of juveniles per surviving adult were 8.7, 13.1, 20.0, 40.6, and 44.0%, corresponding to the 19.1, 34.0, 60.3, 107, and 191 mg a.i./kg dw soil treatment levels. The effects on number of offspring produced ap pear dose-dependent. This study failed to

determine a LC 50 

## without testing to guideline recomme nded concentration limits and was thus classified Supplemental.

No chronic toxicity studies were submitte d for indaziflam TGAI or degradates in

terrestrial invertebrates.

3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plant testing (seedling emergence a nd vegetative vigor) at th e tier II level with the typical enduse product is required for known phytotoxicants (i .e. herbicides) that have terrestrial, forestry, and residential outdoor use patterns and/or may have endangered or threatened plant species associated with the appli cation site. Tier II te sts measure the responses of plants at five or more test chemical concentr ations relative to a contro l. Tier II studies are

available on the effect of indaziflam form ulations BCS-AA10717 20 WSP and Indaziflam 500 SC on seedling emergence and vegetative vigor in terrestrial plants. A typical enduse product is defined as the formulation with the highest per centage active ingredient and/or the one most widely used; both BCS-AA10717 20WSP and Indazi flam 500 SC represent the two highest percentage active ingredient formulations ( 20.00% and 45.05%, respectively). The maximum

labeled rate for Indaziflam 500 SC is evaluate d for food uses in this assessment and AA10717 20WSP is evaluated for spray applications to turf . Details on the most sensitive parameter for all species tested can be found in Appendix E . Based on the results of the submitted toxicity tests, both monocots and dicots in general appear more sensitive to exposures in seedling emergence testing than those from vegetative vigor testing fo r both formulations. This is consistent with

indaziflam’s mode of action. Both formulations also exhibit similar levels of toxicity ( i.e. of the same magnitude) for both monocots and dicots, and ar e together considered in deriving the most sensitive endpoints for terrestrial plants, as is shown in Table 3.18

.

The effects on seedling emergence of the formulation BCS-10717 20WSP (TEP; 20.0% a.i.) were evaluated in an acceptable 21-day stud y on the following species: monocots (corn, oat, barley, and ryegrass) and dicots (cucumber, s ugarbeet, oilseed rape, soybean, sunflower, and buckwheat) (MRID 47443246). No apparent dose-res ponse relationships fo r dry weight were determined, with some species exhibiting inhibi tion in weight at lower treatment levels and growth promotion at the higher treatment levels. The most sensitive monocot was ryegrass ( Lolium perenne , var. Temprano) based on survival, with an EC 25 

## of 1.6x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./A. The corresponding NOAEC was 6.2x10 -5 

## lbs a.i./L. The most sensitive dicot tested was oilseed rape ( Brassica napus , var. Licapo) based on emergence, with an EC 25 

## of 1.1x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./L; the corresponding NOAEC was 6.2x10 -5 

## lbs a.i./L.

### -Page 67 of 292- 

## An acceptable 21-day seedling emergence test for the formulation Indaziflam 500 SC (MRID 47443247) evaluated the toxicity of the formulation on monocots (barley, corn, oat, onion, and ryegrass) and dicots (buckwheat, cu cumber, oilseed rape, soybean, sugarbeet, sunflower, and tomato). Treatment group survival ranged from 0-100%. The most sensitive monocot was onion ( Allium cepa, var. Braunschweiger blutrot) based on shoot length, with an

EC 25 

## of 1.7x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./A. The corresponding NOAEC was 1.46x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./L. The most

sensitive dicot tested was tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum , var. Balkonstar) based on shoot length, with an EC 25 

## of 2.4x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./L; the corresponding NOAEC was 1.46x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./L.

The effect of BCS-AA10717 20WSP on vege tative vigor in a 21-day study (MRID 47443248) was assessed in the following species: monocots (corn, onion, oat, and ryegrass); dicots (cucumber, turnip, sugarb eet, sunflower, soybean, and buc kwheat). The most sensitive monocot, based on survival, was ryegrass ( L. perenne , var. Temprano) with NOAEC and EC 25 

## values of 2.27x10 -3 

## and 3.1x10 -3 

## lbs a.i./A, respectively. The mo st sensitive dicot, based on dry weight, was turnip ( Brassica rapa , var. Wilhelmburger gelbe). I nhibition of this endpoint was 18% at the lowest treatment level, 9.06x10 -4 

## lbs a.i./A, indicating that the EC 25 

## would be found at a higher application rate. However, an adequa te dose-response curve was not constructed to

estimate the EC 25 

## between the two lowest treatment levels. Thus the EC 25 

## was visually

determined to lie between the lowest concentrat ion, at which 18% inhibi tion of dry weight was observed, and the next highest, at which 31% of the plants were inhibited (EC 25 

## = >9.06x10 -4



## , <2.27x10 -3 

## lbs a.i./A). An associated NOAEC or EC 05 

## could not be determined, thus the study was classified Supplemental.

In a 21-day vegetative vigor study (MRID 47443249) on the toxicity of the formulation BCS-AA10717 SC500, the following species were tested: monocots (corn, onion, oat, and ryegrass) and dicots (cucumber, oilseed rape , sugarbeet, sunflower, soybean, tomato, and buckwheat). The most sensitive monocot, based on survival, was ryegrass ( L. perenne , var. Temprano) with NOAEC and EC 25 

## values of 9.32x10 -4 

## and 2.1 x 10 -3 

## lbs a.i./A, respectively. The most sensitive dicot, based on shoot length, was soybean ( Glycine max , var. Erin) with

NOAEC and EC 25 

## values of <3.75x10 -4 

## and 4.3 x 10 -3 

## lbs a.i./A, respectively. This study is scientifically sound but fails to define a NOAEC or EC 05 

## corresponding to the lowest EC 25 

## for dicots (i.e. soybean); the study was classified Supplemental.

No terrestrial plant studies were submitted for technical grade indaziflam or the degradates.



# 4. Risk Characterization

4.1. Risk Estimation

Toxicity data and exposure estimates are us ed to evaluate the potential for adverse ecological effects on non-target species. This ba seline assessment of indaziflam relies on the deterministic RQ method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , the estimated exposure concentrations are

### -Page 68 of 292- 

## divided by acute and chronic toxicity values). The resulting unitless RQs are compared to the Agency’s LOCs, as shown in Table 2.3 . LOCs are used by the Agency to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by th e label, has the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms.

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms

The highest baseline aquatic EECs based on the maximum application rates for each proposed use pattern were used to derive RQs. These exposure estimates represent concentrations in surface water ( Table 3.7 ), since exposure estimates for ground water ( Table

3.9 ) were lower. Acute and chronic RQs for certain taxa could not be derived due to lack of data

and risk to these taxa will be furt her discussed in the Risk Descrip tion section of this assessment. Peak EECs are used to represent acute exposure to fish, aquatic i nvertebrates, and aquatic plants, and the highest 21-day and 60-day average EEC s represent chronic exposure to aquatic invertebrates and fish, respectively.

4.1.1.1. Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates

Fish

Table 4.1 lists RQs calculated for freshwater fish and aquatic-phase amphibians exposed to indaziflam, based on the highest peak EECs generated from PRZM modeling scenarios. Results of acute toxicity studies in freshwater and estuarine/marine fish (Table 3.13) indicate that indaziflam is “highly toxic” to fr eshwater fish on an acute exposur e basis. However, all RQs for proposed uses of indaziflam fell below the Agency ’s acute risk to listed species LOC (0.05), as well as the Agency’s acute risk to non-listed species LOC of 0.5. RQs for chronic exposures also fell below the Agency’s chronic risk to listed and non-listed spec ies LOC (1.0).

Table 4.1. Risk Quotients for Freshwat er Fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibians Exposed to Indaziflam.

EECs (ppb) Fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibian RQs

LC 50 

### = 320 μg total ai/L NOAEC = 464.4 μg total ai/L Use

Peak 60-day Acute 1,2 

### Chronic 3



### Citrus 3.79 3.46 0.01 0.01

Pome Fruit 3.86 3.60 0.01 0.01

Grapes 4.00 3.95 0.01 0.01

Olives 1.02 0.94 <0.01 <0.01

Turf 0.47 0.39 <0.01 <0.01

Home Lawns 5.92 5.70 0.02 0.01

Ornamentals 6.19 6.05 0.02 0.01
Hardscapes 4 

### 3.22 2.94 0.01 0.01

Forested Areas 4.03 3.90 0.01 0.01

1 Acute risk to non-listed species LOC for aquatic fish is 0.5

2 Acute risk to listed species LOC for aquatic fish is 0.05

3 Chronic risk to listed and nonlisted aquatic animals is 1.0

4 Hardscape scenario assumes 100% of the potential treated area is treated.

### -Page 69 of 292- 

## Invertebrates Definitive acute toxicity endpoints from st udies on the TGAI were unavailable for freshwater invertebrates exposed in the water column or in se diment, and thus RQs were not

calculated. Based on all available acute studie s, indaziflam is categorized as “at most, moderately toxic” to freshwater in vertebrates; however, the toxicity in these studies was in part limited by indaziflam’s solubility. The availabl e non-definitive acute toxicity endpoints will be discussed the Risk Description, Section 4.2 , to characterize acute risk to freshwater invertebrates

from indaziflam use. The available definitive endpoint derived from a study on the formulated product (MRID 47743305) was not used to calculat e RQs because of the active ingredient’s increased limit of solubility presumably due to the presence of inerts. Definitive chronic endpoints are available for freshwater invertebra tes and were used to calculate chronic RQs presented in Table 4.2 . For all use patterns, acute RQ values are based on peak EECs and chronic RQs on the highest 21-day EECs. All RQs are below the Agency’s risk to nonlisted and listed species LOCs of 0.5 and 0.05, respectively.

1 RQs are not calculated for acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates due to non-definitive endpoints.

2 Chronic risk to aquatic invertebrate nonlisted and listed species LOC is 1.0.

3 Hardscape scenario assumies 100% of the potential treated area is treated



## 4.1.1.2. Estuarine and Marine Fish and Invertebrates

Fish Peak surface water EECs used to derive acute RQs for estuarine/marine fish are located

in Table 4.3 . No available chronic effects studies we re available to calculate chronic RQs for indaziflam use to estuarine/marine fish. From studies on acute exposures, indaziflam is categorized “highly toxic” to estuarine/marine fi sh. However, based on peak EECs all acute RQs fall under the Agency’s risk to nonlisted and listed species LOC values of 0.5 and 0.05, respectively. Since toxicity data are unavailable to suggest otherw ise, risk to estuarine/marine fish is presumed from indaziflam use based on chronic effects. Table 4.2. Risk Quotients for Freshwater Inv ertebrates Exposed to Indaziflam in the

Water Column

Surface Water EECs (ppb) Invertebrate RQs

LC 50 

### = >9,880 μg total a.i./L NOAEC = 340 μg total ai/L Use

Peak 21-day Acute 1 

### Chronic 2



### Citrus 3.79 3.66 -- 0.01

Pome Fruit 3.86 3.74

-- 0.01

Grapes 4.00 3.98

-- 0.01

Olives 1.02 1.00

-- <0.01

Turf 0.47 0.45

-- <0.01

Home Lawns 5.92 5.89

-- 0.02

Ornamentals 6.19 6.10

-- 0.02
Hardscapes 3 

### 3.22 3.13

-- 0.01

Forested Areas 4.03 3.98

-- 0.01

### -Page 70 of 292- 

## Table 4.3. Risk Quotients for Estuarine a nd Marine Fish Exposed to Indaziflam.

EECs (ppb) Fish RQs

LC 50 

### = 960 μg total ai/L

NOAEC = not available Use

Peak 60-day Acute 1,2 

### Chronic

Citrus 3.79 3.46 <0.01 - Pome Fruit 3.86 3.60 <0.01 -

Grapes 4.00 3.95 <0.01 - Olives 1.02 0.94 <0.01 -

Turf 0.47 0.39 <0.01 -
Home Lawns 5.92 5.70 0.01 - Ornamentals 6.19 6.05 0.01 - Hardscapes 3 

### 3.22 2.94 <0.01 - Forested Areas 4.03 3.90 <0.01 -

1 Acute risk to non-listed species LOC for aquatic fish and invertebrates is 0.5

2 Acute risk to listed species LOC for a quatic fish and invertebrates is 0.05

3 Hardscape scenario assuming 100% of the potential treated area is treated



## Invertebrates

As shown in Table 4.4 , RQ values have been calculated for acute exposures of

indaziflam to estuarine/marine invertebrates. No chronic toxicity studies are available to provide the toxicity endpoints used to de rive corresponding chronic RQs. The acute RQ values are based on indaziflam exposures in the water column and are calculated using peak surface water EECs. Based on available studies, indazi flam is categorized “highly t oxic” to “moderately toxic” to esturine/marine invertebrates exposed in the water column. Definitive endpoints could not be

derived from available acute whole sediment t oxicity tests with marine amphipods, during which no treatment-related mortality was observed; the toxicity, however, was in part limited by solubility. Risk of indaziflam use to estuarine/ marine benthic invertebra tes will be characterized in the Risk Description, Section 4.2. All RQs for acute exposures of estuarine/marine invertebrates to indaziflam are below the Agency ’s acute risk to non-listed and listed species LOC values of 0.5 and 0.05, respectively. Based on lack of chronic effects data, risk of longterm effects is presumed to estuarine/mari ne invertebrates from indaziflam use.

### -Page 71 of 292- 

## Table 4.4. Risk Quotients for Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates Exposed to

Indaziflam.

EECs (ppb) Invertebrate RQs

LC 50 

### = 920 μg total ai/L

NOAEC = not available Use

Peak 21-day Acute 1,2,3 

### Chronic

Citrus 

### 3.79 3.66 <0.01

-
Pome Fruit 

### 3.86 3.74 <0.01

-

Grapes 

### 4.00 3.98 <0.01

-
Olives 

### 1.02 1.00 <0.01

-
Turf 

### 0.47 0.45 <0.01

-

Home Lawns 

### 5.92 5.89 0.01

-
Ornamentals 

### 6.19 6.10 0.01

- Hardscapes 4 

### 3.22 3.13 <0.01

-
Forested Areas 

### 4.03 3.98 <0.01

-

1 Acute RQs based on surface water peak EECs and toxicity data fo r estuarine/marine invertebra tes found in the water column

2 Acute non-listed LOC for aquatic fish and invertebrates is 0.5

3 Acute listed LOC for aquatic fi sh and invertebrates is 0.05

4 Hardscape scenario assuming 100% of the potential treated area is treated



## 4.1.1.3. Aquatic Plants

As shown in Table 4.5 , RQ values for all listed and non- listed vascular aquatic plants exceed the Agency’s aquatic plant risk LOC of 1.0, based on the aquatic EECs for each use pattern (RQs in bold exceed the LOC). Risks to aquatic vascular plants associated with exposure to indaziflam are expected across all of the proposed uses evaluated.

Table 4.5. Aquatic Vascular Plant Risk Quotients 1 

## for Exposure to Indaziflam.

Use Peak EECs (ppb) Nonlisted Species RQs

EC 50 

### = 0.061 μg ai/L Listed Species RQs

NOAEC = 0.0194 μg ai/L

Citrus 

### 3.79 62.1 3 195 3

Pome Fruit 

### 3.86 63.3 3 199 3

Grapes 

### 4.00 65.6 3 206 3

Olives 

### 1.02 16.7 3 52.6 3

Turf 

### 0.47 7.70 3 24.2 3

Home Lawns 

### 5.92 97.0 3 305 3

Ornamentals 

### 6.19 101 3 319 3

Hardscapes 2 

### 3.22 52.8 3 166 3

Forested Areas 

### 4.03 66.1 3 208 3

1 Risk to aquatic vascular and nonvascular plan t LOC for nonlisted and listed species is 1.0.

2 Hardscape scenario assuming 100% of the potential treated area is treated

3 .Exceeds risk to aquatic plant LOC of 1.0.



## RQs for nonvascular aquatic plants are presented in Table 4.6. All nonlisted RQ values fall below the Agency’s LOC value of 1.0. For listed species, RQs exceed the Agency’s

### -Page 72 of 292- 

## nonvascular plant risk LOC of 1.0 for two out of the nine uses: home lawns and ornamentals. These RQs are shown in bolded script.

Table 4.6. Aquatic Nonvascular Plant Risk Quotients 1 

## for Exposure to Indaziflam.

Use Peak EECs (ppb) Nonlisted Species RQs

EC 50 

### = 27 μg ai/L Listed Species 4 

### RQs

NOAEC = 5.1 μg ai/L

Citrus 3.79 0.14 0.74

Pome Fruit 3.86 0.14 0.76

Grapes 4.00 0.15 0.78

Olives 1.02 0.04 0.20

Turf 0.47 0.02 0.09

Home Lawns 5.92 0.22 1.2 2



### Ornamentals 6.19 0.23 1.2 2



### Hardscapes 3 

### 3.22 0.12 0.63

Forested Areas 4.03 0.15 0.79

1 Aquatic vascular and nonvascular plant LO C for nonlisted and listed species is 1.0.

2 Exceeds aquatic nonvascular plant risk LOC.

3 Hardscape scenario assuming 100% of the potential treated area is treated

4 No aquatic nonvascular species are Federally-listed to-date



## 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms

4.1.2.1. Mammals

Acute RQs were not calculated for mammals because only non-definitive acute oral toxicity data are available. Based on the available acute toxic ity data, no mortality was observed in any of the mammalian studies conducted on ind aziflam technical or its formulated products at the highest concentrations/doses tested; as suc h, indaziflam is categori zed “practically nontoxic” on an acute exposure basis. Furt her discussion of the predicted e xposure values relative to the levels at which no mortality was observed is provided as part of the risk description in Section

4.2.2.2.

Based on the proposed applicati on rate of 0.085 lbs a.i./A (wit h second application rate of 0.05 lbs a.i./A) for food uses of indaziflam, dose-based RQs calculated for chronic mammalian exposure range from <0.01 to 0.20 using upper 90 th 

## percentile Kenaga values (see Table 4.4 ). These RQs, along with RQs calculate d for all other indaziflam’s uses besides turf (granule), fall below the Agency’s mammalian chronic risk to listed and nonlisted species LOC (1.0). Since EFED has no standard methodology for assessing ch ronic risk to terrestrial organisms from granular applications, chronic effects from granular use of indaziflam on turf will be

characterized in th e risk description, Section 4.2.

### -Page 73 of 292- 

## Table 4.7. Chronic Mammalian Risk Quotients 1 

## for Indaziflam Proposed Uses 2



### Herbivore/Insectivore Dose-Based RQs

Use Size

Class (grams) Short Grass Tall

Grass Broadleaf

Plants/Small

Insects Fruits/Pods/ Large Insects Granivore

Dose-Based (seeds)

15 0.20 0.09 0.11 0.01 <0.01

35 0.17 0.08 0.10 0.01 <0.01 Food

1000 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 <0.01

15 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 <0.01

35 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 <0.01 Home Lawns

1000 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <0.01

15 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.01 <0.01

35 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 <0.01 Ornamentals &

Hardscapes 1000 0.06 0.03 0.04 <0.01 <0.01

15 0.13 0.06 0.08 0.01 <0.01

35 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 <0.01 Roadsides/rights -of-way & Site

Preparation 1000 0.06 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <0.01

15 0.19 0.09 0.11 0.01 <0.01

35 0.16 0.07 0.09 0.01 <0.01 Forested Areas

1000 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 <0.01

15 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01

35 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Turf (Ground Spray) 1000 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1 Mammalian and avian risk to listed and non listed species from chronic effects LOC = 1

2 Chronic mammalian effects from granular use on turf will be characterized in the risk description section.



## 4.1.2.2. Birds

Acute RQs were not calculated for birds because only non-definitive acute and sub-acute toxicity endpoints are available. Indaziflam wa s categorized practically non-toxic to zebra finch, mallard duck and bobwhite quail on an acute and subacute oral basis. However, treatmentrelated sublethal effects were observed in mallard duck at the highest concen tration tested in one sub-acute dietary toxicity study, as well as observed in zebra finc h at the highest concentration tested in an acute toxicity study. Further discussion of the predic ted exposure values relative to the levels at which no mortality and sublethal effects occurred (inhibition of body weight and food consumption for mallard duck; clinical signs of toxicity for zebra finch) is provided as part of the risk description in Section 4.2.5

.

Although the measure of effect for chronic risk to birds was a non-defintive endpoint (NOAEC <95 mg a.i./kg-diet), RQs were calculated to evaluate the minimum level of potential risk. As presented in Table 4.8. , all chronic RQs for each proposed spray use pattern and dietary item are below the Agency’s risk to birds chronic LOC (1.0). At the lowest dose tested in the reproductive toxicity study with mallard duck (95 mg a.i./kg), treatment-related effects were observed on female weight gain and adult food cons umption. Without toxicity data to determine otherwise, chronic risk to birds is presumed from indaziflam’s proposed spray uses. Further characterization of potential chroni c effects of indaziflam spray us es to birds at concentrations

### -Page 74 of 292- 

## lower than 95 mg a.i./kg is provided in the risk description, Section 4.2.5. Characterization of chronic effects to birds from the granular turf use will also be assessed in the Risk Description section since EFED has no standard methodology for assessing chronic risk to terrestrial organisms from granular applications.

T able 4.8. Chronic Avian Risk Quotients 1 

## for Indaziflam Proposed Uses 2



### Dietary-based RQs

Use Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf plants/sm

insects Fruits/pods/ seeds/lg insects

Food 0.33 0.15 0.19 0.02

Home Lawns 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01 Ornamentals & Hardscapes 0.24 0.11 0.13 0.01 Roadsides/rights-of-way & Site Preparation 0.22 0.10 0.13 0.01

Forested Areas 0.32 0.14 0.18 0.02 Turf (Ground Spray) 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01

Turf (Granule) ---

1 Mammalian and avian risk to listed and non listed species from chronic effects LOC = 1

2 Chronic avian effects from granular use on turf will be characterized in the risk description section.



## 4.1.2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates

Indaziflam is categorized as ‘practically non -toxic’ to honey bees on an acute contact and oral exposure basis, based on available data for the TGAI and the BCS-AA10717 SC 500 g/L formulated product. Indaziflam caused no mortal ities to earthworms during 14-days of exposure at the highest test concentration of 1,000 mg a.i. /kg dw soil based on available data for the TGAI and BCS-AA10717 SC 500 g/L formulation. Howe ver, due to effects on body weight, the NOAEC from the TGAI study was found to be 3 16 mg a.i./kg dw soil, with a corresponding LOAEC of 562 mg a.i./kg dw soil. The NOAEC from the formulated product study was found to be 562 mg a.i./kg dw soil, with a correspond ing LOAEC of 1000 mg a.i./kg dw soil. A 56-day study on survivial, growth, and reproduction reported an LC 50 

## >191 mg a.i./kg dw soil, with corresponding NOAEC of 34 mg a.i./ kg dw soil, based on fecundity ( i.e. mean number of offspring per surviving adult). Additional characterization of the potential risks of indaziflam to terrestrial invertebrates is pr ovided in the Risk Description, Section 4.2.2.2.

4.1.2.4. Non-target Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants

Potential effects to riparian and uplan d vegetation are assessed deriving RQs from terrestrial plant seedling emer gence and vegetative vigor EC 25 

## data. Based on the results of the submitted terrestrial plant toxicity tests for the two formulated produc ts (BCS-AA10717 20WSP and Indaziflam 500 SC), it appear s that monocots and dicots exhi bit similar sensitivity in the vegetative vigor test, as well as in the seedling emergence test. The available data indicate that the majority of tested plants exhibited adverse effects in the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests, and that a variety of terrestrial plants that may inha bit riparian and upland zones may be sensitive to indaziflam exposure.

### -Page 75 of 292- 

## A summary of the RQs for monocot and dicot terrestrial plants exposed to indaziflam formulations (at application rates ranging from 0.017 to 0.125 lbs a.i./A) is provided in Tables

4.8 and 4.9 , respectively. All RQs exceeded the Agency ’s risk to terrestrial plant nonlisted and listed species LOC (1.0). Further discussion of risk to monocots and dicots from spray drift will be addressed in the Risk Description, Section 4.2.

Table 4.8 RQs 1 

## for Monocots Inhabiting Dry and Semi-Aquatic Areas Exposed to Indaziflam

via Runoff and Drift

Spray drift RQ Dry area RQ Semi-aquatic area RQ Use Application method

Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted Listed

Food Ground Spray 5.31 13.7 10.6 27.4 58.4 151

Ground Spray 1.06 2.74 2.13 5.48 11.7 30.2 Turf Granule NA 2 

### NA 5.00 12.9 50.0 129

Home Lawns Ground Spray 2.94 7.58 5.88 15.2 32.3 83.4

Ornamentals/ Hardscapes Ground Spray 5.88 15.2 11.8 30.3 64.6 167

Roadsides/rights -of-way & Site Preparation Ground Spray 5.56 14.4 11.1 28.7 61.2 158

Ground Spray 7.81 20.2 15.6 40.3 85.9 222 Forested Areas Aerial Spray 39.1 101 68.2 121 170 302

1 All RQs exceed the Agency’s LOC (RQ > 1)

2 N/A = not applicable



## Table 4.9 RQs 1 

## for Dicots Inhabiting Dry and Semi-Aquatic Areas Exposed to Indaziflam via

Runoff and Drift

Spray drift RQ Dry area RQ Semi-aquatic area RQ Use Application method

Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted Listed Nonlisted Listed

Food Ground Spray 7.73 13.7 15.5 27.4 85.0 151

Ground Spray 1.55 2.74 3.09 5.48 17.0 30.2 Turf Granule N/A 2 

### N/A 7.27 12.9 72.7 129

Home Lawns Ground Spray 4.27 7.58 8.55 15.2 47.0 83.4

Ornamentals/ Hardscapes Ground Spray 8.55 15.2 17.1 30.3 94.0 167

Roadsides/rights -of-way & Site Preparation Ground Spray 8.09 14.4 16.2 28.7 89.0 158

Ground Spray 11.4 20.2 22.7 40.3 125 222 Forested Areas Aerial Spray 68.2 121 68.2 121 170 302

1 All RQs exceed the Agency’s LOC (RQ > 1)

2 N/A = not applicable

### -Page 76 of 292- 

## 4.2. Risk Description

The results of the risk estimation section indi cate that proposed uses of indaziflam may have direct adverse effects on pl ants: non-listed and listed aquatic vascular plants , listed aquatic nonvascular plants, and listed a nd nonlisted terrestrial monocots and dicots. While the listed species LOC for aquatic nonvascular plants was onl y slightly exceeded for two uses, tier III field studies provide evidence of popul ation level effects at environm entally-relavent concentrations; thus direct effects to listed sp ecies of nonvascular plants may potentially occur. Proposed indaziflam uses result in large LOC exceedances for terrestrial plants. The AgDrift model was used to refine the spray drift exposure and asse ssment of risk. Based on certain proposed uses, AgDrift model results indicates that nonlisted species RQs based on grou nd and aerial broadcast applications to roadsides/rights-of-ways, site preparation, and forested areas exceed the nonlisted and listed species LOC for distances at or greater than 900 feet fr om the edge of field. To characterize this risk, RQs per use pattern were developed for spray drift exposures ranging from distances of 0 (on the field) to 950 feet off the field. Alterations in proposed application rates were also explored. These results indicate that risk to non-target terrestrial plants from spray drift cannot be easily mitigated for certain uses, bu t that a spray drift buffer of 350 feet or greater for broadcast applications of indaziflam would reduce RQs belo w the nonlisted species LOC for

all turf and food uses.

RQs for all assessment endpoints with available data did not exceed the Agency’s listed

or nonlisted acute or chronic effects LOC for any proposed us es. Three assessment endpoints could not be fully assessed in the risk estimation due either a lack of data or inadequacy of data,

i.e. chronic effects to estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, and birds. For estuarine marine invertebrates, risk is presumed based on lack of data. For estuarine/marine fish, the Risk Description explores the potential for risk based on a freshwater fish acute-to-chronic ratio and

finds that risk to estuarine/marine fish is not expected. For birds, risk is presumed to listed and nonlisted species based on in adequacy of data.

The terrestrial exposure assessment of propos ed uses of indaziflam evaluated the exposure and effects of the parent compound only; however, data suggests that there are other degradates that could potentially be of concern to mammals, birds, and plants. While risk from these residues of concern, i.e., degradates, cannot be assessed quantitatively, the potential for risk can be assessed qualitatively. Given the cons ervative default estimate for the foliar dissipation half-life used in the terrestrial modeling (ie. 35 days ), the dietary toxicity to terrestrial wildlife of the degradates that do form on foliar surfaces may be accounted for by this conservative half-life and by assuming equal toxicity to the parent. Phyt otoxic effects of these degradates are also of concern based on their structural similarity to the parent. Although a quantitative anlysis of concentration vs. effect cannot be evaluated, any hypothetical effects would be captured by the design of the 21-day seedling emergence and vegetati ve vigor toxicity studies but linked back to a total concentration of the parent indaziflam.

Although direct adverse effects to many taxa are not expect ed based on this baseline assessment, indirect effects to all taxa are possi ble, given the potential for adverse effects to terrestrial and aquatic plants. Because plants are vital components of most habitats and

### -Page 77 of 292- 

## ecosystems, alterations in the abundance of plan ts or in the composition of plant communities

could result in adverse effects to non-plant species. Potential e ffects include, but are not limited to, reduction in food resources, decrease in cover ( e.g. , for predator avoidance), change in water quality parameters ( e.g. , increases or decreases in te mperature and DO), and loss of breeding/nesting habitat. The degr ee to which these effects may occur, or if they occur at all, has not been assessed. However, this baseline assessm ent uses conservative estimates of exposures that may in some cases be protective of risks from indirect effects.

4.2.1 Exposure to Aquatic Organisms

Surface water EECs resulting from applications of indaziflam to hardscapes are conservative estimates of exposure. However, since these estimates were generated using a number of assumptions (e.g., 12% of a 1⁄4 acr e urban/suburban reside ntial lot would be impervious, 58 lots in a 10ha residential watershe d, all of which is treated with indaziflam), EECs were also completed for exploratory purpos es by removing the the assumptions for percent of the watershed that is impervious and conve rsely assuming that the 10 ha watershed (i.e., treated field) would be 100% impe rvious (i.e., a parking lot). Con ceptually, this type of scenario may exist in urban environments (e.g., parking lo t for an event stadium). Therefore, EECs were generated assuming that all hard scapes are treated simultaneous ly, and that 100% of the area draining to the pond is impervious. Although the EECs in Table 4.10 are based on potential routes of exposure, it is unlikely that every imperv ious surface will be treated at a single time.

Table 4.10. Unadjusted EECs for Indazi flam Applications to Hardscapes

Uses Scenario Max. App. rate (lbs a.i./A/yr) Peak (ppb) 21-day (ppb) 60-day (ppb)

Hardscapes (unadjusted) FL Impervious 0.094 26.8 26.1 24.5



## Estimates of aquatic exposure for risk estimatation were calculated based on a fraction (12%) of a typical 1⁄4 acre lot that could be impervious surfac e (hardscape). This resulted in a much lower fraction of the watershed that could pot entially receive applications of indaziflam. For the purposes of characterizing the exposure estimates, EECS were calculated assuming that 100% of the 10 ha watershed was impervious ( Table 4.10 ). It is unlikely th at a 10 ha hardscape

area would be treated with indaziflam since the end-use products labeled for use on hardscapes are formulated for hand-pump sprayers, hose- end sprayers, or battery powered hand-held sprayers (i.e., it is unlikely that they are used for broadcast applications over large areas). However, for a qualitative discus sion of risk, these estimates are presented as a worst case scenario for aquatic exposure.

### -Page 78 of 292- 

## 4.2.2 Risks to Aquatic Animals

Freshwater Fish Acute RQs were calculated in the Risk Es timation section for all proposed uses of indaziflam and were found not to exceed the Ag ency’s acute risk LOC for nonlisted and listed species (0.05) based on the most sensitive acute endpoint available, LC 50 

## = 320 μg total a.i./L. To explore potential risks to freshwater fish from indaziflam exposures estimated from the unadjusted hardscape scenario, as presented abov e, RQs were calculated for nonlisted and listed species based on a peak environment exposure to i ndaziflam at 26.8 μg/L. At this concentration, only the listed species acute RQ, calculated as 0.08, exceeded the Agency’s acute risk LOC (0.05). In light of this slight ex ceedance, risk to listed freshwat er fish is discountable given the highly conservative assumptions of the unadjuste d hardscapes scenario: that a 10 ha watershed (i.e., treated field) woul d be 100% impervious (i.e., a parking lo t), that this 10 ha area would be treated simultaneously, and that 100% of the applied chemical would drain into an adjacent pond (i.e. or other type of water body) . Therefore, considering that th is is a worst case scenario, and that listed and nonlisted species RQs do not exceed the Agency’s acute risk LOC for less extreme scenarios, acute risk to nonlisted and lis ted species from all propose d indaziflam uses is not expected.

Freshwater fish chronic RQs with values ≤ 0.01 did not exceed the Agency’s chronic risk LOC for nonlisted and listed species (1.0). Thes e RQs are based on the most sensitive chronic endpoint available from fathead minnow, NOAEC = 464 μg tota l a.i./L. The corresponding EC 50 

## for fathead minnow from an acute study (MRID 47443229) was found to be 770 μg total a.i./L. The most sensitive acute value used in this assessment to derive RQs, however, is derived from bluegill sunfish (320 μg total a.i./L). To investigate what a chronic toxicity value would be for bluegill sunfish, an acute-to-ch ronic (ACR) ratio from fathead minnow can be derived. In applying the ACR of fathead minnow, calculate d to be 1.66 (770/464), to bluegill sunfish, the estimated chronic toxicity value for blugill sunfish is 193 μg a.i. /L. In comparing this lower toxicity value to 60-day EECs, newly derived chronic RQs range from <0.01 to 0.03, still below the Agency’s chronic risk to listed and nonlisted sp ecies of 1.0. Chronic ri sk to freshwater fish from proposed uses of indaziflam is not expected.

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute RQs for estuarine/marine fish do not exceed the Agency’s LOCs based on the highest surface water EECs (ranging 0.47 to 6.19 μg a i/L) for all use patterns. From the one available acute study using sheepshead minnow, the LD 50 

## for estuarine/mari ne fish is 960 μg total ai/L, roughly 150 times higher than the highest peak EEC (35 times higher than the highest peak EEC based on the highly conservative scenar io for proposed use on hardscapes). If a comparison is made between the effect level at which no mortality or sublethal effects were observed (NOAEC = 430 μg ai/L), the highest pe ak EEC would still be roughly 65 times less (15 times less for unadjusted hardscapes use). Since RQ values are below the acute risk LOCs, acute mortality to Federally list ed or non-listed estuarine/marine fish from proposed uses of indaziflam is not expected. Moreover, given indaziflam’s solubility of 1,200 – 4,400 μg ai/L (MRID 47443202), effects to estuarine/marine fish demonstrat ed in the toxicity test s could potentially be

limited under more realistic environm ents, i.e., absence of a solven t. Indaziflam’s solubility

### -Page 79 of 292- 

## might also be lower in esturine/marine environm ents where the solute concentration is higher

than in freshwater.

Chronic data is unavailable to assess long-te rm effects of proposed indaziflam uses on esturine/maine fish. Accordingly, risk to this taxon was presumed in the risk estimation. However, to explore the potential for chronic effects, an ACR de rived from freshwater fish can be applied to the most sensitive acute measurement endpoint for estuarine/marine fish, which as discussed above, is 960 μg total ai/L. An AC R of 1.66 was derived for fathead minnow based on

acute and chronic studies. An estimate of the ch ronic endpoint for estuarine/marine fish using this ACR results in a NOAEC of 578 μg total ai/L. RQs based on this NOAEC have values ≤ 0.01, at a minimum 100 times lower than the Agency ’s chronic risk liste d and nonlisted species LOC (1.0). Based on this extrapolat ion, chronic risk to estuarine/ma rine fish is not expected for proposed indaziflam uses.

Freshwater Invertebrates

Acute RQs were not calculated due to the non-definitive endpoint (>9,880 μg total ai/L) derived from a toxicity study to D. magna using the TGAI (MRID 47443226). The acute study exposed daphnids to indaziflam concen trations of <LOQ (controls), 620, 1,230, 2,540, 4,860, and 9,880 μg total ai/L, at which 35% immobility was observed at the highest test level. A comparison of the highest concentration w ith peak surface water EECs shows that the concentration at which < 50% immoblity occurred far exceeds the predicted peak environmental concentrations (ranging 0.47 to 6.19 μg ai/L) by over 1500 times. If compared to the highly conservative peak water concentration of 26.8 μg ai/L for hardscapes use, then the highest concentration at which < 50% immoblity occurred still exceeds the predicted peak environmental concentration by over 350 times. Furthermore, the concentration at which effects occurred exceeds the solubility lim it of indaziflam (without use of methods to increase dissolution). Thus, the effects observed in the study would likely be limited by solubilily unde r realistic conditions. Another non-definitive endpoint (> 2,200 μg ai/L) was available from an acute sediment exposure test on a freshwater midge species (MRID 47443238). The highest concentration tested at which no mortality was observed in the midge study, 2,200 μg ai/L of pore water, is at a minimum 550 times greater than the highest pore water EECs for all proposed uses, as reported in Table 3.8

. Indaziflam’s limit of solubility would also likely limit the potential effects to benthic

invertebrates under realistic conditi ons. Acute mortality to freshwater invertebrates exposed to proposed uses of indaziflam is not expected.

Chronic risk to freshwater invertebrates was assessed ba sed on one reproductive study on Daphna magna ; all RQs were below the Agency’s LOCs. However, there is uncertainty in this endpoint because the study from which the toxi city endpoint was derived failed to measure reproductive success (i.e. number of immobilized offspring). Howe ver, the concentration level

at which no chronic effects were observed in daphnids, 340 μg to tal ai/L, is at a minimum 13 times more than the range of 21-day EECs (0.45 – 26.1 μg ai/L). Therefore, chronic effects to

freshwater intervetebrates fr om the proposed uses of indaziflam are not expected.

### -Page 80 of 292- 

## Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates All acute estuarine/marine invertebrate RQ s were well below the Agency’s risk to nonlisted and listed species LOCs. The endpoint us ed to derive the RQs was based on a toxicity study with the Eastern oyster (mollusk). The EC 50 

## of 920 μg total ai/L is roughly 140 times greater than the highest peak EEC predicted to be availa ble and is roughly 30 times greater compared to the highly conservative EEC for ha rscapes use. This endpoint is lower than the other available EEC of 1,500 μg ai/L based on a study with mysid shrimp (crustacean). Moreover, given indaziflam’s solubility of 1,200 – 4,400 μg ai/L (MRID 47443202), effects to

estuarine/marine invertebrates demonstrated in the toxicity tests could potentially be limited under more realistic environments, i.e., absence of a solvent. Indaziflam’s solubility might also

be lower in esturine/marine environments wher e the solute concentration is higher than in freshwater. A non-definitive endpoint was availa ble from an acute sediment exposure test on species of marine amphipods at which no mortality was observed (3,800 μg a.i./L of pore water). Pore water EECs were derived and presented in Table 3.8 to characterize the available benthic invertebrate toxicity studies. The concentr ation at which no mortality was observed in the amphipod study (3,800 μg ai/L) was 3 orders of magn itude greater than the highest pore water EECs for all proposed uses. Moreover, effects to estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates would likely be limited by indaziflam’s solubility unde r realistic conditions. The potential for acute mortality to estuarine/marine inve rtebrates from the proposed uses of indaziflam is not expected based on these studies. However, since there are no data that indicate othe rwise, chronic direct

risk to non-listed and listed estuarin e/marine invertebrates is presumed.

4.2.3 Risks to Aquatic Plants

Aquatic Vascular Species As was presented in the risk estimation section, all non-listed a nd listed aquatic vascular plant RQs exceeded the Agency’s LOC by factor s ranging from 9 to 319. Peak environmental concentrations estimated ranged from 0.47 to 6.19 μg ai/L, while the toxicity data (MRID 47743308) indicated the surrogate species L. gibba /duckweed to be sensitive to indaziflam at

much lower concentrations: EC 50 

## = 0.061 μg ai/L; NOAEC = 0.0194 μg ai/L. Direct risks to non-listed and listed species are likely given the pr oposed uses of indaziflam (with direct risks more likely considering the unadjusted hardscapes scenario). However, considering that the toxicity of indaziflam to vascular plants was demonstrated to be lower using a sediment/water system (MRID 47443256), effects to vascular pl ants under more realistic conditions (i.e. presence of sediment) may be lower.

The submitted 69-day tier III field study on aquatic plants (MRID 47443257), discussed in the Effects Characterization, supp orts the finding of potential risk to aquatic vascular plants. Overall, aquatic vasculars in the constructed micr ocosms were far more sensitive than species in the phytoplankton and zooplankton ( nonvascular plant) taxa. Of the vascular plant species investigated, the lemnids ( L. gibba

, S. polyrhiza ) were the most sensitive, with a NOAEC of 0.01 μg ai/L. The vast majority of non- lemnid vascul ar plants began to exhib it clear effects at the 1.0 μg ai/L level, and no recovery was indicated at the 3.2 and 10.0 μ g ai/L levels. It was concluded that for all assessed endpoints for L. gibba (number of fronds, percent growth of fronds, and dry

### -Page 81 of 292- 

## weight), the NOAEC was 0.01 μ g ai/L during the first 14 days post-treatment. Although derived from a longer duration exposure, this NOAEC corresponds in magnitude with the NOAEC of 0.0194 μg a.i./L from the 7-day toxicity study using L. gibba (mentioned above). This study allays some uncertainty as to whether studies using L. gibba provide protective endpoints for other vascular plants and whether the 7-day st udies are protective of longer-term exposures (14- 69 days).

Aquatic Nonvascular Species Risk was determined to listed aquatic nonvascul ars in the Risk Estimation: listed species RQs for the proposed indaziflam uses on home lawns and ornamentals exceeded the Agency’s plant risk LOC (both RQs were calculated as 1.2) ; listed species RQs for the remaining uses and for all non-listed species were be low the LOC. Exploring risk from the unadjusted hardscapes scenario, only RQs for listed nonvascular species would exceed the LOC (1.0) with an RQ of 5.3. The submitted tier III aquatic plant field stu dy sheds more light into the effects at the population and community level. The study evaluated response of 68 taxa of nonvascular plants (phytoplankton) to indaziflam exposure. At th e population level, univariate analysis of theresponses of phytoplankton was performed using the Williams test. Of the 68 taxa, statisticallysignificant treatment-related effects we re determined for three taxa: Crucigeniella sp. (NOAEC at 7-14 days = 3.2 μg a.i./L), Cosmarium sp. (NOAEC at 14 days 0.1 μg a.i./L, at 56 days 1.0 μg a.i./L), and Nitzschia sp (NOAEC at 7 days 1.0 μg a.i./L, 14 days 3.2 μg a.i./L). For Crucigeniella , the response was interpreted with caution because of the initial low abundance values. At the community level, the number of taxa per sampli ng interval varied between 9 and 29 in the control microcosms; however, statistica lly-significant treatment -related effects on taxarichness were not observed. Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed no clear treatmentrelated response, with more or less similar variability between treatment levels during the preand post-treatment periods. The results from th e RQ analysis combined with these microcosms

results indicate that direct e ffects to non-listed aqua tic non-vasculars is likely to be low; however, given the listed species RQ exceedances for certain proposed uses as well as the evidence of population level eff ects at environmentally-relave nt concentrations (peak EECs range 0.47 – 6.19 μg a.i./L; peak EECs for the una djusted hardscapes scenario range 0.47 -26.8 μg a.i./L, direct effects from proposed indaziflam uses to listed aquatic non-vascular species may potentially occur. Although no Federally-listed aquatic nonvascular specie s exist to-d ate, this risk finding is protective of all future listings a nd any species of nonvasculars that are threatened or endangered but have missed Federal recognition.

4.2.4. Risks to Mammals

Acute RQs were not derived for mammals in the Risk Estimation section of this assessment because no mortality to rats was observe d at the highest treatment level in the acute

oral mammalian studies of indazi flam technical or studies of i ndaziflam’s formulated products. To put the non-definitive mammalia n endpoint into context, derive d from both acute oral studies of indaziflam technical, adjusted LD 50 

## values were computed in T-REX based on the nondefinitive acute endpoint of > 2,000 mg a.i/kg bw. For three size classes of mammals (15, 35, & 1000 grams), the adjusted LD 50 

## values ranged from 1538 to 4395 mg a.i./kg-bw, which at a

### -Page 82 of 292- 

## minimum are 50 times higher than the dose-ba sed EECs generated for proposed ground spray food uses, 0.067 to 30.1 mg/kg-bw. For the granul ar application, a ratio of an adjusted LD 50 

## and the square footage of applied area was calculate d. Employing the conservative assumption that

the acute LD 50 

## for mammals is 2000 mg ai/kg-bw, the risk estimate for acute exposure to indaziflam granules did not exceed the Agency’s acute risk LOCs for any mammalian weight class ( ≤ 0.01). Direct acute effects to mammals from exposure to indaziflam are not expected. Furthermore, based on toxicity stud ies of formulations of indazifl am and other active ingredients,

direct risk to mammals due to indaziflam mixed w ith multiple active ingredients is not expected.

As was presented in the Risk Estima tion, chronic mammalian RQs for all spray applications of indaziflam fell below the Agency ’s risk to listed and nonlisted species LOC of 1.0. Chronic effects from granular use of indazi flam were not evaluated in the Risk Estimation since EFED has no standard methodology for assessing chronic risk to terres trial organisms from granular applications. The follo wing chronic exposure estimati on and risk characterization for terrestrial wildlife considers granular routes of exposure through the direct ingestion by birds or mammals of soil invertebrates (i.e. earthworms) th at have bioconcentrated indaziflam residues of granules in soil. Estimates of earthworm concen trations of indaziflam were calculated using a fugacity-based (equilibri um partitioning) approach based on the work of Trapp and McFarlane (1995) and Mackay and Paterson (1981). A de scription of the model and an example input/output spreadsheet can be found in Appendix K . The model estimates risk by assuming 100% of the diet is comprised of terrestrial soil invertebrates. Specifically for indaziflam, the assumption was made that the pesticide would be pr esent in the top 15-cm of the soil (no direct incorporation, but that granules were watered-in). To assess chronic risk to mammals, the conservative assumption was employed that the LD 50 

## equals (rather than exceeds) 2000 mg ai/kg-bw for mammals. The acute dose-bas ed RQ for a 15g mammal exposed to a single granular application of indaziflam at 0.08 lbs a i/A is <0.01, less than the Agency’s acute risk LOCs. Considering the toxicity data and all proposed uses and application methods of indaziflam, and given that indaziflam is not ex pected to bioconcentrate in earthworm tissue,

direct effects to mammals from chroni c exposures are not expected.

4.2.5. Risk to Birds

Because the LD 50 

## and LC 50 

## values exceeded the highest treatment levels tested in the submitted acute oral and sub-acute dietary avian studies, standard RQs for acute and sub-acute exposure were not calculated in the Risk Estim ation section of this assessment. However,

sublethal effects were observed. Clinical signs of t oxicity such as ruffled feathers, reduced reaction to stimulim, and lethargy were observed at the highest concentration tested (i.e. only concentration tested) in the acute dose-based oral study of zebra finch. One mortality also occurred in the zebra finch study although it was uncertain whether the mortality was treatmentrelated. Food consumption was inhibited in the mallard duck sub-acute dietary study at the highest test concentration of 5,215 mg/kg-diet with no effect reporte d at 2,518 mg a.i./kg-diet. In order to gain a better understanding of how the EECs for the maximum proposed indaziflam application rates relate to the toxicity data cu rrently available for birds, T-REX was used to

### -Page 83 of 292- 

## compare dose-based EECs with the toxicity endpoints (adjusted-LD 50 

## ) using the conservative assumption that the highest value from the avian acute oral studies ( i.e. , acute LD 50 

## = 2,000 mg a.i./kg-bw) and the NOAEC for th e avian sub-acute dietary study ( i.e. , NOAEC = 2,518 mg a.i./kg-diet) represent the actua l avian acute endpoints. Fo r the proposed use pattern of indaziflam generating the highest terrestrial EECs in TREX (food use) dose-based EECs for three size classes of birds (20, 100, & 1000 grams) on all dietary ite ms (short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants/small insects, fruits/pods/s eeds/large insects) ranged from 4.22 to 36.1 mg a.i./kg-bw. The adjusted toxicity endpoints fo r the three size categories of birds ranged from 1440 to 2591 mg ai/kg-bw. Based on these two calcu lations, it is evident that the environment concentrations resulting from proposed uses on food would be at a minimum 39 times less than

concentrations at which sublethal effects on an ac ute dose-basis have been observed in birds; the

environmental concentrations for all other proposed used would be even lower. Using the same comparison for sub-acute exposure from proposed uses on food, dietary-based EECs for birds on all dietary items ranged from 1.98 to 31.7 mg a. i./kg. A comparison of the NOAEC of 2,518 mg a.i./kg-diet with these estimated environmental concentrations from indaziflam use shows that

the environmental concentrations are at a mini mum 79 times less than a concentration at which

no sub-acute effects were observed in birds. Given these comparisons, and that the real LD 50 

## is even greater than 2,000 mg a.i./kg-bw for dose-ba sed exposures, acute and subacute effects from spray applications to non-targ et birds are not expected.

For acute effects from proposed turf use vi a granules, T-REX was used to calculate a ratio of an adjusted LD 50 

## to the square footage of applied area. This rati o, or risk estimate, is directly compared to the Agency ’s levels of concern. Using th e same conservative assumptions about the actual avian endpoints, the risk estimate for birds assuming weight classes – 20,100, & 1000 grams – is ≤ 0.03, less than the acute risk to listed bi rd species LOC of 0.1. Given that the

real LD 50 

## is even greater than 2,000 mg a.i./kg-bw for dose-based exposures, acute risk to birds from proposed granular uses of indaziflam is low. Based on acute risk findings, mortality in birds from sub-acute exposure vi a granules is not expected.

Chronic RQs were derived as a screening exer cise in the Risk Estimation section of this

assessment for the non-definitive risk measure of effect to birds (NOAEC < 95 mg a.i./kg-diet). As a minimum level of risk, none of the RQs for any proposed spray uses of indaziflam exceeded the Agency’s chronic risk to birds LOC of 1.0. However, the maximum direct chronic risk to nonlisted and listed bird species in unknown and cannot be precluded with the available data. The toxicity study from which this endpoint is derived was conducted on mallard duck over ca. 22 weeks based on reduction in female weight ga in and reduced adult food consumption. The study results are questionable a nd a second study on reproductive e ffects in mallard duck would greatly improve certainty in making a chronic risk call to birds. There is uncertainty regarding this study because not all validity criteria were met: egg shell thic kness in control birds measured 0.33 mm, less than the definitive test criteria re quirement of 0.34 mm, indicating potential stress to the birds. Cage size was also reported to be 2,410 cm 2 

## /adult bird, rather than the recommended 10,000 cm 2 

## /adult bird. Furthermore, effects observed for adult food consumption and female weight gain were also not dos e dependent. A second study was conducted on

mallard duck over the course of 6 weeks duri ng the egg-laying phase. The lowest NOAEC, based on male body weight gain, was < 44 mg a. i./kg-diet. The NOAEC for female body weight

### -Page 84 of 292- 

## gain was 44 mg a.i./kg-diet. These two endpoint s are not directly comparable to the endpoints from the study conducted on mallard duck because weight was measured for only 6 weeks, instead of 22 weeks. However, these endpoint s are lower and explori ng what RQs would be based on the NOAEC of 44 mg a.i. /kg-diet indicates listed an d nonlisted species RQs would range from 0.72 to 0.01 for all uses (chronic risk to birds LOC = 1.0). Uncertainty exists in this 6-week study because male birds per treatment le vel on average lost weight, rather than gained weight. Both reproductive studies suggest that indaziflam affects the dietary habitats and weight

of the adult birds which would tr anslate into decreased fitness a nd reproductive capacities in the environment. Whether reduction in food consumpti on is due to decreases in food palatibilty or loss of appetite is uncertain. Direct chronic risk to listed a nd nonlisted avian species cannot be precluded and is presumed for pr oposed uses of indaziflam.

The same fugacity-based (equilibrium partiti oning) approach that was used for mammals, with the same scenarios and assumptions, was used to assess risk of indaziflam granules to birds. Using the assumption that the chronic avian endpoi nt (NOAEC) is equal to 95 mg ai/kg-diet, the chronic RQ for a small bird (20 g) consuming ind aziflam granules at an application rate of 0.080

lbs a.i./A falls below the non listed and listed species risk LOC of 1.0 (<0.01). Using the assumption that the chronic avian endpoint (NOAEC) is equal to 44 mg ai/kg-diet, the chronic RQ for a small bird (20 g) consuming indaziflam granules at an appli cation rate of 0.080 lbs

a.i./A still falls below the nonlisted and liste d species risk LOC of 1.0 (<0.01). However,

because the data indicate the e ffects would be observed at concen trations lower than the lowest concetration tested, either 44 or 95 mg ai/kg, the potential for chronic effects to birds from the proposed granular use of indaziflam is presumed.

The potential for direct mort ality of nonlisted and listed bi rds (and to terrestrial-phase amphibian and reptiles for which birds serve as su rrogates) from acute and subacute exposures of indaziflam for all proposed uses is not expected. Direct risk is presum ed to nonlisted and listed birds from chronic exposures to all proposed uses and application methods of indaziflam.

4.2.6. Risk to Terrestrial Invertebrates

The available toxicity data for honey bees indi cate that direct contac t and oral exposure to indaziflam is not likely to adversely affect benefi cial terrestrial invertebrates such as pollinators (young adult forage bees) in and around proposed use areas for indaziflam. Affects to body weight were observed in earthworms from a 14- day study at concentrations of 562 and 1000 mg a.i./kg dw soil. Re productive effects, i.e. number of offspring produced, were observed in a 56- day study at concentrations of 60.3, 107, and 191 mg a.i./kg dw soil. As an exercise to characterize this toxicity at relevant environmen tal concentrations, an estimate was made as to the expected concentration of indaziflam in so il at the maximum single application rate of 0.125 lbs a.i./A, assuming a soil depth of 15 cm and bulk density of 1.3 g/cm 3 

## . Given this scenario, although rough, the predicted maxi mum soil concentration of ind aziflam is 0.071 mg a.i./kg dw soil, which is more than 800 times smaller than the most sensitive effects endpoint from earthworm toxicity studies (60.3 a. i./kg dw soil). Therefore, the potential for direct risk to earthworms from exposure to indazifl am in soil is not expected.

### -Page 85 of 292- 

## 4.2.7. Risk to Terrestrial & Semi-Aquatic Plants

Tier II plant studies demonstrate the potential for indaziflam to affect terrestrial and semiaquatic plants. As was shown in Table 4.5 , RQs exceed the Agency’s risk to plant LOC for nonlisted monocots inhabiting dry and semi-aquatic areas exposed to indaziflam via runoff and drift for aerial and ground applications for each use pattern with simgle maximum application rates ranging from 0.017 lbs a.i./A to 0.125 lbs a.i./A; RQs for listed monocots also exceed the Agency’s risk to plant LOC, based on all m odeled use patterns and application rates. Additionally, the listed and non-lis ted species LOC is exceeded for all RQs calculated for dicots ( Table 4.6 ), based on all proposed ind aziflam use patterns.

Given that RQ values for all proposed indaziflam broadcast spray uses are in excess of the LOC for terrestrial plants, the AgDRIFT model (Version 2.01) wa s used to refine the spray drift exposure estimate. Downwind spray drift bu ffers were evaluated to determine the distance required to dissipate spray drift RQs to below the LOC based on EC 25 

## and NOAEC values from terrestrial plants that demonstrate the most sensitivity from either seedling emergence or vegetative vigor testing. Inputs for AgDRIFT modeling are provided in Table 4.11. Dissipation

to the no effect and EC 25 

## level was modeled in order to provid e potential buffer distances that are protective of listed and non-liste d terrestrial plant species, respectively. Drift buffers were derived for all proposed indaziflam uses based on associated applica tion rates, application methods, and spray drift label language. For gro und broadcast applications, four of the five labels proposing this application method explicitly discuss spray drift management ( i.e. Spray Drift Management Section on labe l) and direct the user to no t apply when wind speeds are greater than 10 miles per hour (mph), during temperat ure inversions, or when fog is present. The four labels are Esplanade F, Esplanade 200 SC , Indaziflam 200 SC, and Indaziflam 500 SC; BCS-AA10717 20 WSP does not include language on sp ray drift management. The labels also advise that the formulated pr oducts should only be applied wh en the potential for drift to adjacent sensitive areas (e.g. bodies of water) is minimal (e.g. wind blowing in opposite direction). The label for proposed aerial sprayi ng, Esplanade F, include s language that directs the user to apply large droplets, defined as 150-200 microns, under low spray pressure. A summary of the results of the Ag DRIFT modeling is presented in Table 4.12. Details concerning the specifics and uncertainties associ ated with the AgDRIFT model are available

online at www.agdrift.com

.

Table 4.11. AgDRIFT Input Parameters: Most Sensitive 1 

## Terrestrial Plant Measurement Endpoints

Test Type / Crop Most Sensitive Study Species NOAEC (lbs a.i./A) EC 25 

### (lbs a.i./A) Most Sensitive

Parameter Seedling Emergence:

Dicot Oilseed Rape 0.00011 0.000062 Emergence

1 

### Oilseed rape demonstrated both the lowest NOAEC and EC 25 

### values for terrestrial plants

### -Page 86 of 292- 

## Table 4.12. Summary of AgDRIFT Modeling Results for Listed and Non-Listed Terrestrial Plant Species By Use Pattern

Distance (ft) from ed ge of field where LOC is no longer exceeded –

Ground Application Distance (ft) from edge of field where LOC is no longer exceeded — Aerial Applications Use 1


### (Single Max Application Rate) Listed Plants 4 

### Non-listed

Plants 5 

### Listed Plants 4 

### Non-listed

Plants 5



### Food - Normal Orchard 2


### (0.085 lbs ai/A) 89 49 - -

Food – Sparse Orchard 3


### (0.085 lbs ai/A) 334 259 - -

Turf (0.017 lbs ai/A) 528 341 - -

Roadsides/Rights-of-way & Site Preparation

(0.089 lbs ai/A) >997 900 - -

Forested Areas (0.125 lbs ai/A) >997 >997 >997 >997

1 Only proposed uses of indaziflam for broadcast spray via ground or aerial methods were modeled with AgDrift.

2 Agdrift Tier I Orchard Use ‘Normal’ simulate s an orchard with stone and pome fruit tr ees, or a vineyard, with application effic iency of 99.85%.

3 Agdrift Tier I Orchard Use ‘Sparse’ simu lates an orchard with young and dormant trees , with application efficiency of 97.69%.

4 Most sensitive terrestrial plant NOAEC = 0.000062 lbs a.i./A (6 .2x10E-5 lbs a.i./A)

5 Most sensitive terrestrial plant EC 25 = 0.00011 lbs a.i./A (1.1x10E-4 lbs a.i.A)



## The results of AgDRIFT modeling show that spray drift buffers ranging from 89-334 feet for orchard uses would be necessary to reduce sp ray drift deposition below listed species levels of concern, while for non-listed sp ecies these buffers would need to be 49-259 feet. For turf, buffers of 528 and 341 feet would be necessary to create spray drift deposition below the level of concern for listed and non-listed plants, re spectively. For ground a nd aerial broadcast applications to roadsides/rights-of-ways, site preparation, and forested areas, RQs exceed the nonlisted and listed species LOC for distances at or grea ter than 900 feet from the edge of field.

To further characterize the exposure to terrest rial plant species, RQs per use pattern were developed for spray drift exposures ranging from di stances of 0 (on the field) to 950 feet off the

field. Figure 4.1 depicts the nonlisted species RQs rela tive to distance s off field, while Figure

4.2 shows listed species RQs relati ve to distances off field.

### -Page 87 of 292- 0.1

1 10 100 1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000



## Distance From Edge Of FieldRQ Food - Normal Orchard

Food- Sparse Orchard

Turf

Roadsides/Rights-of-ways/Site Prep

Forested Areas-Ground

Forested Areas - Aerial



## Figure 4.1: RQs for the most sensitive nonlis ted terrestrial plant exposed to spray drift from propsed broadcast uses of indaziflam. The ri sk to nonlisted species LOC is 1.0 (RQ = 1.0).

0.1 1 10 100 1000

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Distance From Edge of Field (feet)RQ Food - Normal Orchard Food- Sparse Orchard

Turf NonCrop

Forested Areas-Ground

Forested Areas - Aerial



## Figure 4.2: RQs for the most sensitive listed terrestrial plant exposed to spray drift from propsed broadcast uses of indaziflam. The ri sk to nonlisted species LOC is 1.0 (RQ = 1.0).

### -Page 88 of 292- 

## Alterations in proposed applic ation rates would also reduce risk to terrestrial plants associated with spray drift deposition. For exam ple, to be protective of nonlisted plants at a spray drift buffer distance of 300 ft, the single maximum application rate would need to be reduced to 0.019 lbs a.i./A, or 21% of current rates, for ground sp rays to roadsides/rights-of-way & site preparation; reduced to 0.019 lbs a.i./A, or 15% of current rate s for ground sprays to forested areas; and reduced to 0.0048 lbs a.i./A, or 4% of current rates for aerial sprays to forested areas. These reduced application rate s along with the associated percentage of the current rate for distances ranging 200 to 900 feet off field are presented in Table 4.13

.

Table 4.13. Application rate (lbs a.i./A ) per use pattern that would generate nonlisted terrestrial plant RQs below the LOC at specified distances from field (percentage of current rate in parentheses)

Distance from Field (feet) Roadsides/Rights-ofways & Site Prep –

Ground (0.089 lbs a.i./A) Forested Areas –

Ground (0.125 lbs a.i./A) Forested Areas –

Aerial (0.125 lbs a.i./A)

200 0.012 (14%) 0.012 (9.6%) 0.0031 (2.5%)



## 300 0.019 (21%) 0.019 (15%) 0.0048 (3.8%)



## 400 0.028 (32%) 0.028 (22%) 0.0064 (5.1%)



## 500 0.038 (43%) 0.038 (30%) 0.0078 (6.2%)



## 600 0.049 (55%) 0.049 (39%) 0.0091 (7.3%)



## 700 0.060 (67%) 0.060 (48%) 0.010 (8.0%)



## 800 0.075 (84%) 0.075 (60%) 0.011 (8.8%)



## 900 0.090 (101%) 0.090 (101%) 0.012 (9.6%)



## Based on this anaylsis of spray drift exposure and resul ting RQs at varying distances from the field, buffers of approximately 350 feet for broadcast applications of indaziflam would reduce RQs below the nonlisted species LOC for all turf and food uses; buffers of approximately 550 feet would reduce RQs below the listed speices LOC for all turf and food uses. While RQs based on spray drift for other use patterns woul d still exceed the nonlisted and listed species LOCs, it is expected that thes e buffers of 350 or 550 feet w ould reduce the number of plant species ultimately affected.

4.3. Uncertainties and Data Gaps

4.3.1. Aquatic Exposure

There is con siderable uncertainty associat ed with the impervi ous (hardscape) and residential scenarios. A number of assumptions were employed in the modeling of these uses and may not represent actual use patterns. For example, for the estimation of risk, we assumed that 12% of a typical 1⁄4 acre residential lot in an urban/suburban environment would be impervious (hardscape) and could potentially be treated with ind aziflam. It is uncertain how

much of a residential watershed is considered an impervious surface, and also how much of the impervious surface would be treated with indazi flam; however, the assumptions that were made for aquatic modeling attempt to characterize a re asonable estimate of treated area. EFED

### -Page 89 of 292- 

## recognizes that hardscapes may be spot treate d, and not all impervious surfaces in a watershed are simultaneously treated, the ac tual amount of impervious surface in a residential watershed may vary. To the extent that actual use patter ns and amount of treated impervious surfaces differ from modeling assumptions, actual environmental c oncentrations could be lower. EFED used the best available data to make a reasonalbly co nservative estimate of the amount of hardscapes that could receive applications of indaziflam.

There is considerable variability in the aerob ic degradation rate. Four individual studies

were submitted to fulfill the aerobic soil meta bolism data requirement (OPPTS 835.4100) for all outdoor pesticides uses. All four studies were classified as Supp lemental for various scientific reasons (e.g., replicates were not collected, multiple extraction methods were not employed, formation and decline of major degradates was not well character ized). Additional acceptable studies would help reduce the variability in th e study results while reducing uncertainty of the biotic degradation of indaziflam. Particularl y, studies that employ multiple extraction methods would reduce the uncertainty for ae robic soil half-lives. Further uncertainty regarding the halflives of indaziflam and, more importantly, its degradates would be re duced with additional

studies conducted for a sufficient duration to accura tely characterize the formation and decline of all major degradates (e.g., FDAT was detected at increasing concen trations at the termination of multiple stuides).

Field and laboratory data indicate that indazi flam and, more importan tly, its residues have a potential to leach to ground water, however ba sed on the data submitted, the extent of the potential contamination is uncertain. Indaziflam is classified as moderately mobile; however transformation products of indaziflam are mobile to highly mobile. Specifically FDAT was detected at the deepest depths sampled (105-120 cm) in field studies a nd adsorption/desorption data indicate that it is very mobile. In the field studies, the limit of detection (LOD) for parent indaziflam and its transformation products was 0.3 ng a.i./g, and the limit of quatitation (LOQ) was 1.5 ng a.i./g for all studies. Indaziflam a nd its major transformation products were reported between the LOD and the LOQ in all field studies. Detections below the LOQ are not accurately characterized because of the gap between the LOD and the LOQ; therefore, the analytical method may have been too insensitive to accurately describe the leaching pot ential of indaziflam and its major transformation products. Replic ate values below the LOQ were assumed at 1⁄2(LOQ + LOD) for calculations of dissipation half-lives.

There is also uncertainty associated with the ability of the aquatic exposure modeling to simulate aquatic exposures as well as in the select ion of input parameters. In this regard, one of the potentially important parameters that can imp act concentration estimates is the selection of appropriate application dates. Al though the pesticide application da tes were selected to be most appropriate with considerations for applic ation recommendations, model simulated cropping dates, and label restrictions, va riability nevertheless results because the the time span that a pesticide may likely be applied may be large and the actual application dates are unknown. Such variability is caused by the temporal proximity of a pesticide application to rain events. As with all model estimates, the values presented here should not be viewed as precise estimates.

### -Page 90 of 292- 

## 4.3.2. Effects Uncertainties

Terrestrial Modeling with T-REX The exposure estimates for foliar applica tions from T-REX (v. 1.4.1) are based on the following assumptions. It is assumed that th e taxon being modeled occupies, exclusively and permanently, the treatment area being modeled. Additionally, the model considers dietary exposure alone. Other potential routes of e xposure (e.g., inhalation, dermal, incidental soil ingestion, or ingestion of drinki ng water) are currently no t considered in the model. However, it is assumed that 100% of the diet consumed is contaminated. Furthermore, the organisms

modeled are assumed to consume 100% of their diet as one food type, thereby eliminating the need at the screening level for evaluating mixtur es of dietary items. E xposure estimates (EECS) from the model are directly related to water content. Eighty percent, as assumed in the model for all dietary items except seeds (10% water conten t for seeds is assumed), represents a high-end water content value. Higher water content a ssumptions would result in higher EECs.

For granular, bait, and treated seed applica tions, estimation of loadings of pesticide per unit area are calculated. This approach, which is intended to represent exposure via multiple routes and not just direct ingestion, considers obse rved effects in field studies and relates them to the pesticide applied to surface ar ea. The amount of pesticide pe r square foot (relative to the application rate) is calculated using the followi ng assumptions: In-furrow applications assume a typical value of 1% granules, bait, or seed remain unincorpo rated; incorporated banded treatments assume that 15% of granules, bait, seeds are unincorporated (this is an average of measurements ranging from 6 to 40 %); and broa dcast treatment without incorporation assumes 100% of granules, bait, seeds are unincorporated.

For the terrestrial exposure analysis of this risk assessment, a default 35-day foliar dissipation half-life was employed as an input to T-REX. The folia r dissipation half-life value is representative of the overall fate and transport of a pesticide relevant to foliar surfaces. Data on foliar dissipation half-lives was unavailable from th e open literature, and residue half-lives could not be estimated from registrant-submitted magnitude of residue studies. Environmental fate

studies demonstrate that indaziflam rapidly photolyzes in water with a half-life of 3.7 days at pH 7 (MRID 47443208), and comparatively slower in so il with a half-life of 40.3 days in loamy same at pH 6.5, OC 2.4% (MRID 47443209). Given th e photolysis route of degradation, the 35- day foliar dissipation half-life may be a conser vative assumption for the terrestrial exposure modeling of indaziflam’s proposed uses.

Terrestrial modeling with TerrPlant

TerrpPlant (v. 1.2.2) does not consider exposures to plants from multiple applications of a pesticide, which could result in the underestimation of risks of effects to non-target plants. In addition, TerrPlant’s spray drift estimates are representative of pesticide deposition through spray drift on areas that are locat ed approximately 200 feet from th e edge of the field, resulting in an underestimation of exposure and risk to plants inhabiting areas within 200 feet from the edge of the treatment field.

### -Page 91 of 292- 

## The magnitude of pesticide runoff is assumed to be dependent on the water solubility and incorporation depth of th e pesticide, with no consideration of the partitioning or degradation of the pesticide. EC 25 

## values of a pesticide for the most sensitive tested monoco t and dicot species are entered by the model user to define the toxici ty of the pesticide to non-listed species. The corresponding NOAEC values (or EC 05 

## value if a suitable NOAEC is unavailable) for the same species and endpoint are entered to define the toxicity of the pestic ide to listed plants. TerrPlant derives a total of 12 RQ values for non-listed and listed spec ies of monocots and dicots inhabiting dry and semi-aquatic areas by consider ing exposure from combined runoff and drift and from drift alone. RQs are compared to EF ED's LOC for non-listed and listed plant species (1.0). RQ values exceeding 1.0 indicate potential risk to plants. RQ values less than or equal to

1.0 indicate that risk is minimal.

Terrestrial Modeling with AgDrift

Certain factors, including va riations in topography, cover, and meteorological conditions over the transport distan ce are not accounted for by the AgDRIFT model ( i.e ., it generally models spray drift from aerial a nd ground applications in a flat area with little to no ground cover and a steady, constant wind speed and direction). Therefore, in most cases, the drift estimates from AgDRIFT may overestimate expos ure, especially as the distance increases from the site of application, since the model does not account for potential obstructions ( e.g ., large hills, berms, buildings, trees, etc .). Furthermore, default conservative assumptions are made regarding the droplet size distributi ons being modeled (‘ASAE Very Fine to Fine’), release heights ( i.e ., ‘high boom’ for ground applications and 15 ft fo r aerial applications) and wind speeds ( i.e ., 15 mph), unless application restrictions are otherwise stipulated on the label(s). Alte rations in any of these inputs would decrease the area of potential effect. Additionally, there is uncertainty associated with spray drift and whether multiple applications will result in th e same level of exposure to the same organisms because spray drift will vary in time and space and organisms may move closer to or away from the site of application.

Degradate Toxicity The toxicity data on aquatic vascular and nonvascular plan ts indicate that indaziflamolefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl are of equal toxi city or are within an order of magnitude of toxicity to the parent indaziflam. Based on available studies, indaziflam-hydroxyethyl, FDAT,

and triazine indanone demonstrate toxicity at magnitudes 2-7 times less than that of the parent. Considering all submitted effects studies, indazi flam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl are the two major degradates of toxico logical concern and aquatic exposure estimates are based on a total toxic residue approach of indaziflam + residues of concern (indaziflam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl). One uncertainty with generating aquatic EECs with this total toxic residue approach is that the approach assume s that the toxicity of indaziflam-olefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl to aquatic invertebrates and fish could poten tially be of the same order of magnitude as their demonstrat ed toxicities to aquatic plants from the submitted plant data.Ecotoxicity studies on fish and invertebrates were not submitted for the degradates indaziflamolefin and indaziflam-hydroxyethyl . Another uncertainty in gene rating aquatic EECs is that the degradate indaziflam-hydroxyethyl is assumed to be of similar toxicity to the TGAI although the

### -Page 92 of 292- 

## available effects data show that it is one or more orders of magnitude less toxic to aquatic organisms.

4.4. Addressing Risk Hypotheses

To conclude this baseline risk assessment, it is necessary to addr ess the risk hypotheses defined in Section 2.5.1. Based on the results of this assessment, both hypotheses cannot be rejected, meaning the statements represent concer ns in term of effects of indaziflam use on nontarget listed and non-listed species.

Given the uses of indaziflam and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of exposure to non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms.

When used in accordance with the label, inda ziflam results in potential adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terr estrial and aquatic organisms.



# 5. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species

Concerns

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536( a)(2), requires all federal agencies to consult with the National Ma rine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and anadromous listed species, and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for listed wildlife and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may affect listed species or their designated critic al habitat. Each federal agen cy is required under the Act to ensure that any action they aut horize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirect ly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in th e wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02).

To facilitate compliance with the requir ements of the Endangered Species Act (subsection (a)(2)), the Office of Pesticide Programs has establis hed procedures to evaluate whether a proposed registration action may directly or indir ectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in th e wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distri bution of any listed species (USE PA, 2004). After the Agency’s screening level risk assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency’s listed species LOCs are exceeded for either direct or indirect effects, an analysis is conducted to determine if any listed or candidate species may co-occur in the area of the proposed pest icide use or areas downstream

or downwind that could be contaminated from dr ift or runoff/erosion. If listed or candidate species may be present in the proposed action area , further biological asse ssment is undertaken. The extent to which listed species may be at risk is considered, which then determines the need

### -Page 93 of 292- 

## for the development of a more comprehensiv e consultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

The federal action addressed herein is th e proposed new registration of indaziflam on agricultural and non-agri cultural use sites. Given that indaziflam can be used on both agricultural and non-agricu ltural areas, it is expected that its use could occur nationwide.

5.1. Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected directly or indirectly by indaziflam use and not merely the immediate area where indaziflam is applied. At the initial baseline , the risk assessment cons iders broadly described taxonomic groups and conservatively assumes that listed species within those broad groups are co-located with the pesticide trea tment area. This means that listed terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to th e treated site and listed aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacen t to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that the listed species are located with in an assumed area, which has the relatively highest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with

distance from the treatment area. Section 3.1 of this risk assessmen t presents the proposed pesticide use sites that are used to establish in itial co-location of speci es with treatment areas.

5.2. Taxonomic Groups Po tentially at Risk

If the assumptions associated with the base line action area result in RQs that are below the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determina tion conclusion is made with respect to listed species in that taxa, and no furt her refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect effects on listed species that de pend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated. However, in situations where the screening a ssumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potentia l for a "may affect" conclusion exists and may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of these species, and the locations of use sites ar e considered to determine the extent to which screening assumptions regarding an action area a pply to a particular listed organism. These subsequent refinement steps will consider how th is information would impact the action area for a particular listed organism and potentially in clude areas of exposure that are downwind and downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, and the conceptual models addressing proposed new indaziflam uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for

the indaziflam baseline risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3 . The assessment endpoints used in

the baseline risk assessment include those de fined operationally as reduced survival and reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal sp ecies and survival, reproduction, and growth of aqua tic and terrestrial plant species from both direct acute and

### -Page 94 of 292- 

## chronic exposures. These assess ment endpoints are intended to addr ess the standard set forth in the Endangered Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQs) which, integrating exposure and effects, are calculated for broad based taxonomic groups in the baseline risk assessment presented in Section 4.

Both acute endangered species and chronic risk LOCs are considered in the baseline risk assessment to identify direct and i ndirect effects to taxa of listed species. This section identifies direct effect concerns, by taxa, that are trigge red by exceeding endangered LOCs in the baseline risk assessment, with an evaluation of the potentia l probability of individu al effects for exposures that may occur at the estab lished endangered species LOC. Data on exposure and effects

collected under field and laborat ory conditions are evaluated to make determinations on the predictive utility of the direct effect screen ing assessment findings to listed species.

Additionally, the results of the sc reen for indirect effects to listed species, using direct

effect acute and chronic LOCs for each taxonomic group, is presented and evaluated. For plants, if plant RQs fall between the endangered sp ecies and non-endangered species LOCs (for indaziflam’s proposed uses this occurs for aqua tic nonvascular species), the Agency concludes a no effect determination for listed species that re ly on multiple plants species to successfully complete their life cycle (termed plant dependent spcies); alternatively, the Agency assumes a potential for adverse effects to t hose listed species that rely on a specific plant species in their life cycle (termed plant species ob ligates). If plant RQs for liste d species are above the risk to plant LOCs (for indaziflam’s proposed uses this occurs for aquatic vasculars and all terrestrial species), the Agency considered this to be indi cative of a potential for adverse effects to those listed species that rely either on a specific plant species (plant species obligate) or multiple plant species (plant dependent) for some im portant aspect of their life cycle.

### -Page 95 of 292- 

## Table 5.1. Potential Effects to Federally List ed Taxa Associated with Direct or Indirect Effects from the Proposed New Uses of Indaziflam.

Listed Taxon Direct

Effects Uses of Concern Indirect

Effects 1 

### Uses of Concern

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants - monocots Yes All uses Yes b 

### All uses

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants - dicots Yes All uses Yes b 

### All uses

Terrestrial inverteb rates No None Yes All uses

Birds* Yes All uses Yes All uses Terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles* Yes All uses Yes All uses

Mammals No None Yes All uses

Aquatic nonvascular plants Yes Home lawn,

Onamentals Yes a 

### All uses

Aquatic vascular plants Yes All uses Yes b 

### All uses

Freshwater fish No All uses Yes All uses Aquatic-phase amphibians No All uses Yes All uses

Freshwater crustaceans No All uses Yes All uses

Mollusks** Yes All uses Yes All uses

Marine/estuarine fish No All uses Yes All uses

Marine/estuarine

invertebrates** Yes All uses Yes All uses

* due to presumed chronic risks to birds from inadequacy of data ** due to presumed chronic risk from lack of data

a potential for indirect adverse effects to those listed species th at rely on a specific plant species in their life cycle (terme d plant species obligates).

b potential for adverse effects to those listed species that rely either on a specific plant speci es (plant species obligate) or multiple plant species (plant dependent) for some important aspect of their life cycle.

1 Potential indirect effects on a taxon attributable to direct e ffects on that respective taxon and/or direct effects on aquatic and terrestrial plants.



## 5.2.1. Probit Dose-Response Analysis

The Agency uses the probit dose-response rela tionship as a tool fo r providing additional information on the potential for acute direct effects to aquatic and terrestrial animals (USEPA, 2004). As part of this evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is pres ented in terms of the chance of an individual event ( i.e. , mortality or immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species with sensitivity to indaziflam on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation. To accomplish this in terpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose-response relationship availabl e from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose-response relationsh ip. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean, upper and lower esti mates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in the slope, if available. Based on the available acute toxicity for indaziflam, a summary of the probit dose-response analysis is provided in Table 5.2 . If no dose response information is available to estim ate a slope for this analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 (with lower and upper bounds of 2 to 9) (Urban and Cook, 1986) is used.

### -Page 96 of 292- 

## Individual effect probabili ties are calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) deve loped by the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The m odel allows for such calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter for the spreadsheet. The desired threshold for the pr obability of an individual effect is entered as the listed species LOC. In addi tion, the probability of an individua l effect is also derived based on the calculated acute RQ, if available.

Table 5.2. Summary of Indaziflam Probit Do se Response Analysis for Listed Species

Taxa (study type) Acute Effect 1


### Slope (95% C.I.) Chance of Individual Effect at Listed Species LOC (95% C.I.) Chance of Individual

Effect at Derived Acute RQ 1 

### (95% C.I.)

Bird oral dose No mortality observed Not calculated; no mortality observed Not calculated; no mortality observed

Bird dietary No mortality observed Not calculated; no mortality observed Not calculated; no mortality observed

Mammal oral dose No mortality observed Not calculated; no mortality observed Not calculated; no mortality observed

Freshwater fish 1 

### Mortality Slope NA = 4.5 (2 - 9) 1 in 4.18x10 8


### (1 in 216 to 1 in

1.75x10 31 

### ) 1 in 9.60x10 13


### (1 in 2,950 to 2.27x10 52 

### )

Freshwater invertebrate 2 

### 35% Immobilization/mortality Slope = N/A Not Calculated 2 

### Not Calculated

Estuarine/marine fish 3 

### Mortality Slope NA = 4.5 (2 - 9) 1 in 4.18x10 8


### (1 in 216 to 1 in

1.75x10 31 

### ) 1 in 8.86x10 18


### (1 in 3.16x10 4 

### to 1 in

1.03x10 72 

### )

Estuarine/marine

invertebrate 4 

### Mortality Slope = 4.04 (3.30 - 4.78) 1 in 1.36x10 7


### (1 in 1.14x10 5 

### to 1 in 1 in 3.09x10 15


### (1 in 4.86x10 10 

### to 1 in

1.70x10 21 

### )

1 Acute RQ for freshwater fish = 0.02

2 RQs were not derived because the concentra tion at which <50% mortality was observed (9,880 μg a.i./L) is well above the peak su rface water concentration of indaziflam (6.19 μg/L).

3 Acute RQ for estuarine/marine fish = 0.01

4 Acute RQ for estuarine/marine invertebrates = 0.01



## The probability for acute direct effects ( i.e. , mortality) to individual listed freshwater fish at the listed species LOC (0.05) is 1 in 4.18x10 8 

## (<0.01%). However, at the highest derived RQ value for the proposed uses of indaziflam, the ch ance of an individual eff ect to listed freshwater fish decreases to approximately 1 in 9.60x10 13 

## (<0.01%). The probability for acute direct effects

to estuatine/marine fish and i nvertebrates show a similar relati onship between the the chance of

individual effect at the listed species LOC and the chance of i ndividual effects at the derived acute RQ. The chance of an individual effect was not derived for taxa if no mortality was

observed in acute studies or “<50% effect levels” were well above estimated peak concentrations

of surface water EECs.

5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence A ssociated with Indaziflam Use

The goal of the co-location analysis is de termine whether sites of pesticide use are geographically associated with known locations of listed species [following the convention of the

### -Page 97 of 292- 

## Services, the word ‘species’ in this assessment may apply to a ‘species’, ‘subspecies’, or an Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU)]. At the screening level, this analysis is accomplished using the LOCATES database (version 2.10.3). The database uses location information for listed species at the county level and compares it to agricultural census data (from 2002) for crop production at the same county level of resolution . The product is a lis ting of Federally-listed species that are located in c ounties known to produce the crops upon which the pesticide will be

used.

Indaziflam is proposed for use on agricu ltural and non-agricultu ral areas, with nonagricultural use patterns representi ng the highest application rates. Due to the off-site risk to terrestrial and aquatic vascular plants, all taxa that rely on these plants for some stage of their life cycle may be indirectly affected. Based on the extent of proposed us es and the potential for indirect effects, all listed species occurring nationwide may be potentially affected by a new registration of indaziflam. Ther efore, state- and county-level summaries from LOCATES are not provided. However, a summary of listed species th at may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed new uses of indaziflam is provided in Appendix M . Based the results of the LOCATES database query, there are a total of 2165 listed species from all taxa associated with counties where indaziflam may potentially be used nationwide for non-agricultural purposes.

This preliminary analysis indicates that there is a potential for inda ziflam use to overlap with listed species and that a more refined assessment is warranted. The more refined

assessment should involve clear delineation of th e action area associated with proposed uses of

indaziflam and the best available information on the temporal and spatial co-location of listed species with respect to the action area. This analysis has not b een conducted for this assessment.

### -Page 98 of 292- 

# 6. References

Carousel, R.F., J.C. Imhoff, P.R. Hummel, J.M. Cheplick, A.S. Donigian, Jr., L.A. Suarez. Undated. PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pes ticide and Nitrogen Fate in the Crop Root

and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Ma nual for Release 3.12.2. National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA; AQUA TE RRA Consultants, Mountain View, CA;

Waterborne Environmenta l, Inc., Leesburg, VA.

Mackay, D. And S. Paterson. 1981. Calculati ng fugacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 1006-

1014.

Trapp, S. And J.C McFarlane (eds.). 1995. Pl ant Contamination Modeling and Simulation of Organic Chemical Processes. Lewi s Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.

USEPA 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk A ssessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14, 1998. U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April, 1998.

USEPA. 2002a. Guidance for Se lecting Input Parameters in M odeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substa nces, Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Feb. 28, 2002. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/model s/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm/

USEPA. 2002b. SCI-GROW User’s Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate a nd Effects Division. Nov. 1, 2001; revised Aug. 23, 2002.

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D. C. January 23, 2004. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger /consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf

USEPA 2006a. Standardized Soil Mobility Cl assification Guidance. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pes ticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Memorandum. Apr. 21,

2006.

USEPA. 2006b. User’s Guide: Te rrPlant Version 1.2.2 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental protection Agency. Washington, D.C. December 26, 2006.

### -Page 99 of 292- 

## USEPA 2008a. Label Review Manual, November , 2008. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/

.

USEPA 2008b. White Paper on Methods for Assessi ng Ecological Risks of Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Charact eristics. Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. October 28-31, 2008. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Washington, D.C.

USEPA 2008c. User’s Guide: T-REX Version 1.4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. October 9, 2008.

USEPA 2009a. ECOTOX (ECOTOXico logy) Database (Version 4.0). Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's (NHEERL's) Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED) . Online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/eco tox/ecotox_hom e.cfm

USEPA 2009b. Water Models. U.S. Environmen tal Protection Agency, Pesticides: Science and Policy, Models and Databases. Last updated Mar. 23, 2009. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

USEPA 2009c. Guidance for Selecting Input Para meters in Modeling th e Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substa nces, Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Oct. 22, 2009. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/w ater/input_param eter_guidance.htm

USEPA. 2009d. DP barcode: 371659 Indaziflam . Report of the Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee (ROC KS). USEPA/OPP, Washington, DC.

USFWS/NMFS. 2004. 50 CFR Part 402. Joint C ounterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations; Final Rule. FR 47732-47762.

Urban, D.J. and N.J. Cook, 1986. Hazard Evalua tion Division Standard Evaluation Procedure Ecological Risk Assessment . EPA 540/9-85-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C.

Willis, G.H., and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide Persistence on Foliage in Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 100 : 23-73.

### -Page 100 of 292- 

## 6.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies

47443203 Stupp, H.; Augustin, T. (2006) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)] AE 1170437: Adsorption/Desorption on Five Soils. Project Number: M/274409/01/2, MEF/05/383, M1311473/0. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 84 p.

47443204 Simmonds, M. (2006) [Carbon 14]-AE 1170437-triazine-indanone: Adsorption to and Desorption from Five Soils. Project Number: M/275499/02/2, CX/05/042. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle UK, Ltd. 99 p.

47443205 Simmonds, M. (2006) [Carbon 14]-AE 1170437-diaminotriazine: Adsorption to and Desorption from Five Soils. Project Number: M/275442/01/2, CX/05/041. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle UK, Ltd. 96 p.

47443206 Simmonds, M.; Brett, R. (2006) [Carbon 14]-AE 1170437-carboxylic acid: Adsorption to and Desorption from Five Soils. Project Number: M/275561/01/2, CX/05/043. Unpublished study prepared by Battelle UK, Ltd. 97 p.

47443207 Sneikus, J. (2007) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)] and [indane-3-13/(Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Hydrolytic Degradation. Project Number: M/294681/01/2, MEF/07/177, M1111669/5. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 70 p.

47443208 Dehner, D.; Heinemann, O. (2006) [Indane-3-(Carbon 13)/(Carbon 14)] AE 1170437 and [triazine-2,4- (Carbon 14)] AE 1170437: Phototransformation in Water. Project Number: M/283818/01/2, MEF/06/201, M1121572/9. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 99 p.

47443209 Stupp, H.; Augustin, T. (2007) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)] and [indane-3-(Carbon 13)/(Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Phototransformation on Soil. Project Number: M/295259/01/2, MEF/06/137, M1121506/6. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 111 p.

47443210 Shepherd, J. (2008) [Indane-3-(Carbon 13)/(Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Two US Soils. Project Number: M/296489/01/1, MEDHP013. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 177 p.

47443211 Shepherd, J. (2008) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Two US Soils. Project Number: M/296492/01/1, MEDHP032. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 186

p.

47443212 Stupp, H.; Augustin, T. (2007) [Indane-3-(Carbon 13/14)] AE 1170437: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Four EU Soils. Project Number: M/295160/01/2, MEF/06/19, M1251497/9. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 98 p.

47443213 Stupp, H.; Augustin, T. (2007) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Four EU Soils. Project Number: M/290409/01/2, MEF/06/299, M1251406/9. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 108 p.

47443214 Sneikus, J. (2008) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)]AE 1956114 (diaminotriazine): Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Three EU Soils. Project Number: M/297565/01/2, MEF/05/517, M1251511/6. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 80 p.

47443215 Heinemann, O. (2008) AE 1170437 and AE 1170438: Comparative Aerobic Soil Degradation in Two EU Soils. Project Number: M/299297/01/2, MEF/08/004, M1251704/0. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 78 p.

47443216 Stupp, H. (2006) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)] and [indane-3-(Carbon 13/Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number: M/283258/01/2, MEF/06/355, M1261526/3. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 107 p.

### -Page 101 of 292- 47443217 Stupp, H. (2007) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)] and [indane-3-Carbon 13/14)]AE 1170437: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: M/296164/01/2, MEF/07/283, M1511579/9. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 131 p.

47443218 Mathew, A. (2007) [Indane-3-(Carbon 13/Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: M/290001/01/2, MEDHP017. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 64

p.

47443219 Mathew, A. (2007) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)]AE 1170437: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: M/289074/01/2, MEDHP022. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 64 p.

47443220 Lenz, M. (2008) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in California Soil Cropped with Turf, 2006. Project Number: M/303529/01/1, MEDHP014. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, and Research for Hire. 251 p.

47443221 Lenz, M. (2008) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in Florida Soil Cropped with Turf, 2006. Project Number: M/303697/01/1, MEDHP035, DH/002/S06/01. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, an d Ag Research Associates. 240 p.

47443222 Lenz, M. (2008) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in North Carolina Soil Cropped with Turf, 2006. Project Number: M/303532/01/1, MEDHP034, DH/002/506/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, an d Agricultural Systems Associates. 246 p.

47443223 Lenz, M. (2008) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in California Soil, 2006. Project Number: M/303704/01/1, MEDHP038, DH/002/S06/01. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, and Research for Hire. 251 p.

47443224 Lenz, M. (2008) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in Florida Soil, 2006. Project Number: M/303702/01/1, MEDHP037, DH/002/S06/01. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise, Inc. and Ag Research Associates. 242 p.

47443225 Lenz, M. (2008) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in North Carolina Soil, 2006. Project Number: M/303701/01/1, MEDHP036. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Inc. and Agricultural Systems Associates. 253 p.

47443237 Matlock, D.; Fischer, D. (2008) [Triazine-2,4-(Carbon 14)] AE 1170437- Bioconcentration and Biotransformation in Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). Project Number: M/303425/01/1, MEDHP026. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 218 p.

47443279 Netzband, D. (2008) Stability of AE1170437 and its Metabolites (AE1170437 Acid, AE1170437 ketone, AE1170437 Hydroxy, AE1170437 Olefin, AE1170437 Diaminotriazine) in Soil During Frozen Storage (Reported Through a Maximum of 433 Days Storage). Project Number: M/302527/01/1, RADHP041. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 56 p.

47793401 Mislankar, S. (2009) Supplemental Information on Foreign Soils Used in the Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study (BCS-AA10717 Technical Herbicide). Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP.9 p.

47743301 Lenz, M. (2009) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in Washington Soil, 2006. Project Number: M/345376/01/1/OCR, MEDHP019. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, Inc., and Qualls Ag Laboratory. 264 p.

47743302 Lenz, M. (2009) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of AE 1170437 in New York Soil, 2006. Project Number: M/346142/01/1/OCR, MEDHP033. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, Inc., and A.C.D. S. Research, Inc. 268 p.

47743328 Netzeband, D. (2009) Stability of AE1170437 and its Metabolites (AE1170437 Acid, AE1170437 Ketone, AE1170437 Hydroxy, AE1170437 Olefin, AE1170437 Diaminotriazine) in Soil During Frozen Storage (Reported Through a Maximum of 736 Days Storage). Project Number: M/302527/02/1/OCR, RADHP041/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 56 p.

### -Page 102 of 292- 

## 6.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

MRID 47443226: Banman, C. S.; Hoffmann, J. M.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the Daphnia magna under static conditions;Bayer Cr opScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP021; Document No .: M-282376-01-2; Decembe r 01, 2006; Pages: 38

MRID 47443227: Gallagher, S. P.; Kendall, T. Z.; Kruege r, H.O.; AE 1170437: A 96-hour static acute toxicity test with the saltwater mysid (Americam ysis bahia);Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBDHP026; Document No.: M-292052-01-1; August 20, 2007; Pages: 44

MRID 47443228: Gallagher, S. P.; Kend all, T. Z.; Krueger, H. O.; AE 117 0437: A 96-hour shell deposition test with the eastern oyster (Crassostr ea virginica);Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBDHP027; Document No.: M-300719-01-1; April 07, 2008; Pages: 62

MRID 47443229: Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP122; Document No.: M-302402-01-1; June 05, 2008; Pages: 46 MRID 47443230: Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BCS_AA10365 (AE 1170437-diaminotriazine) to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP126; Document No.: M-302862-01-1; June 17, 2008; Pages: 43

MRID 47443231: Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of AE 2158969 (AE 1170437-carboxylic acid) to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP125; Document No.: M-302522-01-1; June 09, 2008; Pages: 43

MRID 47443232: Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxi city of AE 1170437 technical to the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP019; Document No.: M-288882-01-1; May 08, 2007; Pages: 43

MRID 47443233: Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxi city of AE 1170437 technical to the bluegill (Lepomis machrochirus) under static conditions;Bayer CropScie nce LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP018; Document No.: M-288881-01-1; May 08, 2007; Pages: 41

MRID 47443234: Banman, C. S.; Hoffmann, J. M.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP039-1; Document No.: M-293173-02-1; June 04, 2008; Pages: 40

MRID 47443235: Banman, C. S.; Roberts, J. A.; Lam, C. V.; Chronic toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the Daphnia magna under static renewal conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP053; Document No.: M-291493-01-1; July 12, 2007; Pages: 69

MRID 47443236: Banman, C. S.; Roberts, J. A.; Lam, C. V.; Early life stage toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under flow -through conditions;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP020; Document No.: M-292051-01-1; August 29, 2007; Pages: 100

MRID 47443237: Matlock, D.; Fischer, D. R.; [Triazine-2,4-14C] AE 1170437- Bioconcentration and biotransformation in Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis m acrochirus);Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: MEDHP026; Document No.: M-303425-01-1; June 30, 2008; Pages: 218

MRID 47443238: Putt, A. E.; AE1170437 - Toxicity to midge (Chironomus tentans) during a 10-day sediment exposure;Springborn Smithers Laboratories, Wareham, MA, USA; Report No.: EBDHP067; Document No.: M-302577-01-1; June 02, 2008; Pages: 69

### -Page 103 of 292- MRID 47443239: Putt, A. E.; AE1170437 - Toxicity to marine amphipods (Leptocheirus plumulosus) during a 10- day sediment exposure;Springborn Smithers Laboratories, Wareham, MA, USA; Report No.: EBDHP066; Document No.: M-302580-01-1; June 02, 2008; Pages: 62

MRID 47443240: Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Toxicity of AE 1170437 technical during an acute oral LD50 with the Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus);B ayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP028; Document No.: M-303029-01-1; June 16, 2008; Pages: 29

MRID 47443241: Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Technical AE 1170437: A subacute dietary LC50 with northern bobwhite;Bayer CropScience LP, S tilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP030; Document No.: M-303033-01-1; June 17, 2008; Pages: 37

MRID 47443242: Stoughton, T. L.; Lam, C. V.; Technical AE 1170437: A subacute dietary LC50 with mallards;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP031; Document No.: M-303037- 01-1; June 16, 2008; Pages: 37

MRID 47443243: Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Effect of technical AE 1170437 on northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) reproduction;Bayer CropScience LP, RTP, NC, USA; Report No.: EBDHP032 ; Document No.: M-304696-01-1; July 28, 2008; Pages: 72

MRID 47443244: Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of AE 1170437 technical on reproduction to the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) and modified exposure of AE 1170437 technical on reproduction to the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos);Bayer CropScience LP, RTP, NC, USA; Report No.: EBDHP033 & EBUFL002; Document No.: M-304690-01-1; July 28, 2008; Pages: 121

MRID 47443245: Barth, M.; Acute toxicity of AE 1170437 a.i. tech. to the honeybee Apis mellifera L. under laboratory conditions;BioChem agrar GmbH, Gerichshain, Germany; Report No.: 06 10 48 064; Document No.: M-280047-02-2; June 16, 2008; Pages: 35

MRID 47443246: Bach, F.; Nguyen, D.-H.; AE 1170437 WP 20 percent w/w: Effects on the seedling emergence and seedling growth of ten species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 2);Bayer CropScience GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: SE 07/051; Document No.: M-304041-01-2; July 16, 2008; Pages: 269

MRID 47443247: Bach, F.; Nguyen, D. H.; AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L - Effects on the seedling emergence and seedling growth of twelve species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 2);Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: SE 07/029; Document No.: M-301643-01-2; June 16, 2008; Pages: 276

MRID 47443248: Bach, F.; Gosch, H.; Nguyen, D. H.; AE 1170437 WP 20 percent w/w: Effects on the vegetative vigour of ten species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 2);Bayer CropScience GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: VV 07/052; Document No.: M-303620-01-2; July 16, 2008; Pages: 190

MRID 47443249: Bach, F.; Gosch, H.; Nguyen, D. H.; AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L - Effects on the vegetative vigour of eleven species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 2);Bayer CropScience GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: VV 07/030; Document No.: M-301645-01-2; June 16, 2008; Pages: 219

MRID 47443250: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 - growth inhibition test with BCS-AA10717 (tech.) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germ any; Report No.: EBDHX009; Document No.: M- 283650-02-2; July 16, 2008; Pages: 254

MRID 47443251: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 Growth inhibition test with AE 2158968 (AE 1170437-triazine- indanone) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBDHP052; Document No.: M-301522-01-2; June 10, 2008; Pages: 91

### -Page 104 of 292- MRID 47443252: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 growth inhibition test with BCS-AA10365 (AE 1170437- diaminotriazine) under static conditions;Bayer Cr opScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBDHP047; Document No.: M-301519-01-2; June 10, 2008; Pages: 97

MRID 47443253: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 growth inhibition test with AE 2158969 (AE 1170437- carboxylic acid) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBDHP044; Document No.: M-303700-01-2; July 15, 2008; Pages: 98

MRID 47443254: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 growth inhibition test with BCS-AA10202 (AE 1170437-1- hydroxyethyl) under static conditions;Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBDHP054; Document No.: M-301528-01-2; June 10, 2008; Pages: 94

MRID 47443255: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 growth inhibition test with BCS-AA10201 (AE 1170437- olefine) under static conditions;Bayer CropScie nce AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBDHP055; Document No.: M-301973-01-2; June 10, 2008; Pages: 93

MRID 47443256: Dorgerloh, M.; Lemna gibba G3 growth inhibition test with AE 1170437 in a water/sediment system using spiked water (code: AE 1170437-TE-01);Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBDHP040; Document No.: M-277397-02-2; July 14, 2008; Pages: 174

MRID 47443257: Brock, T .C. M.; Bruns, E.; Crum, S. J. H.; Ecological effects of the herbicide AE1170437 in outdoor experimental ponds inhabited with macrophytes;ALTERRA, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands; Report No.: ALT.SC.2007.1; Document No.: M-304567-01-2; July 28, 2008; Pages: 280

MRID 47443258: Hoberg, J. R.; AE 1170437 - Effects on aquatic macrophytes in outdoor simulated ponds;Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA, USA; Report No.: EBDHX004; Document No.: M- 303082-01-1; June 19, 2008; Pages: 45

MRID 47443259: Brumhard, B.; Schneider, U.; Analysis of AE 1170437 concentrations in sediment samples of ALTERRA study no. ALT.SC.2007.1;Bayer CropSc ience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: MR- 07/329; Document No.: M-298851-01-2; May 13, 2008; Pages: 34

MRID 47443260: Krebber, R.; Sandau, C.; Analysis of AE 1170437 concentrations in water samples of ALTERRA Study No. ALT.SC.2007.1;Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, German y; Report No.: MR-07/298; Document No.: M-299709-01-2; May 13, 2008; Pages: 43

MRID 47443261: Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP022-1; Document No.: M-293679-02-1; June 30, 2008; Pages: 50

MRID 47443262: Banman, C. S.; Hoffmann, J. M.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of th e metabolite BCS-AA10365 (AE 1170437-1-diaminotriazine) to the green alga Pseu dokirchneriella subcapit ata;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP048; Document No.: M-301715-01-1; May 20, 2008; Pages: 52

MRID 47443263: Banman, C. S.; Hoffmann, J. M.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of the metabolite AE 2158969 (AE 1170437-carboxylic acid) to the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP045; Docume nt No.: M-302198-01-1; June 04, 2008; Pages: 53

MRID 47443264: Banman, C. S.; Hoffmann, J. M.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of th e metabolite BCS-AA10202 (AE 1170437-1-hydroxyethyl) to the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP057; Document No.: M-301713-01-1; May 19, 2008; Pages: 51

MRID 47443265: Matlock, D.; Hoffmann, J. M.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of the metabolite BCS-AA10201 (AE 1170437-1-olefine) to the green alga Pseudokirchneri ella subcapitata;Bayer Crop Science LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP056; Document No.: M-302859-01-1; June 17, 2008; Pages: 54

### -Page 105 of 292- MRID 47443266: Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the freshwater diatom Navicula pelliculosa;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP024; Document No.: M- 291758-01-1; August 14, 2007; Pages: 59

MRID 47443267: Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the saltwater diatom Skeletonema costatum;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilw ell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP025; Document No.: M-291753-01-1; August 20, 2007; Pages: 60

MRID 47443268: Banman, C. S.; Daly, R. A.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of AE 1170437 technical to the blue green algae Anabaena flos-aquae;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBDHP023; Document No.: M-294414-01-1; November 08, 2007; Pages: 59

MRID 47443269: Leicher, T.; AE 1170437, substance technica l: acute toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) tested in artificial soil with 5 percent peat;Bayer Crop Science AG, Monheim, German y; Report No.: LRT/RG-A- 81/07; Document No.: M-284352-01-2; July 22, 2008; Pages: 25

MRID 47443280: Schuengel, M.; AE 1170437 - Acute toxicity in the rat after oral administration;Bayer HealthCare AG, Wuppertal, Germany; Report No.: AT03047; Document No.: M-273027-01-2; October 13, 2006; Pages: 27

MRID 47443281: Schuengel, M.; AE 1170437 - Acute toxicity in the rat after oral administration;Bayer HealthCare AG, Wuppertal, Germany; Report No.: AT04235; Document No.: M-294505-01-2; July 23, 2008; Pages:

30

MRID 47443293: Milius, A. D.; Stuart, B. P.; Tech nical grade BCS-AA10717: A two generation reproductive toxicity study in the Wistar rat;Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: 201833; Document No.: M-303771-01-1; July 01, 2008; Pages: 1745

MRID 47488702: Durando, J. (2008) Acute Oral Toxicity Up and Down Procedure in Rats. EPSL Study Number: 24047. Unpublished study prepared by Eurofins/Product Saftey Laboratories. March 27, 2008.

MRID 47488802: Schuengel, M. (2007) AE 1170437 WP 20 – Acute Toxicity in the Rat after Oral Administration. Project Number: M-289026-01-2, AT03848, Y2077828. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer HealthCare AG. 29 p. May 25, 2007.

MRID 47489202: Moore, G. (2008) 3FL Herbicide Granule – Acute Oral Toxicity Up and Down Procedure in Rats. Study number 24410. Eurofins/Product Safety Laboratories, 2394 US Highway 130, Dayton, NJ 08810. May 22, 2008.

MRID 47489302: Moore, G. (2008) 3FL Herbicide Granule – Acute Oral Toxicity Up and Down Procedure in Rats – Bayer Advanced Lawn 3FL Herbicide Concentrate. Project Number: M-304206-01-1, 24434, P320/UDP. Unpublished study preparaed by Product Safety Laboratories. 15p. May 28, 2008.

MRID 47489402: Memoranda on Lawn 3FL Herbicide Read-to-use, DP Barcode D356088. From Technical Review Branch, Registration Division (7505P), to Herbicide Branch, Registration Division (7505P). December 15, 2009.

MRID 47743602: Schuengel, M.; AE 1170437 SC 500 (spec no 102000014236) – Acute toxicity in the rat after oral administration; Bayer HealthCare AG,Wuppertal, Germany; Report No.: AT04069; Document No.: M- 294230-01-2; March 25, 2009; Pages: 30

MRID 47443303: Banman, C.S., J.M. Hoffmann, and C.V. Lam. 2008. Acute Toxicity of AE 1170437 SC500 to Daphnia magna Under Static Conditions. Unpublishe d study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, KS. Laboratory Project No. EBDHP006. Study spons ored by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park,

### -Page 106 of 292- NC. Study initiated February 25, 2008

MRID 47743304: Bruns, E. 2009. Acute toxicity of BCS-AA10717 SC 200 G to the waterflea Daphnia magna in a static laboratory test system. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, D-40789 Monheim am Rhein, Germany. Laboratory Project No. EBDHP112. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC. Study initiated February 12, 2009

MRID 47743305: Ruhland, M. 2008. Acute toxicity of AE 1170437 SC 500 G to fish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) under static conditions. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience AG, 40789 Monheim, Germany. Laboratory Project No. EBDHP068. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC. Study initiated October 31, 2007.

MRID 47743306: Beavers, J.B., Hubbard, P.M. 2008. BCS-AA10717 Technical: An acute oral toxicity study with the zebra finch ( Poephila guttata ) using a sequential testing procedure. Unpublished study performed by Wildlife International, Ltd, Easton, MD, Laboratory Project No. 149-215. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Ecotoxicology, Stilwell, KS. St udy completed December 11, 2008. Pages: 42.

MRID 47743307: Barth, M. 2006. Acute Toxicity of AE 1170437 SC 500 to the honeybee Apis mellifera L. under laboratory conditions. Unpublished study performed by BioChem agrar, Gerichshain, Germany. Laboratory Project No. 061048130. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience GmbH, Ecotoxicology, Industriepark Hochst, Frankfurt am Main. Study completed on October 23, 2006. Pages: 30.

MRID 47743308: Dorgerloh, M. 2008. Lemna gibba G3 – Growth inhibition test with AE 1170437 SC 500 under static conditions. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience AG, Development - Ecotoxicology, Monheim, Germany. Laboratory Project ID: E 412 3261-9. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Portfolio Management – Project Management, Monheim, Germany. Study completed October 28, 2008.

MRID 47743309: Banman, C.S., J.M. Hoffmann, and C.V. Lam. 2009. Toxicity of AE 1170437 Technical to the Green Alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Ecotoxicology, Stilwell, Kansas. Laboratory Project ID: EBDHX013. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, Nort h Carolina. Study completed April 9, 2009.

MRID 47743310: Banman, C.S., J.M. Hoffmann, and C.V. Lam. 2008. Toxicity of the Formulation AE 1170437 SC500 to the Green Alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Ecotoxicology, Stilwell, Kansas. Labo ratory Project ID: EBDHP007. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, No rth Carolina. Study completed June 17, 2008.

MRID 47743311: Bruns, E. 2009. Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata growth inhibition test with Indaziflam SC 200G.Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience AG, Development, Environmental Safety, Ecotoxicology, Monheim, Germany. Laboratory Project ID: EBDHP113. Study sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany. Study completed June 10, 2009.

MRID 47743312: Leicher, T. 2007. AE 1170437-diaminotriazine (BCS-AA10365): Acute toxicity to earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) tested in artificial soil with 5% peat. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany. Report LRT/Rg-A-93/07. Study completed October 25, 2007.

MRID 47743313: Leicher, T. 2007. AE 1170437-triazine-indanone (AE 2158968): acute toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) tested in artificial soil with 5% p eat. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany. Report LRT/Rg-A-89/07. Study completed August 20, 2007.

MRID 47743314: Leicher, T. 2008. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid (AE 2158969): Acute toxicity to earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) tested in artificial soil with 5% peat. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany. Report LRT/Rg-A-97/07. Study completed January 9, 2008.

MRID 47743315: Leicher, T. 2007. BCS-AA10717 SC 500 G: Acute toxicity to earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) tested

### -Page 107 of 292- in artificial soil with 5% peat. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany. Report LRT/Rg-A-111/08. Study completed December 4, 2008.

MRID 47743316: Leicher, T. 2007. AE 1170437 SC 500 G: Effects on survival, growth and reproduction on the

earthworm Eisenia fetida tested in artificial soil with 5% peat. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany. Report LRT/Rg-R-37/07. Study completed November 27, 2007.

MRID 47743202: Desmarteau, D. A., D.R. Fischer. 2009. AE 1170437 500 SC – Magnitude of the Residue in/on Pome Fruit (CG 11). Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas. Report No. RADHP029. Study completed May 20, 2009.

MRID 47743403: Kroski, M.E., J.N. Brungardt, S.M. Stoughton. 2009. AE 1170437 500 SC – Magnitude of the Residue in/on Stone Fruit (CG 12). Unpublished stud y performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas. Report No. RADHP030. Study completed May 20, 2009.

MRID 47743404: Brungardt, J.N., M.E. Krolski. 2009. AE 1170437 500 SC – Magnitude of the Residue in/on Tree Nut (CG 14). Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas. Report No. RADHP028. Study completed May 18, 2009.

MRID 47743405: Fischer, D.R., Ann M. Harbin. 2009. AE 1170437 500 SC – Magnitude of the Residue in/on Citrus (CG 10). Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas. Report No. RADHP027. Study completed June 8, 2009.

MRID 47743406: Sturdivant, D.W., D.R. Fischer. 2009. AE 1170437 500 SC – Magnitude of the Residue in/on Grapes. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropSc ience, Stilwell, Kansas. Report No. RADHP033. Study completed May 29, 2009.

MRID 47743407: Timberlake, B.C., D.R. Fischer. 2009 . AE 1170437 500 SC – Magnitude of the Residue in/on Olives. Unpublished study performed by Bayer Crop Science, Stilwell, Kansas. Report No. RADHP037. Study completed May 29, 2009.-Page 108 of 292-Appendix A. Chemical Names, Structures, and Maximum Reported Amounts of Indaziflam and ItsDegradates.Table A-1. Indaziflam and Its Major Organic Environmental Degradates.TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy TypePARENTNot Applicable Not Applicable31.732.54744321047443211IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)Not Applicable Not Applicable18.514.94744321047443211IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)Not Applicable Not Applicable28.628.74744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)Not Applicable Not Applicable14.915.34744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)Not Applicable Not Applicable20.519.24744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)Not Applicable Not Applicable20.318.34744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)Not Applicable Not Applicable56.455.647443216TriazineIndaneAnaerobic Soil MetabolismNot Applicable Not Applicable4.09 ng/g (0-15)(554)47443222NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) NC loamysand, TURFNot Applicable Not Applicable2.91 ng/g (0-15,554 d)47443225NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) NC loamysand, BARE SOILNot Applicable Not Applicable2.38 ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443224NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, BARE SOILNot Applicable Not Applicable1.16** ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443221NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, TURFNot Applicable Not Applicable0.69** ng/g (0-15,531 d)47443223NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, BARE SOILParent:IndaziflamIUPAC:N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1Hinden-1-yl]-6-[(1RS)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine2,4-diamineCAS:1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1Hinden-1-yl]-6-(1-fluoroethyl)CAS No.:950782-86-2 (isomermixture)730979-19-8 (Isomer A; AE1170437)730979-32-5 (Isomer B; AE1170438)Common Name:Indaziflam, BCS AA10717Synonyms:BCS-AA10717,BAY BCHD 1709, BAYBCHD 2003, BAY BCKM2459, BAY BSP 1089,BAY NLL 7482.Formula:C16H20FN5MW:301.36 g/molIsomer A:Isomer B:Not Applicable Not Applicable 0.51** (0-15, 531d)47443220 NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandy-Page 109 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Typeloam, TURFNot Applicable Not ApplicableIrradiated: 21.3 (3)Dark: 97.9 (3)47443208 Indane Aqueous PhotolysisNot Applicable Not ApplicableIrradiated: 20.5 (3)Dark: 91.6 (3)47443208 Triazine Aqueous PhotolysisNot Applicable Not ApplicableIrradiated: 47 (10)Dark: 89.9 (10)47443209 Traizine Soil PhotolysisNot Applicable Not ApplicableIrradiated: 60.7 (9)Dark: 89.9 (10)47443209 Indane Soil PhotolysisNot Applicable Not ApplicableWater: 8.9 (120)Sediment: 40.7(120)System: 49.5 (120)47443217 TraizineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)Not Applicable Not ApplicableWater: 8.5 (120)Sediment: 44.2(120)System: 52.7 (120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)Not Applicable Not ApplicableWater: 3.2 (120)Sediment: 70.2(120)System: 73.4 (120)47443217 TraizineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)Not Applicable Not ApplicableWater: 2.8 (120)Sediment: 70.6(120)System: 73.4 (120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)-Page 110 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy TypeMAJOR (>10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS22.3120-180 d12.947443211 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)39.1*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)37.947443211 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)17*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)1747443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)31.7*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)31.647443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)23.7*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)23.447443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)11.5*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)11.447443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)4.60 d1.5 47443216 Traizine Anaerobic Soil Metabolism1.92 ng/g (0-15,29 d)29-126 d0.64** (0-15, 554d)47443222NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) NC loamysand, TURF2.78 ng/g (0-15,374 d)14-374 d(concentrationswithin acceptablerange of variability)1.17** ng/g (0-15,554 d)47443225NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) NC loamysand, BARE SOIL4.67 ng/g (0-15,134 d)134-280 d2.11 ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443224NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, BARE SOIL4.26 ng/g (0-15,134 d)134 d1.11** ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443221NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, TURF9.20 ng/g (0-15,28 d)28 d1.74 ng/g (0-15,531 d)47443223NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, BARE SOIL2.45 ng/g (0-15,58 d)58 d0.40** ng/g (0-15,367 d)nd (0-15, 531 d)47443220NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, TURF7.4 (10)8-10 dIrradiated: 6.9 (10)Dark: 1.3* (10)47443209 Traizine Soil PhotolysisDiaminotriazineIUPAC:(R)-6-(1-fluoroethyl)-[1,3,5]triazine2,4-diamine.CAS:6-[(1R)-1-Fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine2,4-diamine.CAS No.:Not ReportedSynonyms:AE 1956114,AE1170437-diaminotriazine, Z2, C1070, diaminotriazine,AE1956114, Z3, AE1170437 diaminotriazine, 1-Fluoroethyl triazinediamine,AE 2300000, BCSAA10365, K-1580, E7-1,E14-1, N7-1, N14-1Formula:C5H8FN5MW:157.15 g/molSystem: 12.8*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)Water: 8.6 (120)Sediment: 3.4(120)System: 11.9 (120)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)-Page 111 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy TypeSystem: 2.6 62-120 dWater: 0.6(120)Sediment: 1.8(120)System: 2.3 (120)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)(PARENT)Supp study onmetabolite(PARENT)Supp study onmetabolite18.457.21.147443214#NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXasandy loam)Aerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwieseloam)Aerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)17.415.490-122 d60-180 d8.97.64744321047443211IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)9.810.523-123 d26 d2.22.24744321047443211IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)14.3*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)13.3 (variable) 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)9.838-120 dunknown whetherincreasing ordecreasing attermination (120 d)9.5 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)6.78.113-79 d21-38 d3.964744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)13.715.830-79 d21-59 d1111.64744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)10.238-91 d8.3 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)11.530-122 dunknown whetherincreasing ordecreasing attermination10.547443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)10.230-92 d(0-62 d postflooding)8.1 47443216 TriazineAnaerobic Soil Metabolism(formed during aerobic phaseof study)10.2comparativelyconstantconcentration, slight(~1%) decrease oversampling period (0-210 d)7.9 47443216 IndaneAnaerobic Soil Metabolism(formed during aerobic phaseof study)Traizine IndanoneIUPAC Name:N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-Dihydro-2,6-dimethyl3-oxo-1H-inden-1-yl]-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineCAS Name:CAS No.:UnavailableSynonyms:AE 1170437-ketone, AE 2158968, AE1170437 ketone, K-1579,C-1068, AE 1170437-triazine indanone, Z1,Triazine indanone, AE1170437-TriazineIndanone, AE1170437-triazine indanone, Triaz.Indanone, Indanone,AE2158968, AE 1170437triazine-indanone, K-1715,AE 1170437- indanone, AE1170437 indanone, AE1170437 Triazine-indanoneFormula:C16H18FN5OMW:315.3 g/mol6.69 ng/g (0-15,58 d)58-126 d 2.73 ng/g (0-15,554 d)47443222 NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) NC loamy-Page 112 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Typesand, TURF4.89 ng/g (0-15,280 d)58-280 d(averageconcentrationswithin acceptablerange of variability)1.59 47443225NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) NC loamysand, BARE SOIL3.29 ng/g (0-15,7 d)7-59 d0.37** ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443224NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, BARE SOIL5.42 ng/g (0-15,59 d)59 d1.12** ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443221NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, TURF9.51 ng/g (0-15,14 d)14 d0.44** ng/g (0-15,531 d)47443223NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, BARE SOIL6.31 ng/g (0-15,58 d)14-121 d0.74** ng/g (0-15,531 d)2.25 ng/g (0-15,367 d)47443220NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, TURF5.73-10 d5.7 47443209 Traizine Soil Photolysis7.2Increasing at studytermination (9 d)7 47443209 Indane SoilPhotolysisSystem: 11.2*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)Water: 2.7 (120)Sediment: 7.9(120)System: 10.6 (120)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)System:10.5*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)Water: 2.6 (120)Sediment: 7.7(120)System:10.3(120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)System: 5.962-120 d(unable to determineif increasing ordecreasing at studytermination)Water: 0.2 (120)Sediment: 5.1(120)System: 5.3 (120)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)System: 7.4 62-120 dWater: 0.2 (120)Sediment: 5.8 (120)System: 6.0 (120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)-Page 113 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Type10.110.090-122 d122 d5.23.64744321047443211IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)17.316.890-178 d26-61 d9.97.34744321047443211IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)9.412.130-101 d59 d5.17.14744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)21.716.830-79 d21-59 d17.59.24744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)12.47.130 d38 d73.14744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)11.88.730-58 d21-59 d5.33.74744321247443213IndaneTriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)14.330-44 dSlight decrease %(~4%) oversampling periodpost-flooding10.347443216 Traizine Anaerobic Soil Metabolism11.37-92 d10.247443216 Indane Anaerobic Soil Metabolism3.18 ng/g (0-15,29 d)29 d0.35** ng/g (0-15,374 d)nd (554 d)47443222NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B)2.11 ng/g (0-15,126 d)126 d0.97** ng/g (0-15,554 d)47443225NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B)2.34 ng/g (0-15,134 d)134 d0.63** ng/g (0-15,526 d)47443224NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, BARE SOIL2.54 ng/g (0-15,59 d)28-59 d0.55** ng/g (0-15,280 d)nd (526 d)47443221NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, TURF5.30 ng/g (0-15,14 d)14 d0.51** ng/g (0-15,531 d)47443223NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, BARE SOIL4.6 ng/g (0-15,28 d)actual max =6.69 ng/g at thissampling point(replicated =3.44, 4.6, 3.7)28-58 d0.60** ng/g (0-15,531 d)47443220NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, TURFCarboxylic AcidIUPAC Name:(2S,3R)-3-({4-Amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2-methylindane5-carboxylic acidCAS Name:(2S,3R)-3-[[4-Amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]-2,3-dihydro-2-methyl-1H-indene-5-carboxylic acidCAS No.:UnavailableSynonyms:AE 2158969,AE 1170437-Acid, AE1170437 Acid, K-1581, C1069, AE 1170437-carboxylic acid, Carboxylicacid, Z2, AE 1170437-Carboxylic acid,AE1170437-carboxylicacid, Z8, AE 1170437carboxylic acid, Carbox.Acid, AE2158969, K-1716,AE 1170437 CarboxylicAcid, N7-9, N14-9, K-1644Formula:C16H18FN5O2MW:331.3 g/mol1.8 Increasing at study 1.6 47443209 Triazine Soil Photolysis-Page 114 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Typetermination (10 d)2.4Increasing at studytermination (9 d)2.1 47443209 Indane Soil PhotolysisSystem:17.791-120 d (unable todetermine ifincreasing ordecreasing at studytermination)Water:11.5(120)Sediment: 4.8(120)Water:16.3(120)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)System:20.7*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)Water:14.1(120)Sediment: 5.7(120)Water:19.7(120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)System: 4.2 30-120 dWater: 1.0 (120)Sediment: 2.7(120)Water: 3.7 (120)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)System: 6.7(average, 3.7,9.6)90 dWater: 1.2 (120)Sediment: 2.6(120)Water: 3.8 (120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)2158-120 d18.347443214#NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)Fluoroethyl-triazinanedione(ROI1)IUPAC Name:6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazinane-2,4-dioneCAS Name:UnavailableCAS No.: UnavailableFormula:C5H3FN3O2MW:25.730-58 d0.6 47443214#NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchen silt loam)1.58 ng/g (0-15,29 d)29-126 d0.35** ng/g (0-15,374 d)nd (0-15, 554 d)47443222NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B)0.41** ng/g (0-15, 0 d)0 dno other detectionsnd (526 d) 47443224NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, BARE SOIL0.80** ng/g (0-15, 59 d)14-59 dnd (526 d) 47443221NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) FL sand/loamysand, TURFHydroxyethylIUPAC Name:1-{4-Amino-6-[(1R,2S)-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1Hinden-1-ylamino]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}ethanolCAS Name:CAS No.:Synonyms:AE 1170437Hydroxyethyl, AE2300077,AE 1170437-desfluorohydroxy, AE 1170437-1-2.0 ng/g (0-15,367 d)3 detections at 367 dsampling timeperiod(2.0, 0.75, 0.42 ppb)nd (531 d) 47443223NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, BARE SOIL-Page 115 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Type0.65** ng/g (0-15, 58 d)58 d(nd after throughtermination)nd (531 d) 47443220NotApplicableTerrestrial Field Dissipation(BCS-AA10717, mixture ofisomers A&B) CA sandyloam, TURF20.8*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)20.347443208 Indane Aqueous PhotolysisHydroxyethyl, BCSAA10202Formula:C16H21N5OMW:299.37 g/mol17.9*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)16.647443208 Triazine Aqueous Photolysis53.9*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)53.647443208 Indane Aqueous PhotolysisOlefinIUPAC Name:N-[(1R,2S)-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro1H-inden-1-yl]-6-vinyl1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamineSynonyms:AE1170437-olefin, Reg #6, Compound2, AE 1170437 olefin, AE1170437 Olefin, BCSAA10201, K-1656, AE1170437 olefin, AE1170437-OlefinFormula:C16H20N5MW:51.7*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)49.947443208 Triazine Aqueous Photolysis18.3*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)18.347443210 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)38.3*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)37.347443210 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)3.6*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)3.6 47443211 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)14.2*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)14 47443211 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)23.6*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)23.647443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXasandy loam)33.1*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)33.147443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIaloam)28.2*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)28.247443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwieseloam)32.7*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)32.647443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)13.6*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)13.647443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)CO2(Carbon Dioxide)CAS No.:124-38-99.2*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)9.2 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)-Page 116 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Type5Increasing at studytermination (120 d)5 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)31.8*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)30.647443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)49.7Increasing at studytermination (120 d)48.547443214NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)12.3Increasing at studytermination (120 d)12.247443214NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)89.3Increasing at studytermination (120 d)86.847443214NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchen silt loam)4.7Sustained conc.through studytermination (210 d)4.7 47443216 Triazine Anaerobic Soil Metabolism7.3Sustained conc.through studytermination (210 d)7.3 47443216 Indane Anaerobic Soil Metabolism3.3*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)2.9 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis1.6*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)1.4 47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)5.0*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)4.6 47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)0.6 62d 0.2 47443217TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)1.8 62d 1.5 47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)-Page 117 of 292-Table A-2. Minor Organic Environmental Degradates of Indaziflam.TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy TypeMINOR TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS4.2 14d 0.9 47443214NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)ROI2Unknown3.5 7-14d ND 47443214NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchen silt loam)2.4150 d2.1 47443216 Triazine Anaerobic Soil MetabolismUnknown 1Unknown2.4150 d2.2 47443216 Indane Anaerobic Soil MetabolismReg #1Unknown3.4*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)3.1 47443208 TriazineAqueous Photolysis3.6 (water only) 91-120 dWater: 2.7 (120)(few minordetections insediment overcourse of study)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)System: 3.830-120 d (note: peakdecreased followingday 30 sampling,then increased from91-120 d)Water: 2.4 (120)Sediment: 0.4(120)System: 2.8(120)47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)UnidentifiedUnknownSystem: 1.230 dWater: 0.8 (120)(few minordetections insediment overcourse of study)47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)1*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)1 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)1.8 13-58d 1.1 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)1.6*101-122 dIncreasing at studytermination (122 d)1.6 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.9 30-79d 0.5 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)1.5*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)1.5 47443209 Triazine Soil PhotolysisZ3Unknown1.3*Increasing at studytermination (9 d)1.3 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis-Page 118 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Type0.4 30-79d ND 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.8 58-79d 0.2 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)0.4 30-58d ND 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)1.9 21d ND 47443213TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)Z4Unknown2.0*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)2 47443209 Triazine Soil Photolysis0.6 58-101d 0.4 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.6 58-101d 0.4 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)0.6 58d ND 47443212IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.858-122 drelatively constantpercent of appliedduring this timeperiod0.7 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)1.9120 dincreasing at studytermination (120 d)1.9 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)1.4*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)1.4 47443209 Triazine Soil PhotolysisZ5Unknown1.22-9 d1.1 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis1*58-122 dIncreasing at studytermination (122 d)1 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.6 58-101d 0.4 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)1.7*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)1.7 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.758-122 dconstant percent ofapplied during thistime period0.7 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)0.8detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)0.8 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)Z6Unknown0.7 detected at finalsampling time0.6 47443213 Triazine Aerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)-Page 119 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Typeperiod (120 d)2.5120 dincreasing at studytermination (120 d)2.5 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.7detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)0.7 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)1.6*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)1.6 47443209 Triazine Soil Photolysis1.36-9 d1.3 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis0.8*79-122 dIncreasing at studytermination (122 d)0.8 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.6 58-101d 0.4 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)1.2*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)1.2 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.8detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)0.8 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.7detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)0.6 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)1.6120 dincreasing at studytermination (120 d)1.6 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.9detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)0.9 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)1.53-8 d1.1 47443209 Triazine Soil PhotolysisZ7Unknown1.43-9 d1.2 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis0.4 58-79d ND 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.6 30d ND 47443212IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)0.9 58-79d ND 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)0.8detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)0.8 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)Z8Unknown1.1detected at finalsampling timeperiod (120 d)1.1 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)-Page 120 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Type1.3Increasing at studytermination (122 d)1.3 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)0.6 79d 0.4 47443212IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)0.4 58-79d 0.2 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)0.958-122 dIncreasing at studytermination (122 d)0.8 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)1.9120 dincreasing at studytermination (120 d)1.8 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)Z9Unknown28 dnd 47443209 Triazine Soil Photolysis0.4 58-101d ND 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)Z10Unknown0.5 58d ND 47443212IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)UNIDENTIFIED RADIOACTIVITY, NONEXTRACTABLE AND DIFFUSE RESIDUES4.9*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)4.7 47443208 TriazineAqueous PhotolysisUnidentifiedRadioactivityNot ApplicableNot Applicable7.4*Increasing at studytermination (3 d)7.3 47443208 Indane Aqueous Photolysis21.9*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)-- 47443210 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)34.3*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)-- 47443210 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)34.3*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)-- 47443211 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (NCsandy loam)18.3*Increasing at studytermination (368 d)-- 47443211 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (CAsandy loam)21.2*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)-- 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)23.1*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)-- 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)23.5*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)-- 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwiese loam)25.5*Increasing at studytermination (122 d)-- 47443212 IndaneAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)17.3*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)-- 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXa sandy loam)21.5*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)-- 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAIIIa loam)Non-extractableResiduesNot Applicable Not Applicable24.9* Increasing at study -- 47443213 Triazine Aerobic Soil Metabolism-Page 121 of 292-TransformationProductCompound/CodeChemical NameChemical StructureMaximum % ofARTime of Peak (Max% of Degradateapplied)Ave % of AR atStudyTermination(day)MRIDTriazine/IndaneRadioLabelStudy Typetermination (120 d)(Wurmwiese loam)20.1*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)-- 47443213 TriazineAerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)13.631.0*7.790 dIncreasing at studytermination (120 d)7-14 d11--4.947443214NotApplicableAerobic Soil Metabolism (LHAXXasandy loam)Aerobic Soil Metabolism(Wurmwieseloam)Aerobic Soil Metabolism(Hoefchensilt loam)22.4*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)21.8 47443209 Triazine Soil Photolysis12.3*Increasing at studytermination (9 d)12.3 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis14.5Increasing at studytermination (120 d)13.8 47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)16*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)15.3 47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Angler water-sand sedimentsystem)13.990 d(unable to determineif increasing ordecreasing at studytermination)11.9 47443217 TriazineAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)14.8*Increasing at studytermination (120 d)14.6 47443217 IndaneAerobic Aquatic Metabolism(Hoenniger water-loamsediment system)10.6*Increasing at studytermination (10 d)10.5 47443209 Triazine Soil PhotolysisDiffuseNot ApplicableNot Applicable148 d(Note cannotdetermine ifdecreasing at studytermination)12.4 47443209 Indane Soil Photolysis

### -Page 122 of 292- 

# Appendix B. Catalog of Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Indaziflam.

Table B. Submitted Ecological Effects Studies for Indaziflam, their Review Classifications,

and Classification Justifications.

Guideline MRID Study Title Issues Study

Classification

850.1010 47443226 Indaziflam - Acute Toxicity to Daphnia magna

in a 48 Hour Static Test Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1035 47443227 Indaziflam Techni cal - 96-hr Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Americamysis bahia) None Acceptable

850.1025 47443228 Indaziflam Technical - 96-hr Shell Deposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) under Flow-through Conditions Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1075 47443229 Indaziflam Technical - Acute Toxicity Study on the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) in a Static System over 96 hours Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1075 47443230 Fluoroethyldiaminotriazine - Acute Toxicity Study on the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) in a Static System Over 96 Hours None Acceptable

850.1075 47443231 Indaziflam-carboxylic Acid - Acute Toxicity Study on the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) in a Static System Over 96 Hours None Acceptable

850.1075 47443232 Indaziflam Technical – 96-h Acute Toxicity Study on Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegates) under Static Conditions Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1075 47443233 Indaziflam Technical - A 96-Hour Static Acute Toxicity Test with the Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1075 47443234 Indaziflam Technical - Acute Toxicity Study on the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a Static System Over 96 Hours Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

### -Page 123 of 292- 850.1300 47443235 Indaziflam Technical – 21-day ChronicToxicity to Daphnia magna under Staticrenewal Conditions Effects to offspring

were not measured &

test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1400 47443236 Indaziflam Technical – 35-day Early Life Stage Toxicity test on the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) under Flow-through

Conditions Statistically significant difference between negative and

solvent controls for mean dry weight &

test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1735 47443238 Indaziflam Technical – 10-day Acute Whole Sediment Toxicity Study with Freshwater Midge (Chironomus tetans) Overlying water

concentrations were not centrifugedto

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration Supplemental

850.1740 47443239 Indaziflam Technical – 10-day Acute Whole Sediment Test with Marine Amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus under Static

Conditions Overlying water

concentrations were not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration Supplemental

850.2100 47443240 Indaziflam Technical – Acute Toxicity in the Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginiamus) After Single Oral Administration (LD50) None Acceptable

850.2200 47443241 Indaziflam Technical – Subacute Dietary LC50 with Northern Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginiamus) None Acceptable

850.2200 47443242 Indaziflam Technical – Subacute Dietary LC50 with Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhnchos) None Acceptable

850.2300 47443243 Indaziflam Technical – One Generation Reproduction Study on the Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginiamus) by Administration in the Diet None Acceptable

850.2300 47443244 Indaziflam Technical – One Generation Reproduction Study on the Mallard Duck (Anas platyrhnchos) by Administration in the Diet Non-definitive

NOAEC Supplemental

850.3020 47443245 Indaziflam Technical - Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee None Acceptable

### -Page 124 of 292- 850.4225 47443246 BCS-AA10717 20WSP - Toxicity Test to

Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Terrestrial Plant Species None Acceptable

850.4225 47443247 Indaziflam 500 SC - Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Terrestrial Plant Species None Acceptable

850.4250 47443248 BCS-AA10717 20WSP - Toxicity Test to

Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Terrestrial Plant Species An associated

NOAEC/EC 05 

### could

not be determined for

the lowest EC 50 

### Supplemental

850.4250 47443249 BCS-AA10717 20WSP - Toxicity Test to

Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Terrestrial Plant Species Study failed to define

a NOAEC or EC05 corresponding to the

lowest EC25 for

dicots. Supplemental

850.4400 47443250 Indaziflam Technical – Tier II 7-day Aquatic Plant Test on the Growth of Lemna gibba None Acceptable

850.4400 47443251 Triazine-Indanone – Tier II 7-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) None Acceptable

850.4400 47443252 Fluoroethyldiaminotriazine – Tier II 7-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) Failed to determine

most sensitive endpoint Supplemental

850.4400 47443253 Indaziflam-carboxylic Acid – Tier II 7-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) None Acceptable

850.4400 47443254 Indaziflam-hydroxyethyl – Tier II 7-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) None Acceptable

850.4400 47443255 Indaziflam-olefine – Tier II 7-Day Toxicity Test with Duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) None Acceptable

Nonguideline 47443256 Indaziflam Technical – Growth Inhibition Test in a Water/Sediment System using Spiked Water with Duckweed (Lemna gibba) under

Static Conditions Non-guideline Supplemental

850.4450 47443257 BCS-AA10717 SC 500 G/L – Tier III Ecological Effects Test in Outdoor Experimental Ponds Inhabited with Macrophytes Multiple deviations from guideline; was

submitted as supplemental data Supplemental

Nonguideline 47443258 Indaziflam Tec hnical – Non-guideline Screening Test on Effects to Aquatic Macrophytes in Outdoor Simulated Ponds Non-guideline Supplemental

Nonguideline 47443259 Analysis of AE 1170437 concentrations in sediment samples of ALTERRA Study No.

ALT.SC.2007.1 Non-guideline Extraneous Data - No study

classification given.

### -Page 125 of 292-Nonguideline 47443260 Analysis of AE 1170437 concentrations in water samples of ALTERRA Study No.

ALT.SC.2007.1 Non-guideline Extraneous Data - No study

classification given.

850.5400 47443261 Indaziflam Technical – 96-hr Test on the Growth of the Green Alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata None Acceptable

850.5400 47443262 Fluoroethyldiaminotriazine - 72-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Study length 72 hours Supplemental

850.5400 47443263 Indaziflam - carboxylic Acid - 72-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Study length 72 hours Supplemental

850.5400 47443264 Indaziflam - hydroxyethyl - 72-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Study length 72 hours Supplemental

850.5400 47443265 Indaziflam - olefine - 72-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Study length 72 hours Supplemental

850.5400 47443266 Indaziflam Technical - 96-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Alga (Navicula pelliculosa) Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.5400 47443267 Indaziflam Technical - 96-Hour Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Diatom (Skeletonema costatum) None Acceptable

850.5400 47443268 Indaziflam Technical - 96-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Cy anobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae) Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

Nonguideline 47443269 Indaziflam Technical – Acute Toxicity Study on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida andrei) A 14-day test instead of a 28-day test was

conducted. Supplemental

850.1010 47743303 Indaziflam 500 SC – Acute toxicity to Daphnia magna in a 48 Hour Static Test Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.1010 47743304 Indaziflam 200 SC – Acute toxicity to Daphnia magna in a 48 Hour Static Test Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

### -Page 126 of 292- 850.1075 47743305 Indaziflam 500 SC – Acute toxicity to Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) over 96 hrs Test media was not centrifuged to

determine dissolved

test substance

concentration. Supplemental

850.2100 47743306 Indaziflam Technical – An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Zebra Finch None Acceptable

850.3020 47743307 Indaziflam 500 SC – Acute Toxicity Study to the honeybee (Apic melifera L.) under laboratory conditions None Acceptable

850.4400 47743308 Indaziflam 500 SC – Tier II 7-day Aquatic Plant Test on the Growth of Lemna gibba None Acceptable

850.5400 47743309 Indaziflam Techni cal - 96-hr Test on the Growth of the Green Alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata None Acceteptable

850.5400 47743310 Indaziflam 500 SC - 72-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Study length 72 hours Supplemental

850.5400 47743311 Indaziflam 200 SC - 72-Hour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Green Alga (Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata) Study length 72 hours; light intensities two

times recommended

levels Supplemental

Nonguideline 47743312 Fluoroethyldiaminotriazine - Acute Toxicity Study on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida andrei) A 14-day test instead of a 28-day test was

conducted Supplemental

Nonguideline 47743313 Triazine-indanone - Acute Toxicity Study on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida andrei) A 14-day test instead of a 28-day test was

conducted Supplemental

Nonguideline 47743314 Indaziflam – carboxylic acid - Acute Toxicity Study on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida andrei) A 14-day test instead of a 28-day test was

conducted Supplemental

Nonguideline 47743315 Indaziflam 500 SC - Acute Toxicity Study on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida andrei) A 14-day test instead of a 28-day test was

conducted Supplemental

860.6200 47743316 Indaziflam 500 SC – Survival, Growth, and Reproduction toxicity test on Earthworms (Eisenia fetida andrei) Did not test

concentrations to guideline limit to

dervive an LC 50 

### Supplemental

### -Page 127 of 292- 

# Appendix C. Summaries of Ecologica l Effects Studies Submitted for

Indaziflam

Toxicity to Freshwater Aquatic Animals

Freshwater Fish, Acute

### -Page 128 of 292- 

## Table C-1. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) and Metabolites to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 96-h LC 50 

### : 0.77 mg total a.i./L Highly

toxic MRID

47443229 (Supplemental) 

### Fathead

minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) In a 96-h acute toxicity study, fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) were exposed to AE 1170437 at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 0.13, 0.26, 0.52, 1.05, and 2.09 mg a.i./L; mean-measured concentrations were <0.01 (<LOQ, negative and solvent control), 0.15, 0.27, 0.55, 1.07, and 2.19 mg total a.i./L under static conditions. Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media; thus, all reported measured concentration values are total concentrations of test substance in the test

media.

The 96-h LC 50 

### was 0.77 mg total a.i/L. The EC 50 

### and NOAEC values, based on sub-lethal effects, were <0.55 and 0.27 mg total a.i./L, respectively. Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437 would be classified as highly toxic to fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) on an acute toxicity basis, in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound; however, th is study does not meet OPPTS 850.1075 guideline

standards for a freshwater fish acu te toxicity test because centrif ugation was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance. This study is classified Supplemental.

96-h LC 50 

### : 0.77 mg total a.i./L (95% C.I.: 0.55 – 1.07 mg total a.i./L; Probit slope: N/A) NOAEC (sublethal effects): 0.27 mg total a.i./L



### Bluegill

sunfish Indaziflam 94.5 96-h LC 50 

### : 0.32 mg total a.i./L Highly

toxic MRID

47443233 (Supplemental)

### -Page 129 of 292- 

## Table C-1. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) and Metabolites to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) ( Lepomis

macrochirus ) In a 96-h acute toxicity study, bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) were exposed to AE 1170437 at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 0.09, 0.19, 0.38, 0.75, and 1.50 mg a.i./L; mean-measured concentrations were <0.0 06 (negative control), <0.003 (<LOQ, solvent control), 0.10, 0.21, 0.39, 0.75, and 1.54 mg total a.i./L under static conditions. The solubility of BCS-AA10717 was reported as >1.5 mg a.i./L unde r testing conditions of 0.1 mL/L solvent load; however, the solubility of BCS-AA10717 ranges from 1.2 - 4.4 mg/L (MRID: 47443202). The study was conducted up to the limit of solubilit y (1.50 mg a.i/L, nominal) and centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media. Thus, all reported measured concentration values are total conc entrations of test substance (total a.i.) in the

test media.

Cumulative mortality after 96 hours was 0% in the negative and solvent control, as well as in the 0.10 and 0.21 mg total a.i./L treatment groups. Mortality was 80%, 100% and 100% in the 0.39, 0.75, and 1.54 mg total a.i./L treatment groups, respectively. There were no sublethal effects observed in the negative and solvent controls or the 0.10 and 0.21 mg total a.i./L treatment groups. Toxicological symptoms such as loss of equilibrium, vertical orientation, labored respiration, and lying on the bottom were observed in the 0.39 mg total a.i./L treatment group at 24 hours and in the 1.54 mg total a.i./L treatment level at 4 hours.

The 96-h LC 50 

### was 0.32 mg total a.i/L. The NOAEC va lue, based on sub-lethal effects and mortality, was 0.21 mg total a.i./L. Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437 would be classified as highly toxic to bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) on an acute toxicity basis, in

accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound; however, th is study does not meet OPPTS 850.1075 guideline

standards for a freshwater fish acu te toxicity test because centrif ugation was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance. This study is classified Supplemental.

96-h LC 50 

### : 0.32 mg total a.i./L (95% C.I.: 0.21 – 0.75 mg total a.i./L; Probit slope: N/A) NOAEC (sublethal effects): 0.21 mg total a.i./L



### Rainbow trout ( Oncohynchus mykiss ) Indaziflam 94.5 96-h LC 50 

### : 0.57 mg total a.i./L Highly

toxic MRID

47443234 (Supplemental)

### -Page 130 of 292- 

## Table C-1. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) and Metabolites to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) In a 96-h acute toxicity study, rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) were exposed to AE 1170437 (AI: BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 0.09, 0.19, 0.38, 0.75, and 1.50 mg a.i./L; mean-measured concentrations were <0.003 (<LOQ, negative and solvent control), 0.10, 0.19, 0.42, 0.78, and 1.46 mg total a.i./L under static conditions. The solubility of BCS-AA10717 was reported as approximately 10 mg total a.i./L under testing conditions of 0.5 ml/L solvent load; however, the solubility of BCS-AA10717 ranges from 1.2 - 4.4 mg/L (MRID: 47443202). The study was conducted up to the limit of solubility (1.50 mg a.i/L, nominal) and centrifugation was not conducted to determine the

dissolved test substance concentration in th e test media. Thus, all reported measured

concentration values are total concentrations of test substance (total a.i.) in the test media.

Cumulative mortality after 96 hours was 0% in the negative and solvent control, as well as in the 0.10-0.42 mg total a.i./L treatment groups. Mortality was 100% in the 0.78 and 1.46 mg total a.i./L treatment groups. There were no sublet hal effects observed in the negative and solvent controls or the 0.10-0.78 mg total a.i./L treatme nt groups. Loss of equilibrium was observed in the 1.46 mg total a.i./L treatment group at 4 h ours in six fish. Complete mortality at 24 hours precluded the ability to observe su blethal effects thereafter.

The 96-h LC 50 

### was 0.572 mg total a.i/L. The NOAEC value, based on mortality, was 0.42 mg total a.i./L. Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437 would be classified as highly toxic to rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) on an acute toxicity basis, in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound; however, th is study does not meet OPPTS 850.1075 guideline

standards for a freshwater fish acu te toxicity test because centrif ugation was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance. This study is classified Supplemental.

96-h LC 50 

### : 0.57 mg total a.i./L (95% C.I.: 0.42 – 0.78 mg total a.i./L; Probit slope: N/A) NOAEC (sublethal effects): 0.42 mg total a.i./L



### Fathead

minnow Diaminotriazine 99.3 96-h LC 50 

### : > 101 mg a.i./L Practically

non-toxic MRID

47443230 (Acceptable)

### -Page 131 of 292- 

## Table C-1. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) and Metabolites to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) ( Pimephales promelas ) In a 96-h acute toxicity study, conducted as a limit test, fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) were exposed to AE 1170437-diaminotriazine at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control) and 100 mg a.i./L; mean-measured concentrations were <1.01 (<LOQ, negative control) and 101 mg a.i./L under static conditions.

There were no effects on mortality or sublethal eff ects observed in the control or treatment level.

The 96-h LC 50 

### was >101 mg a.i/L. The EC 50 

### and NOAEC values, based on mortality and sublethal effects, were >101 and 101 mg a.i./L, respec tively. Based on the results of this study, AE

1170437-diaminotriazine would be classified practically non-toxic to fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) on an acute toxicity basis, in accordance with the classification system of

the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound and meets OP PTS 850.1075 guideline standards for an acute freshwater fish toxicity study. This study is classified Acceptable.

96-h LC 50 

### : > 101 mg a.i./L (95% C.I.: N/A; Probit slope: N/A) NOAEC: 101 mg a.i./L Carboxylic

Acid 96.5 96-h LC 50 

### : > 103 mg a.i./L Practically

non-toxic MRID

47443231 (Acceptable) 

### Fathead

minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) In a 96-h acute toxicity study, fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) were exposed to AE 1170437-carboxylic acid at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control) and 100 mg a.i./L; mean-measured concentrations were <1.00 (<LOQ, negative control) and 103 mg a.i./L under

static conditions.

There were no effects on mortality, and no sublethal effects were observed in the control or

treatment level. The 96-h LC 50 

### was >103 mg a.i/L. The EC 50 

### and NOAEC values, based on mortality and sub-lethal effects, were >103 and 103 mg a.i./L, respectively. Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437-carboxylic acid would be classified practically non-toxic to fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) on an acute toxicity basis, in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound and meets OP PTS 850.1075 guideline standards for an acute freshwater fish toxicity study. This study is classified Acceptable.

96-h LC 50 

### : > 103 mg a.i./L (95% C.I.: N/A; Probit slope: N/A) NOAEC: 103 mg a.i./L Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) Indaziflam SC

500 45.08 LC50: 0.372 mg total ai/L

95% C.I.: 0.251 to 0.913 mg total ai/L Highly

Toxic MRID

47743305 (Supplemental)

### -Page 132 of 292- 

## Table C-1. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) and Metabolites to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) In a 96-hour acute toxicity study, bluegill sunf ish (Lepomis macrochirus) were exposed under static conditions to AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L (AI: BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 0.250, 0.500, 1.00, 2.00, and 4.00 mg formulation/L, equivalent to 0 (negative control), 0.113, 0.225, 0.451, 0.902, and 1.80 mg ai/L. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.000530 (<LOQ, control), 0.133, 0.251, 0.446, 0.913, and 1.77 mg total ai/L, which are equivalent to <LOQ (control), 0.295, 0.556, 0.989, 2.03, and 3.92 mg total formulation/L, respectively. The study was conducted up to the limit of solubility (1.80 mg a.i/L, nominal) of BCS-AA10717 and centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentrations in the test media. Thus, all re ported measured concentration values are total concentrations of test substances (total a.i.) in the test media. The solubility of the formulation was not reported.

After 24 hours, cumulative mortality was 0, 0, 0, 40, 100, and 100% for the control, 0.133, 0.251, 0.446, 0.913, and 1.77 mg total ai/L levels, re spectively (mean-measured concentrations); after 48, 72, and 96 hours, cumulative mortality was 0, 0, 0, 80, 100, and 100%, respectively. The 96- hour LC50 was 0.372 mg total ai/L, which is equivalent to 0.825 mg total form/L. Clinical signs of toxicity were observed at the mean-measured 0.446 mg total ai/L treatment levels, and included fish on the bottom of the aquarium, dark coloration, hyperactivity, inactivity, labored respiration, loss of equilibrium with lateral devia tion, and/or laying on their sides or backs. The NOAEC for mortality and clinical signs of toxicity was 0.251 mg total ai/L, which is equivalent to 0.557 mg total form/L.

Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L (AI: BCS-AA10717) is highly toxic to bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) in accor dance with the classification system of the U.S.

EPA.

This study is scientifically sound; however, th is study does not meet OPPTS 850.1075 guideline

standards for a freshwater fish acute toxicity test because centrif ugation was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance. This study is classified Supplemental.

LC50: 0.372 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: 0.251 to 0.913 mg total ai/L NOAEC: 0.251 mg total ai/L (based on mortality and sublethal effects)

EC50: Could not be determined 95% C.I.: N/A Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A



## Freshwater Fish, Chronic

Table C-2. Chronic Toxicity of Inda ziflam (TGAI) to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. NOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Fathead

minnow (Pimephales Indaziflm 94.5 464.4 μg a.i./L based on fry survival, total length, and total weight MRID

47443236 (Supplemental)

### -Page 133 of 292- 

## Table C-2. Chronic Toxicity of Inda ziflam (TGAI) to Freshwater Fish.

Species Chemical a.i. NOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification)The 35-day chronic toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to the early lifestage of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) was studied under flow-through conditions. Fertilized eggs/embryos (140/level, <24 hours old) of fathead minnow were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 63, 125, 250, 500, and 1000 μ g ai/L (adjusted for purity). TWA concentrations were <5.95 (<LOQ, controls), 58.21, 142.6, 286.6, 464.4, and

1020 μ g total ai/L. The test system was maintained at 23.3 to 26.2°C and a pH of 7.3 to 8.1. The 35-day LC/EC50 was values could not be determined due to a lack of an adequate dose-response relationship for any endpoint analyzed. However, based on fry survival, the LC50 value is likely to be between 464.4 and 1020 μg total ai/L. Because BCS-AA10717 wa s tested approximately up to its limit of solubility (1,200 – 4,400 μg ai/L), test media should have been centrifuged prior to analyzing the measured concentrations to determine the concentration of dissolved test substance; thus, all reported measured values are total concentration of test substance in the test

media.

Hatching occurred at all levels on Days 4 and 5, and hatching success averaged 92.1 to 98.6% for all levels, with no statistically significant differ ences observed. Similarl y, survival of hatched alevins assessed on Day 5 ranged from 90.0 to 95 .7%, with no treatment-related effects indicated. Post-hatch survival of fry, howe ver, was adversely affected at th e highest treatment level. Posthatch survival (Day 35) ranged from 92.5 to 98.8% for the control through 465.3 μ g total ai/L levels, but was only 2.5% at the 1013 μ g total ai/L level (p<0.05). Death was generally preceded by loss of equilibrium, lying on the bottom, and/or labored respiration.

Standard lengths ranged from 21.6 to 23.5 mm and dry weight ranged from 46.2 to 66.2 mg for all levels. A significant difference (p < 0.01) in mean dry weight was detected between the negative and solvent controls, with significantly li ghter fish (13%) in the solvent control group. With the exception of the highest treatment, where growth was promoted 25% relative to the negative control (although mortality occurred in 3 ou t of the 4 replicates for this concentration), fish weights were significantly reduced relative to the negative control at all treated levels. The

reviewer determined that the si gnificant difference between the solvent and negative control casts sufficient uncertainty unto the data as to affect its acceptability. However, since no effects were detected relative to the solvent control at all treatment levels in which no mortality occurred, and effects to length showed similar results, ther e is confidence in determining a LOAEC and NOAEC regardless of whether the solvent control did indeed have a slight effect. The LOAEC and NOAEC for dry weight was based on mortality and sublethal effects (ie. behavioral and morphological observations) and were determined to be 1013 and 465.3 μ g total ai/L, respectively.

This study is scientifically sound but does not fully meet OPPTS 850.1400 guideline standards for an early life stage toxicity study with freshw ater fish. A significant statistical difference (13%, p < 0.01) was found between negative and solvent controls for mean dry weight of fish. Furthermore, centrifugation was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance. This study is classified Supplemental.

Endpoint NOAEC LOAEC Alevin survival (Day 5) 1020 μ g total ai/L >1020 μ g total ai/L Fry survival (Day 35) 464.4 μ g total ai/L 1020 μ g total ai/L Percent hatch (Day 5) 1020 μ g total ai/L >1020 μ g total ai/L Total Length 464.4 μ g total ai/L 1020 μ g total ai/L Dry Weight1 464.4 μ g total ai/L 1020 μ g total ai/L

### -Page 134 of 292- 

## Freshwater Invertebrates, Acute

Table C-3. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Indaziflam 94.5 48-h EC50: >9.88 mg a.i./L (immobility) Moderately to slightly

toxic MRID

47443226 (Supplemental) Water flea (Daphnia magna) The 48-hour acute toxicity of AE 1170437 to Daphnia magna was studied under static conditions. Daphnids were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 0.63, 1.25, 2.5, 5.0, and 10 mg a.i./L. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.06 mg a.i./L (<LOQ, controls), 0.62, 1.23, 2.54, 4.86, and 9.88 mg a.i./L. Test levels were set based on the practical limit of solubility in the test waters. The study author atte mpted to find the limit of solubility, both with and without the use of the solvent stock. The study authors determined that the limit of solubility for indaziflam using the maximum solv ent load allowable under OPPTS gui delines of 0.5 ml/L (acetone) was 10 mg a.i./L. It was reported that the test ma terial did not go into solution at 10 mg a.i./L at solvent loads below 0.5 ml/L. Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media; thus, a ll reported measured concen tration values are total

concentrations of test substance in the test media.

Immobility and sublethal effects were observed at 24 and 48 hours. The 48-hour EC50 (based on immobile daphnia) was >9.88 mg a.i./L. The 48-hr NOAEC, based on sublethal behavioral effects, was 4.86 mg a.i./L. The observed sublethal effects included quiescence.

This study suggests that AE 1170437 would be categorized moderately toxic to slightly toxic to Daphnia magna on an acute toxicity basis, in accordance with the classification system of the U.S.

EPA.

This study is classified as scientifically so und, however centrifugation was not conducted to determine the measured concentrations of the dissolved test substance in the test media. This study does not fully meet guideline standards for an acute freshwater invertebrate toxicity study. This study is classified Supplemental.

48-h EC50: >9.88 mg a.i./L (immobility) 95% C.I.: N/A; Probit slope: N/A NOAEC: 4.86 mg a.i./L (sub lethal effects: quiescence)

Indaziflam

SC 500 45.08 EC50: >38 mg total ai/L

95% C.I.: N/A Slightly toxic, at

most MRID

47743303 (Supplemental) Water flea (Daphnia magna) The 48-hour acute toxicity of the formulated product AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L (AI: BCS-AA10717) to Daphnia magna was studied under static conditions . Daphnids (20 organisms/level) were exposed to AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 5.7, 11, 23, 45, and 91mg formulation/L, equivalent to 0 (control), 2.6, 5.1, 10, 21, and 41 mg ai/L, respectively. Meanmeasured concentrations were <0.26 (<LOQ, control), 2.3, 4.3, 8.4, 18, and 38 mg total ai/L, respectively. Mean-measured concentrations in terms of formulated product were <LOQ (control), 5.1, 9.5, 19, 40, and 84 mg total formulation/L, respectively. Centrifugation was not conducted at

test termination to determine the dissolved test su bstance concentration in the test media; thus, all reported measured concentration values are total concentrations in the test media.

### -Page 135 of 292- 

## Table C-3. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Following 48 hours of exposure, immobility was 0% at the control through mean-measured 8.4 mg ai/L levels, 10% at the 18 mg ai/L level, and 5% at the 38 mg ai/L level. Sub-lethal signs of toxicity were observed at the 8.4, 18, and 38 mg ai/L levels after 24 hours, and at all treatment levels by 48 hours. Effects included lying on the bottom, quiescence, and paleness.

The 48-hour NOAEC (based on sublethal effects) and EC50 values were <2.3 and >38 mg ai/L, respectively, which are equivalent to <5.1 and >84 mg form/L, respectively.

Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437 SC 500 g/L (AI: BCS-AA10717) is slightly toxic, at most, to Daphnia magna in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is classified as scientifically so und, however centrifugation was not conducted to determine the measured concentrations of the dissolved test substance in the test media. This study does not fully meet guideline standards for an acute freshwater invertebrate toxicity study. This study is classified Supplemental.

Based on mean-measured ai:

LC50: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A EC50: >38 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: <2.3 mg total ai/L (based on sublethal effects) Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

Based on formulated product (45.08% ai):

LC50: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A EC50: >84 mg total form/L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: <5.1 mg total form/L (based on sublethal effects) Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

Indaziflam

200 SC 19.2 EC50: 37.5 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: 29.8 to 49.5 mg total ai/L Probit Slope: 2.6

95% C.I.: 1.8 to 3.4 MRID

47743304 (Supplemental) Water flea (Daphnia magna)

The 48-hour acute toxicity of the formulated product BCS-AA10717 SC 200 g/L (containing 19.2% indaziflam) to Daphnia magna was studied under static conditions. Daphnids (30 organisms/level) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 SC 200 g/L at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 mg formulation/L, equivalent to 0 (control), 3.8, 7.7, 15, 31, and 61 mg ai/L, respectively. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.00384 (<LOQ, control), 4.43, 8.26, 20.3, 32.2, and 87.4 mg total ai/L, respectivel y. Mean-measured concentrations in terms of formulated product were <LOQ (control), 23.0, 43.0, 105.7, 168, an d 455 mg total formulation/L, respectively. Centrifugation was not conducted at test termination to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media; thus, all repo rted measured concentration values are total

concentrations in the test media.

Cumulative immobility after 24 hours was 0, 0, 3, 3, 0, and 57% at the control, 4.43, 8.26, 20.3, 32.2, and 87.4 mg total ai/L levels, respectively; cumulative immobility after 48 hours was 0, 0, 10, 23, 30,

### -Page 136 of 292- 

## Table C-3. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) and 90% at the control, 4.43, 8.26, 20.3, 32.2, and 87.4 mg total ai/L levels, respectively. Besides treatment-related immobility, no further effects on behavior were observed at any level.

The NOAEC and EC50 values were 8.26 and 37.5 mg total ai/L, respectively, which were equivalent to 43.0 and 195 mg total formulation/L. Based on the results of this study, the formulated product BCS-AA10717 SC 200 g/L (containing 19.2% indaziflam) is practically non-toxic to Daphnia magna

in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This study is classified as scientifically so und, however centrifugation was not conducted to determine the measured concentrations of the dissolved test substance in the test media. This study does not fully meet guideline standards for an acute freshwater invertebrate toxicity study. This study is classified Supplemental.

Based on mean-measured ai:

LC50: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 8.26 mg total ai/L EC50: 37.5 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: 29.8 to 49.5 mg total ai/L Probit Slope: 2.6 95% C.I.: 1.8 to 3.4

Based on formulated product (19.2% ai):

LC50: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 43.0 mg total ai/L EC50: 195 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: 155 to 258 mg total ai/L Probit Slope: 2.6 95% C.I.: 1.8 to 3.4

Indaziflam 94.5 Pore Water 10 day LC50: > 2.2 mg ai/L (mortality)

Bulk Sediment 10 day LC50: > 100 mg ai/kg dw (mortality) Overlying water 10 day LC50: > 0.18 mg ai/L (mortality) N/A MRID

47443238 (Supplemental) Midge (Chironomus tetans)

In a 10 day acute whole sediment toxicity study of indaziflam, midges were exposed to nominal conencetrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 6.6, 14, 26, 52, and 100 mg ai/kg sediment in an intermittent flow-through system. Mean measured concentrations for sediment were <LOQ (negative and solvent controls), 6.9, 15, 27 , 50, 100 mg a.i./kg dw , and mean measured concentrations for pore water were <LOQ (negative and solvent controls), 0.042, 0.10, 0.38, 0.72, 2.2 mg a.i./kg dw. Survival and ash-free dry weight were the measured data endpoints.

Following 10 days of exposure, percent survival averaged 91 to 98% and mean ash-free dry weight (AFDW) averaged 1.21 to 1.47 mg per midge fo r all levels, with no statistically-significant differences from the negative control observed.

Test concentrations were tested up to BCS-AA107 17’s limit of solubility (1.2 - 4.4 mg/L; MRID 47443202). The reported limit of solubility was 2.8 mg/L at 20°C (pH 6.6 to 6.9). Centrifugation was not conducted for the overlying water to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in

the test media.

### -Page 137 of 292- 

## Table C-3. Acute Toxicity of Indaziflam (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) This study is classified Supplemental

Based on Mean-Measured Pore Water Concentrations: LC50 mortality: >2.2 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A EC50 ash-free dry weights: >2.2 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC (mortality): 2.2 mg a.i./L NOAEC (dry weights): 2.2 mg a.i./L

Based on Mean-Measured Sediment Concentrations: LC50 mortality: >100 mg a.i./kg dw 95% C.I.: N/A EC50 ash-free dry weights: >100 mg a.i./kg dw 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC (mortality): 100 mg a.i./kg dw NOAEC (dry weights): 100 mg a.i./kg dw

Based on Mean-Measured Overlying Water Concentrations: LC50 mortality: >0.18 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A EC50 ash-free dry weights: >0.18 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC (mortality): 0.18 mg a.i./L NOAEC (dry weights): 0.18 mg a.i./L



## Freshwater Invertebrate, Chronic

Table C-4. Chronic Toxicity of Indazifl am (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC/LOAEC Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Indaziflam 94.5 21-day NOAEC: 0.34 mg total a.i./L 21-day LOAEC: 0.80 mg total a.i./L (Neonates per reproductive day; adult length; adult dry weight) N/A MRID

47443235 (Supplemental) Water flea (Daphnia magna)

The 21-day-chronic toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to Daphnia magna was studied under static renewal conditions. Daphnids were exposed to BCS-AA10717 at nominalconcentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 0.05, 0.13, 0.32, 0.80, and 2.0 mg ai/L. Meanmeasured concentrations were <0.003 (<LOQ, controls), 0.06, 0.14, 0.34, 0.80 and 2.0 mg total ai/L, respectively. The 21-day EC50 for adult immobility was >2.0 mg total ai/L, the highest concentration tested. The 21-day NOAEC was 0.34 mg total ai/L, based upon treatment-related effects on growth (body length and dry weight) and neonates per reproductive day at the 0.80 and 2.0 mg total ai/L levels at study termination; the EC50 values for neonates per reproductive day and dry weight were 1.6 and 1.7 mg total ai/L, respectively. Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media; thus, all reported measured concentration

values are total concentrations of test substance in the test media.

Adult immobilization (mortality) was ≤ 7% at all levels, with no treatment-related pattern observed.

The time to first brood release in creased with increasing concentration level, and was statistically-

### -Page 138 of 292- 

## Table C-4. Chronic Toxicity of Indazifl am (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC/LOAEC Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) increased (p ≤ 0.05) compared to the negative control group at the 2.0 mg total ai/L level (7.4 versus 8.4 days). Similarly, the number of offspring per reproductive day was statistically-reduced (p ≤ 0.05) at the 0.80 and 2.0 mg total ai/L levels compared to the negative control (7.6 and 18.4 versus 21.8). Terminal growth parameters of surviving adults we re the most sensitive endpoints, with statisticallysignificant decreases (p ≤ 0.05) compared to the negative control at the 0.81 and 2.0 mg total ai/L levels. Length averaged 5.16 to 5.24 mm for the negative control through 0.34 mg total ai/L levels, 5.09 mm at the 0.81 mg total ai/L level, and 4.02 mm at the 2.0 mg total ai/L level. Dry weight averaged 1.396 to 1.465 mg for the negative control through 0.34 mg total ai/L levels, 1.316 mg at the 0.80 mg total ai/L level, and 0.508 mg at the 2.0 mg total ai/L level.

This study is scientifically sound. However, th e number of immobilized offspring per adult was not reported. Furthermore, centrifugation was not conducted to determine the measured concentrations of the dissolved test substance in test media given the solubility limit of the test substance. The study does not meet OPPTS 850.1300 guideline st andards for a chronic freshwater invertebrate toxicity test using Daphnia magna. This study is classified Supplemental.

Parental Immobilization: EC50: >2.0 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: N/A Probit Slope: N/A NOAEC: 2.0 mg total ai/L LOAEC: >2.0 mg total ai/L

Time to First Brood Release: EC50: >2.0 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: N/A Slope: N/A NOAEC: 0.80 mg total ai/L LOAEC: 2.0 mg total ai/L

Neonates per Repro. Day: EC50: 1.6 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: 1.4-1.7 mg total ai/L Slope: 3.54±0.337 NOAEC: 0.34 mg total ai/L LOAEC: 0.80 mg total ai/L

Length: EC50: >2.0 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: N/A Slope: N/A NOAEC: 0.34 mg total ai/L LOAEC: 0.80 mg total ai/L

Dry weight: EC50: 1.7 mg total ai/L 95% C.I.: 1.6-1.8 mg total ai/L Slope: 4.44±0.497 NOAEC: 0.34 mg total ai/L LOAEC: 0.80 mg total ai/L

Endpoint(s) Affected: Reproduction (time to first brood release and no. of neonates per reproductive day) and growth (length and dry weight)

### -Page 139 of 292- 

## Table C-4. Chronic Toxicity of Indazifl am (TGAI) to Freshwater Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC/LOAEC Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Most Sensitive Endpoint: neonates per reproductive day



## Toxicity to Estuarine and Marine Animals

Estuarine and Marine Fish, Acute

Table C-5. Acute Toxicity of Indazifl am (TGAI) to Estuarine/Marine Fish.

Species Chemical % a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Sheepshead

minnow ( Cyprinodon variegates ) Indaziflam 94.5 96-h LC 50 

### : 0.96 mg total a.i./L (mortality) Highly

toxic MRID 47443232 (Supplemental)

In a 96-h acute toxicity study, sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) were exposed to AE 1170437 (AI: BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 0.09, 0.19, 0.38, 0.75, and 1.50 mg a.i./L; mean-measured concentrations were <0.006 (<LOQ, negative and solvent control), 0.10, 0.21, 0.43, 0.77, and 1.56 mg total a.i./L under static conditions. The solubility of BCS-AA10717 was reported as ≥ 4.0 mg a.i./L under testing conditions; however, the solubility of BCS-AA10717 ranges from 1.2 - 4.4 mg/L (MRID: 47443202). The study was conducted up to the limit of solubility (1.50 mg a.i/L, nominal) and centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media. Thus, all reported measured concentration values are total concen trations of test substance in the test media.

The 96-h LC 50 

### was 0.96 mg total a.i/L. The EC 50 

### and NOAEC values, based on sub-lethal effects and mortality, were >1.56 and 0.43 mg total a.i./L, re spectively. Based on the results of this study, AE 1170437 (AI: BCS-AA10717) would be classified as highly toxic to sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) on an acute toxicity basis, in accor dance with the classification system of

the U.S. EPA.

This study is scientifically sound; however, this study does not meet OPPTS 850.1075 guideline

standards for a freshwater fish acut e toxicity test because centrifuga tion was not conducted as part of the analysis for dissolved test substance. This study is classified Supplemental.

96-h LC 50 

### : 0.96 mg total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.43 – 4.56 mg total a.i./L; Probit slope: N/A NOAEC: 0.43 mg total a.i./L

Sublethal effects:

EC 50 

### : 1.56 mg total a.i./L NOAEC: 0.43 mg total a.i./L

### -Page 140 of 292- 

## Estuarine and Marine Fish, Chronic

No life cycle toxicity test with estuarine/ mari ne fish with indaziflam TGAI, formulations, or degradates were submitted.

Estuarine and Marine Aquatic Invertebrates, Acute

Table C-6. Acute Toxicity of Technical Grad e Indaziflam (TGAI) to Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Eastern Oyster ( Crassotrea virginica ) Indaziflam 94.5 96-h EC 50 

### : 0.92 mg total a.i./L (shell growth) Highly

toxic MRID

47443228 (Supplemental) 96-h acute toxicity test in the Eastern oyster under flow-through conditions. Nominal concentrations: 0 (negative and solvent control) , 0.063, 0.13, 0.25, 1.0, and 2.0 mg/L; Timeweighted average concentrations were <0.0400 (<LOQ, controls), 0.061, 0.122, 0.24, 0.47, 0.89, and 1.80 mg total a.i./L, respectively.

Endpoints assessed: mortality and shell growth.

No mortality occurred during the study.

A slight amount of white precipitate was noted on the sides of the mixing chamber for the 2.0 mg

total a.i./L test concentration at test terminati on. Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media; thus, there is uncertainty regarding the quantity of test substance dissolved in the test media and all reported measured concentration

values are total concentrations of test substan ce in the test media. BCS-AA10717’s solubility is 1.2-4.4 mg/L (MRID 47443202).

This study is scientifically sound. However, centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media given that the highest test concentration

exceeds BCS-AA10717 ’s solubility. This study is cla ssified Supplemental.

Shell deposition:

96-h EC 50 

### : 0.92 mg total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.75 – 1.1 mg total a.i./L; Probit slope: 4.04 NOAEC: 0.47 mg total a.i./L

Indaziflam 94.5 96-h LC 50 

### : 1.5 mg a.i./L Moderately

toxic MRID

47443227 (Accetpable) Saltwater mysid ( Americamysis

bahia ) 96-h acute toxicity test in saltwater mysid under static conditions. Nominal concentrations: 0 (negative and solvent control), 0.31, 0.63, 1.3, 2.5, and 5.0 mg a.i./L; time-weighted average concentrations were <0.100 (<LOQ; controls), 0.261, 0.521, 1.06, 1.88, and 4.00 mg a.i./L, respectively.

Although a precipitate was noted in the nominal 5.0 mg ai/L treatment level, the study author noted that samples were centrifuged prior to analysis an d recoveries were acceptable (80% of nominal at

### -Page 141 of 292- 

## Table C-6. Acute Toxicity of Technical Grad e Indaziflam (TGAI) to Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrates.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) test initiation and 100% of initial at 48 hours).

This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.1035 guideline standards for a mysid acute toxicity test. This study is classified Acceptable.

96-h LC 50 

### : 1.5 mg a.i./L (morality) 95% C.I.: 1.06 – 1.88 mg a.i./L; Probit slope: N/A

NOAEC: 1.06 mg a.i./L (Mortality and sublethal effects)

Indaziflam 94.5 Pore Water

LC 50 

### mortality: >3.8 mg a.i./L NOAEC (mortality): 3.8 mg a.i./L

Bulk Sediment

LC 50 

### mortality: >180 mg a.i./kg dw NOAEC (mortality): 180 mg a.i./kg

dw Overlying Water

LC 50 

### mortality: >1.4 mg a.i./L NOAEC (mortality): 1.4 mg a.i./L N/A MRID

47443239 (Acceptable) Marine Amphipod ( Leptocheirus plumulosus )

In a 10 day acute whole sediment toxicity study of indaziflam, marine amphipods were exposed to nominal conencetrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 5.3, 11, 21, 42, and 170 mg ai/kg dw sediment in a static system. Mean measured concentrations for sediment were <LOQ (negative and solvent controls), 5.7, 12, 26, 40, 180 mg a.i./kg dw. Mean measured pore water concentrations were <LOQ (negative and solvent controls), 0.10, 0.24, 0.46, 1.0, and 3.8 mg a.i./L. Survival was the measured endpoint.

Following 10 days of exposure, percent survival averaged 93 to 100%, with no treatment-related significant differences from the controls observed.

This study is scientifically sound, however the overlying water was not centrifuged to determine measured concentrations of the dissolved test substance in the test media. This study does not fully meet guideline standards for a whole sediment: acute marine invertebrate study using Leptocheirus plumulosus

. This study is classified Supplemental.

Based on Mean-Measured Pore Water Concentrations : LC 50 

### mortality: >3.8 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC (mortality): 3.8 mg a.i./L

Based on Mean-Measured Sediment Concentrations : LC 50 

### mortality: >180 mg a.i./kg dw 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC (mortality): 180 mg a.i./kg dw

Based on Mean-Measured Overlying Water:

LC 50 

### mortality: >1.4 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC (mortality): 1.4 mg a.i./L

### -Page 142 of 292- 

## Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates, Chronic

No chronic toxicity studies of indaziflam TGAI, formulations, or degradates with estuaring/marine invertebrates were submitted.

Toxicity to Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments

Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 96-h EC 50 

### : 74 μ g a.i./L (Biomass) MRID 47443261 (Acceptable) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 96-hour toxicity study, cultures of the freshwater green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 Technical at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 25, 50, 100, 200, and 400 μ g a.i./L under static conditions.

Reviewer-calculated mean-measured concentrations were <2.92 (<LOQ, controls), 24.2, 51.1,
102, 196, and 403 μ g a.i./L.

The most sensitive endpoint was biomass, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 24.2 and 74 μ g a.i./L, respectively.

There were no abnormalities observed in cell condition at test termination.

This toxicity study is classified as scie ntifically sound and meets the OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

. This study is classified Acceptable.

Cell density:

96-h EC 50 

### : 84 μg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 64 - 110 μg a.i./L

96-h EC 05 

### : 39 μg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 22 – 70 μg a.i./L 96-h NOAEC: 24.2 μg a.i./L Probit slope: 4.99 ± 1.11

72-h EC 50 

### : 64 μg a.i./ L 95% C.I.: 51-79 μg a.i./L Slope

Biomass (Area under the curve):

96-h EC 50 

### : 74 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 62 to 88 μ g a.i./L

96-h EC 05 

### : 31 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 21 to 46 μ g a.i./L

96-h NOAEC: 24.2 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 4.43 ± 0.559

Growth rate:

96-h EC 05 

### : 49 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 32 to 77 μ g a.i./L

96-h EC 50 

### : 130 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 100 to 160 μ g a.i./L

96-h NOAEC: 51.1 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 4.00 ± 0.550

Most sensitive endpoint(s): Biomass

Freshwater Diatom Indaziflam 94.5 96-h EC 50 

### : 87 μ g total a.i./L MRID: 47443266

### -Page 143 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) (Biomass) (Supplemental) ( Navicula pelliculosa ) In a 96-hour toxicity study, cultures of the freshwater diatom ( Navicula pelliculosa ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 Technical at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control and solvent control), 2.0, 6.3, 20, 63, 200, 630, and 2,000 μ g a.i./L under static conditions. Meanmeasured concentrations were <0.20 (<LOQ, controls), 1.80, 5.36, 17.7, 57.4, 199, 621, and
2,019 μ g total a.i./L. Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media; thus, all reported measured co ncentration values are

total concentrations of test substance in the test media.

The most sensitive endpoint was biomass, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 17.7 and 87 μ g total a.i./L, respectively. Percent inhibition in the treatment groups as compared to the control ranged from -8 to 100%.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination.

This toxicity study is scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater diatom, Navicula pelliculosa . Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance

concentration in test media. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

EC 05 

### : 37 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 21 to 63 μ g total a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 130 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 100 to 170 μ g total a.i./L

NOAEC: 57.4 μ g total a.i./L Slope: 2.92 ± 0.371

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

EC 05 

### : 19 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 11 to 31 μ g total a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 87 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 69 to 110 μ g total a.i./L

NOAEC: 17.7 μ g total a.i./L Slope: 2.44 ± 0.241

Growth Rate

EC 05 

### : 73 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 60 to 89 μ g total a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 390 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 360 to 420 μ g total a.i./L

NOAEC: 57.4 μ g total a.i./L Slope: 2.27 ± 0.0853

Endpoint(s) Effected: Cell density, biomass, and growth rate

Indaziflam 94.5 96-h EC 50 

### : 27 μ g a.i./L ( Biomass) MRID: 47443267 (Acceptable) Marine diatom ( Skeletonema

costatum ) In a 96-hour toxicity study, cultures of the saltwater diatom ( Skeletonema costatum ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 Technical at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 2.0, 5.1, 13, 32, 80, and 200 μ g a.i./L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.50 (<LOQ, controls), 2.0, 5.1, 13, 33, 79, and 231 μ g a.i./L

### -Page 144 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)
The most sensitive endpoint was biomass, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 5.1 and 27 μ g a.i./L, respectively. % inhibition in the treatment groups as compared to the control ranged from 4 to 99%.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination.

This toxicity study is classified as scient ifically sound and does meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the saltwater diatom,

Skeletonema costatum

. This study is classified as acceptable.

Cell density

96-h EC 50 

### : 34 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 28 to 41 μ g a.i./L

96-h EC 05 

### : 9.3 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 6 to 14 μ g a.i./L

96-h NOAEC: 5.1 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 2.93 ± 0.302

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

96-h EC 50 

### : 27 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 22 to 33 μ g a.i./L

96-h EC 05 

### : 6.3 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 4.1 to 9.7 μ g a.i./L

96-h NOAEC: 5.1 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 2.62 ± 0.232

Growth Rate

96-h EC 50 

### : 83 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 74 to 94 μ g a.i./L

96-h EC 05 

### : 20 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 15 to 27 μ g a.i./L

96-h NOAEC: 13 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 2.66 ± 0.177

Most sensitive endpoint(s): Biomass

Indaziflam 94.5 96-h EC 50 

### : 750 μ g total a.i./L ( Cell density) MRID: 47443268 (Supplemental) Freshwater cyanobacteria (Anabaena flosaquae ) In a 96-hour toxicity study, culture s of the freshwater cyanobacteria ( Anabaena flos-aquae ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 Technical at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 13, 40, 127, 400, 1,270, and 4,000 μ g a.i./L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <1.20 (<LOQ, controls), 11.6, 36.3, 115, 406, 1,294, and 3,926 μ g total a.i./L. Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test substance concentration in the test media, given BCS-AA1 0717’s solubility limit (1.2 – 4.4 mg/L; MRID 47443202). All reported measured concentrati on values are total concentrations of test

substance in the test media.

The most sensitive endpoint was cell density, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 115 and 750 μ g total a.i./L, respectively. % inhibition in the treatment groups as compared to the controls ranged from -12 to 92%.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination.

### -Page 145 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) This toxicity study is scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxi city study with the freshwater cyanobacteria, Anabaena flos-aquae . Centrifugation was not conducted to determine the dissolved test

substance concentration in test media. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

EC 05 

### : 120 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 64 to 240 μ g total a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 750 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 560 to 990 μ g total a.i./L

NOAEC: 115 μ g total a.i./L Slope: 2.11 ± 0.245

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

EC 05 

### : 100 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 52 to 200 μ g total a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 810 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 620 to 1,100 μ g total a.i./L

NOAEC: 115 μ g total a.i./L Slope: 1.82 ± 0.191

Growth Rate

EC 05 

### : 280 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 200 to 410 μ g total a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 3,800 μ g total a.i./L 95% C.I.: 3,500 to 4,300 μ g total a.i./L

NOAEC: 115 μ g total a.i./L Slope: 1.46 ± 0.100

Endpoint(s) Effected: Cell density, biomass, and growth rate Fluoroethyld

iaminotriazi

ne 99.3 72-h EC 50 

### : 11 mg a.i./L (Cell Density) MRID 47443262 (Supplemental) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 72-hour toxicity study, cultures of the freshwater green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to BCS-AA10365 at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg a.i./L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.61 (<LOQ, control), 5.37, 10.6, 22, 45, and 92 mg a.i./L.

The most sensitive endpoint was cell density, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of < 5.37 and 11 mg a.i./L, respectively.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination. This toxicity study is classified as scientifically sound but does not satisfy OPPTS 158.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . The study was conducted for only 72 hours, and a definitive NOAEC corresponding to the lowest EC 50 

### value was not determined from the

concentrations tested. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

EC 05 

### : < 5.37 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 11 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 9.4 to 14 mg a.i./L NOAEC: <5.37 mg a.i./L

### -Page 146 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)
Slope: 2.86 ± 0.230

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

EC 05 

### : <5.37 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 14 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 13 to 16 mg a.i./L NOAEC: <5.37 mg a.i./L Slope: 3.32 ± 0.180

Growth Rate

EC 05 

### : 7.3 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 4.7 to 12 mg a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 26 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 21 to 32 mg a.i./L NOAEC: 5.37 mg a.i./L Slope: 3.03 ± 0.323

Endpoint(s) Effected: Cell density, biomass, and growth rate

Indaziflam - carboxylic

acid 96.5 MRID 47443263 (Supplemental) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 72-hour toxicity study, cultures of the freshwater green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to AE 2158969 (BCS-A A10717-carboxylic acid, metabolite of BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 0.63, 1.25, 2.5, 5.0, and 10 mg a.i./L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.05 (<LOQ, control), 0.57, 1.15, 2.3, 4.6, and 9.4 mg a.i./L.

The most sensitive endpoint could not be determined, as the EC 50 

### values of the endpoints tested were greater than the highest test concentration.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination.

This toxicity study is classified as scientifically sound but does meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . The most sensitive endpoint could not be determined,

as the EC 50 

### values of the endpoints tested were great er than the highest test concentration. Additionally, the study was conducted for 72 hours. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

EC 05 

### : 4.2 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 2.3 to 7.7 mg a.i./L

EC 50 

### : >9.4 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 4.6 mg a.i./L Slope: 3.90 ± 1.36

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

EC 05 

### : 4.3 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 2.6 to 7.1 mg a.i./L

EC 50 

### : >9.4 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 4.6 mg a.i./L Slope: 4.03 ± 1.20

Growth Rate

### -Page 147 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

EC 05 

### : 7.0 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 5.4 to 9.1 mg a.i./L

EC 50 

### : >9.4 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 4.6 mg a.i./L Slope: 3.00 ± 1.13

Endpoint(s) Effected: cell density, biomass, and growth rate

Indaziflam -hydroxyethyl 96.5 72-h EC 50 

### : 0.55 mg a.i./L (cell density) MRID 47443264 (Supplemental) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 72-hour toxicity study, cultures of the freshwater green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to BCS-AA10202 (BCS-AA10717-1-hydroxyethyl, metabolite of BCS-AA10717)at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, 2.5, and 5.0 mg a.i./L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.03 (<LOQ, control), 0.33, 0.69, 1.38, 2.7, and 5.6 mg a.i./L.

The most sensitive endpoint was cell density, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 0.33 and 0.55 mg a.i./L, respectively. % inhibition in the treat ment groups as compared to the controls ranged

from 4 to 98%.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination.

This toxicity study is classified as scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . The study was only conducted for 72 hours, rather than

the recommended 96 to 120 hours. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

EC 05 

### : <0.33 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 0.55 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.32 to 0.95 mg a.i./L NOAEC: 0.33 mg a.i./L Slope: 3.20 ± 0.795

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

EC 05 

### : <0.33 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 0.56 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.36 to 0.88 mg a.i./L NOAEC: 0.33 mg a.i./L Slope: 2.63 ± 0.448

Growth Rate

EC 05 

### : <0.33 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 1.0 mg a.i./L 95% C.I.: 0.6 to 1.7 mg a.i./L NOAEC: 0.33 mg a.i./L Slope: 1.87 ± 0.313

Indaziflam -

olefine 96.0 72-h EC 50 

### : 54 μ g a.i./L (Biomass) MRID: 47443265 (Supplemental) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella In a 72-hour toxicity study, cultures of the freshwater green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella

### -Page 148 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) subcapitata ) subcapitata ) were exposed to BCS-AA10201 (BCS -AA10717-olefine, metabolite of BCSAA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 0.89, 2.86, 9.16, 29.3, 93.8, and

300 μ g a.i./L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.10 (<LOQ, control), 1.01, 3.19, 10.2, 32.6, 103, and 336 μ g a.i./L.

The most sensitive endpoint was biomass, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 10.2 and 54 μ g a.i./L, respectively. Percent inhibition in the treatment groups as compared to the controls ranged from -0.5 to 97.4%.

There were no abnormalities in cell condition at test termination.

This toxicity study is classified as scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . The study was only conducted for 72 hours, rather than

the recommended 96 to 120 hours. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

72-h EC 50 

### : 55 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 48 to 63 μ g a.i./L

72-h EC 05 

### : 14 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 11 to 19 μ g a.i./L

72-h NOAEC: 3.19 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 2.82 ± 0.187

Biomass (Area Under the Growth Curve)

72-h EC 50 

### : 54 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 47 to 61 μ g a.i./L

72-h EC 05 

### : 13 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 9.7 to 17 μ g a.i./L

72-h NOAEC: 10.2 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 2.66 ± 0.163

Growth Rate

72-h EC 50 

### : 150 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 140 to 160 μ g a.i./L

72-h EC 05 

### : 36 μ g a.i./L 95% C.I.: 31 to 42 μ g a.i./L

72-h NOAEC: 10.2 μ g a.i./L Probit Slope: 2.65 ± 0.0968

Most sensitive endpoint(s): Biomass

Indaziflam –

technical 95.7% EC 50 

### = 77 μg ai/L (biomass) MRID:

47743309 (Acceptable) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 96-hour acute toxicity study, cultures of green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to AE 1170437 Technical (AI: BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 25, 50, 100, 200, and 400 μg ai/L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <2.5 (<LOQ, controls), 18, 38, 77, 151, and 222 μg ai/L.

The most sensitive endpoint was biomass, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 38 and 77 μg ai/L, respectively. Inhibitions of biomass ranged from 1 to 99% as compared to the negative control.

There were no compound related phytotoxic effects.

### -Page 149 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

This toxicity study is classified as scientif ically sound and meets guideline standards for a nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Cell density

EC 05 

### : 50 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 41 to 60 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 81 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 73 to 89 μg ai/L NOAEC: 38 μg ai/L Slope: 7.85 ± 0.970

Biomass

EC 05 

### : 42 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 35 to 51 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 77 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 69 to 84 μg ai/L NOAEC: 38 μg ai/L Slope: 6.34 ± 0.617

Growth rate

EC 05 

### : 51 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 36 to 71 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 110 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 98 to 130 μg ai/L NOAEC: 38 μg ai/L Slope: 4.76 ± 0.600

Endpoint(s) Effected: cell density, biomass, and growth rate

Indazilfam 500

SC 45.08% EC 50 

### = 51 μg ai/L (cell density) MRID:

47743310 (Supplemental) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 72-hour acute toxicity st udy, cultures of green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to AE 1170437 SC500 (AI: BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent control), 26, 51, 103, 205, and 410 μg ai/L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <2.50 (<LOQ, controls), 34, 66, 132, 271, and 543 μg

ai/L.

The most sensitive endpoint was cell density, with NOAEC, EC 05 

### and EC 50 

### values of <34, 15, and 51 μg ai/L, respectively. Inhibitions of cell density ranged from 31 to 99% as compared to the negative control.

There were no compound related phytotoxic effects.

This toxicity study is scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a tier II nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . This study was conducted for 72 hours instead of the

### -Page 150 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

recommended 96-120 hours. This study is classified Supplemental.

Cell density

EC 05 

### : 15 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 6.9 to 33 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 51 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 34 to 75 μg ai/L NOAEC: <34 μg ai/L Slope: 3.12 ± 0.553

Biomass

EC 05 

### : 18 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 10 to 33 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 58 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 43 to 78 μg ai/L NOAEC: <34 μg ai/L Slope: 3.29 ± 0.463

Growth rate

EC 05 

### : 21 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 10 to 41 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 90 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 64 to 130 μg ai/L NOAEC: <34 μg ai/L Slope: 2.57 ± 0.336

Endpoint(s) Effected: cell density, biomass, and growth rate

Indazilfam –

200 SC 19.2% EC 50 

### = 53 μg ai/L (cell density) MRID:

477743311 (Supplemental) Freshwater green algae ( Pseudokircheriella subcapitata ) In a 72-hour acute toxicity study, cultures of freshwater green algae ( Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 SC 200 G (AI: Indaziflam) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 28.6, 91.6, 293.0, 938, and 3000 μ g form/L under static conditions. The nominal concentrations of the active ingredient component were 0 (negative control), 5.49, 17.6, 56.3, 180, and 576 μ g ai/L. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.5365 (<LSC, negative control), 5.9, 16.8, 51.0, 162, and 520 μ g ai/L.

The more sensitive endpoint was cell density, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 16.8 and 53 μg ai/L, respectively, which is equivalent to 91.6 and 310 μg form/L. Inhibitions of cell density ranged from 0 to 98% as compared to the negative control.

There were no compound related phytotoxic effects.

This study is scientifically sound but fails to meet OPPTS 850.5400 guideline standards for a tier II nonvascular aquatic plant toxicity study with the freshwater green algae, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata . The study was conducted for only 72 hours and at light

intensities two times the recommended levels. This study is classified Supplemental.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal):

### -Page 151 of 292- 

## Table C-7. Toxicity (Tier II) of Indaziflam (TGAI), Metabolit es, and Formulations to Nonvascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

AI: Indaziflam Cell density

EC 05 

### : 13 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 6.5 to 25 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 53 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 39 to 73 μg ai/L NOAEC: 16.8 μg ai/L Slope: 2.67 ± 0.383

Biomass

EC 05 

### : 11 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 6.2 to 21 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 56 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 43 to 75 μg ai/L NOAEC: 16.8 μg ai/L Slope: 2.37 ± 0.270

Growth rate

EC 05 

### : 11 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: <5.9 to 30 μg ai/L

EC 50 

### : 130 μg ai/L 95% C.I.: 88 to 180 μg ai/L NOAEC: 16.8 μg ai/L Slope: 1.55 ± 0.220

Formulation: BCS-AA10717 SC 200 G Cell density

EC 05 

### : 73 μg form/L 95% C.I.: 37 to 140 μg form/L

EC 50 

### : 310 μg form/L 95% C.I.: 220 to 420 μg form/L NOAEC: 91.6 μg form/L Slope: 2.65 ± 0.378

Biomass

EC 05 

### : 57 μg form/L 95% C.I.: 32 to 109 μg form/L

EC 50 

### : 291 μg form/L 95% C.I.: 223 to 390 μg form/L NOAEC: 87.5 μg form/L Slope: 12.3 ± 1.41

Growth rate

EC 05 

### : 64 μg form/L 95% C.I.: <28.6 to 170 μg form/L

EC 50 

### : 730 μg form/L 95% C.I.: 510 to 1100 μg form/L NOAEC: 91.6 μg form/L Slope: 1.55 ± 0.219

Endpoint(s) Effected: Cell density, biomass, and growth rate



## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

### -Page 152 of 292- 

### Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 7-day EC 50 

### : 67 ng a.i./L (Frond area) MRID 47443250 (Acceptable) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 Technical (AI: BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 3.92, 7.85, 15.7, 31.4, 62.8, and 126 ng

a.i./L under static conditions. Test levels belo w the NOAEC were not analytically determined. Mean-measured concentrations for the control, 31.4, 62.8, and 126 ng a.i/L test levels were <10.39, 30.9 , 59.9, and 112 ng ai/L. Because test levels were not measured for every concentration, toxicity calculations were performed using the nominal concentrations.

The 7-Day NOAEC and EC 50 

### values for frond area, the most sensitive endpoint, were 31.4 and 67 ng a.i./L, respectively. Th e % growth inhibition in the treated algal culture as compared to the negative control ranged from 0 to 84.6%.

By test termination, single and small fronds, chloro sis, and slight necrosis, were observed in the highest test concentration (126 ng a.i./L), a nd slight chlorosis was ob served in the second highest test level (62.8 ng a.i./L).

This toxicity study is classified as scie ntifically sound and meets the OPPTS 850.4400 guideline standards for a Tier II vascular plan t toxicity study with the freshwater species, Lemna gibba

. This study is classified as acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Frond number

EC 05 

### : 51 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 45 to 58 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 87 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 82 to 92 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 31.4 ng a.i./L Slope: 7.15 ± 0.484

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 60 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 54 to 66 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 84 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 79 to 89 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 31.4 ng a.i./L Slope: 11.1 ± 0.738

Frond number based on yield

EC 05 

### : 54 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 50 to 59 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 76 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 72 to 80 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 31.4 ng a.i./L Slope: 11.0 ± 0.713

Frond area

EC 05 

### : 46 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 39 to 54 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 67 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 60 to 74 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 31.4 ng a.i./L Slope: 6.05 ± 0.508

### -Page 153 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Frond area based on yield

EC 05 

### : 50 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 44 to 56 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 76 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 71 to 81 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 31.4 ng a.i./L Slope: 8.81 ± 0.683

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, frond number based on yield, frond area, and frond area based on yield

Triazineindanone 96.1 7-day EC 50 

### : 12 μ g/L (frond area) MRID: 47443251 (Acceptable) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to AE 2158968 (metabolite of BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls) 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 μ g/L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.4716 (<lowe st standard analyzed, controls), 6.09, 12.0,
22.5, 45.25, and 114.5 μ g/L.

The 7-Day NOAEC and EC 50 

### values for frond area, the most sensitive endpoint, were 6.09 and

12 μ g/L, respectively. The % growth inhibition in the treated algal culture as compared to the negative control ranged from 1 to 93%.

By day 3 there were observed cases of slight and medium necrosis in the three highest test concentrations, and by day 5 there were also observed cases of strong necrosis and lethality (highest test concentration). By test termination, there was medium chlorosis (12 μ g/L), strong necrosis (22.5 μ g/L), and lethality (45.25 and 114.5 μ g/L) that were observed.

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and satisfies OPPTS 850.4400 guideline standards for a Tier II vascular plant toxicity study with the freshwater species, Lemna gibba

. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Frond number

EC 05 

### : <6.25 μ g/L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 12 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 6.9 to 21 μ g/L

NOAEC: 6.09 μ g/L Slope: 2.35 ± 0.478

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 10 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 7.3 to 14 μ g/L

EC 50 

### : 17 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 15 to 19 μ g/L

NOAEC: 6.09 μ g/L

### -Page 154 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)
Slope: 7.53 ± 1.46

Frond area

EC 05 

### : 2.1 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.79 to 5.4 μ g/L

EC 50 

### : 12 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 7.5 to 19 μ g/L

NOAEC: 6.09 μ g/L Slope: 2.15 ± 0.327

Frond area based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 8.4 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 7.1 to 10 μ g/L

EC 50 

### : 16 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 15 to 17 μ g/L

NOAEC: 6.09 μ g/L Slope: 5.92 ± 0.471

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, frond area, and frond area based on growth rate

Fluoroethyldiam

inotriazine 99.3% Most sensitive endpoint could not be

determined MRID: 47443252 (Supplemental) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to BCS-AA10365 (AE1170437-diaminotriazine, metabolite of AE1170437) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative and solvent controls), 9.54, 30.5, 97.7,
313, and 1,000 μ g/L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <1.026 (<lowest standard analyzed, controls), 11.1, 35.15, 110.5, 354.5, and 1,111 μ g/L.

During this study, effects to frond number, growth rate and frond area were observed. The only definitive EC50 that could be obtained from this study was a value of 51 μ g/L based on effects

to frond number. Effects to frond number and frond area were observed at the lowest treatment level (11.1 μ g/L), which prevented the establishment of a NOAEC for this study.

By day 2 there were cases of slight necrosis obse rved in the two highest test concentrations, and by day 4 there were also cases of medium and strong necrosis observed in the three highest test concentrations. By test termination, there was lethality in the two highest test concentrations.

This study is scientifically sound but is classified Supplemental because it does not meet OPPTS 850.4400 guideline standards for a tier II aquatic vascular plant study based on the following:

The most sensitive endpoint could not be determined by the reviewer’s analysis, given the poor fit of the data to the regression model. The only definitive EC50 that could be obtained from this study was a value of 51 μ g/L based on effects to frond number. Effects to frond number

and frond area were observed at the lowest treatment level (11.1 μ g/L), which prevented the establishment of a NOAEC for this study.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba

### -Page 155 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Frond number

EC 05 

### : 3.4 μ g/L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 51 μ g/L 95% C.I.: Beyond range of treatment levels

NOAEC: <11.1 μ g/L Slope: 1.41 ± 0.374

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : Could not be determined 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : >110.5 μ g/L 95% C.I.: N/A

NOAEC: 35.15 μ g/L Slope: N/A

Frond Area

EC 05 

### : Could not be determined 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : <110.5 μ g/L, but >35.15 μ g/L 95% C.I.: N/A

NOAEC: <11.1 μ g/L Slope: N/A

Frond area based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : Could not be determined 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : >35.15 μ g/L 95% C.I.: N/A

NOAEC: 35.15 μ g/L Slope: 5.92 ± 0.471

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, frond area, and frond area based on growth rate

Indaziflam - carboxylic

acid 96.5 7-day EC 50 

### : 4.0 mg/L (Frond number) MRID: 47443253 (Acceptable) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to AE 2158969 (AE1170437-carboxylic acid, metabolite of BCSAA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 1.00, 3.20, 10.0, 32.0, and 100 mg/L under static conditions. Mean-measured conc entrations were <0.0037 (<lowest standard analyzed, control), 1.13, 3.67, 11.1, 35.8, and 113 mg/L.

The most sensitive endpoint was frond number, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 1.13 and 4.0 mg/L, respectively. Inhibitions of frond number ranged from 9 to 92% as compared to the negative control.

On day 5 there was slight chlorosis observed in the 11.1, 35.8, and 113.0 mg/L treatment groups. On day 7, there was slight chlorosis and medium necrosis observed in the 11.1 mg/L treatment group, and there was slight chlorosis, strong necrosis, and lethal plants observed in the 35.8, and 113.0 mg/L treatment groups.

### -Page 156 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS guideline standards for a tier II aquatic vascular plant study. This study is classified Acceptable. Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Frond number

EC 05 

### : <1.13 mg/L 95% C.I.: 0.032 to 1.9 mg/L

EC 50 

### : 4.0 mg/L 95% C.I.: 1.5 to 11 mg/L NOAEC: 1.13 mg/L Slope: 1.36 ± 0.277

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 3.2 mg/L 95% C.I.: 1.6 to 6.3 mg/L

EC 50 

### : 6.2 mg/L 95% C.I.: 4.4 to 8.7 mg/L NOAEC: 1.13 mg/L Slope: 5.64 ± 1.47

Frond area

EC 05 

### : 0.20 mg/L 95% C.I.: 0.021 to 1.9 mg/L

EC 50 

### : 4.2 mg/L 95% C.I.: 1.4 to 12.0 mg/L NOAEC: 1.13 mg/L Slope: 1.25 ± 0.263

Frond area based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : <1.13 mg/L 95% C.I.: 0.25 to 3.3 mg/L

EC 50 

### : 5.0 mg/L 95% C.I.: 2.7 to 9.3 mg/L NOAEC: 1.13 mg/L Slope: 2.21 ± 0.461

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, frond area, and frond area based on growth rate

Indaziflamhydroxyethyl 99.0 7-day EC 50 

### : 510 ng/L (Frond area) MRID 47443254 (Acceptable) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to BCS-AA10202 (AE1170437-1-hydroxyethyl, metabolite of BCSAA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control and solvent controls), 62.5, 125, 250, 500, and 1000 ng/L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.054

μ g/L (<lowest standard analyzed, controls), 101.1, 121.5, 250, 496, and 944.5 ng/L.

The most sensitive endpoint wa s frond area, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 250 and 510 ng/L, respectively. Inhibitions of frond area ranged from -14 to 94% as compared to the negative control.

On day 3 there was slight chlorosis and medium necrosis observed in the 496 and 944.5 ng/L treatment groups, respectively. At day 5, there was strong necrosis observed in the highest

### -Page 157 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) treatment level. By day 7, there was medium chlorosis and slight necrosis observed in the 496 ng/L treatment group, and there were lethal plants at the highest treatment level.

This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS guideline standards for a tier II aquatic vascular plant study. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Reviewer’s Results

Frond number

EC 05 

### : 330 ng/L 95% C.I.: 290 to 380 ng/L

EC 50 

### : 550 ng/L 95% C.I.: 520 to 590 ng/L NOAEC: 250 ng/L Slope: 7.26 ± 0.565

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : >250 ng/L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : >500 ng/L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 250 ng/L Slope: N/A

Frond area based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : >250 ng/L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : >500 ng/L 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 250 ng/L Slope: N/A

Frond area

EC 05 

### : 270 ng/L 95% C.I.: 230 to 320 ng/L

EC 50 

### : 510 ng/L 95% C.I.: 470 to 550 ng/L NOAEC: 250 ng/L Slope: 5.95 ± 0.501

Study Author’s Results

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : ND 95% C.I.: ND

EC 50 

### : 634 ng/L 95% C.I.: 624 to 645 ng/L NOAEC: 250 ng/L Slope: ND

Frond area based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : ND 95% C.I.: ND

### -Page 158 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

EC 50 

### : 590 ng/L 95% C.I.: 579 to 601 ng/L NOAEC: 250 ng/L Slope: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, frond area, and frond area based on growth rate

Indaziflam -

olefine 96.0 7 –day EC 50 

### : 0.34 μ g/L (Frond area) MRID 47443255 (Acceptable) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to BCS-AA10201 (AE1170437 -olefine; metabolite of BCS-AA10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control and solvent control), 0.095, 0.305, 0.977, 3.13,

and 10.0 μ g/L under static conditions. Mean-measured concentrations were <0.0515 (<lowest standard analyzed, controls), 0.09, 0.32, 1.08, 3.68, and 11.4 μ g/L.

The most sensitive endpoint wa s frond area, with NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 0.09 and 0.34

μ g/L, respectively. Inhibitions of frond area ranged from -7 to 94% as compared to the negative control.

At test termination, there was slight necrosis observed in the 0.32 μ g/L treatment level, medium

necrosis observed in the 1.08 μ g/L treatment level, strong necrosis observed in the 3.68 μ g/L treatment level, and lethal plants in the highest treatment level.

This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.4400 guideline standards for a tier II aquatic vascular plant study. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Frond number

EC 05 

### : <0.09 μ g/L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : 0.41 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.18 to 0.94 μ g/L

NOAEC: 0.09 μ g/L Slope: 1.48 ± 0.267

Frond number based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 0.24 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.16 to 0.35 μ g/L

EC 50 

### : 0.58 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.48 to 0.69 μ g/L

NOAEC: 0.09 μ g/L Slope: 4.26 ± 0.523

Frond area

EC 05 

### : 0.021 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.0044 to 0.1

EC 50 

### : 0.34 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.16 to 0.74 μ g/L

NOAEC: 0.09 μ g/L

### -Page 159 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)
Slope: 1.36 ± 0.212

Frond area based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 0.17 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.14 to 0.22 μ g/L

EC 50 

### : 0.52 μ g/L 95% C.I.: 0.46 to 0.57 μ g/L

NOAEC: 0.09 μ g/L Slope: 3.47 ± 0.204

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, frond area, and frond area based on growth rate

Indaziflam 94.5 7-day EC 50 

### : 350 ng a.i./L (Frond number) MRID 47443256 (Supplemental) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7-day toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 at nominal initial concentrations of 0 (negative andsolvent controls), 26.8, 67.0, 167, 419, and 1,046 ng a.i./L under static conditions. Meanmeasured concentrations at day 0 were <10.39 (<lowest standard analyzed, controls), 76.2, 154, 329, and 889 ng a.i./L; the lowest concentr ation was not measured because it was a test concentration below the study auth or’s NOAEC and because, accord ing to the study author, an additional analysis below 67 ng/L was not needed to support the validity of the study.

The 7-Day NOAEC and EC 50 

### values calculated by the review er for frond number, the most sensitive endpoint, were 167 and 350 ng a.i./L, respectively. The % growth inhibition for frond number in the treated algal culture as compared to the negative control ranged from -13 to 99%.

By test termination, there was slight chlorosis observed in the 167 ng a.i./L treatment level, medium chlorosis observed in the 419 ng a.i./L treatment level, and strong chlorosis observed in the highest test concentration.

This aquatic vascular plant study with Lemna gibba is scientifically sound but was not conducted following OPPTS guidelines. This study is classified Supplemental. The test was conducted using a sediment layer as well as standard nutrient medium.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

Frond number

EC 05 

### : 150 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 110 to 210 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 350 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 300 to 390 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 167 ng a.i./L Slope: 4.64 ± 0.532

Frond number based on growth rate near singular matrix, model unsuitable

EC 05 

### : >167 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50 

### : >419 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: N/A

### -Page 160 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) NOAEC: 167 ng a.i./L Slope: Could not be determined

Dry weight based on growth rate

EC 05 

### : 130 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 81 to 220 ng a.i./L

EC 50 

### : 440 ng a.i./L 95% C.I.: 360 to 540 ng a.i./L NOAEC: 167 ng a.i./L Slope: 3.14 ± 0.413

Endpoint(s) Affected: frond number, frond number based on growth rate, and dry weight based on growth rate

Indaziflam

500 SC 44.4% EC 50 

### = 61 ng ai/L MRID: 47743308 (Acceptable) freshwater Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) In a 7 day acute toxicity study, the freshwater floating aquatic vascular plants Duckweed ( Lemna gibba ) were exposed to AE 1170437 SC 500 (AI: BCS AA 10717) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 12.5, 25.0, 50.0, 100, 200, and 400 ng form/L under static conditions. The nominal concentrations of the active ingredient BCS AA 10717 were 0 (negative control), 5.55, 11.1, 22.2, 44.4, 88 .8, and 177.7 ng ai/L. The mean-measured concentrations were <2.03 (<LOQ, negative control), 5.55, 11.1, 19.4, 46.1, 92.6, and 185 ng ai/L (the two lowest test levels were not analytically verified, so are reported as nominal concentrations).

The most sensitive endpoint was yield based on frond number, with 7-Day NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 19.4 and 61 ng ai/L, respectively, which are equivalent to 50 and 130 ng form/L, respectively. The percent inhibition in the treated cultures as compared to control ranged from -

7 to 93%.

The following abnormalities were noted: slight ch lorosis, single fronds, medium necrosis, and strong necrosis were observed between days 2 and 7.

This toxicity study is classified as scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.4400 guideline standards for a Tier II aquatic plant to xicity test with the freshwater species, Lemna gibba

. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism: Lemna gibba Test Type (Flow-through, Static, Static Renewal): Static

BCS AA 10717

Frond number

EC 05 

### : 25 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 18 to 35 ng ai/L

EC 50 

### : 66 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 57 to 77 ng ai/L NOAEC: 19.4 ng ai/L Slope: 3.90 ± 0.431

### -Page 161 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)
Growth rate, based on frond number

EC 05 

### : 45 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 36 to 56 ng ai/L

EC 50 

### : 72 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 66 to 79 ng ai/L NOAEC: 19.4 ng ai/L Slope: 7.94 ± 1.16

Growth rate, based on frond area

EC 05 

### : 54 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 38 to 77 ng ai/L

EC 50 

### : 80 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 72 to 89 ng ai/L NOAEC: 46.1 ng ai/L Slope: 9.74 ± 2.97

Yield, based on frond number

EC 05 

### : 38 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 31 to 46 ng ai/L

EC 50 

### : 61 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 55 to 68 ng ai/L NOAEC: 19.4 ng ai/L Slope: 7.92 ± 0.931

Yield, based on frond area

EC 05 

### : 38 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 28 to 52 ng ai/L

EC 50 

### : 63 ng ai/L 95% C.I.: 55 to 73 ng ai/L NOAEC: 46.1 ng ai/L Slope: 7.46 ± 1.30

Formulation

Frond number

EC 05 

### : 53 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 38 to 74 ng form/L

EC 50 

### : 140 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 120 to 160 ng form/L NOAEC: 50 ng form/L Slope: 3.87 ± 0.417

Growth rate, based on frond number

EC 05 

### : 97 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 77 to 120 ng form/L

EC 50 

### : 160 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 140 to 170 ng form/L NOAEC: 50 ng form/L Slope: 7.96 ± 1.16

Growth rate, based on area

EC 05 

### : 120 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 83 to 160 ng form/L

EC 50 

### : 170 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 160 to 190 ng form/L NOAEC: 100 ng form/L Slope: 9.69 ± 2.88

Yield, based on frond number

EC 05 

### : 82 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 67 to 100 ng form/L

EC 50 

### : 130 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 120 to 150 ng form/L NOAEC: 50 ng form/L

### -Page 162 of 292- 

## Table C-8. Acute Toxicity (Tier II) of Indazi flam (TGAI), Metabolites , and Formulations to Vascular Plants Inhabiting Aquatic Environments.

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Slope: 7.95 ± 0.935

Yield, based on frond area

EC 05 

### : 82 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 61 to 110 ng form/L

EC 50 

### : 140 ng form/L 95% C.I.: 120 to 160 ng form/L NOAEC: 100 ng form/L Slope: 7.46 ± 1.29

Endpoint(s) Effected: Frond number, growth rate, and yield



## Table C-9. Tier III, Aquatic Plant Field Study

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Identification Number (Study Classification) Multiple Indaziflam

500 SC 44.4% See below MRID: 47443257 (Supplemental)
This study was submitted to provide supplemental data for the EPA Ecological Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 850.4450: Aquatic Plants Field Study, Tier III. This study is scientifically sound and provides useful information for risk assessment purpos es regarding the toxicity of the herbicide BCS-AA10717 to aquatic plants under simulated field conditions. It is felt that the study desi gn has presented important

information not obtainable under usual laboratory conditions for acute and ch ronic bioassay. In general, the reviewer’s analysis is in agreement with the study author's overall conclusions, but the reviewer has presently not statistically-verified the study results.

The following are two OPPTS 850.4000 and OPPTS 850.4450 guideline deviations th at affect the acceptability of the study:

1. Guidelines require the study be conducted using three species from the family Cryptogamae (ferns and allies). This study used only one species from this family, Salvinia natans

. 2. The number of replicates was not large enough to assure statistically significant results at the 90-95 percent level of confidence, nor large enough to support the 50 percent (EC50) progression criteria statistically.

Analysis of the water samples 4 hours following application indi cated that all microcosms received the intended dose (mean recoveries of 102 to 139% of target). Concentra tions of AE 1170437 steadily decreased throughout the study, and averaged 14 to 18% of nominal concentrations by day 69 (study termination). The metabolite AE 1170437- 1-hydroxyethyl [1-{4-amino-6-[(1 R ,2 S )-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1 H -inden-1-ylamino]-1,3,5-triazin-2- yl}ethanol] was detected at a maximum of 2.3% of nominal in water samples (0.32 μ g ai/L level on day 28 posttreatment) and the meta bolite AE 1170437-olefine [ N -[(1 R ,2 S )-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1 H -inden-1-yl]-6- vinyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine] was detect ed at a maximum of 0.35% of nominal (10 μ g ai/L level on day 7 post-treatment).

Where statistically-significant differences between treatment a nd control were observed and considered to be biologically significant, the responses were categorized according to the following chart:

Effect Class Definition of Effect

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Effect could not be demonstrated 2 Slight effect (minor in duration and magnitude)

3A Pronounced short-term effects and recovery within 8 weeks after th e first application or total period of effects <8 weeks followed by recovery

4 Pronounced effect but study/measurement too s hort to demonstrate that treatment-related

effects last <8 weeks

5A Clear long-term effects lasting longer than 8 weeks but full recovery observed at end of experiment

### -Page 163 of 292- 

## Table C-9. Tier III, Aquatic Plant Field Study

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Identification Number (Study Classification)

5B Clear long-term effects lasting longer than 8 weeks but full recovery not observed at the end of the experiment

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following table summarizes the treatment-related effects observed during the study using the effect classes noted

above:

Nominal concentration μ g ai/L

0.01 0.032 0.1 0.32 1.0 3.2 10.0 Macrophytes (bioassays)

Lemna trisulca 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Salvinia natans 1 1 1 1 3A ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓ Ceratophyllum demersum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Potamogeton natans 1 1 1 1 3A ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓ Sagittaria sagittifolia 1 1 1 1 3A ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓ Myriophyllum spicatum 1 1 1 2 ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓

Elodea nuttallii 1 1 1 2 ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓

Ranunculus circinatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↓ Parallel bioassay Lemna gibba (a) 1 3A ↓ (b) 4 ↓ 4 ↓ 4 ↓ 4 ↓ 4 ↓ Macrophytes (free-living) % cover total macrophytes 1 1 1 1 5B ↓ (c) 5B ↓ (c) 5B ↓ (c)

No. fronds Spirodela polyrhiza 1 2 ↓ 2 ↓ 5B ↓ (c) 5B ↓ (c) 5B ↓ (c) 5B ↓ (c)

% cover Myriophyllum spic. 1 1 1 1 5B ↓ 5B ↓ 5B ↓ End biomass vascular plants 1 1 1 1 1 Sign. ↓ Sign. ↓ Phytoplankton

Taxa richness 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRC community response 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Crucigeniella spec. 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↑

Cosmarium spec. 1 1 1 2 ↓ 2 ↓ 3A ↓ 3A ↓

Nitzschia spec. 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↑ 3 ↑ Chrysophyceae 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↑ Chlorophyta 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↑ Streptophyta 1 1 1 2 ↓ 3A ↓ 3A ↓ 3A ↓ Chlorophyll-a biomass 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↑ 2 ↑ Zooplankton

Taxa richness 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PRC community response 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Simocephalus vetulus 1 1 1 1 1 2 ↓ 2 ↓

Cladocera 1 1 1 1 2 ↓ 2 ↓ 3A ↓ Community metabolism pH morning 1 1 1 1 2 ↓ 2 ↓ 2 ↓ pH evening (d) 1 1 1 1 2-4 ↓ (e) 2-4 ↓ (e) 2-4 ↓ (e)

Alkalinity morning 1 1 1 1 2 ↑ 2 ↑ 2 ↑

(a) No useful information af ter day 14 post-treatment.

(b) Based on assumption that recovery starts at concentrations <0.01 μ g ai/L.

(c) Trend of a long-term treatment-related decline.

(d) Measured on days 8 and 15 post-treatment only.

(e) Minor effect not larger than 0.5 pH units, but th e duration of the effect could not be established.

Overall, in the microcosms, macrophyte species were far more sensitive than phytoplankton and zooplankton taxa. Of the macrophyte species investigated, the lemnids ( Lemna gibba, Spirodela polyrhiza ) were the most sensitive, with

a NOAEC of 0.01 μ g ai/L. The vast majority of non-lemnid vascular plants began to exhibit clear effects at the

1.0 μ g ai/L level, and no recovery was indicated at the 3.2 and 10.0 μ g ai/L levels. Vascular plants that showed a relatively minor growth in controls (e.g., Ceratophyllum demersum, Ranunculus circinatus, and Lemna

trisulca ) were hardly affected by the test compound. In the microcosm community, metabolism endpoints showed relatively minor treatment-rela ted effects, which may be explained by the fact that certain primary producers (e.g., Chara ) were not affected at all by the herbicide.

8. Adequacy of the Study: The data provided are beneficial in assessing the effects of the test material on various taxa, primarily macrophytes; however, only two replicate microc osms (ponds) were tested for each treatment level,

### -Page 164 of 292- 

## Table C-9. Tier III, Aquatic Plant Field Study

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Identification Number (Study Classification)

whereby limiting statistical power in assessing results on the pond community as well as on individual taxa.

A. Classification: Supplemental

B. Rationale: Although the study does not fully meet OPPTS 850.4450 guideline standards for a tier III field test with aquatic plants, it does provide valuable in formation regarding the expected biological effects (particularly to macrophytes) derived from applica tion of the formulated product AE 1170437 (500 g/L) to lentic, shallow macrophyte-dominated freshwater ecosystems.



### Indaziflam

- technical 100% See Below MRID: 47443258 (supplemental) Multiple

Conclusions: This study is scientifically sound an d provides useful preliminary/screening information for a subsequent in-depth field study targeting aquatic plants.

The toxicity of AE 1170437 technical was investigated for 6 weeks following a single overlying water application to artificial outdoor ponds containing the following eight aquatic plant species: elodea ( Elodea canadensis ), Sago pond weed ( Potamogeton pectinatus ), coontail weed ( Ceratophyllum demersum ), water milfoil ( Myriophyllum heterophyllum ), pickerel weed ( Pontederia cordata ), water lily ( Nymphaea odorata ), and duckweed ( Lemna gibba

and Lemna minor ). Of these eight species, data coll ected for the duckweed (both species)

and coontail weed were insufficient to cl early assess the toxicological effects of application. For the remaining five species, the NOAEC values are su mmarized below:

NOAEC ( μ g/L) Species Symptomology (a) 

### Dry Weight Biomass (b)



### Elodea 3.2 3.2 Sago pond weed 3.2 3.2

Water milfoil 0.32 0.32

Pickerel weed 3.2 3.2 Water lily <0.32 0.32

(a) 

### Based on visual observations.

(a) 

### Based on Dunnett’s Test.

The water lily ( Nymphaea odorata ) was the most sensitive species, exhibiting red spotting of the (old growth) leaves, chlorotic leaves, and/or curled leaves at all treatment levels. The resultant NOAEC for symptomology was <0.32 μ g/L. Recovery (in the form of new healthy leaf growth) was observed fo r this species at the 0.32 and 1.0 μ g/L levels beginning on days 14 and 28 post-treatment, respectively. Terminal (day 42) dry weight biomass was also statistically-reduced compared to the control at the 1.0 and 3.2 μ g/L

levels.

Water milfoil ( Myriophyllum heterophyllum ) was the next most sensitive species, and the only other species affected by treatment under the conditions of the study. Necrotic leaves developed during the second half of the post-observation period at the 1.0 and 3.2 μ g/L levels, resulting in a NOAEC for symptomology of 0.32 μ g/L. Terminal (day 42) dry weight biomass was also statistically-reduced compared to the control at the 1.0 and 3.2

μ g/L levels.

Elodea, sago pondweed, and pickerel weed were a ll unaffected by treatme nt, with NOAEC values

of 3.2 μ g/L for symptomology and dry weight biomass.

8. Adequacy of the Study:

### -Page 165 of 292- 

## Table C-9. Tier III, Aquatic Plant Field Study

Species Chemical % a.i. EC 50 

### /LC 50 

### Identification Number (Study Classification)

A. Classification: Supplemental

B. Rationale: The study provides useful preliminary/screening information for a subsequent in-depth field study targeting aquatic plants. Though the study was not intended to meet any current U.S. EPA guid eline, it does provide useful preliminary information regarding the expected biological effects derived from a single application of technical-grade BCS-AA10717 to lentic, shallow macrophyte-dominated freshwater

ecosystems.



## Toxicity to Terrestrial Animals

Birds, Acute and Subacute

Table C-10. Acute Oral Toxicity of Techni cal Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 14-day LD 50 

### : >2000 mg ai/kg bw Practically

non-toxic MRID 47443240 (Acceptable) Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) The acute oral toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to 16-week old Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) was assessed over 14 days. BCS-AA10717 was administered to the birds via gelatine capsule at nominal levels of 0 (control), 500, 1000, and 2000 mg ai/kg bw. The 14-day acute oral LD 50 

### was >2000 mg ai/kg bw. The 14-day NOAEL was 2000 mg ai/kg bw, as no treatment-related effects were observed upon any parameter. BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) would be classified as practically non-toxic to young adult Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and fully meets OPPTS 850.2100 guideline standards for an acute oral toxicity study with Northern bobwhite quail. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis Test Organism Size/Age at study initiation (Mean Weight): 16-weeks old; 191 to 202 g (combined sexes)

LD 50 

### : >2000 mg ai/kg bw 95% C.I.: N/A Probit slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEL: 2000 mg ai/kg bw Endpoint(s) Affected: none

Indaziflam 94.5% 14-day LD 50 

### : >2000 mg ai/kg bw Practicall nontoxic MRID

47743306 (Acceptable) Zebra Finch ( Poephgila

guttata ) The acute oral toxicity of BCS-AA10717 to zebra finch ( Poephila gutta ) was assessed over 14 days

### -Page 166 of 292- 

## Table C-10. Acute Oral Toxicity of Techni cal Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) with a limit test at 2000 mg/kg bw. BCS-AA10717 was administered to the birds via gavage dosing at the nominal concentrations of 0 (control) and 2,000 mg a.i./kg bw. Control and treatment groups were comprised of 10 birds each, 5 males and 5 females. The 14-day acute oral LD 50 

### was >2000 mg ai/kg bw. One mortality did occur and gross necropsy demonstrated that the bird’s death was related to intestinal and respiratory problems. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not this mortality and/or intestinal and respiratory problems were treatment-related. Observed clinical signs of toxicity in the treatment group included slightly ruffled to ruffled appear ance, reduced reaction to stimuli (i.e. sound and movement), wing droop, and lethargy. BCS-AA10717 would be classified as practically non-toxic to adult zebra finch ( Poephila gutta ) in accordance with the classification system of the U.S. EPA.

The resulting LD 50 

### for this study is >2000 mg a.i./kg-bw.

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.2100 guideline standards for an acute oral toxicity study with zebra finch. This study is classified Acceptable.

### -Page 167 of 292- 

## Table C-11. Acute Dietary Toxicity of Tec hnical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 8-day LC 50 

### : >5007 mg ai/kg diet Practically

nontoxic MRID

47443241 (Acceptable) Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) The acute dietary toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to 10-day old northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) was assessed over 8 days. BCS-AA10717 was administered to the birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 313, 625, 1250, 2500, and 5000 mg ai/kg diet. Mean-measured concentrations were <5.00 (<LOQ, control), 324, 572, 1234, 2545, and 5007 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. The 8-day acute dietary LC 50 

### was >5007 mg ai/kg diet. Based on a lack of treatment-related mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, effects on body weight or food consumption, or gross pathological changes, the 8-day NOAEC was 5007 mg ai/kg diet. BCS-AA10717 is classified practically non-toxic to juvenile bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) in accordance with the classifi cation system of the U.S. EPA.

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and fully meets OPPTS 850.2200 guideline standards for an acute dietary toxicity study for the Northern bobwhite quail. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test organism age; Mean weight at study initiation: 10-days old; 22.5 to 29.1 g

LC 50 

### : >5007 mg ai/kg diet 95% C.I.: N/A Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

NOAEC: 5007 mg ai/kg diet LOAEC: >5007 mg ai/kg diet

Endpoints affected: none

Indaziflam 94.5 8-day LC 50 

### : >5215 mg ai/kg diet Practically

nontoxic MRID

47443242 (Acceptable) Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) The acute dietary toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to 8-day old mallard ducklings ( Anas platyrhynchos ) was assessed over 8 days. BCS-AA10717 was administered to the birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 313, 625, 1250, 2500, and 5000 mg ai/kg diet. Mean-measured concentrations were <5.00 (<LOQ, control), 329, 647, 1320, 2518, and 5125 mg ai/kg diet, respectively. The 8-day acute dietary LC 50 

### was >5215 mg ai/kg diet. Based upon (apparent transient) treatment-related reductions in body weight and food consumption at the 5125 mg ai/kg diet level, the 8-day NOAEC was 2518 mg ai/kg diet. BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) would be classified practically non-toxic to juvenile mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) in accordance with the classification system of the

U.S. EPA.

No treatment-related mortality, clinical signs of toxicity, or post-mortem gross lesions or unusual observations were observed at any treatment level. On Days 5 and 8, the mean body weights ofbirds from the 5215 mg ai/kg diet level (191.6 and 266.4 g, respectively) were statisticallyreduced (p<0.05) compared to the control (237.4 and 306.8 g, respectively). The body weight

### -Page 168 of 292- 

## Table C-11. Acute Dietary Toxicity of Tec hnical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) change during the exposure period (Days 0-5) wa s also statistically-reduced compared to the control at the 5215 mg ai/kg diet level (70.1 versus 114.7 g for the control).

Based upon visual observation of the feed consumption data, an apparent treatment-related reduction was indicated during the first 3 days of exposure at the 5215 mg ai/kg diet level. During the first 3 days of exposure, feed consumption was 28.8, 30.1, and 39.9 g, respectively, for the control group and 16.5, 23.9, and 34.7 g, respectively, for the 5215 mg ai/kg diet level. Thereafter, feed consumption at this level was comparable to or exceeded control consumption. The study authors reported that the effect on body weight and feed consumption at the 5215 mg ai/kg diet level may be recoverable since body weight gain and food consumption were slightly higher (although not statistically significant) on ce the birds were offered untreated food in the recovery phase.

This toxicity study is classified scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.2200 guideline standards for an acute dietary toxi city study for the mallard duck. This study is classified Acceptable

.



## Birds, Chronic

Table C-12. Chronic Toxicity of Technica l Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 23-wk NOAEC: 1023 mg ai/kg diet (meanmeasured) Endpoint(s) affected: none MRID

47443243 (Acceptable) Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) The one-generation reproductive toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to 18 pairs per level of 16-week old Northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) was assessed

over ca. 23 weeks. BCS-AA10717 wa s administered to the bird s in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 250, 500, or 1000 mg as/kg diet (corrected for the total purity of the test substance, i.e., 94.5%). Mean-measured concentrations (of AE 1170437) were <5.00 (<LOQ, control), 252, 524, and 1023 mg ai/kg diet, respectively.

This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.2300 guideline standards for an avian reproductive toxicity study involving northern bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ). No

treatment-related effects were obser ved on any adult or offspring parameter at any concentration

level. This study is classified Acceptable.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size/Age (weight range): 16 weeks old; 169-215 g (combined sexes)

### -Page 169 of 292- 

## Table C-12. Chronic Toxicity of Technica l Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

NOAEC: 1023 mg ai/kg diet (mean-measured) LOAEC: >1023 mg ai/kg diet (mean-measured) 

## Endpoint(s) Affected: none

Indaziflam 94.5 NOAEC: < 95 mg ai/kg diet (meanmeasured) Endpoint(s) affected: female weight gain and mean food consumption MRID

47443244 (Supplemental) Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos )

In a primary study, the one-generation reproductive toxicity of BCS-AA10717 (containing 90.3% AE 1170437) to 15 pairs per level of 16-week old mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ) was

assessed over ca. 22 weeks. BCS-AA10717 was administered to the birds in the diet at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 100, 320, and 1000 mg as/kg diet (corrected for the total purity of the test substance, i.e., 94.5%). Mean-measured concentrations (of the active component AE 1170437) were <5.00 (<LOQ, control), 95, 334, and 1015 mg ai/kg diet, respectively.

To clarify and reinforce conclusions drawn during the original study, a 19-week supplemental study was conducted using 15 pairs per level of 17-week old mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos ).

BCS-AA10717 was administer ed to the birds in the diet at nomin al concentrations of 0 (control), 50, 150, and 450 mg as/kg diet during the final 6 weeks of the study (egg-laying phase), when the mallard were 33 weeks old. Mean-measured concentrations (of AE 1170437) were <5.00 (<LOQ, control), 44, 157, and 468 mg ai/kg diet, respectively.

The reviewer’s analyses detected statistically si gnificant reductions in adult food consumption and female body weight gain at the two lower treatment levels during the primary study. For adult food consumption, the percent reduction in means from the control was 15% for the 95 mg a.i./kg treatment level and 10% for the 334 mg a.i. /kg treatment level. These percent reductions in means were found to be statistically significant at exact p = 0.041 and p = 0.051 levels, respectively. For female body weight gain, the percent reduction in means was 36% for the 95 mg a.i./kg treatment level and 29% for the 334 mg a.i./kg treatment level. These percent

reductions in means were found to be statisti cally significant at exact p = 0.01 and p = 0.04 levels, respectively. Furthermore, the reviewer believes the highest treatment group to be of biological significance, with a mean percent reduction of 20%. Although not detected to be statistically different, the reviewer believes the mean male weight gain in the 1015 mg a.i./kg treatment group to be of biologi cal significance. Male birds in the highest treatment level gained on average 80% less than control birds, a difference of a 10.5 g weight gain and a 51.7 g weight gain, respectively. The reviewer determ ined the LOAEC and NOA EC for mean food consumption and female body weight gain to be 95 mg ai/kg and <95 mg ai/kg, respectively. And the LOAEC and NOAEC for male weight gain to be 1015 mg ai/kg and 334 mg ai/kg, respectively. These results differ from the study authors’ results for mean food consumption.

For the secondary study, the reviewer’s analysis determined that effects to male weight gain and female weight gain were biologically significant, although these effects were not detected to be statistically significant. For male weight gain, results show that all male birds, including the control lost weight. The results of mean weight gain for the control, 44, 157, 468 mg a.i./kg treatment groups were -15.9, -35.3 (-121%), -46.1(-189), and -57.1 (-259) grams, respectively. The number in parenthesis is the respective percent reduction in treatment level mean vs. control

mean. Birds in the lowest treatment level lost twice as much weight as the control, while the

### -Page 170 of 292- 

## Table C-12. Chronic Toxicity of Technica l Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Birds.

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification) birds in the middle treatment group lost 3 times as much weight as the control, and birds in the highest treatment group lost 4 times as much weight as the control. The reviewer determined the LOAEC and NOAEC to be 44 and <44 mg a.i./kg, respectively. The results of female mean weight gain for the control, 44, 157, 468 mg a.i./kg treatment groups were 202, 208 (-3.1), 173 (15%), 170 (16%) grams, respectively. Again, the number in parenthesis is the respective percent

reduction in treatment level mean vs. control mean. The reviewer determined the LOAEC and NOAEC to 157 and 44 mg a.i./kg, respectively.

The NOAEC from the primary study is < 95 mg ai/kg diet based on female weight gain and adult food consumption. The NOAEC from the modified secondary study is < 44 mg ai/kg diet based on male weight gain. The primary study is scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.2300 guideline standards for an avian reproduction test because a definitive NOAEC could

not determined. This study is classified Supplemental.

The secondary study is scientifically sound but does not meet OPPTS 850.2300 guideline standards for an avian reproduction test because birds were treated for 6 weeks with the test substance, instead of the guideline recommended 18 or more weeks. The secondary study is considered to be supplemental data and supports the NOAEC determination in the first study.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size/Age (mean Weight): Primary study: 16 weeks old; 881-1287 g (combined sexes) Supplemental study: 17 weeks old; 917-1316 g (combined sexes)

NOAEC: < 95 mg ai/kg diet (mean-measured) LOAEC: 95 mg ai/kg diet (mean-measured) 

## Endpoint(s) Affected: female weight gain and mean food consumption

Mammals, Acute

Table C-13. Acute Toxicity of Technica l Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Mammals.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.8 LD 50 

### > 2000 mg a.i./kg bw MRID

47443280 (Acceptable) Wistar HsdCpb:

Wu rats

In an acute oral toxicity study, two groups of three female Wistar HsdCpb: Wu rats were given a single oral dose of 2000 mg a.i./kg bw of indaziflam technical after being fasted for approximately 16-24 hours. The test animals were monitored for mortality and clinical signsseveral times on the day of administration and subsequently at least once daily for a 2-week postobservation period. body weights were recorded on days 1, 8, and 15. On dat 15, surviving animals were sacrificed, necropsied and examin ed for gross pathological changes. Because no

### -Page 171 of 292- 

## Table C-13. Acute Toxicity of Technica l Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Mammals.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) deaths and no clinical signs occurred in the firs t group, the same procedure was repeated with the

same limit dose level.

All animals survived and gained weight during rthe study. no clinical signs or gross pathological

findins were observed.

Oral LD 50 

### > 2000 mg a.i./kg bw

Indaziflam 95.7 LD 50 

### > 2000 mg a.i./kg bw MRID 47443281 (Acceptable) Wistar Rats



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : This study was performed to assess the acute oral toxicity to Wistar rats of AE 1170437 (also referenced to as BCS AA-10717), a technical grade formulation with a total isomer purity of 95.7%. The test compound was formulated in tap water with the aid of 2% Cremophor EL; the administration volume was 10 ml/kg body weight.

Dose (mg/kg bw) Toxicological

Result* Occurrence of Signs Time of

Death Mortality (%)

Females

2000 0 / 0 / 3
– – 0 (2 nd 

### ) 2000 1 / 1 / 3 4d 4d 33 *number of animals which died spontaneously and/or were sacrificed in moribund state / number of animals with signs of toxicity / total number of animals used per group

3FL

Herbicide

Granule 0.05 (indaziflam) LD 50 

### > 2000 mg/kg bw MRID

47489202 (Acceptable)SpragueDawley Rats

In an acute oral toxicity study, five fasted , young adult female Sprague-Dawley rats were given a single dose of 3FL Herbicde Granule at a limit dose of 2000 mg/kg bw by gavage and observed for 14 days. Initially, one animal received th e 2000 mg/kg dose. Due to absence of mortality, four additional fe males received the same dose level.

All animals survived and gained weight. No clinical signs oftoxicity were observed. no gross abnormalities were noted at necropsy.

LD 50 

### (males and females) > 2000 mg/kg bw

Lawn 3FL

herbicide

concentrate 0.25 a.i.

indaziflam LD 50 

### > 2000 mg/kg bw MRID

47489302

(Acceptable)SpragueDawley Rats

In an acute oral toxicity study, young adult Sprague-dawley rats were given a single oral dose of Lawn 3FL Herbicide concentrate. Following the Up and Down Procedure, an initial limit dose

### -Page 172 of 292- 

## Table C-13. Acute Toxicity of Technica l Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Mammals.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) of 2000 mg/kg bw of the test material was administered to one female rat by oral gavage. Due to the absence of mortality in this animal, four additional female s sequentially received the same dose level. Since these animals survived, no additional animals were tested.

All animals survived, gained body weight, and appeared active and healthy during the study. There were no signs of gross toxicity, adverse pharmoacologuc effects, or abnormal behavior. No gross abnormalities were noted for any of the animals necropsied at the conclusion of the 14- day observation period.

Oral LD 50 

### > 2000 mg/kg bw

BSCAA10717

20 WSP 20.0% LD 50 

### > 2000 mg/kg bw MRID 4748802

(Acceptable) Wistar HsdCpb:

Wu rats

In an acute oral toxicity study, two groups of three female Wistar HsdCpb: Wu rats were given a single oral dose of 2000 mg/lg bw of BCS-AA10717 20 WSP after being fasted for approximately 16-24 hours. Because no deather and no c linical signs occurred in the first group, the same procedure was repeated with the same limit dose level.

All animals surivived and gained weight during the study. No clinical signs or gross pathological findings were observed.

Oral LD 50 

### > 2000 mg/kg bw

BCSAA10717

2% MUP 2.0% Oral LD 50 

### > 5000 mg/kg bw MRID 47488702

(Acceptable)SpragueDawley Rats

In an acute otal toxicity study, 3 young adult female rats were given a sinlge oral dose of BCSAA10717 5% MUP (not 2%) by gavage at a single limit dose of 5000 mg/kg. Initially, a single test animals was dose at 5000 mg/kg; due to this test animal surviving an additional 2 test animals were dosed at 5000 mg/kg. Individual body weights were recorded prior to dosing (study day 0) and again on study days 7 and 14 post-dosing. The test animals were observed formortality, clinical signs of toxicity and behavioral changes during the first several hours postdosing and at least once daily thereafter for the remainder of the 14 day study period.

All 3/3 test animals dosed at 5000 mg/kg survived and gained weight throughout the study period. Post-dosing, 2/3 test animals were hypoactive; however, these test animals recovered by the end of study day 1 and along with the remaining test animals, appeared active and healthy for the remainder of the study. No gross internal findings were observed at necropsy.

Oral LD 50 

### > 5000 mg/kg bw

### -Page 173 of 292- 

## Mammals, chronic

Table C-14. Chronic Toxicity of Techni cal Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Rats

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC/LOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 NOAEC: 69 mg a.i./kg diet LOAEC: 317 mg a.i./kg diet

NOAEC: Based on parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity endpoints LOAEC: Based on offspring and reproductive toxicity endpoints MRID

47443293 (Acceptable) Laboratory

Rat ( Rattus norvegicus )



## In a two-generation reproduction toxicity study, indaziflam was administered continuously in the diet to 30 Wistar rats/sex/dose group for two consecutive generations. The P generation animals we re fed dietary leve ls of 0, 150, 1000, or 8000 ppm beginning 10 weeks prior to mati ng to produce the F1 litters. F1 offspring (30/sex/dose group) selected to be parents of the next generation were initially fed the same test diet concentra tions as their parents. However, due to severe toxicity in the F1 offspring afte r weaning but before mating for the next generation (age range was 26-38 days old), the high dose of 8,000 ppm was reduced to 4,000 ppm. The average daily in take of test material during premating for P and F1 animals was 0, 10.4, 69.3 or 560.1 (P)/317.6 (F1) mg/kg/day in males and 0, 12.9, 85.2 or 656.2 (P)/355.2 (F1) mg/kg/ day in females (note: at high dose, P and F1 intakes are given separately rather than averaged due to lowering of the dose to 4000 ppm). F1 parents were fed the test diets for approximately six weeks prior to mating to produce the F2 generation, and the F2 pups were maintained after weaning for ev aluation of sexual maturation.

Parental Toxicity
NOAEC: 69/85 mg a.i./kg diet LOAEC: 560/656 mg a.i./kg diet 

## Based on coarse tremors in females, d ecreased body weights, body weight gains, food consumption in both sexes, and effects on kidneys

This study is classified as acceptable/guideline and satisfies the guideline requirements (OPPTS 870.3800; OECD 416) for a two-generation reproduction study in the rat.

Offspring Toxicity
NOAEC: 69/85 mg a.i./kg diet LOAEC: 317/355 mg a.i./kg diet 

## Based on clinical signs of toxicity, decreased body wei ghts, body weight gains, and secondary delays in sexual maturation.

### -Page 174 of 292- 

## Table C-14. Chronic Toxicity of Techni cal Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Rats

Species Chemical % a.i. NOAEC/LOAEC Identification

Number

(Study Classification) 

## Reproductive Toxicity
NOAEC: 69/85 mg a.i./kg diet LOAEC: 317/355 mg a.i./kg diet 

## Based on delayed sexual maturation in F1 and F2 pups.

Terrestrial Insects, Acute Contact

Table C-15. Acute Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Honey Bees.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 48-h LD 50 

### : >100 μg a.i./bee (contact) Practically

nontoxic MRID

47443245 (Acceptable) Honey bee ( Apis mellifera )

The honey bee, Apis mellifera L., was exposed to BCS-AA10717 technical (Indaziflam) in the acute contact test. The no minal concentration was 100 μg ai/bee, and no mortalities occurred during the 48 hour exposure in the contact toxicity test

. The LD 50 

### value for the contact test was >100 μg ai/bee. As a result, BCS-AA10717 technical (Indaziflam) is categorized as practically non-toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis . The NOAEL for the contact test was 100 μg ai/bee. The study also provided supplemental information on acute oral toxicity of the honey bee to BCS-AA10717 technical (Indaziflam). The oral toxicity

test was conducted for 48 hours at a nominal concentration of 120 μg ai/bee. The actual intake

concentrations of AE 1170437 technical in the oral toxicity test was 120 μg ai/bee. No mortalities occurred during the 48 hour exposure in the oral test

. The LC 50 

### value for the oral test

was > 120 μg ai/bee. The NOAEC for the oral toxicity test was 120 μg ai/bee. This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.3020 guideline standards for an acute contact toxicity test with honey bees. This study is classified ACCEPTABLE

.

Results - Contact Test :

LD 50 

### : >100 μg ai/bee 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEL: 100 μg ai/bee Probit Slope: N/A LOAEL: >100 μg ai/bee

Results - Oral Test :

LC 50 

### : >120 μg ai/bee 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 120 μg ai/bee Probit Slope: N/A LOAEC: >120 μg ai/bee Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) BCS-AA10717

SC 500 514 g/L LC 50 

### : >100 μg ai/bee (contact) Practicall

non-toxic MRID

47743307 (Acceptable)

### -Page 175 of 292- 

## Table C-15. Acute Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to Honey Bees.

Species Chemical % a.i. LD 50 

### /LC 50 

### Toxicity Category Identification

Number

(Study Classification) The honey bee, Apis mellifera carnica P., was exposed to AE 1170437 SC 500 (AI: Indaziflam)

for 48 hours in the oral and the contact test. The or al and contact nominal concentrations were 0 (negative control) and 120.0 μg a.i./bee (oral) and 0 (negative control) and 100 μg ai/bee (contact).

The actual intake concentration of Indaziflam in the oral toxicity test was 119.7 μg ai/bee. By

48 hours in the oral test, mortality was 0%

. There were no sublethal effects in the control or treated groups. By 48 hours in the contact test, mortality was 1.7% (one bee died). There were

no sublethal effects in the controls or treated group. The LC 50 

### value for the oral test was >119.7 μg ai/bee. The LD 50 

### value for the contact test was >100 μg ai/bee. As a result, AE 1170437 SC 500 (AI: Indaziflam) is categorized as practically nontoxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis

. The NOAELs for the oral and contact te sts were 119.7 and 100 μg ai/bee, respectively.

This study is scientifically sound and meets OPPTS 850.3020 guideline standards for an acute contact toxicity test with honey bees.

Reported Statistical Results - Oral Test :

LC 50 

### : >119.7 μg ai/bee 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEL: 119.7 μg ai/bee Probit Slope: N/A LOAEL: >119.7 μg ai/bee

Reported Statistical Results - Contact Test :

LD 50 

### : >100 μg ai/bee 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEL: 100 μg ai/bee Probit Slope: N/A LOAEL: >100 μg ai/bee



## Earthworms, Acute Toxicity

Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Indaziflam 94.5 14-d LC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 14-d NOAEC: 316 mg ai/kg dw soil (Percent body weight change) MRID 47443269 (Supplemental) Earthworm ( Eisenia fetida andrei) In an acute toxicity study, earthworms ( Eisenia fetida andrei) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 (Indaziflam) at 0 (control), 100, 178, 316, 562 and 1000 mg ai/kg dw of soil. As a reference, worms were additionally exposed to Chloroacetamide A.R. at nominal concentrations of 5.6, 10, 18, 24 and 32 mg a.i./kg dw of soil. The 14-day LC 50 

### for the test material, BCS-AA10717, was >1000 mg ai/kg

dw of soil. The EC 50 

### was >1000 mg ai/kg dw of soil. The NOAEC and LOAEC values, based on %

### -Page 176 of 292- 

## Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) body weight change, were 316 and 562 mg ai/kg dw of soil, respectively. The active ingredient is considered to be non-toxic to earthworms up to a concentration of 316 mg ai/kg dw of soil.

After 14 days of exposure, mean mortality did not exceed 3% in the control or any of the treatment groups. Percent body weight loss averaged 5.9% in the negative control and ranged from 8.2 to

15.6% in the treatment levels.

This study is scientifically sound but was not conducted following any OPPTS guidelines. This study is classified Supplemental.

14-d EC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

14-d LC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A 14-d NOAEC: 316 mg ai/kg dw soil Probit Slope: N/A 95%

C.I.: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: Percent body weight change

### -Page 177 of 292- 

## Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Fluoroethyldiaminotriazine 99.3 LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil MRID 47743312 (Supplemental) Earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) In a 14-day acute toxi city study, earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) were exposed to AE 1170437-

diaminotriazine at 0 (negative control), 62.5, 125, 250, 500, and 1000 mg ai/kg dry weight of

artificial substrate. The reference chemical used was Chloroacetamide A.R. at 5.6 to 32 mg ai/kg dw

soil. The LC 50 

### for the reference chemical was 11.1 mg ai/kg dw of soil.

The LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### values in the study were >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The NOAEC, based on body weight change from day 0 to day 14 within each treatment level, was 500 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LOAEC, based on body weight change was 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The active ingredient is considered to be toxic to earthworms at and above a concentration of 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil.

There were no compound related toxic effects.

This study is scientifically sound but was not conducted following any OPPTS guidelines. This study is classified Supplemental. No mortality occurred during the 14-day study. TheLC 50 

### value was >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. Body weight altera tion was affected in the highest test level, body weight reduction from day 0 to day 14, yielding NOAEC and EC 50 

### values of 500 and >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil, respectively.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size/Age(Mean Wt): 380 mg; Adult (more than 2 months old)

LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 500 mg ai/kg dw soil Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: % weight change

Triazineindanone 96.1 LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil MRID 47743313

(Supplemental) Earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) In a 14-day acute toxic ity study, earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) were exposed to AE 1170437-triazineindanone at 0 (negative control), 10, 32, 100, 316, and 1000 mg ai/kg dry weight of artificial

substrate. The reference chemical used was Chloro acetamide A.R. at 5.6, 10, 18, 24, and 32 mg ai/kg

dw soil. The LC 50 

### for the reference chemical was 11.1 mg ai/kg dw of soil, which was within the acceptable concentration range determin ed by internationa l ring studies.

The LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### values in the study were >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. No mortal ity occurred during the 14-day study. The NOAEC, based on body weight change, i.e. reduction, was 316 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LOAEC, based on body weight change was 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The active ingredient

is considered to be toxic to earthworms at and above a concentration of 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil.

### -Page 178 of 292- 

## Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) There were no compound related toxic effects.

This study is scientifically sound but was not conducted following any OPPTS guidelines. This study is classified Supplemental.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size;Age(Mean Wt at study initiation): 354 mg; Adult (more than 2 months old)

LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A LOAEC: 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil NOAEC: 316 mg ai/kg dw soil (based on weight reduction) Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: Weight reduction

### -Page 179 of 292- 

## Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Indaziflam-carboxylic

acid 96.5 LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil MRID 47743314

(Supplemental) Earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) In a 14-day acute toxic ity study, earthworms ( Eisenia fetida andrei ) were exposed to AE 1170437- carboxylic acid at 0 (negative control), 62.5, 125, 250, 500, and 1000 mg ai/kg dry weight of

artificial substrate. The reference chemical used was Chloroacetamide A.R. at 5.6, 10, 18, 24, and 32 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LC 50 

### for the reference chemical was 11.1 mg ai/kg dw of soil, which was within the acceptable concentration range determined by international ring studies.

The LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### values in the study were >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. No mortal ity occurred during the 14-day study and no endpoints were affected. The overall NOAEC was 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LOAEC, based on body weight change was >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The active ingredient is considered to be non-toxic to earthworms up to a concentration of 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil.

There were no compound related toxic effects.

This study is scientifically sound but was not conducted following any OPPTS guidelines. This study is classified Supplemental.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size (Mean Wt, day 0); Age: 390 mg; Adult (more than 2 months old)

LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: None

BCSAA10717

500 SC 44.4 LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil MRID 47743315

(Supplemental) Earthworms ( Eisenia fetida )

In a 14-day acute toxic ity study, earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) were exposed to BCS-AA10717 SC 500 G (AI: Indaziflam) at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 100, 178, 316, 562, and 1000 mg ai/kg dry weight of artificial substrate. The reference chemical used wa s Chloroacetamide A.R. at 5.6 to 32 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LC 50 

### for the reference chemical was 12.4 mg ai/kg dw of soil.

The LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### values in the study were >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The NOAEC, based on body weight change, was 562 mg ai/kg dw soil. Mean % weight loss was 10% in the negative control, and was 10, 12, 9, 12, and 15% in the nominal 100, 178, 316, 562, and 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil treatment groups, respectively. The LOAEC, based on body weight change was 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil. The active ingredient is considered to be toxic to earthworms at and above a concentration of 1000 mg ai/kg dw soil.

There were no compound related toxic effects.

### -Page 180 of 292- 

## Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

This study is scientifically sound but was not conducted following any OPPTS guidelines. This study is classified Supplemental.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Size/Age(Mean Wt or Length): 380 mg; Adult (more than 2 months old)

Indaziflam

LC 50 

### : >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >1000 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 562 mg ai/kg dw soil Probit Slope: N/A 95% C.I.: N/A

BCS-AA10717 SC 500 G

LC 50 

### : >2252 mg form/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >2252 mg form/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 1266 mg form/kg dw soil Probit Slope: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: % weight change

### -Page 181 of 292- 

## Table C-16. Acute and Chronic Toxicity of Technical Grade Indaziflam (TGAI) to

Earthworms.

Species Chemical %

a.i. LC 50 

### Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

BSC-AA10717 SC 500 43.6 LC 50 

### : >191 mg ai/kg dw soil MRID 47743316

(Supplemental) Earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) In a 56-day survival, growth, and repro duction toxicity test, adult earthworms ( Eisenia fetida ) were exposed to AE 1170437 SC 500 G (AI: BCS-AA10717) for 28 days at nominal concentrations of 0 (negative control), 10.0, 17.8, 31.6, 56.2, and 100.0 L form/ha. The converted concentrations in terms of mg ai/kg were 0 (negative control), 43.8, 78.0, 138.4, 246.2, and 438.0 mg form/kg dry weight of artificial soil, and are equivalent to 0 (negative co ntrol), 19.1, 34.0, 60.3, 107, and 191 mg ai/kg dw soil. After 28 days, adult earthworms were removed and any offspring produced were exposed to the nominal concentrations for an additional 28 days. The reference chemical used was Carbendazim at 0.10 to 0.50 kg form/ha. The LC 50 

### for the reference chemical was not reported; however, earthworms were reported to be sensitive to th e reference test item based on the number of juveniles produced per replicate vessel.

The LC 50 

### and EC 50 

### values in the study were >191 mg ai/kg dw soil. The NOAEC, based on reproduction, was 34.0 mg ai/kg dw soil. The LOAEC, based on reproduction was 60.3 mg ai/kg dw soil. The active ingredient is considered to be t oxic to earthworms at and above a concentration of 60.3 mg ai/kg dw soil.

There were no compound related toxic effects. No behavioral abnormalities or pathological symptoms were reported.

This study is scientifically sound. This stud y follows guideline recommendations for an earthworm subchronic toxicity test (OPPTS 850.6200); however th is study failed to test concentrations up to the guideline recommended limit in an attempt to determine a definitive LC 50



### . This study is classified Supplemental.

Results Synopsis

Test Organism Mean Wt at day 0 (range); Age: 336 mg (250 – 460); Adult (8 months old)

BCS-AA10717

LC 50 

### : >191 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >191 mg ai/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 34.0 mg ai/kg dw soil, based on reproduction Probit Slope: N/A

AE 1170437 SC 500 G

LC 50 

### : >438.0 mg form/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A

EC 50: 

### >438.0 mg form/kg dw soil 95% C.I.: N/A NOAEC: 78.0 mg form/kg dw soil, based on reproduction Probit Slope: N/A

Endpoint(s) Affected: Reproduction

### -Page 182 of 292- 

## Field Studies on Non-Target Terrestrial Invertebrates

No field studies of indaziflam TGAI, formula tions, or degradates in non-target terrestrial

invertebrates were submitted.

Plants Inhabiting Terrestrial Environments

Terrestrial plant testing (seedling emergence and ve getative vigor) at the tier II level with the typical enduse product is required for known phytotoxicancts (ie. herbic ides) that have terrestrial, forestry, and residential outdoor use patterns and/or may have e ndangered or threatened plant species associated with the application site. S eedling emergence and vegetative vigor testing of the following plant species and groups should be conducted: (1) six species of at least four dicotyledon families, including one soybean species ( Glycine max ) and one root crop, and (2) four species of at least two monocotyledon families, including one which is corn ( Zea mays ). Tier II tests measure the responses of plants at five or more test chemical concen trations relative

to a control. Tier II studies of the effect of the indaziflam formul ations BCS-AA10717 20WSP and Indaziflam 500 SC on seed emergence and ve getative vigor in terrestrial plants were submitted. A typical enduse product is defined as th e formulation with the highest percentage AI and/or the one most widely used; both BCS- AA10717 20WSP and Indazifl am 500 SC represent the two highest percentage AI formulations (20% and 45.05%, respectively). Study details and

results of these studies are summarized in Table C-13 (for most sensitive species for seedling emergence and vegetative vigor), Table C-14 (synopsis for Tier II s eedling emergence testing, most sensitive parameter per species), and Table C-15 (synopsis for Tier II vegetative vigor testing, most sensitive parameter per species).

Table C-17. Toxicity of Indaziflam Formulatio ns to Terrestrial Plants — Results of Tier II Testing (Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor) for the Most Sensitive Species.

Formulation Species %

a.i. Toxicity Values Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Tier II Seedling Emergence

Indaziflam 500

SC Monocots:

corn, Zea mays ; onion, Allium cepa ; oat, A vena sativa ; barley, Hordeum vulgare ; and ryegrass, Lolium perenne

Dicots: cucumber, Cucumis

sativa ; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ; oilseed rape, 44.4 Most sensitive monocot: onion (shoot length) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00017 lbs a.i./A

Most sensitive dicot: tomato (shoot length) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00024 lbs a.i./A MRID 47443247 (Acceptable)

### -Page 183 of 292- 

## Table C-17. Toxicity of Indaziflam Formulatio ns to Terrestrial Plants — Results of Tier II Testing (Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor) for the Most Sensitive Species.

Formulation Species %

a.i. Toxicity Values Identification

Number

(Study Classification)
Brassica napus ; soybean, Glycine max ; sunflower, Helianthus

annuus ; tomato, Lycopersicon

esculentum ; and buckwheat, Fagopyrum

esculentum 21-day seedling emergence study with the formulation Indaziflam 500 SC. Nominal application rates: 0 Negative Control:

0 Corn, oat, barley, & buckwheat: 0.000364, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, 0.01421,and 0.03552 lbs a.i./A Cucumber, soybean, & sunflower: 0.000142, 0.000364, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, and 0.01421

lbs a.i./A Sugarbeet, oilseed rape, onion, and tomato: 0.000023, 0.000062, 0.000142, 0.000364, 0.000906, and 0.002273 lbs a.i./A Ryegrass: 0.000009, 0.000023, 0.000062, 0.000142, 0.000364, and 0.000906 lbs a.i./A Total range of concentrations: 0.000009, 0.000023, 0.000062, 0.000142, 0.0003 64, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, 0.01421,and

0.03552 lbs a.i./A Mean measured test concentrations were not reported. Endpoints measured: emergence, survival, dry weight, shoot length, growth stage, and phytotoxicity

The reviewer determined that the study author provided application rates and endpoints in g a.i./ha of test item AE 1170437, the diastereomer. The reviewer provided nominal concentrations

and conducted statistics in lbs a.i./A of the test item AE 1170437 based on these concentrations.

The reviewer then converted the most sensitiv e species into the mixture of isomers, BCSAA10717.

AI: BCS-AA10717

Monocot 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00017 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.000095 to 0.00029 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### : 0.00026 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.00019 to 0.00036 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000146 lbs a.i./A Slope: 3.46

Std err: 1.17

Most sensitive monocot: Onion Most sensitive parameter: Shoot length

Dicot 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00024 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.000113 to 0.00052 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### : 0.00071 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.000463 to 0.001132 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000146 lbs a.i./A

### -Page 184 of 292- 

## Table C-17. Toxicity of Indaziflam Formulatio ns to Terrestrial Plants — Results of Tier II Testing (Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor) for the Most Sensitive Species.

Formulation Species %

a.i. Toxicity Values Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Slope: 1.42

Std err: 0.315

Most sensitive dicot: Tomato Most sensitive parameter: Shoot length

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and satisfies the CFR part 158.660 guideline requirement for a Tier 2 terrestrial plant seedling emergence toxicity study (OPPTS 850.4225). This study is classified Acceptable.

Monocot

corn, Zea mays ; onion, Allium cepa ; oat, A vena sativa ; barley, Hordeum vulgare ; and ryegrass, Lolium perenne

Dicot cucumber, Cucumis

sativa ; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ; oilseed rape, Brassica napus ; soybean, Glycine max ; sunflower, Helianthus

annuus ; and buckwheat, Fagopyrum esculentum 20.3 Most sensitive monocot: ryegrass (survival) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00011 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000062 lbs a.i./A

Most sensitive dicot: oilseed rape (emergence) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00011 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000062 lbs a.i./A MRID 47443246 (Acceptable) BCS-AA10717

20WSP

21-day seedling emergence study with the formulation BCS-AA10717 20WSP. Nominal test

concentrations: Negative Control:

0 Corn, oat, & buckwheat: 0.000364, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, 0.01421,and 0.03552 lbs a.i./A Cucumber, soybean, & sunflower: 0.000142, 0.000364, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, and 0.01421

lbs a.i./a Sugarbeet, oilseed rape, onion, and barley: 0.000023, 0.000062, 0.000142, 0.000364, 0.000906, and 0.002273 lbs a.i./A Ryegrass: 0.000009, 0.000023, 0.000062, 0.000142, 0.000364, and 0.000906 lbs a.i./A Total range of concentrations: 0.000009, 0.000023, 0.000062, 0.000142, 0.0003 64, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, 0.01421,and

0.03552 lbs a.i./A Mean-measured concentrations were not reported.

Parameters measured: Emergence, survival, dry weight, shoot length, growth stage, and phytotoxicity

Monocot 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00016 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I. : 0.00009 to 0.0003 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### : 0.00031 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.00021 to 0.00045 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000062 lbs a.i./A

### -Page 185 of 292- 

## Table C-17. Toxicity of Indaziflam Formulatio ns to Terrestrial Plants — Results of Tier II Testing (Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor) for the Most Sensitive Species.

Formulation Species %

a.i. Toxicity Values Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Slope: 2.45

Std err: 0.543 Most sensitive monocot: Ryegrass Most sensitive parameter: Survival

Dicot 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25 

### : 0.00011 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.000053 to 0.00024 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50 

### : 0.00027 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.00016 to 0.00044 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000062 lbs a.i./A Slope: 1.81

Std err: 0.303 Most sensitive dicot: Oilseed rape Most sensitive parameter: Emergence

This toxicity study is scientifically sound and satisfies the CFR part 158.660 guideline requirement for a Tier 2 terrestrial plant seedling emergence toxicity study (OPPTS 850.4225). This study is classified Acceptable

. Tier II Vegetative Vigor

Monocot

corn, Zea mays ; onion, Allium cepa ; oat, A vena sativa ; and ryegrass, Lolium perenne

Dicot cucumber, Cucumis

sativa ; oilseed rape, Brassica napus ; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ; sunflower,

Helianthus annuus ; soybean, Glycine max ; tomato, Lycopersicon

esculentum , and buckwheat, Fagopyrum

esculentum 44.87 Most sensitive monocot: ryegrass (survival) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### 0.0021 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000932 lbs a.i./A Most sensitive dicot: soybean (shoot length) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### 0.0043 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 05 

### /IC 05 

### : <0.000375 lbs

a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: <0.000375 lbs

a.i./A MRID 47443249 (Supplemental) Indaziflam 500

SC

A 21-day vegetative vigor study with the formulation AE 11704373 SC 500 g/L (AI: BSCAA10717). Nominal test concentrations: 0 (negative control), 0.000142, 0.000364, 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, 0.01421, 0.03552 and 0.0888 lbs AE 1170437/A. Parameters measured include dry weight, survival, phytotoxicity, growth stage, and shoot length.

The reviewer determined that the study author provided application rates and endpoints in g a.i./ha of test item AE 1170437, the diaste reomer. The reviewer provided nominal

concentrations and conducted statistics in lbs a.i. /A of the test item AE 1170437 based on these

concentrations. The reviewer then converted th e most sensitive species into the mixture of isomers, BCS-AA10717.

BCS-AA10717

### -Page 186 of 292- 

## Table C-17. Toxicity of Indaziflam Formulatio ns to Terrestrial Plants — Results of Tier II Testing (Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor) for the Most Sensitive Species.

Formulation Species %

a.i. Toxicity Values Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

Monocot 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50: 

### 0.0035 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.0026 to 0.00484 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### 0.0021 lbs a.i./A 95% C. I.: 0.00134 to 0.0032 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.000932 lbs a.i./A Slope: 2.94 Std err: 0.433 Most sensitive monocot: Ryegrass Most sensitive parameter: Survival

Dicot 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50: 

### 0.061 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.045 to 0.081 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### 0.0043 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.0026 to 0.0073 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 05 

### /IC 05 

### : <0.000375 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: <0.000375 lbs a.i./A Slope: 0.588 Std err: 0.0435 Most sensitive dicot: Soybean Most sensitive parameter: Shoot length

This study is scientifically sound and satisfies CFR 40 part 158.660 nontarget plant protection data requirements for a tier II terrestrial vegetative vigor study (OPPTS 850.4250). This study is classified Acceptable

. Monocot :

corn, Zea mays ; onion, Allium cepa ; oat, A vena sativa ; and

ryegrass, Lolium

perenne

Dicot: cucumber, Cucumis

sativa ; turnip,

Brassica rapa; sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ; sunflower,

Helianthus annuus ; soybean, Glycine

max ; and buckwheat, Fagopyrum

esculentum 19.6 Most sensitive monocot: ryegrass (survival) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### 0.0031 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.002273 lbs a.i./A

Most sensitive dicot: turnip (dry weight) 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### <0.000906 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 05 

### /IC 05 

### : <0.000906 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: <0.000906 lbs a.i./A MRID: 47443248 (Supplemental) BCS-AA10717

20 WSP

21-day vegetative vigor study with the formulation BCS-AA10717 20 WSP. Nominal concentrations were 0 (negative control), 0.000364 (soybean only), 0.000906, 0.002273, 0.005683, 0.01421, 0.03552 and 0.0888 lbs a.i./A.

According to the US EPA memo entitled, “Closure on Nontarget Plant Phytotoxicity Policy Issues”, issued October 1994, studies failing to provide a slope value adequate to obtain NOAEC, EC 05 

### , EC 25 

### , and EC 50 

### values for the most sensitive species may be classified as Supplemental if the lowest test level and the NOAEC are higher than the EC 10 

### , but lower than the

EC 25 

### . There was an 18% reduction in dry weight for turnip at the lowest test level.

### -Page 187 of 292- 

## Table C-17. Toxicity of Indaziflam Formulatio ns to Terrestrial Plants — Results of Tier II Testing (Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor) for the Most Sensitive Species.

Formulation Species %

a.i. Toxicity Values Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

This study is scientifically sound but does not fu lly satisfy CFR 40 part 158.660 non-target plant protection data requirements for a tier II terrestrial vegetative vigor study (OPPTS 850.4250). This study is classified Supplemental. This study can be upgraded to Acceptable with the submission of a second test using turnip, or an adequate replacement for a dicot species, conducted at lower application rates to determine non-target dicot sensitivity to the test

formulation.

Monocot 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50: 

### 0.0041 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.0033 to 0.005 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### 0.0031 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.0023 to 0.0044 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: 0.002273 lbs a.i./A Slope: 6.06 Std err: 1.57 Most sensitive monocot: Ryegrass Most sensitive parameter: Survival

Dicot 21-day EC 50 

### /IC 50: 

### 0.0087 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: 0.0027 to 0.028 lbs a.i./A 21-day EC 25 

### /IC 25: 

### <0.000906 lbs a.i./A 95% C.I.: N/A 21-day EC 05 

### /IC 05 

### : <0.000906 lbs a.i./A 21-day NOAEC: <0.000906 lbs a.i./A Slope: 0.556 Std err: 0.138 Most sensitive dicot: Turnip Most sensitive parameter: Dry weight



## Table C-18. Synopsis for Tier II seedling emerge nce testing with Toxicity of Indaziflam

Formalations

Formulation % a.i. Species Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

BCS-AA10717

20 WSP 20.3 Monocotyledonous species: Corn ( Zea mays, Family Poaceae; Magister), Oat ( Avena sativa , Family Poaceae; Flamings Stern), Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne , Family Poaceae; Temprano), and Barley ( Hordeum vulgare , Family Poaceae; Annabell); Dicotyledonous species: Cucumber ( Cucumis sativa , Family Curcubitaceae; Delikatess), Sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris , Family Chenopodiaceae; Mosaik ), Oilseed Rape ( Brassica napus , Family Brassicaceae; Licapo), Sunflower ( Helianthus annuus , Family MRID

47443246 (Acceptable)

### -Page 188 of 292- 

## Table C-18. Synopsis for Tier II seedling emerge nce testing with Toxicity of Indaziflam

Formalations

Formulation % a.i. Species Identification

Number

(Study Classification) Asteraceae; Solara), Soybean ( Glycine max , Family Fabaceae; Erin), and Buckwheat ( Fagopyrum esculentum , Family Polygonaceae; no variety reported); Most sensitive parameters (lbs a.i./L):

Species Endpoint NOAEC EC 05 

### EC 25 

### EC 50 

### Buckwheat Survival 0.000364 <0.000364 0.00062 0.0011 Cucumber Shoot length 0.000364 0.00046 0.00077 >0.000906 Oilseed rape Emergence 0.000062 0.000033 0.00011 0.00027 Soybean Emergence 0.000364 <0.000142 0.000142 0.0038 Sugarbeet Survival 0.000023 0.00021 0.00035 0.0005 Sunflower Shoot length 0.000906 0.00035 0.0033 >0.01421 Barley Shoot length 0.000906 0.0004 >0.002273 >0.002273 Corn Shoot length 0.000364 0.0004 0.0028 0.011

Oat Survival 0.000906 0.00084 0.0016 0.0026 Ryegrass Survival 0.000062 0.000066 0.00016 0.00031

44.4 Monocotyledonous species: Corn ( Zea mays, Family Poaceae; Magister), Oat ( Avena sativa , Family Poaceae; Flamings Stern), Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne , Family Poaceae; Temprano), Onion ( Allium cepa , Family Liliaceae; Braunschweiger blutrot), and Barley ( Hordeum vulgare , Family Poaceae; Annabell); Dicotyledonous species: Cucumber ( Cucumis sativa , Family Curcubitaceae; Delikatess), Sugarbeet ( Beta vulgaris , Family Chenopodiaceae; Mosaik ), Oilseed Rape ( Brassica napus , Family Brassicaceae; Licapo), Sunflower ( Helianthus annuus , Family Asteraceae; Solara), Soybean ( Glycine max , Family Fabaceae; Erin), Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum , Family Solanaceae; Balkonstar), and Buckwheat ( Fagopyrum esculentum , Family Polygonaceae; no variety reported); MRID:

47443247 (Acceptable) Indaziflam 500

SC

Most Sensitive Parameters (lbs a.i./L):

Species Endpoint NOAEC EC 25 

### EC 50 

### Buckwheat Shoot length 0.000374 <0.000932 >0.00585 Cucumber Dry weight <0.000146 >0.000932 >0.000932 Oilseed rape Survival 0.000146 0.00076 >0.000932 Soybean Survival 0.000146 0.00062 0.002 Sugarbeet Survival 0.000374 0.00099 0.002 Sunflower Shoot length 0.000932 0.0083 >0.01462 Tomato Shoot length 0.000146 0.00025 0.00071 Barley Survival 0.000932 0.004 0.012 Corn Shoot length 0.000374 0.0032 0.019

Oat Survival 0.000374 0.0013 0.002 Onion Shoot length 0.000146 0.00017 0.00026 Ryegrass Survival 0.000063 0.00027 0.00047

### -Page 189 of 292- 

## Table C-18. Synopsis for Tier II Vegetative Vi gor Testing with Toxicity of Indaziflam

Formalations

Formulation % a.i. Species Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

19.6 Monocotyledonous species: Corn ( Zea mays, Family Poaceae; Magister), Onion ( Allium cepa , Family Liliaceae; Braunschweiger blutrot), Oat ( Avena sativa , Family Poaceae; Flamings Stern), and Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne , Family Poaceae; Temprano); EPA recommends four monocots in two families, including corn. Dicotyledonous species: Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus , Family Curcubitaceae; Delikatess), Turnip ( Brassica rapa , Family Brassicaceae; Wilhelmburger gelbe), Sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris

, Family Chenopodiaceae); Wichita), Sunflower ( Helianthus

annuus ; Family Asteraceae; Solara), Soybean ( Glycine

max , Family Fabaceae; Erin), and Buckwheat ( Fagopyrum

esculentum , Family Polygonaceae; no variety reported); MRID

47443248 (Supplemental) BCS-AA10717

20 WSP

Most sensitive parameters (lbs a.i./L):

Species Endpoint NOEC EC 05 

### EC 25 

### EC 50 

### Buckwheat Shoot length 0.005683 0.0028 0.012 0.035

Cucumber Shoot length 0.002273 0.0011 0.0081 0.033

Turnip Dry weight <0.000906 <0.000906 <0.000906 0.0087 Soybean Dry weight 0.002273 0.00059 0.015 >0.0888 Sugarbeet Shoot length 0.005683 0.0024 0.012 0.038

Sunflower Shoot length 0.000906 <0.000906 0.0095 0.059

Corn Shoot length 0.002273 <0.000906 0.0056 0.027

Oat Survival 0.005683 0.0045 0.0078 0.012

Onion Survival 0.01421 0.0083 0.018 0.03 Ryegrass Survival 0.002273 0.0022 0.0031 0.0041

### -Page 190 of 292- 

## Table C-18. Synopsis for Tier II Vegetative Vi gor Testing with Toxicity of Indaziflam

Formalations

Formulation % a.i. Species Identification

Number

(Study Classification)

44.87 Monocotyledonous species: Corn ( Zea mays, Family Poaceae; Magister), Onion ( Allium cepa , Family Liliaceae; Braunschweiger blutrot), Oat ( Avena sativa , Family Poaceae; Flamings Stern), and Ryegrass ( Lolium perenne , Family Poaceae; Temprano); EPA recommends four monocots in two families, including corn. Dicotyledonous species: Cucumber ( Cucumis sativus , Family Curcubitaceae; Delikatess), Sugar beet ( Beta vulgaris , Family Chenopodiaceae); Mosa ik), Sunflower ( Helianthus annuus ; Family Asteraceae; Solara),Soybean ( Glycine max , Family Fabaceae; Erin), Oilseed rape ( Brassica napus , Family Brassicaceae; Licapo), Tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum , Family Solanaceae; Balkonstar ), and Buckwheat ( Fagopyrum

esculentum , Family Polygonaceae; no variety reported); MRID:

47443249 (Acceptable) Indaziflam 500

SC

Most Sensitive Parameters (lbs a.i./L)

Species Endpoint NOAEC EC 25 

### EC 50 

### Buckwheat Survival 0.005847 0.011 0.0234 Cucumber Dry weight 0.002338 0.024 >0.0913 Oilseed rape Survival 0.005847 0.016 0.027 Soybean Shoot length <0.000374 0.0043 0.061 Sugarbeet Survival 0.002338 0.012 0.022 Sunflower Shoot length 0.002338 0.01 0.063 Tomato Dry weight 0.005847 0.02 >0.0366

Corn Survival 0.002338 0.0083 0.02

Oat Survival 0.002338 0.0048 0.0077

Onion Survival 0.005847 0.05 0.065 Ryegrass Survival 0.000932 0.002 0.0035

### -Page 191 of 292- 

# Appendix D. Catalogue of Submitte d Environmental Fate Studies for

Indaziflam.

Table G. Submitted Environmental Fate Studies for Indaziflam, their Review Classifications, and Classi fication Justifications.

Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Comments Are data adequate for

Risk

Assessment? Current

Additional

Data Need

835.2120 Hydrolysis 47443207 Acceptable No significant issues affecting the acceptability of the study were noted. Yes None

835.2240 Photodegradation

in Water 47443208 Supplemental Study duration not sufficient. Concentrations of the 2 major transformation products were still increasing at the study termination, precluding the determination of the patterns of formation and decline for

each. Yes None

835.2410 Photodegradation

on Soil 47443209 Supplemental Study duration not sufficient.

There was a decline in the dark controls (11%), material balances are acceptable. No explainable reason for decline in dark controls (e.g., stable to hydrolysis) Yes None

47443210 Supplemental Application rate was 4x the maximum proposed application rate to achieve appropriate sensitivity. Kinetics may not be accurately represented at the higher application mass.

Overall recoveries of C14 residues from decreased during the study duration.

Authors did not demons trate that volatile trapping method was efficient at trapping high concentrations of volatile gases (e.g., CO2) None 835.4100 Aerobic Soil

Metabolism

47443211 Supplemental Application rate was 4x the maximum proposed application rate to achieve appropriate sensitivity. Kinetics may not be accurately represented at the higher application mass.

In the California sandy loam, increasing

% of AR for diaminotriazine was observed at the termination of the study precluding the determination of the patterns of formation and decline. Yes

None.

### -Page 192 of 292- Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Comments Are data adequate for

Risk

Assessment? Current

Additional

Data Need

47443212 Supplemental Study duration not sufficient. This may not be sufficient to accurately establish the pattern of decline of the major transformation products.

Replicates were not collected for three of the four soils tested, except for time 0.

Moisture content was higher than recommended in study guidelines (55% of max holding capacity vs 75% of 1/3 bar soil moisture content) None

47443213 Supplemental Study duration not sufficient. This may not be sufficient to accurately establish the pattern of decline of the major transformation products.

Replicates were not collected for three of the four soils tested, except for time 0.

Moisture content was higher than recommended in study guideline (55% of max holding capacity vs 75% of 1/3 bar soil moisture content) None

47443214 Supplemental Study was conducted using diaminotraizine (a degradate) as the starting material

Study duration not sufficient. This may not be sufficient to accurately establish the pattern of decline of the major transformation products.

Moisture content was higher than recommended in study guideline (55% of max holding capacity vs 75% of 1/3 bar) None

47443215 Supplemental A comparison of the behavior of the two active isomers. Samples were analyzed only for the parent compounds.

This study does not provide quantitative data for the risk assessment, it shows the

behavior of the two active isomers (diastereomers) of indaziflam (BCS AA10717). Used only for qualitative

purposes. None

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism 47443216 Acceptable Moisture content during the aerobic phase was higher than recommended in study guidelines (55% of max holding capacity vs 75% of 1/3 bar) Yes None

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 47443217 Supplemental Study duration not sufficient. Duration not be sufficient to accurately establish the pattern of decline of the major transformation products. Yes None

### -Page 193 of 292- Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Comments Are data adequate for

Risk

Assessment? Current

Additional

Data Need

47443218 Acceptable Study conducted on Indane labeled compound. Yes None

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 47443219 Acceptable Study conducted on Triazine labeled compound. Yes None

47443203 Acceptable No significant issues affecting the acceptability of the study were noted. Yes None

47443204 Supplemental The test compound was triazineindanone a transformation product of AE

1170437. Yes None

47443205 Supplemental The test compound wa s diaminotriazine a transformation product of AE 1170437. Yes None 835.1230 Mobility - Adsorption / Desorption

47443206 Supplemental The test compound was AE 1170437- carboxylic acid a transformation product

of AE 1170437. Yes None

47443220 Supplemental Study conducted on CA Porterville sandy loam cropped with turf.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None

47443221 Supplemental Study conducted on FL Monticello loamy sand cropped with turf.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None

47443222 Supplemental Study conducted on NC Wayne County loamy sand cropped with turf.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None

47443223 Supplemental Study conducted on CA Porterville sandy loam, bare soil.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None

47443224 Supplemental Study conducted on FL Jefferson County sand/loamy sand, bare soil.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None 835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation

47443225 Supplemental Study conducted on NC Wayne County loamy sand, bare soil.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. Yes

None

### -Page 194 of 292- Guideline Study Title MRID Classification Comments Are data adequate for

Risk

Assessment? Current

Additional

Data Need

47743301 Supplemental Study conducted on Quincy loamy sand, bare soil, in Ephrata, Washington.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None

47743302 Supplemental Study was conducted on Oakville loamy sand, bare soil, in North Rose, New

York.

Storage stability st udy showed slow degradation of degradate over the period of frozen storage. None

850.1730 Fish

Accumulation 47443237 Acceptable No significant issues affecting the acceptability of the study were noted. Yes None

Storage stability 47443279 Supplemental Samples fortified with olefin degraded slowly, (corrected mean recoveries 65- 88% following 427-433 days).

Samples were not stored for a sufficient

duration. N/A None

860.1380

Storage Stability 47743328 Supplemental Study upgrades MRID 47443279;

conducted for sufficient duration. Samples fortified with olefin degraded slowly, mean corrected recoveries ranging from 65 to 88% following 427 to 433 days and from 47 to 67% following 732 to 736 days of storage N/A None

Nonguideline Supplemental

Information on Foreign Soils 47793401 Supplemental Comparison of foreign (German) soils to location and soil taxonomy of US soil

series. Yes None

### -Page 195 of 292- 

# Appendix E. Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Summary of

Indaziflam

Product Chemistry of Indaziflam

Chemical Name: Indaziflam (BCS AA10717)

IUPAC: N-[(1R,2S)-2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1 H-inden-1-yl]-6-[(1R S)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5- triazine-2,4-diamine

CAS: 1,3,5-Triazine-2,4-diamine, N-[(1R,2S)- 2,3-dihydro-2,6-dimethyl-1 H-inden-1-yl]-6-(1- fluoroethyl)

Chemical Abstracts registry number: 950782-86-2 (isomer mixture); 730979-19-8 (Isomer A; AE 1170437); 730979-32-5 (Isomer B; AE 1170438)

Synonyms: BCS-AA10717, BAY BCHD 1709, BAY BCHD 2003, BAY BCKM 2459, BAY BSP 1089, BAY NLL 7482

Molecular Formula: C16H20FN5

Molecular Weight: 301.36 g/mol

Chemical Structure(s):

Isomer A: Isomer B:

Technical grade indaziflam is a light beige colored powder with no characteristic odor and a melting point of 177oC. Indaziflam is a mi xture of two active diastereoisomers (AE 1170437 (isomer A), and AE 1170438 (isomer B)), which ar e both present in the technical grade product in the following percentages, 95-100% isomer A a nd 0-5%, isomer B. Indaziflam is readily soluble in organic solvents. Th e ultraviolet spectrum of indaziflam shows the maxima above 290 nm. Indaziflam’s vapor pressure is very lo w for both isomers (isomer A: 6.8 x 10-8 Pa, and isomer B: 1.1 x 10-8 Pa; 5.1 x 10 -10 torr and 8.25 x 10-11 torr) therefore th ere is low risk of transport by air. The compound e xhibits acid-base behavior (pKa = 3.5 and 3.6, isomer A and B, respectively). It is considered a weak acid, and it is moderately soluble at pH 4, 7 and 9 (isomer

### -Page 196 of 292- 

## A: 4.4, 2.2, 2.2 mg/L, and isomer B: 1.7, 1.2, a nd 1.2 mg/L). The reported logKow for indaziflam is 2.8 and indicates a low potential fo r bioconcentration in fi sh and living organisms (BCF ranged from 36 to 122x).

Environmental Fate Summaries of Indaziflam (BCS AA10717)

Detailed information regarding the fate and tr ansport of indaziflam in the environment is provided in the study summaries below.

Hydrolysis - - EPA Guideline: 161-1 (835.2120)

MRID Number: 47443207 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Sneikus, J. 2007. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] and [indane-3- 13/14 

## C]AE 1170437: Hydrolytic degradation. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; submitted by Bayer CropScience LP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (pp. 1, 3). Bayer CropScience Study No.: M1111669-5. Bayer CropScience AG Report No.: MEF-07/177. Experiment started March 5, 2007 and completed April 23, 2007 (p. 6). Final report issued October 30, 2007.

[ 14 

## C]AE 1170437, [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]-labeled, was stable to hydrol ysis at pH 4, 7, and 9 at 50oC during the 7 days of incubation ranging from averages of 100.0-105.0%, 98.2-107.1%, and 99.5- 105.9% of the applied radiation, pH 4, 7, and 9, re spectively. No major transformation products were isolated from any of the buffer solutio ns, and no minor transformation products were isolated from the pH 7 or 9 solutions. In the pH 4 solutions, one minor transformation product (“B”) averaged a maximum of 1.8% of the ap plied. Volatiles were not collected.

This study is classified as ACCEPTABLE . No significant deviati ons from good scientific practices were noted.

Photolysis in Water - - EP A Guideline: 161-2 (835.2240)

MRID Number: 47443208 Indaziflam (AE 1170347) Dehner, D. and O. Heinemann. 2006. [Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C] AE 1170437 and [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] AE 1170437: Phototransformation in water. Unpub lished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; and s ubmitted by Bayer CropScience LP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (pp. 1, 3). Ba yer CropScience AG Report No.: MEF-06/201. Bayer CropScience Study No: M1121572-9. Experi ment started March 1, 2006 and completed May 9, 2006 (p. 9). Final report issued December 7, 2006.

[Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 . In the irradiated solutions, [indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 declined quickly from an aver age of 95.8% of the applied at time 0 to 53.0% at 1.25 days posttreatment and 21.3% at 3 days (study terminati on). The two major transformation products, AE

### -Page 197 of 292- 

## 1170437-olefine and AE 1170437-1-hydroxyethyl, aver aged maximums of 53.6% and 20.3% of the applied, respectively, at 3 days post-treatment. Unidentified [ 14 

## C]residues totaled an average maximum of 7.3% of the applied at 3 days post-treatment. At study termination, neither 14 

## CO 2 

## nor volatile [ 14 

## C]organic compounds were detected in the trapping materials. In the corresponding dark controls, [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 averaged 95.8% of the applied at time 0 and ranged from 97.0% to 99.4% of the applie d between 0.125 and 3 days post-treatment.

[Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 . In the irradiated pH 7 buffer solutions, [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 declined quickly from an average of 95.3% of the applied at time 0 to 51.9% at 1.25 days post-treatment and 20.5% at 3 days (study termination). The tw o major transformation products, AE 1170437-olefine and AE 1170437-1-hydr oxyethyl, averaged maximums of 49.9% and 16.6% of the applied, respectively, at 3 days post-treatment. One unidentified transformation product (Reg #1, Rt ca. 5 minutes) averaged a maximum of 3.1% at 3 days posttreatment. Unidentified [ 14 

## C]residues totaled an average maximu m of 4.7% of the applied at 3 days post-treatment. At study termination, neither 14 

## CO 2 

## nor volatile [ 14 

## C]organic compounds were detected in the trapping materials. In the correspondi ng dark controls, [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 ranged from 90.3% to 95.3% of the applied throughout the study.

Based on first order linear regression anal ysis (Excel 2003), AE 1170437 (combined labels) dissipated with reviewer-calcula ted half-lives of 1.36 days in the irradiated solutions and 141.5 days in the dark controls. The half-life determined for the dark controls is of uncertain value since it is extrapolated well beyond the duration of the study. The phototransformation halflife for AE 1170437 is 1.37 days (32.9 hours) based on the continuous irradiation used in the study or 2.75 days based on a 12-hour light/12-hour dark cycle. The stud y authors reported that

ca . 8.7-8.8 hours of artificial light were equivalent to 1 environmental day in June in Phoenix, Arizona (33.26 ° N). Therefore, the environmental phototransformation half-life for AE

1170437 is ca. 3.7 days.

A transformation pathway for AE 1170437 wa s provided by the study authors. AE 1170437 photodegrades to AE 1170437-olefine by loss of the fluorine or to AE 1170437-1-hydroxyethyl by exchange of the fluorine for a hydroxyl group. Minor amounts (<5% of the applied) of unidentified nonvolatile transformation products and volatile compounds are also formed.

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The experiment was terminated after 3 days of continuous radiation, at which time ca . 21% of the applied remained undegraded in the irradiated sample, but at least two half-lives were completed prior to the termination of the study. However, formation and decline of two ma jor degradates (AE 1170437-olfine, and AE1170437- hydroxyethyl) could not be quantified as concentr ations of the major transformation products were still increasing at the term ination of the study. Additionall y, there were decreases in the percent of applied radiation in th e dark controls, however material balances were acceptable and

sterile conditions were verified.

### -Page 198 of 292- 

## Photolysis on Soil - - EPA Guideline: 161-3 (835.2410)

MRID Number: 47443209 Indaziflam (AE 1170437) Stupp H-P. and T. Augustin. 2007. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] and [indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Phototransformation on soil. Unpublishe d study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany, and subm itted by Bayer CropScience LP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (pp. 1, 3). Bayer CropScience AG Report No.: MEF-06/137. Bayer CropScience Study No.: M1121506-6. Expe riment started June 27, 2005 and completed May 16, 2006 (p. 6). Final re port issued October 22, 2007.

[Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 . In the irradiated soil, [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 decreased from an average of 99.5% of the applied at ti me 0 to 67.8% at 3 days post-treatment and 47.0% at 10 days (study termination). No major tran sformation products were isolated. Three minor transformation products, AE 1170437-triazine indanone, AE 1170437-carboxylic acid, and AE 1170437-diaminotriazine, were identified. AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437- diaminotriazine averaged maxi mums of 6.3% and 6.9% of th e applied, respectively. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid averaged a maximum of 1.6% of the applied. Individual unidentified zones of radioactivity (Z3-Z9) each averaged ≤ 1.6% of the applied, a nd diffuse radioactivity averaged a maximum of 10.5%. Extractable [ 14 

## C]residues decreased from an average of 100.1% of the applied at day 0 to 78.9% at 10 days post-treatment, while nonextractable [ 14 

## C]residues increased to a maximum average of 21.8% at 10 days. Neither 14 

## CO 2 

## nor volatile [ 14 

## C]organic compounds were detected in the trapping materials.

In the corresponding dark controls, [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 decreased from an average of 99.5% of recovered at time 0 to 89.9% at 10 days. No ma jor transformation products were isolated. Two minor transformation products, AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-diaminotriazine, were identified at maximum average concentrat ions of 1.3-1.5% of the applied. Unidentified diffuse radioactivity averaged a maximum of 5.0% of the applied at 10 days. Extractable [ 14 

## C]residues decreased from an average of 100.1% of the applied at day 0 to 97.7% at 10 days post-treatment, while nonextractable [ 14 

## C]residues increased to a maximum average of 5.5% at 8 days and were 4.3% at 10 days. Neither 14 

## CO 2 

## nor volatile [ 14 

## C]organic compounds were detected in the trapping materials.

[Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 . In the irradiated soil, [indane-3- 13/14 

## C]AE 1170437 decreased from an average of 98.6% of the applied at ti me 0 to 74.5% at 3 days post-treatment and 55.6% at 9 days (study termination). No major tran sformation products were isolated. Two minor transformation products AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-carboxylic acid, were identified at maximum average concentrations of 7.0% and 2.1% of th e applied, respectively. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid averaged a maximum 2.0%. Individual unidentified zones of radioactivity (Z3-Z9) each averaged ≤ 1.3% of the applied, and diffu se radioactivity averaged maximums of 12.4-12.7% at 8-9 days post-treatment. Extractable [ 14 

## C]residues decreased from an average of 100.2% of the applied at day 0 to 81.8% at 9 days post-treatment, while nonextractable [ 14 

## C]residues increased to a maximum average of 12.3% 9 days. At study termination, 14 

## CO 2 

## averaged 2.9% of the applied and volatile [ 14 

## C]organic compounds were not detected in the trapping materials.

### -Page 199 of 292- 

## In the corresponding dark controls, [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 decreased from an average of 98.6% of recovered at time 0 to 93.7% at 9 days post-treatment. No major transformation products were isolated. The only minor transformation pr oduct identified, AE 1170437-triazine indanone, averaged a maximum 1.6% of the applied. Un identified diffuse radioactivity averaged a maximum 4.1% of the applied. Extractable [ 14 

## C]residues decreased from an average of 100.2% of the applied at day 0 to 99.0% at 9 da ys post-treatment, while nonextractable [ 14 

## C]residues

increased to a maximum of 3.6-3.8% at 8- 9 days. At study termination, neither 14 

## CO 2 

## nor volatile [ 14 

## C]organic compounds were detected in the trapping materials.

Based on first-order linear regression anal ysis (Excel 2003), AE 1170437 (combined labels) degraded with reviewer-calculate d half-lives of 11.4 days in the irradiated soil and 123.8 days in

the dark controls. The value of the half-life de termined for the irradiated samples is somewhat uncertain and that of the dark controls is high ly uncertain because the data are extrapolated beyond the duration of the study. The phototransformation half-life for AE 1170437 is 12.6 days based on the continuous ir radiation used in the study or ca. 25 days based on a 12-hour light/12-hour dark cycle. Th e study authors reported that ca . 7.5 hours of artifi cial light were equivalent to 1 environmental day in June in Phoenix, Arizona (33.26 ° N). Therefore, the environmental phototransformation half-life for AE 1170437 is ca. 40.3 days.

A transformation pathway for AE 1170437 was pr ovided by the study authors. In both the irradiated and dark soils, AE 1170437 degrades via oxidation of th e indanyl moiety to form AE

1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-carboxylic acid. AE 1170437, AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-carboxylic acid are cleav ed at the N bridge to form AE 1170437- diaminotriazine from the triazine moiety and unidentified minor compounds from the indanyl moiety. Residues are ultimately converted to bound residues and CO 2 

## . The transformation pathway was thought to be simila r under light and dark conditions, with observed differences

due to the faster rate of dissipation under light.

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The [indane-3- 13/14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 study was terminated after 9 days of continuous irra diation, at which time 55.6% of the applied AE 1170437 remained undegraded in the irra diated soil. The [traizine-2,4- 14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 study was terminated at 10 days of continuous irradiation, at which time 47% of the applied radiation remained undegraded, howe ver at least one half-life was completed. It is not expected that the half-life for the [indane-3- 13/14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 would ha ve a drastically different phototransformation half-life if the st udy were completed for a longer duration.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism EPA Guideline: 162-1 (835.4100)

MRID Number: 47443210 Indaziflam (AE 1170437) Shepherd, J. 2008. [Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Aerobic soil metabolism in two US soils. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwel, Kansas; sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Study and Report No.: MEDHP013. Experi ment started October 14, 2005 and completed May 23, 2007 (p.

### -Page 200 of 292- 

## 6). Final report issued January 11, 2008.

[Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 is persistent in aer obic soil with non- linear half-lives ranging from 87.7-177.7 days, in a sandy loam soil (Nord; pH 8.6, organic carbon 0.5%) from Porterville, California (USA), and a sandy loam soil (series not identified; pH 6.5, organic carbon 1.7%) from Pikeville, North Carolina (U SA). Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponential, one compartm ent/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipated with

reviewer-calculated nonlinear half-lives of 87.7 days in the Nord sandy loam soil and 177.7 days in the North Carolina sandy loam soil, which correspond to observed DT 50 

## times of 70 and 90 days, respectively; linear half-lives were 141.5 and 239.0 da ys. Two major transformation products, AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-carboxylic acid, were isolated in both soil types. No minor transfor mation products were identified.

Unextracted residues increased over the course of the study (21.7% of th e applied radiation for Nord sandy loam, and 17.8% in the North Caro lina sandy loam at the study termination (368 days). Half-lives were recalculated for the pa rent and unextracted residues. Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponent ial, one compartment/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipated with reviewer-calculated parent and unextracted resi dues nonlinear half-lives of 203.9 days in the Nord sandy loam soil and 630.1 days in the North Carolina sandy loam soil. It is important to note that the dissipation of AE1170437 in the No rth Carolina sandy loam soil was variable; the percent of app lied decreases through approxi mately 180 days, after which AE1170437 it increased through 270 days and then decreased through th e study termination.

A transformation pathway was provided by the st udy author. Based on the study results, AE 1170437 degrades via oxidation of the indanyl mo iety to form AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-carboxylic acid. Residues are u ltimately converted to bound residues and CO 2



## .

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL and does not completely satisfy the guideline requirement for an aerobic biotransformation study in soil, but can be used for risk assessment purposes. Application rate was 4x the maxi mum proposed application rate to achieve appropriate sensitivity. Kinetics may not be accurately represented at the higher application mass, and overall recoveries of C14 residue s from CA decreased during the study duration.

MRID Number: 47443211 Indaziflam (AE 1170437) Shepherd, J. 2008. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Aerobic soil metabolism in two US soils. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas; sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Study and Report No.: MEDHP032. Experime nt started October 14, 2005 and completed July 19, 2007 (p. 6). Final report issued January 11, 2008.

Overall recoveries of [ 14 

## C]residues averaged 96.5 ± 2.4% (range 90.9-100.2%) in the California sandy loam soil and 99.5 ± 2.0% (94.8-102.8%) in the North Carolina sandy loam soil. There was no significant loss of residues over the 368 day incubation from either system. Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponential, one compartment/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipated with reviewer-calculated non-linear half-lives of 82.5 days in the California

### -Page 201 of 292- 

## sandy loam soil and 147.5 days in the North Carolina sandy loam soil; linear half-lives were 135.9 and 239.0 days, respectively. Three transf ormation products were identified:

• 

## (2R,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2,5- dimethylindan-1-one ( AE 1170437-triazine indanone ; AE 2158968);

• 

## (2S,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2-methylindane-5- carboxylic acid ( AE 1170437-carboxylic acid ; AE 2158969); and

• 

## 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine ( AE 1170437-diaminotriazine ; AE1956114). All three compounds were major tr ansformation products in both soil s. No minor transformation products were identified in either soil. CO 2 

## was a major transformati on product in the California soil and a minor product in the North Carolina soil.

Unextracted residues increased over the course of the study (18.2% of th e applied radiation for Nord sandy loam, and 34.2% in the North Caro lina sandy loam at the study termination (368 days). Half-lives were recalculated for the pa rent and unextracted residues. Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponent ial, one compartment/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipated with reviewer-calculated parent and unextracted resi dues nonlinear half-lives of 173.3 days in the Nord sandy loam soil and 630.1 days in the North Carolina sandy loam soil. It is important to note that the dissipation of AE1170437 in the No rth Carolina sandy loam soil was variable; the percent of app lied decreases through approxi mately 180 days, after which AE1170437 it increased through 270 days and then decreased through th e study termination.

A transformation pathway was provided by the study author. Based on the study results, AE1170437 degrades via oxidation of the indanyl moiety to form AE1170437-triazine indanone and AE1170437-carboxylic acid. AE1170437, AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE1170437- carboxylic acid are cleaved at the N bridge to form AE1170437-diaminotriazine from the triazine moiety and unidentified minor compounds from th e indanyl moiety. Residues are ultimately

converted to bound residues and CO 2



## .

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . Application rate was 4x the maximum proposed application rate to achieve a ppropriate sensitivity; however de gradation kinetics may not be accurately represented at the higher application ma ss. Also, in the California sandy loam, there was a reported increasing percentage of the applied radiation at the termination of the study for the major transformation product diaminotriazine.

MRID Number: 47443212 Indaziflam (AE 1170437) Stupp, H-P. and T. Augustin. 2007. [Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Aerobic soil metabolism in 4 EU soils. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany, and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience AG Report MEF-06/19. Study Prot ocol ID.: M1251497-9. Experiment started April 13, 2005, and completed January 18, 2006 (p. 6). Final report issued November 9, 2007.

The biotransformation of [indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]-labeled N-[(1R,2S)-2,6-dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1Hinden-1-yl]-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-tr iazine-2,4-diamine (AE 1170437, radiochemical

### -Page 202 of 292- 

## purity ≥ 98%) , was studied in four soils from Ge rmany: sandy loam (LH AXXa; pH 6.8, organic carbon 1.64%); loam (LH AIIIa; pH 7.1, organi c carbon 1.29%); loam (Wurmwiese; pH 6.4, organic carbon 2.08%); and a si lt loam (Hoefchen; pH 7.2, organic carbon 2.07%). The experiments were conducted unde r aerobic conditions for 122 da ys in the dark at 19.8 ± 0.9 ° C and 55% of the maximum water holding capacity. Overall recoveries of [ 14 

## C]residues averaged

98.5 ± 1.2% (range 96.4-100.1%) of the applied fr om the LH AXXa sandy loam soil, 98.0 ± 1.3% (94.9-99.8%) from the LH AIIIa loam soil, 98.5 ± 2.1% (range 93.3-101.0%) from the
Wurmwiese loam soil, and 98.3 ± 1.2% (range 95.8-99.7%) from the Hoefchen silt loam soil. There was no significant loss of residues over time from any of the soil systems.

Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponential, one compartment/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipate d with reviewer-calculated non-linear half-lives of 35.5 days in the LH AIIIa loam soil, 41.0 days in the Wurm wiese loam soil, 45.3 days in the Hoefchen silt loam soil, and 53.7 days in the LH AXXa sandy loam soil, which are consistent with the

observed DT 50 

## values 45, 27, 28, and 40 days, respectivel y. Linear half-liv es ranged from 43 days to 62 days. Two transforma tion products were identified:

• 

## (2R,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2,5- dimethylindan-1-one ( AE 1170437-triazine indanone ; AE 2158968), and

• 

## (2S,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2-methylindane-5- carboxylic acid ( AE 1170437-carboxylic acid ; AE 2158969).

Both transformation products were isolated from all four soils. AE 1170437-triazine indanone was a major transformation product in LH AXXa sandy loam soil, Wurmwiese loam soil, and Hoefchen silt loam soil. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid was a major transformation product in LH AIIIa loam soil, Wurmwiese loam soil, and Hoefchen silt loam soil. CO 2 

## was a major transformation product in all four soils.

Unextracted residues increased over the course of th e study in all four soil types. Half-lives were recalculated for the parent a nd unextracted residues. Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponential, one compartm ent/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipated with

reviewer-calculated parent and unextracted res idues nonlinear half-lives of 70 days in the LH AIIIa loam soil, 80.6 days in the Wurmwiese loam soil, 91.2 days in the Hoefchen silt loam soil, and 101.9 days in the LH AXXa sandy loam soil.

A transformation pathway was provided by the study authors. Based on the study results, AE 1170437 degrades via oxidation of the indanyl mo iety to form AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE 1170437-carboxylic acid. Residues are u ltimately converted to bound residues and CO 2



## .

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The experiments were terminated after only 122 days of incubation, at which time 14.9-28.6% of the applied AE 1170437 remained undegraded. Also, 122 days may not have been sufficient to accu rately establish the patte rn of decline of the major transformation products. Data should be co llected until the decline of the test substance and the formation and decline of degradation prod ucts are clearly characterized or for one year, whichever comes first. This study did not clearly demons trate that the decline of the parent was

### -Page 203 of 292- 

## clearly characterized. Further, replicates were not collected, except at time zero, for three of the four soils tested (LH Axxa, LH AIIIa, Wurmwies e). The lack of replicate samples fails to address potential variability in the degradation of the parent a nd the formation and decline of transformation products. This study does not satisfy the 835.4100 guideline requirement.

MRID Number: 47443213 Indaziflam (AE 1170437) Stupp, H-P. and T. Augustin. 2007. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Aerobic soil metabolism in 4 EU soils. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany, and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience AG Report MEF-06/299. Study Prot ocol ID.: M1251406-9. Experiment started June 16, 2004, and completed May 7, 2007 (p. 6). Final report issued June 25, 2007.

The biotransformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]-labeled N-[(1R,2S)-2,6- dimethyl-2,3-dihydro-1Hinden-1-yl]-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-tr iazine-2,4-diamine (AE 1170437, radiochemical purity >99%) , was studied in four soils from Germany: sandy loam (LH AXXa; pH 6.8, organic carbon 1.64%); loam (LH AIIIa; pH 7.1, organi c carbon 1.29%); loam (Wurmwiese; pH 6.4, organic carbon 2.08%); and a si lt loam (Hoefchen; pH 7.2, organic carbon 2.07%). The experiments were conducted unde r aerobic conditions for 120 da ys in the dark at 19.7 ± 0.2 ° C and 55% of the maximum water holding capacity. Overall recoveries of [ 14 

## C]residues averaged

98.2 ± 1.1% (range 96.0-100.1%) in the LH AXXa sandy loam soil; 99.1 ± 1.9% (94.9-101.1%)
in the LH AIIIa loam soil; 99.3 ± 1.0% (range 96.6-100.7%) in the Wurmwiese sandy loam soil;

and 99.2 ± 1.5% (range 97.0-102.2%) in the Hoefchen loam soil. There was no significant loss of residues over time from any of the soil systems.

Based on nonlinear (SigmaPlot v. 9.0, exponential, one compartment/two parameter) regression analyses, AE 1170437 dissipated with reviewer-calculated non-linear half-lives of 34.8 days in the Wurmwiese sandy loam soil, 36.1 days in the LH AIIIa loam soil, 45.3 days in the Hoefchen loam soil, and 60.3 days in the LH AXXa sandy loam soil; linear half-lives ranged from 44.4- 68.0 days. Three transformation products were identified:

• 

## (2R,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2,5- dimethylindan-1-one ( AE 1170437-triazine indanone ; AE 2158968),

• 

## (2S,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2-methylindane-5- carboxylic acid ( AE 1170437-carboxylic acid ; AE 2158969), and

• 

## 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine ( AE 1170437-diaminotriazine ; AE 1956114).

All three transformation products were isolat ed from all four soils. AE 1170437-triazine indanone was a major transformation product in LH AXXa sandy loam soil, Wurmwiese sandy loam soil, and Hoefchen loam soil. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid was a major transformation product in LH AXXa sandy loam soil and LH A IIIa loam soil. AE 1170437-diaminotriazine was a major transformation produc t in all four soils. CO 2 

## was a major transformation product in LH AXXa sandy loam soil and Hoefchen loam soil.

Unextracted residues increased over the course of th e study in all four soil types. Half-lives were

### -Page 204 of 292- 

## recalculated for the parent a nd unextracted residues. Based on nonlinear regression analyses (SigmaPlot v 9; exponential, one compartm ent/two parameter), AE 1170437 dissipated with

reviewer-calculated parent and unextracted res idues nonlinear half-lives of 69.3 days in the LH AIIIa loam soil, 90 days in the Wurmwiese loam soil, 79.7 days in the Hoefchen silt loam soil, and 100.5 days in the LH AXXa sandy loam soil.

A transformation pathway was provided by the study authors. Based on the study results, AE1170437 degrades via oxidation of the indanyl moiety to form AE1170437-triazine indanone and AE1170437-carboxylic acid. AE1170437, AE 1170437-triazine indanone and AE1170437- carboxylic acid are cleaved at the N bridge to form AE1170437-diaminotriazine from the triazine moiety and unidentified minor compounds from th e indanyl moiety. Residues are ultimately

converted to bound residues and CO 2



## .

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL. There are no scientific deficiencies that prevent the use of these data for the purposes of risk a ssessment. However, there are deficiencies and notable deviations from the OPPTS guideline 835.4100 the experiments were terminated after only 120 days of incubation, at which time 15.3-28.7% of the applied AE 1170437 remained undegraded. Also, 120 days may not be sufficien t to accurately esta blish the pattern of formation and decline of the major transforma tion products; in all four soils, the maximum

concentration of AE 1170437-diaminotriazine was m easured at the final sampling interval. This study did not clearly demonstrate that the decline of the parent was clearly characterized. Further, replicates were not coll ected, except at time zero, for thre e of the four soils tested (LH Axxa, LH AIIIa, Wurmwiese).

MRID Number: 47443214 Diaminotriazine (AE 1956114) Sneikus, J. 2008. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] AE1956114 (diaminotriazine): aer obic soil metabolism in 3 EU soils. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany, and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience AG Report MEF-05/517. Study Numb er: M12511-6. Experiment started May 30, 2005 and completed June 9, 2006 (p. 6). Final report issued January 14, 2008.

The biotransformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437-diaminotriazine, AE 1956114, a transformation product of AE 1170437 (indaziflam), was studied in three soils from Germany: a sandy loam (Laacherhof AXXa; LH AXXa; pH 7.7, organic carbon 1.09%), a loam (Wurmwiese; pH 6.5, organic carbon 1.39%); and a silt loam (Hoefchen; pH 7.1, organic carbon 2.18%). The experiments were conducted under aerobic conditions for 120 days in the dark at

19.7 ± 0.2 ° C and 55% of the maximum water holdi ng capacity. Overall recoveries of
[ 14 

## C]residues averaged 98.7 ± 2.0% (range 95.7-102.0%) in the Laacherhof AXXa sandy loam
soil, 97.8 ± 1.8% (93.8-100.6%) in the Wurmwiese loam soil, and 96.8 ± 3.4% (range 90.6- 103.5%) in the Hoefchen silt loam soil. There wa s no significant loss of residues over time from any of the soil systems. Based on nonlinear (SigmaPlot v. 9.0, exponential, one compartment/two parameter) regression analyses , AE 1170437-diaminotriazine dissipated with

reviewer-calculated non-linear half-lives of 14.9 days in the Hoefchen silt loam soil, 42.8 days in the Laacherhof AXXa sandy loam soil, and 165.0 days in the Wurmwiese loam soil; linear half-lives ranged from 17.2 days to 177.7 days. The half-lives calculate d for the Wurmwiese soil

### -Page 205 of 292- 

## are of uncertain value because they are extrapolated be yond the 120-day duration of the experiment. Only one transformation product was identified:

• 

## 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazinane -2,4-dione (AE 1170437- dihydrotriazine).

AE 1170437-dihydrotriazine was a major transf ormation product n the Laacherhof AXXa sandy

loam soil and the Hoefchen silt loam soil. It was not identified in the Wurmwiese loam soil.

CO 2 

## was a major transformation product in all three soils.

A transformation pathway was provided by the st udy author. Based on the study results, AE 1170437-diaminotriazine degrades to AE 1170437-dihydrotriazin e via loss of both amine groups. AE 1170437-diaminotriazine and AE 1170437- dihydrotriazine are ultimately converted

to bound residues and CO 2



## .

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The study was conducted with a transformation product of AE 1170437 (diaminotriazine) as the st arting material. However, no significant deviations from good scientific practices were noted.

MRID Number: 47443215 Indaziflam, isomers A & B (AE1170437 and AE 1170438) Heinemann, O. 2008. AE 1170437 and AE 1170438: co mparative aerobic soil degradation in 2 EU soils. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany, and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience AG Report MEF-08/004. Study Nu mber: M1251704-0. Experiment started August 27, 2007, and completed January 15, 2008 (p. 9). Final report is sued February 14, 2008.

The biotransformation of the nonradiolabele d diastereomers AE 1170437 (Isomer A; purity 98.4%) and AE 1170438 (Isomer B; purity 98.4%) were studied in two soils from Germany:

a loam (Wurmwiese; pH 5.96, organic carbon 1.50%) and a silt loam (Hoefchen; pH 7.22, organic carbon 1.77%).

In the Wurmwiese loam soil, the concentra tion of AE 1170437 decreased from 97.4% of the applied at time 0 to 63.9% at 21 days posttreatme nt and 33.7% at 120 days (study termination).

The concentration of AE 1170438 decreased from 97.2% of the applied at time 0 to 68.9% at 21 days posttreatment and 39.6% at 120 days. Based on nonlinear (SigmaPlot v. 9.0, exponential, one compartment/two parameter) regression analys es, AE 1170437 dissipated w ith a half-life of 65.4 days and AE 1170438 dissipated w ith a half-life of 88.9 days. Fi rst order log/linear (Excel 2003) half-lives for AE 1170437 and AE 1170438 were 78.8 and 101.9 days, respectively.

In the Hoefchen silt loam soil, AE 1170437 decr eased from 97.3% of the applied at time 0 to 47.4% at 42 days posttreatment and 18.9% at 120 days. AE 1170438 decreased from 96.6% of the applied at time 0 to 52.6% at 42 days posttreatment and 23.5% at 120 days. Based on nonlinear regression analyses, AE 1170437 dissipate d with a half-life of 45.3 days and AE 1170438 dissipated with a half-lif e of 54.6 days. First order l og/linear half-lives for AE 1170437 and AE 1170438 were 50.6 and 58.7 days, respectively.

### -Page 206 of 292- 

## Transformation products were neit her quantified nor id entified. Extractable and nonextractable

soil residues and volatile com pounds were not quantified. A transformation pathway was not proposed by the study author. A transformation pathway could not be developed based on the study results.

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The study was conducted on the two diastereoisomers (AE 1170437 and AE 1170438) that are the active compounds in BCS AA10717; isomer AE 1170437 (principle active s ubstance) and AE 1170438 (active isomer of the principle active substance). The degreda tion profile of AE 1170438 is similar to AE 1170437, and both are regarded as active substances in the te chnical grade material. The technical grade substance contains 95% ( 94.7%) to 100% AE 1170437 and, 0 % to 5 % (5.3 %) AE 1170438. Samples were analyzed only for the parent compounds. The test items AE 1170437 and AE 1170438 were found subject to si milar degradation in a typical soil environment under aerobic laboratory conditi ons. Transformation produc ts, extractable and unextracted soil residues, and vol atile compounds were not quantifie d. A material balance could

not be determined.

Anerobic Soil Metabolism EPA Guideline: 162-2 (835.4200)

MRID Number: 47443216 Indaziflam (AE 1170437) [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] and [indane-3-

13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 Stupp, H-P. 2006. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] and [indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437: anaerobic soil metabolism. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; and submitted by Bayer CropScience LP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (p. 3). Study No.: M1261526-3. Experimental star t date September 7, 2004 and completion date September 26, 2006 (p. 6). Final re port issued November 30, 2006.

The biotransformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]- and [indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]-labeled (AE 1170437, radiochemical purities >99%) was studied in a Hoefchen silt loam soil from Germany for 180 days under anaerobic conditions. Soil moisture c ontent during the aerobic portion of the study was 55% of the maximum water holding capacity. AE 1170437 was applied at 0.4 mg a.i./kg soil, which was reported to be equivalent to a fiel d rate of 150 g a.i./ha. the anaerobic phase of the study, AE 1170437 was stable; the calculated linear and nonlinear ha lf-lives (combined labels) of >7,000 days for the soil and total system are of highly unc ertain value because they are extrapolated far beyond the duration of the study. Three transformati on products were identified:

• 

## (2R,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2,5- dimethylindan-1-one (AE 1170437-tr iazine indanone; AE 2158968),

• 

## (2S,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2-methylindane-5- carboxylic acid (AE 1170437-carboxylic acid; AE 2158969), and

• 

## 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diamine (AE 1170437-diaminotriazine; AE 1956114).

### -Page 207 of 292- 

## This study is classified as ACCEPTABLE . No deviations from good scientific practices were

noted.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism EP A Guideline: 162-4 (835.4300)

MRID Number: 47443217 [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] and [indane-3- 13/14C 

## ] labeled AE1170437 Stupp, H.P. 2007. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] and [indane-3- 13/14C 

## ]AE 1170437: aerobic aquatic metabolism. Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany, and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience AG Report MEF-07/283. Bayer CropScience Study No.: M1511579-9. Lynx ID: MEUFX007/MEDHP015. Experiment started March 7, 2006, and completed May 16, 2007 (p. 6). Final report issued November 8, 2007.

The biotransformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]- and [indane-3- 13/14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 (radiochemical purity >98%) in two water-sedimen t systems from Germany: a sand;gravel pit lake water system (“Angler Weiher”, water: pH 7.4, total organic carbon <2 mg/L, sediment: pH 6.9, organic carbon 0.68%) from Germany; and a lo am:pond water system (“Hoenniger Weiher”, water: pH 7.3, total organic ca rbon <2 mg/L, sediment: pH 6.3, organic carbon 2.9%). In the Angler water:sand sediment systems, redox poten tials ranged from +141 to +230 in the water and from +137 to +213 in the sediment. In the Hoenniger water:loam sediment systems, redox potentials ranged from +185 to +208 in the wate r and from +162 to +200 in the sediment. Dissolved oxygen content of the water of both systems ranged from 83.6% to 95.6%. There was no evidence that the aerobicity of any systems was decreasing over time. Based on nonlinear regression analysis (SigmaPlot v. 9.0, exponential, one compartment/two parameter), AE 1170437 (combined label data) dissip ated with a half-life of 119.5 days (13.8 days in water, 173.3 days in sediment) in the Angler pond water- sand sediment total system and 239.0 days (3.6 days in water, 407.7 days in sediment) in the Hoenniger water-loam sediment total system. Linear (Excel 2003) half -lives were 126.0 days for the Angler total system and 247.6 days for the Hoenniger total system. Calculated half-liv es for the Angler sand sediment and for the Hoennigher total system and sediment are of unc ertain value because they are extrapolated beyond the 120-day duration of the study. Three transformation product s were identified:

• 

## (2R,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2,5- dimethylindan-1-one (AE 1170437-triazine indanone; AE 2158968; both labels);

• 

## (2S,3R)-3-({4-amino-6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl}amino)-2-methylindane-5- carboxylic acid (AE 1170437-carboxylic acid; AE 2158969; both labels); and

• 

## 6-[(1R)-1-fluoroethyl]-1,3,5-triazine-2,4- diamine (AE 1170437-diaminotriazine; AE 1956114; triazine label only).

All three compounds were major transformation products in the Angler water-sand sediment system and minor transformation products in the Hoenniger water-loam sediment system. AE 1170437-triazine indanone was pr imarily associated with th e sediment. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid was primarily associated with the wate r. AE 1170437-diaminotriazine was primarily associated with the water in the Angler water-san d sediment system and with the sediment in the

### -Page 208 of 292- 

## Hoenniger water-loam sediment system.

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The study was terminated at 120 days when ca. 50% of the parent remained undegraded, decl ine of the parent ca nnot be accurately characterized. Further, major me tabolites (>10% of AR ) were increasing at the termination of the study (120 d), therefore forma tion and decline of the degrad ates cannot be accurately characterized and may be persistent in the aquatic environment.

Anerobic Aquatic Metabolism EPA Guideline: 162-3 (835.4400)

MRID 47443218 [Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C] labeled AE 1170437 Mathew, A. 2007. [Indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Anaerobic aquatic metabolism. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell , Kansas; sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Study and Report No.: MEDHP017. Experiment started May 1, 2006, and completed N ovember 9, 2006 (p. 6). Final report issued July 2, 2007.

The biotransformation of [indane-3- 13 

## C/ 14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 was studied in pond water-clay loam sediment from Kansas under anaerobic (s tatic, nitrogen atmosphere) conditions in darkness. [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 was stable in the total syst em, averaging 99.9% of the applied at time 0, 93.1-98.7% with no pattern of decline at 3-91 days posttreat ment, and 98.0% at 199 days. [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 quickly partitioned from the water to the sediment, decreasing in the water from an average 94.5% of the applied at time 0 to 51.9% at 3 days posttreatment, 18.5% at 15 days, and 7.9% at 119 days. In the sediment, [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 increased from 5.4% of the applied at time 0 to 66.6% at 7 days posttreat ment and a maximum 90.2% at 119 days. Halflives could not be calculated for the sediment or total system. AE 1170437 dissipated from the

water with a reviewer-calcula ted nonlinear (SigmaPlot v 9, exponential, one compartment/two parameter) half-life of 4.9 days. No major tran sformation products were isolated, and no minor transformation products were identified in either the water or sediment.

This study is classified as ACCEPTABLE . However, it is important to note that redox potentials for water and sedime nt were +164.9 and 163.4 mV, respectively. These Eh values are classified by (Wolfe et al., 1990) as only modera tely reducing. No other significant deviations from good scientific practices were noted.

MRID 47443219 [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] labeled AE 1170437 Mathew, A. 2007. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437: Anaerobic aquatic metabolism. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell , Kansas; sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Study and Report No.: MEDHP022. Experiment started April 3, 2006 and completed N ovember 9, 2006 (p. 6). Final report issued June 12, 2007.

The biotransformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 was studied in pond water-clay loam sediment from Kansas for 122 days under anaerobic (static, nitrogen atmosphere)

### -Page 209 of 292- 

## conditions in darkness. [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 was applied at a rate of 0.08 mg a.i./L, which is equivalent to 5X an overspray field app lication rate of 150 g a.i./ha. Overall [ 14 

## C]residue recoveries averaged 99.3 ± 1.8% of the applied (range 95.1- 101.2%) in the water-clay loam sediment systems. There was no significant loss of [ 14 

## C]residues from the systems over time. [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 was relatively stable in the total system, averaging 99.6% of the applied at time 0, 93.1-98.7% at 3-93 days posttre atment, and 94.7% at 122 days. [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 quickly partitioned from the water to the sedi ment, decreasing in the water from an average 92.0% of the applied at time 0 to 50.2% at 3 da ys posttreatment, 21.3% at 15 days, and 7.7% at 122 days. In the sediment, [ 14 

## C]AE 1170437 increased from 7.7% at time 0 to a maximum 88.7% at 93 days and was 87.0% at 122 days.Half-liv es could not be calculated for the sediment or total system. AE 1170437 dissipated from th e water with a review er-calculated nonlinear (SigmaPlot v 9, exponential, one compartment/two parameter) half-life of 5.2 days. No major transformation products were isolated, and no mi nor transformation products were identified in

either the water or sediment.

This study is classified as ACCEPTABLE . However it should be noted that redox potential in the water layer and sediment were 141.8 mV and 136.8 mV, respectively. These Eh values are classified by (Wolfe et al., 1990) as only modera tely reducing. Further, dissolved oxygen in the water averaged 0.1 mg/L. No other significant de viations from good scien tific practices were

noted

Terrestrial Field Dissipation EPA Guideline: 164-1 (835.6100)

MRID 47443220 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2008. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in California soil cropped with turf, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScien ce, Stilwell, Kansas (study director and analytical phase), Agvise Labor atories, Northwood, North Dakota, and Research for Hire, Inc., Porterville, California (field phase), and sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (p. 46). Study No.: MEDHP014. Experiment initiation April 25, 2006, and completion January 17, 2008 (pp. 12-13, 46). Final re port issued June 30,

2008.

Soil dissipation/accumulation of AE 1170437 under U. S. field conditions was studied in a turf plot of Nord sandy loam soil at one site in California. AE 1170437 was broadcast once at a nominal rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.14 7 lb a.i./A) onto four 16.7 x 6.1 m replicate plots. The target application rate was 110% of the maximum la bel rate of 0.150 kg a.i./ha. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to exceed 500% of the 30-year average rainfall during the study period. AE 1170437 decreased to a mean concentra tion of 33.08 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm depth by 14 days, 21.17 ng a.i./g by 28 days, 13.07 ng a.i./g by 58 days, 4.59 ng a.i./g by 121 days, ranged from 2.10-2.12 ng a.i./g from 269 to 367 days, and was detected at a mean concentration below the LOQ at 531 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was detected in the 15-30 cm depth at mean concentrations below the LOQ at 1, 7, 14, and 58 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was not detected below the 30-cm depth with the exception of two single replicate de tections in the 30-45 and 45-60 cm depths at 14 days posttreatment. The most prevalen t transformation products were

### -Page 210 of 292- 

## AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, AE 1170437 triazi ne-indanone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid, which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth at maximum mean concentrations of 5.5% (at 58 days), 6.9% (at 58 days), and 5.1% (at 28 days) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of AE 1170437, respectively, after conver ting to parent equivalents. No tran sformation products were detected at a mean concentration above the LOQ in so il below the 0-15 cm depth, excluding a mean

detection of AE 1170437 diaminotriazine in th e 15-30 cm depth at 121 days (mean of two replicate samples), single rep licate detections of AE 1170437 tr iazine-indanone in each of the 15-30, 30-45, and 45-60 cm depths at 14 days, and a single replicate detection of AE 1170437 carboxylic acid in the 30-45 cm depth at 14 days . No transformation products were detected in

soil below 60 cm.

Under field conditions at the te st site, AE 1170437 had a reviewe r-calculated half-life value of 68.0 days (r 2 

## = 0.8278) in soil, calculated using linear re gression of ln-transformed data from the 0-15 cm soil layer only. The dissipation was obser ved to be bi-phasic th erefore the reviewer

calculated a half- life of 25.7 days (r 2 

## = 0.9686) using Sigmaplot v 9.0 (nonlinear, onecompartment/two-parameter) and individual sample data (0-367 day data; replicate values below the LOQ were assumed at 1⁄2(LOQ + LOD)). The observed DT50 value occurred between the 14- and 28-day sampling intervals (21 days; revi ewer-calculated). The observed DT90 value occurred between the 58- and 121-day sampling inte rvals (114 days; reviewer-calculated). Total carryover of residues at the e nd of the study period (531 days) was 2.2% of the applied amount, based on the target application rate ( 0.6% as AE 1170437, 0.9% as AE 1170437 triazineindanone and 0.7% as AE 1170437 carboxylic acid ; reviewer-calculated based on mean concentrations below the LOQ).

The major route of dissipation of AE 1170437 under terrestrial field conditions was transformation to AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, AE 1170437 triazine-ind anone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . The stability of AE 1170437 and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage conditions was not cl early demonstrated as field samples were stored over 100 days longer th an in the laboratory storage study (MRID 47443279). An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but still demonstrated slow dec line in the recoveries of the indaziflam-olefin degradate.

MRID 47443221 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2008. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in Florida soil cropped with turf, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScien ce, Stilwell, Kansas (study director and analytical phase), Agvise Laboratories, Nort hwood, North Dakota and Ag Research Associates, Sycamore, Georgia (field phase), and sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (p. 46). Study N o.: MEDHP035. Experiment initiation April 4, 2006, and completion January 5, 2008 (pp. 12-13 ). Final report issued June 30, 2008.

Soil dissipation/accumulation of AE 1170437 under U. S. field conditions was studied in a turf plot of Lucy loamy sand soil at one site in Fl orida. AE 1170437 was broadcast once at a nominal

### -Page 211 of 292- 

## rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.147 lb a.i./A) onto four 16.4 x 7.3 m re plicate plots. The target application rate was 110% of the maximum la bel rate of 0.150 kg a.i./ha. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to reach 108% of the 30-year average rainfall during the study period. Soil samples were collected prior to application and at 0, 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 59, 134, 182, 280, 366, and 526 days following application to a depth of 0-120 cm, excluding day 0 samples which were collected to a depth of 15 cm. Th e mean measured concen tration of AE 1170437 in the 0-15 cm soil depth was 36.96 ng a.i./g at day 0, and was a maximum of 38.89 ng a.i./g at 1 day, which is 52.8% of the theoretical (revie wer-calculated based on the theoretical day 0 concentration of 74 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm soil depth). AE 1170437 decreased to a mean concentration of 29.31 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm depth by 28 days, 21.07 ng a.i./g by 59 days, 8.68 ng a.i./g by 134 days, 4.30 ng a.i./g by 182 days, 2.01 ng a.i./g by 366 days, and was detected at a mean concentration below the LOQ at 526 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was only detected in individual replicate samples in the 15-30 cm so il depth, at concentrations ranging from <LOQ to 3.97 ng a.i./g (at 1, 3, 14, 59, and 366 days posttreat ment), and was not detected below the 30-cm depth. The most prevalent transformation pr oducts were AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, AE 1170437 triazine-indanone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic ac id, which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth at maximum mean concentrations of 10.5% (at 134 days), 6.1% (at 59 days), and 2.6% (at 28 days) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of AE 1170437, re spectively, after converting to parent equivalents.

Under field conditions at the te st site, AE 1170437 had a reviewe r-calculated half-life value of 92.4 days (r 2 

## = 0.9217) in soil, calculated using linear regression of ln-transformed data based on all replicate concentration data from the 0-15 cm soil layer. However, the dissipation pattern was bi-phasic, with a more rapid dissipation phase over the initial six mont hs of the study; linear regression analysis did not accurately describe th e dissipation using the 0- to 526-day data set.

The reviewer calculated a half-life of 66.6 days (r 2 

## = 0.9853). The observed DT50 value occurred between the 59- and 134-day sampling in tervals (68 days; reviewer-calculated). The

observed DT90 value occurred between the 182- and 280-day sampling intervals (208 days; reviewer-calculated). Total carr yover of residues at the end of the study period (526 days) was 7.1% of the applied amount, based on the target application rate (1.6 % as AE 1170437, 4.1% as AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, and 1.4% as AE 1170437 triazine-indanone; reviewer-calculated based on mean concentrations below the LOQ) . The major route of dissipation of AE 1170437

under terrestrial field conditions was transf ormation to AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, AE 1170437 triazine-indanone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . No significant deviati ons from good scientific practices were noted. However, the stability of AE 1170437 and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage conditions was no t clearly demonstrated. An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but still demonstrated

slow decline in the recoveries of the indaziflam-olefin degradate.

MRID 47443222 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2008. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in North Carolina soil cropped with turf, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropS cience, Stilwell, Kansas (study director

### -Page 212 of 292- 

## and analytical phase), Agvise Laboratories, Northwood, North Dakot a, and Agricultural Systems Associates, Kinston, North Carolina (field phase), and sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, No rth Carolina (p. 46) . Study No.: MEDHP034. Experiment initiation April 19, 2006, and comple tion January 4, 2008 (p. 12). Final report issued June 30, 2008.

Soil dissipation/accumulation of AE 1170437 under U. S. field conditions wa s investigated in a turf plot of Norfolk loamy sand soil at one s ite in North Carolina. AE 1170437 was broadcast once at a nominal rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.147 lb a.i./A) onto four 16.4 x 7.3 m replicate plots. The target application rate wa s 110% of the maximum label rate of 0.150 kg a.i./ha. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to reach 115% of the 30-year average rainfall during the study period. Soil samples were collected prior to application and at 0, 1, 3, 6, 14, 29, 58, 126, 166, 280, 374, and 554 days following application, to a depth of 120 cm, excluding day 0 samples which were collected to a depth of 15 cm. Th e mean measured concen tration of AE 1170437 in the 0-15 cm soil depth was 38.15 ng a.i./g at day 0, and was a maximum of 41.85 ng a.i./g at 1 day, which is 57.2% of the theoretical (revie wer-calculated based on the theoretical day 0 concentration of 73 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm soil depth). AE 1170437 decreased to a mean concentration of 26.74 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm depth by 29 days, 19.32 ng a.i./g by 58 days, 11.23 ng a.i./g by 126 days, 5.39-5.63 ng a.i./g by 280-374 days, and was 4.09 ng a.i./g at 554 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was detected in i ndividual replicate samples in the 15-30 cm soil depth, at concentrations ranging from <LOQ to 1.78 ng a.i./g (at 1, 3, 14, 29, 58, 280, and 554 days posttreatment), and was not detected be low 30 cm. The most prevalent transformation products were AE 1170437 triazine-indanone and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid , which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth at maximum mean concentrations of 5.9% (at 58 days) and 2.5% (at 29 days) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of AE 1170437, re spectively, after converting to parent equivalents. No transfor mation products were detected at a mean concentration above the LOQ in soil below the 0-15 cm depth, and no transformation products were detected below 45

cm.

Under field conditions at the te st site, AE 1170437 had a reviewe r-calculated half-life value of 154 days (r 2 

## = 0.8080) in soil, calculated using linear regression of ln -transformed data based on all replicate concentration data from the 0-15 cm soil layer. However, the dissipation pattern was bi-phasic, with a more rapid dissipation phase over the initial six mont hs of the study; linear regression analysis did not accurately describe th e dissipation using the 0- to 554-day data set.

The reviewer calculated a half-life of 69.3 days (r 2 

## = 0.9586) using Sigmaplot v 9.0 (nonlinear, one-compartment/two-parameter) and individual sample data (0-554 day data). The observed DT50 value occurred at approximately the 58-day sampling interval. The observed DT90 occurred after the last sampli ng interval. Total carryover of re sidues at the end of the study period (554 days) was 11.4% of the applied amount based on the targ et application rate (6.1% as AE 1170437, 3.6% as AE 1170437 triazine-indanone , and 1.7% as AE 1170437 diaminotriazine; reviewer-calculated). The major route of dissipation of AE 1170437 under terrestrial field

conditions was transformation to AE 1170437 triazine-indanone and AE 1170437 carboxylic

acid.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . No significant deviati ons from good scientific

### -Page 213 of 292- 

## practices were noted. However, the stability of AE 1170437 and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage conditions was no t clearly demonstrated as field samples were stored over 100 days longer than in the laboratory storage study (MRID 47443279). An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but

still demonstrated slow decline in the rec overies of the indazifl am-olefin degradate.

MRID 47443223 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2008. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in California soil, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Ka nsas (study director a nd analytical phase), Agvise Laboratories, Northwood, North Dakota, and Research for Hire, Inc., Porterville, California (field phase), and s ponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (p. 47). Study No.: MEDHP038. Experiment initiation April 25, 2006, and completion January 2, 2008 (p. 13). Final report issued June 30, 2008.

Soil dissipation/accumulation of AE 1170437 under U. S. field conditions wa s investigated in a bare plot of Nord sandy loam soil at one site in California. AE 1170437 was broadcast once at a nominal rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.14 7 lb a.i./A) onto four 18.2 x 6.1 m replicate plots. The target application rate was 110% of the maximum la bel rate of 0.150 kg a.i./ha. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to exceed 500% of the 30-year average rainfall during the study period.

The mean measured concentration of AE 1170437 in the 0-15 cm soil depth was 49.50 ng a.i./g at day 0, which is 59.0% of the theoretical (rev iewer-calculated based on the theoretical day 0 concentration of 84 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm soil depth). AE 1170437 decreased to a mean concentration of 27.88 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm depth by 7 days, 8.62-15.29 ng a.i./g by 14-58 days, 3.41 ng a.i./g by 121 days, 1.96-2.39 ng a.i./g by 176-367 days, and was detected at a mean concentration below the LOQ at 531 days postt reatment. AE 1170437 was detected in the 15-30 cm depth at mean concentrations below the LOQ at 1, 3, and 7 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was not detected below the 30-cm depth, with the exception of a single replicate detection in the 30-45 cm depth at 1 day posttreatment. The mo st prevalent transformation products were AE

1170437 diaminotriazine

, AE 1170437 triazine-indanone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid

, which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth at maximum mean concentrations of 17.6% (at 28 days), 7.6% (at 14 days), and 4.6% (at 14 days) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of AE 1170437, respectively, after conver ting to parent equivalents. No tran sformation products were detected at a mean concentration above the LOQ in soil belo w the 0-15 cm depth, with the exception of two

detections of AE 1170437 diaminotriazine in th e 15-30 cm depth at 121 days and 176 days (mean of three replicate samples). AE 1170437 Di aminotriazine was detected below the LOQ from 121 to 367 days in the 30-45 cm depth, and at 121 days in the 45-60 cm depth.

AE 1170437 had a reviewer-calculate d half-life value of 76.2 days (r 2 

## = 0.7185) in soil, calculated using linear regression of ln-transformed data based on a ll replicate concentration data from the 0-15 cm soil layer. However, the dissip ation pattern was bi-phasic, with a more rapid dissipation phase during the initi al month of the study; linear regression analysis did not accurately describe the dissipation using the 0- to 367-day data set. The reviewer calculated a

### -Page 214 of 292- 

## half-life of 9.3 days (r 2 

## = 0.9726) using Sigmaplot v 9.0 (nonlinear, one-compartment/twoparameter) and individual sample data (0-367 da y data; replicate values below the LOQ were assumed at 1⁄2(LOQ + LOD)). The observed DT 50 value occurred between the 7- and 14-day sampling intervals (9 days; revi ewer-calculated). The observed DT 90 value occurred between the 58- and 121-day sampling interval s (109 days; reviewer-calculate d). Total carryover of residues at the end of the study period (531 days) was 5.9 % of the applied amount based on the target application rate (0.8% as AE 1170437, 4.0% as AE 1170437 diaminotri azine, 0.5% as AE 1170437 triazine-indanone, and 0.6% as AE 1170437 car boxylic acid; reviewer-calculated).

The major route of dissipation of AE 1170437 under terrestrial field conditions was transformation to AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, AE 1170437 triazine-ind anone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . No significant deviati ons from good scientific practices were noted. However, the stability of AE 1170437 and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage conditions was no t clearly demonstrated as field samples were stored over 100 days longer than in the laboratory storage study (MRID 47443279). An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but

still demonstrated slow decline in the rec overies of the indazifl am-olefin degradate.

MRID 47443224 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2008. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in Florida soil, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Ka nsas (study director a nd analytical phase), Agvise Laboratories, Northwood, North Dakota, and Ag Research Associates, Sycamore, Georgia (field phase), and sponsored and subm itted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (p. 46). Study No.: MEDHP037. Experiment initiation April 4, 2006, and completion January 17, 2008 (p. 12). Fi nal report issued June 30, 2008.

Soil dissipation/accumulation of AE 1170437 under U. S. field conditions wa s investigated in a bare plot of Lucy sand/loamy sand soil at one s ite in Florida. AE 117043 7 was broadcast once at a nominal rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.147 lb a.i. /A) onto four 16.4 x 7.3 m replicate plots. The target application rate was 110% of the maxi mum label rate of 0.150 kg a.i./ha. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to reach 108% of the 30-year average rainfall during the study period. Mean recovery of AE 1170437 from th e application monitor pads was 111% of the target application rate (reviewer -calculated; 122% of the propos ed maximum label rate of 150 g a.i./ha). The mean measured concentration of AE 1170437 in the 0-15 cm soil depth was a maximum of 66.37 ng a.i./g at day 0, which is 88.2% of the theoretica l (reviewer-calculated based on the theoretical day 0 concentration of 75 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm soil depth). AE 1170437 decreased to a mean concentration of 37.10 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm depth by 28 days, 29.02 ng a.i./g by 59 days, 14.39 ng a.i./g by 134 days, 5.30 ng a.i./g by 280 days, and 2.38 ng a.i./g at 526 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was init ially detected in the 15-30 cm soil depth at a mean concentration of 8.23 ng a.i./g at 3 days (mean of two replicat e detections), was a maximum of 23.28 ng a.i./g at 14 days (single replicate detection), was detected below the LOQ at 28 and 280 days (single replicate detections), and was last detected at 4.79 ng a.i./g at 366

### -Page 215 of 292- 

## days posttreatment (single rep licate detection). AE 1170437 was only detected once in the 30-45 cm depth (at 3 days) and twice in the 45-60 cm depth (at 3 and 366 days), at concentrations below the LOQ (all detections were single re plicate detections). The most prevalent transformation products were AE 1170437 diaminotriazine

, AE 1170437 triazine-indanone,

and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid , which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth soil layer at

maximum mean concentrations of 9.7% (at 134 days), 3.7% (at 7 days), and 2.3% (at 7 days) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of AE 1170437, respectively, after converting to parent equivalents. No transformation products were detected at a m ean concentration above the LOQ in soil below the 0-15 cm depth, and none were de tected below 30 cm, with the exception of two single replicate detectio ns of AE 1170437 diaminotriazine in the 30-45 cm depth at 182 and 366 days posttreatment.

AE 1170437 had a reviewer-calculate d half-life value of 107 days (r 2 

## = 0.9040) in soil, calculated using linear regression of ln-transformed data based on a ll replicate concentration data from the 0-15 cm soil layer. However, the dissip ation pattern was bi-phasic, with a more rapid dissipation phase over the initial six months of the study; linear regression analysis did not accurately describe the dissipation using the 0- to 526-day data set. The reviewer calculated a half-life of 59.2 days (r 2 

## = 0.9613) using Sigmaplot v 9.0 (nonlinear, one-compartment/twoparameter) and individual sample data (0-526 day data). The observed DT50 value occurred between the 28- and 59-day sampling intervals (43 days; reviewer-calculated). The observed

DT90 value occurred between the 182- and 280- day sampling intervals (224 days; reviewercalculated). Total carryover of re sidues at the end of the study period (526 days) was 10.9% of the applied amount based on the target appl ication rate (3.2% as AE 1170437, 6.5% as AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, 0.5% as AE 1170437 tr iazine-indanone, and 0.8% as AE 1170437 carboxylic acid; reviewer-calculated).

The major route of dissipation of AE 1170437 under terrestrial field conditions was transformation to AE 1170437 diaminotriazine, AE 1170437 triazine-ind anone, and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . However, the stability of AE 1170437 and its transformation products under typica l laboratory storage conditions was not clearly demonstrated as field samples were stored over 100 days l onger than in the laborat ory storage study (MRID 47443279). An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but still demonstrated slow dec line in the recoveries of the indaziflam-olefin degradate.

MRID 47443225 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2008. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in North Carolina soil, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas (study director and analytical phase), Agvise Laboratories, Northwood, North Dakota, and Agricultural Systems Associates, Kinston, North Carolina (field phase), and sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, No rth Carolina (p. 46) . Study No.: MEDHP036. Experiment initiation April 19, 2006, and comple tion January 1, 2008 (p. 12). Final report issued

### -Page 216 of 292- 

## June 30, 2008.

Soil dissipation/accumulation of AE 1170437 under U. S. field conditions wa s investigated in a bare plot of Norfolk loamy sand soil at one s ite in North Carolina. AE 1170437 was broadcast once at a nominal rate of 0.165 kg a.i./ha (0.147 lb a.i./A) onto four 16.4 x 7.3 m replicate plots. The target application rate wa s 110% of the maximum label rate of 0.150 kg a.i./ha. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to reach 115% of the 30-year average rainfall during the study period. Mean recovery of AE 1170437 from th e application monitor pads was 97.2% of the target application rate (reviewer -calculated; 107% of the propos ed maximum label rate of 150 g a.i./ha). The mean measured concentrati on of AE 1170437 in the 0-15 cm soil depth was 45.09 ng a.i./g at day 0, and was a maximum of 46.35 ng a.i./g at 1 day, which is 59.1% of the theoretical (reviewer-calculated based on the theore tical day 0 concentration of 78 ng a.i./g in the 0-15 cm soil depth). AE 1170437 decreased to a m ean concentration of 24.61 ng a.i./g in the 0- 15 cm depth by 29 days, 16.84 ng a.i./g by 58 days, 8.05 ng a.i./g by 126 days, 4.08-6.84 ng a.i./g by 166-374 days, and was 2.91 ng a.i./g at 554 days posttreatment. AE 1170437 was not detected in soil below the 0-15 cm depth, with th e exception of a single re plicate detection below the LOQ in the 45-60 cm depth (at 58 days postt reatment). The most prevalent transformation product was AE 1170437 triazine-indanone , which was detected in the 0-15 cm depth at a maximum mean concentration of 4.1% (at 58 days ) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of AE 1170437, after converting to parent equivale nts. The transformation products AE 1170437 diaminotriazine and AE 1170437 carboxylic acid were not detected at a mean concentration above the LOQ at any sampling interval; however, both analytes were detected consistently at mean concentrations below the LOQ in the 0-15 cm soil depth from 1 to 554 days posttreatment. No transformation products were detected at a mean concentration abov e the LOQ in soil below the 0-15 cm depth. However, AE 1170437 diaminotriazi ne was detected at levels below the LOQ in all depths analyzed (all five detections in the 30-45 cm depth and both detections in the 45-60 cm depth were single replicate detections).

Under field conditions at the te st site, AE 1170437 had a reviewe r-calculated half-life value of 131 days (r 2 

## = 0.7295) in soil, calculated using linear regression of ln-transformed data. The observed DT50 value occurred between the 29- and 58-day sampling intervals (37 days; reviewer-calculated). The observed DT90 valu e occurred between the 280- and 374-day sampling intervals (359 days; revi ewer-calculated). Tota l carryover of residues at the end of the study period (554 days) was 11.7% of the applied amount based on the targ et application rate (3.7% as AE 1170437, 5.0% as AE 1170437 diami notriazine, 1.9% as AE 1170437 triazineindanone, and 1.1% as AE 1170437 carboxylic acid; reviewer-calculated).

The major route of dissipation of AE 1170437 under terrestrial field conditions was

transformation to AE 1170437 triazine-indanone.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . No significant deviati ons from good scientific practices were noted. However, the stability of AE 1170437 and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage conditions was not clearly demonstrated field samples were stored longer than the laboratory storag e study (MRID 47443279). An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but still demonstrated

### -Page 217 of 292- 

## slow decline in the recoveries of the indaziflam-olefin degradate.

However, the dissipation pattern was bi-phasic, with a more ra pid dissipation phase over the initial six months of the study; linear regression analysis did not accurately describe the dissipation using the 0- to 554-day data set. Th e reviewer calculated a half-life of 45.0 days (r 2 

## = 0.9501).

MRID 47743301 Indaziflam (AE1170437) A study conducted on loamy sand soil (Quincy so il series) in Ephrata, Washington (MRID 47443301). Soil samples were collected (0-120 cm depth, excluding day 0 samples collected to a depth of 15 cm) through 531 days after treatme nt. The mean measured concentration of indaziflam in the 0-15 cm soil depth was 58.44 ng a.i./g at day 0, which is 72.4% of the theoretical day 0 concentration. Indaziflam was not detected above the LOQ at depths greater than 15 cm; however it was detected below the L OQ at the 15-30 cm depth 3 and 296 days after

treatment. Under field conditions at the test site, indaziflam had a calculated linear half-life (linear regression of ln-trans formed data) of 117 days (r 2 

## = 0.8253, p < 0.05), and a non-linear 1 st


## order half-life of 34.8 days (r 2 

## = 0.9590, p < 0.05). The most pr evalent transformation products were diaminotriazine, triazine-inda none, and indaziflam-carboxylic acid, which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth soil layer at maximum parent-e quivalent concentrations of 7.2% (at 14 days), 9.1% (at 28 days), and 4.4% (at 7 days) of th e theoretical day 0 recovery of indaziflam, respectively. Triazine-indanone was detected in the 0-15 cm and 15-30 cm soil depths only. Diaminotriazine was detected above the LOQ to a maximum depth of 60-75 cm and below the LOQ to a maximum depth of 75-90 cm. Indazifl am-carboxylic acid was detected to a maximum depth of 90-105 cm, but was not detected above the LOQ in soil below the top 0-15 cm depth. These data show that the major degradates of i ndaziflam may be more mobile than the parent, and may have a greater potential to leach.

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . The stability of indazifl am and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage condit ions was not demonstrated. An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was subm itted for a sufficient duration, but still

demonstrated slow decline in the recoveri es of the indaziflam-olefin degradate.

MRID 47743302 Indaziflam (AE1170437) Lenz, M. 2009. Terrestrial field dissipation of AE 1170437 in New York soil, 2006. Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Ka nsas (study director a nd analytical phase), AGVISE Laboratories, Northwood, ND, and A.C.D. S Research, Inc., North Rose, New York (field phase), and sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Res earch Triangle Park, North Carolina (p. 47). Study No.: MEDHP 033. Experiment initiation May 30, 2006, and completion January 30, 2009 (pp. 12-13). Fi nal report issued April 7, 2009.

A study conducted on loamy sand (Oakville soil series) in North Rose, New York (MRID 47443302). Soil samples were collected (0-120 cm depth, excluding day 0 samples collected to a depth of 15 cm) through 545 days after treatme nt. The mean measured concentration of indaziflam in the 0-15 cm soil depth was 62.61 ng a.i./g at day 0, which is 80.9% of the

### -Page 218 of 292- 

## theoretical day 0 concentration. Indaziflam wa s detected above the LOQ in the 15-30 and 45-60 cm depths at maximum mean concentrations of 3.5 ng a.i./g (at 365 days) and 2.87 ng a.i./g (at 3 days), respectively. Indaziflam was detected at a maximum depth of 105-120 cm 365 days after treatment, however detections were reported belo w the LOQ. Under field conditions at the test site, indaziflam had a calculated linear half-life (linear regression of ln-transformed data) of 231 days (r 2 

## = 0.3251, p < 0.05), and a non-linear 1 st 

## order half-life of 21.3 days (r 2 

## = 0.9078, p < 0.05). The most prevalent transformation products were diaminotriazine, triazine-indanone, and indaziflam-carboxylic acid, which were detected in the 0-15 cm depth soil layer at maximum parent-equivalent concentrations of 9.6% (at 28 days), 5.8% (a t 180 days), and 2.5% (at 7 days) of the theoretical day 0 recovery of indaziflam , respectively. Triazine-i ndanone and indaziflamcarboxylic acid were detected in the 0-15 cm soil depth only, excluding one or two detections below the LOQ . Diaminotriazine was detected to a maximum depth of 105-120 cm (the deepest sample collected); however, all detections we re below the LOQ below the top 0-15 cm soil depth. These data show that the major degradates of indaziflam ar e more mobile than the parent, and may have a greater potential to leach.

This study is classified as SUPPLEMENTAL . No significant deviations from good scientific practices were noted. However, the recoveries for the application veri fication were low (82- 95%), and the stability of indaziflam and its transformation products under typical laboratory storage conditions was clearly not demonstr ated (MRID 47443279). An additional storage stability study (MRID 47743328) was submitted for a sufficient duration, but still demonstrated

slow decline in the recoveries of the indaziflam-olefin degradate.

Fish Accumulation EPA Guideline 165-4 (850.1730)

MRID 47443237 [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C] labeled AE 1170437 Matlock, D. and D.R. Fischer. 2008. [Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437- bioconcentration and biotransformation in bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ). Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas; sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Study ID: ME DHP026. Experimental initiation date April 26, 2007; experimental completion dates June 5, 2007 (In-Life Phase) and October 3, 2007 (Analytical Phase; p. 16). Fi nal report issued June 30, 2008.

The bioconcentration and biotra nsformation of [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]-labeled AE 1170437 were studied in juvenile bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ) under continuous flow-through

conditions. The bioconcentration portion of the study was conducted using three 100-L glass aquaria: one control (Aquarium A) and two treated aquaria (Aquari um B, low dose; Aquarium C, high dose) filled with dilution water. Three grou ps of 76 fish each were separately exposed to

three treatments: solvent control at 0.1 mL meth anol/L dilution water (Aquarium A); treatment at a nominal concentration of 0.3 μg [triazine,2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437/L (0.1 mL methanol/L dilution water; low dose; Aquarium B); and treatment at a nominal concentration of 3.0 μg [triazine 2,4-

14 

## C]AE 1170437/L dilution water (0.1 mL methanol/L dilution water; high dose; Aquarium C).

For the biotransformation portion of the study, one group of 30 fish was exposed at a nominal concentration of 3.0 μg [triazine,2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437/L dilution wate r (0.1 mL methanol/L

### -Page 219 of 292- 

## dilution water; Aquarium D). The experimental test conditions were as described for the bioconcentration portion of the study. No mortalities or adverse effects were observed during either experiment.

Bioconcentration portion of the study: Low-dose samples (0.3 μ g a.i./L; Aquarium B) : During the 26-day exposure period, maximum [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 total radioactive residues (TRR) were 0.024 ppm in whole fish, 0.013 ppm in edible tissues, and 0.041 in non-edible tissues at 4 days. The time to reach 95% of steady state was 2.9, 3.2, and 2.6 days for the whole fish, edible tissues, and non-edible tissues, respectively. The half-life for clearance (t 1/2 

## ) was 0.68, 0.74, and 0.59 days for whole fish, edible tissues, and non-edible tissues, respectively. St eady state (days 4 to 26) BCF values, based on average AE 1170437 residues, were 46.0, 25.0, and 79.2 for whole fish, edible tissues, and nonedible tissues. Reviewer-calcula ted maximum BCF values were 67 for whole fish, 36 for edible tissues, and 114 for non-edible tissues, based on to tal residues, each occurring at 4 days of

exposure.

High-dose samples (3.0 μ g a.i./L; Aquarium C) : During the 26-day exposure period, maximum [triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 TRR were 0.244 ppm in whole fish, 0.112 ppm in edible tissues, and 0.461 in non-edible tissues at 4 days. Triazine-2,4- 14 

## C]AE 1170437 accounted for 3.07-4.26

μ g/L in the water during the exposure period. The measured TRR in water was <0.28 μ g/L during the depuration period. The time to reach 95% of Steady State was 3.2, 3.0, and 3.4 days for the whole fish, edible tissues , and non-edible tissues , respectively. The ha lf-life for clearance (t 1/2 

## ) was 0.74, 0.69, and 0.78 days for whole fish, edible tissues, and non-edible tissues, respectively. Steady state (days 4 to 26) BCF values, based on AE 1170437, were 51.1, 26.7, and 88.5 for whole fish, edible tissues, and non-edible tissues. Reviewer- calculated maximum BCF values were 65 for whole fish, 30 for edible tis sues, and 122 for non-edible tissues, based on total residues, each occurring at 4 days of exposure.

Biotransformation portion of the study: A transformation pathway for AE 1170437 was proposed the study authors. AE 1170437 is meta bolized by bluegill sunfish via benzylic oxidation, resulting in the formation of AE 1170437-3-hydroxyindane and hydroxymethyl. Subsequent conjugation of AE 1170437-3-hydroxyindane with glucuronic acid forms 3- hydroxyindane GA. AE 1170437-carboxylic acid forms from further oxidation of hydroxymethyl. Oxidative N-dealkylation of AE 1170437 yields AE 1170437-diaminotriazine.

This study is classified as ACCEPTABLE . No significant deviati ons from good scientific practices were noted.

Storage Stability EPA Guideline (860.1380)

MRID 47443279 AE1170437 and its metabolit es (AE1170437 acid, AE1170437 ketone, AE1170437 hydroxy, AE1170437 olefin, AE1170437 diaminotriazine) Netzband, D.J. 2008. Stability of AE1170437 a nd its metabolites (AE1170437 acid, AE1170437

### -Page 220 of 292- 

## ketone, AE1170437 hydroxy, AE1170437 olefin, AE1170437 diaminotriazine) in soil during frozen storage (reported through a maximum of 433 days storage). Unpublished study performed by Bayer CropScience, Stilwell, Kansas and sponsored and submitted by Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Bayer CropScience Study No.: RADHP041. Experiment initiation January 29, 2007 and comp letion April 8, 2008 (p. 10) . Final report issued June 9, 2008.

The stability of AE 1170437 and the tran sformation products AE 1170437 carboxylic acid, AE 1170437 triazine-indanone, AE 1170437 hydr oxyethyl, AE 1170437 olefin, and AE 1170437

diaminotriazine was determined in five so ils obtained from AE 1170437 terrestrial field dissipation studies conducted in Flor ida (Study No.: MEDHP037; MRID 47443224, 47443221), North Carolina (Study No.: MEDHP036; MRID 47443225, 47443222), California (Study No.: MEDHP038; MRID 47443220, 47443223), Washington (Study No.: MEDHP019), and New York (Study No.: MEDHP033). Storage stab ility results indicate that AE 1170437 and the transformation products AE 1170437 carboxylic acid, AE 1170437 triazine-indanone, AE 1170437 hydroxyethyl, and AE 1170437 diaminotriazine were stable in all five test soils for the duration of the study period (up to 427-433 days) with no pattern of decline, and that the transformation product AE 1170437 olefin degraded slowly, with mean corrected recoveries ranging from 65 to 88% following 427 to 433 days of storage.

This study is classified SUPPLEMENTAL . Samples fortified with olefin degraded slowly, (corrected mean recoveries 65-88% following 427-433 days). The stor age stability study was conducted using test site soil stored for a period up to 427 days; however, samples from the test site were stored frozen for up to 521 days prior to analysis (Appendix 7, pp. 194-197). To determine the stability of sample s under typical laboratory storage conditions, the freezer storage stability study must be conducted for a period of time at least as long as the maximum storage interval for the test samples in the field dissip ation study. No other significant deviations from good scientific practi ces were noted.

### -Page 221 of 292- 

# Appendix F. Residenti al Modeling Approach

Estimation of the fraction of the watershed area which receives application on impervious

surfaces in residential watersheds

This appendix was developed as a generic guidance to characterize the approach and provide justification for the method for calculatin g the impervious surfaces in a watershed for aquatic modeling in ecological risk assessments. The exact numbers for the percent of impervioius surfaces varies depending on the exac t demensions used for sidewalks, driveways, patios, and other impervious surfaces. Specific area estimates are not exact estimates and were not used in the indaziflam assessment; the appr oach was used to estimate the fraction of a watershed that could potentially r eceive applications of indaziflam.

As will be described below, this appendix describes the method used for calculating the fraction of the watershed that is impervious surface and that receives an a pplication of a pesticide applied to lawns or ornamental plants in a repr esentative urban/suburban watershed in California. Three parameters describing the watershed, the average lot size, the average basal size or ‘footprint’ of the houses in the watershed and th e fraction of impervious surface in the watershed are necessary to make this calculation. These three values are then combined, along with an assumption about the width of the bands of treated impervious surface from the edge of the lawn, or treated area, to estimate the fraction of the residential watershed that is treated impervious

surface.

The procedure for estimating this fraction is 1) Estimate the fraction of the watershed that is impervious; and that which is lawn, 2) estimate the average lot size, 3) estimate the dwelling footprint, 4) construct a sta ndard lot with an impervious surface consisting of the house, sidewalks, and driveway, 5) estimate the area of treated impervious surfac e associated with each lot 6) estimate the number of lots in a standa rd 10 ha watershed, 7) and finally, estimate the

fraction of the total watershed that is treated impervious surface.

1) Estimate the fraction of the wa tershed that is impervious surface

In general, the majority of occupied areas including core areas a nd critical habitat (as defined by FWS) and occurrence data from CNDDB are located in areas wh ere the percentage of impervious surface is less than 20%. However, a few selected areas with higher percentages of impervious surface ( e.g . San Francisco Bay region) were evaluated to determine a representative value for residential settings. The conceptual model for the ROW scenario assumes that the watershed is represented by equal portions of im pervious and pervious surface (50%). Based on geospatial data, it is evident that the areas wi th the highest percentage of impervious cover are urban areas outside the occupied areas, and, in general, the oc cupied areas have impervious surface of less than 50% (Figure F- 1). Therefore, for purposes of modeling, it is assumed that a representative percentage of im pervious cover is 50%. In ge neral, as the percentage of impervious surface increases, the overall exposure resulting from applications to the pervious surface decreases because less mass is applied within the watershed. Additional information on the impact of this assumption has been prev iously characterized in the Barton Springs

### -Page 222 of 292- 

## salamander endangered species risk assessm ent for atrazine (U.S. EPA, 2006).

Figure F-1. California red-legged frog hab itat relative to urban areas in Central California with their impervious surface fractions.

### -Page 223 of 292- 

## 2) Estimate for the typical lot size

In order to justify the assumption of 1⁄4 acr e lot as a typical expos ure scenario, publicly

available data from the United States Census (Census) 2003 American Housing Survey (AHS) was reviewed on July 10, 2006 and is available at the following website.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hous ing/ahs/ahs03/ahs03.htm l

Data for all suburban homes available nationally was considered. It is assumed that most residential pesticide applications will occur in su burban settings. In order to test the assumption of the 1⁄4 acre lot as the best representation, th e AHS data for suburban homes that list total number of houses by lot size and by square footage of house (see Table 1C-3 at the AHS website above) was evaluated. With a total of 45,552,000 to tal units reported nationally for all suburban areas, 12,368,000 units (the largest class at 27%) were on lots between 1/8 acre and 1⁄4 acre, while 9,339,000 units (the second largest class at 21 %) were on lots between 1⁄4 acre and 1⁄2 acre. Overall, the median lot size was 0.37 acre. This analysis suggests th at the 1⁄4 acre lot is a reasonable approximation of suburban pesticide use.

3) Size of House Footprint

The AHS survey data reports that of a total of 43,328,000 reported single detached homes in suburban areas, 10,124,000 (the largest group at 23%) were between 1,500 and 2,000 square feet, while 7,255,000 (the third largest group at 17%) were between 2,000 and 2,500 square feet, and 9,513,000 (the second largest group at 22%) were between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet. From these data, it was assumed that a typical ho me is 2,000 square feet with a 1,000 square foot footprint. The lower sized houses less than 1,500 s quare feet are more likel y to represent single floor structures; thus, the 1,000 s quare foot estimate for a house footprint is reasonable.

4) Development of a standard lot

Using a quarter acre lo t and a house with a 1000 ft 2 

## footprint, a standard lot was developed (Figure F-2). Both the lot and house were assumed to be square, resulting in the side of the lot being 104.4 ft in length and the side of the house being 31.6 ft. If the house is placed in the center of the lot, the drivew ay will be 36.4 ft long. If the driv eway is assumed to be 15 ft wide, then the driveway is 546 ft 2 

## . For sidewalks, it necessary to consider whether it is a corner or mid-block lot. If we assume that the driveway is 3 ft wide, the area of the sidewalk is the width of the yard minus the width of driveway time three, or 268.1 ft 2 

## for the mid-block lot and

572 ft 2 

## for the corner lot (268.1 + 104.4x3 – 9), the 9 ft 2 

## are subtracted to account for the overlap where the sidewalks meet. Therefore, the to tal impervious surface, (house + driveway + sidewalk) for the mid-block lot is 1814.5 ft 2 

## and 2218 ft 2 

## for the corner lot. This leaves 9,075 ft 2



## and 8,672 ft 2 

## of lawn for the two lot types respectively.

### -Page 224 of 292- Figure F-2. Standard lot for assessment of aquatic exposure from applications of pesticide to residential settings in California for the California Red Legged Frog Assessment. The schematic represents a corner lot. Mid-block lots have side walk only along the front of the lot and the area of the sidewalk is 268.1 ft 2 

### rather than 572 ft 2 

### with a resulting increase in lawn area to 9,075 ft 2



### .



## 5) Area of treated impervious surface per lot

The area of treated impervious surface is estimated by assuming the whole sidewalk, and 3 ft of the driveway and street along the road get treated. This represents what might occur if the homeowner is using a broadcast spreader and make s no effort to avoid applying pesticide to hard surfaces bordering the lawn. In this scenario, 268.2 ft 2 

## of side walk is treated during an application for the mid-block lot, and 581.4 ft 2 

## for the corner lot. This is derived from the assumption that the perimeter of the property is pl anted with ornamental plants which are located on the property side of the sidewalk. An altern ative scenario for home lawn treatments this

results in 799.7 ft 2 

## treated surface on a mid-bloc k lot (218.4 +313.2 + 268.1) and 1416 ft 2 

## for a corner lot (See Figure F-3). Figure F-3 was deve loped for home lawn applications, however the logic is similar except the amount of impervious area that rece ives treatment is much less. 8672 - lawn

1000 - house

572 - sidewalk

+ 5 46- driveway 10,890 sq ft = 1⁄4 

### acre Side length of lot =

104.4 ft

House

dimensions:

31.6 ft x 31.6

Driveway

dimensions:

15 ft x 36.4 ft 3 ft wide

sidewalk

### -Page 225 of 292- 

# Overspray Zones on Impervious

Surfaces

3 ft wide

overspray on road

3 ft wide

overspray on both sides of

driveway Overspray

on 3 ft

wide

sidewalks



## Figure F-3 . Impervious surface treated during a broa dcast application of a pesticide to

residential lawns.

6) Number of lots in a 10 ha watershed.

In step 1 above, the fraction of the watershed that is in lawn was estimated to be 50%, with the balance being impervious surface, which includes, dwellings, sidewalks, driveways and

streets. Since we now have an estimate of the trea ted impervious area associat ed with each lot, in order to estimate the total treated impervious surf ace, we need an estimate of the number of lots in the watershed. Current ecological risk assessmen ts assume a standard watershed size of 10 ha, or 1,076,391 ft 2 

## . If we assume that the lots are arranged in blocks of ten (Figure F-4), then 2/5 of

the houses will be corner lots and 3/5 will be mid-block. Using these fractions, and the lawn areas calculated in step 4, we can estimate the number of houses as 2/5x 9,100 x N + 3/5 x 9,404xN = 1,076,391. Solving this equation for N, th e number of lots gives a value of 57.98 ≈ 58

lots in the watershed

### -Page 226 of 292- 

# Urban Watershed

Figure F-4. Schematic for a representative California suburban watershed fo r use in assessing risks to the California Red Legged Frog.

7) Fraction of treated impervio us surface in the watershed.

If there are 58 houses in the watershed, as in Figure 4, then 24 are corner lots and 34 are mid-block lots. Using the treated areas estimated in step 5, the treated area in the watershed is

581.4 ft 2 

## x 24 = 13,953.6 ft 2 

## for the corner lots and 268.2 ft 2 

## x 34 = 9,118.8 ft 2 

## for the mid-block lots, for a total of 23,072.4 ft 2 

## . Since the total watershed area of 10 ha is equivalent to 1,107,391

ft 2 

## , the percent of the watershed that is trea ted impervious surface is 2.08%. The modeled fraction was 5.0%, which may be an underestimati on of treated impervious surface, which was derived from an application to non-turf crops (e .g., gardens) bordering th e house. For home lawn treatments, the percent overspray is closer to 5.68% based on the same logic in the preceding steps but a larger amount of impervious surf ace receives treatment (e.g., road, driveway, and sidewalk vs just sidewalk).

### -Page 227 of 292- 

# Appendix G. Scenario Selection and Rationale

Table G1. Scenarios Used for Tier 2 Surface Water Modeling of Indaziflam
Crop Scenario Location Soil Weather PCA Ap Date
Citrus FLcitrusSTD.txt Collier or Hendry Counties, FL Wabasso fine

sand West Palm Beach, FL (W12844) 0.87 May 20

Pome Fruit NCapplesSTD.txt Henderson County,

NC Hayesville

loam Ashville, NC (W03812) 0.87 July 22

Stone Fruit ORberriesOP.txt Marion County, OR Woodburn silt

loam Salem, OR (W24232) 0.87 March 1

Tree Nuts GApeacansSTD.t

xt Mitchell or Dougherty Counties,

GA Williston loamy fine

sand Tallahassee, FL (W93805) 0.87 June 14

Grapes NYgrapesSTD.txt Chautauqua County,

NY Lordstown channery silt

loam Erie, PA (W14860) 0.87 Aug. 15

Olives CAolivesRLF.tx t San Joaquin Valley,

CA Porterville

series Fresno, CA (W93193) 0.87 Feb. 2

Turf FLturfSTD.txt Osceola County, FL Adamsville

sand Daytona Beach, F: (W12834) 1.0 Aug. 20

Home Lawns CAresidentialRL

F.txt San Fransisco, CA Teirra alluvial deposits San Fransisco, CA (W23234) 1.0 Jan. 15

Ornamentals CAresidentialRL

F.txt San Fransisco, CA Teirra alluvial deposits San Fransisco, CA (W23234) 1.0 Jan. 15

Hardscapes FLimpervious.txt West Palm Beach, FL --

-- 1.0 May 26 Forestry NCapples.txt Henderson County,

NC Hayesville

loam Ashville, NC (W03812) 1.0 July 22



## The field used to represent citrus production is in Florida, locate d in Collier or Hendry Counties in Southwest Florida. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, Florida is the major producer of citrus (oranges) for the ju ice market and among the highest for the fresh market. The field has Wabasso fine sand, wh ich is a sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Alfic Alaquods. These soils are often used for citrus production and truck crops. The soil is extensive in Florida. Wabasso fine sand is a Hydrologic Group D soil. The weather data is from weather station W12844 in West Palm Beach, Florida.

The field used to represent apple producti on is in North Carolina, and is located in Henderson County, in Western North Carolina. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, North Carolina is among the major producers of apples (7 th 

## to 8 th 

## overall) in the U.S., and is one of the southern most production areas. There ar e four primary apple prod uction areas in western North Carolina, all long-term pere nnial regions, grown on a variety of soils, in different climate regions. Henderson County produces between 60 to 70 percent of the apple crop. The field has Hayesville loam, which is a fine, kaolinitic, me sic, Typic Kanhapludults. Hayesville loam is a Hydrologic Group C soil. The weather data is from weather station W03 812 in Ashville, North

Carolina.

For the stone fruit use, a field represen ting blackberry production in Marion County, Oregon was used. Blackberries are a bramble fruit, known as aggregated drupe fruit (stone fruit) composed of small, individual drupes. Accordin g to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, Oregon is

### -Page 228 of 292- 

## the leading state in the producti on of blackberries in the U.S. Marion County leads Oregon in acres planted in 1997. The field has Woodburn silt loam, which is a fine-silty mixed, superactive, mesic Aquultic Agrixerolls. The series is used to produce berries, orchards, cannery crops, grain, hay, and pasture. The series is extensive in the Willamette Valley, where the scenario is located. Woodburn silt loam is a Hy drologic Group C soil. The weather data is from weather station W24232 in Salem, Oregon.

The field used to represent tree nut production is in Georgia is located in Mitchell or Dougherty County in Southwest Ge orgia (MLRA133) and the weat her station representing the orchard’s weather is located in Tallahassee, FL (W93805). The scenario was developed to represent pecan production. Pecans are grown throughout the southwes tern part of the state. Georgia and Texas generally compete from year to tear for status as the top U.S. producer. Trees are very large, growing up to 100 feet tall and living 80 or more years, although production

declines as the trees reach the end of its life span. The field has Williston loamy fine sand, which is a fine, mixed, superactive, hyperthermic Typic Hapludalfs. Williston loamy fine sand is a Hydrologic Group C soil.

Indazilfam use on grapes was represented us ing a vineyard in New York located in Chautauqua County in Southwest New York along Lake Erie (MLRA100/101) with the weather station representing the vineyard ’s weather located in Erie, PA (W14860). Grapes are grown throughout the state, but are concen trated in the western part of the state where the macroclimate is best suited for grape produc tion. New York is among the leadi ng Eastern U.S. state in both wine and table grape production. Chautauqua Co unty has the highest acrea ge in the state and

New York remains the 3 rd 

## or 4 th 

## highest production state in the U.S. The soil selected to simulate the vineyard is a Lordstown channery silt loam. Lordstown channey silt loam is a coarse-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Dystrudepts.

Indaziflam use on olives was represented us ing a scenario intended to represent olive production in California’s San Joaquin Valley, pr imarily in Tulare, Madera, Fresno, and Kings Counties. Over 99% of the olives grown in the United States are grown in California with approximately 35,300 bearing acres of olives (US DA, 1999). Nearly 65% of California’s olive acreage is located in the San Jo aquin Valley, primarily in Tulare County (53% of the total) (USDA, 1999). Moreover, based on 2005 Califor nia Pesticide Usage Reporting (CalPIP, 2006), approximately 80% of pesticides used on Califor nia olives (by pounds of chemical) were applied in San Joaquin Valley. The Porterville series is the third most common soil found where olives are grown, and was used to represent this field. It is a fine, smectitic, thermic Aridic Haploxererts. Porterville is a Hydrologic Group D soil. The w eather data is from weather station W93193 in Fresno, California.

The field used to represent turf grass in Florida is located in Osceola County within MLRA 155, although turf grasses (golf courses, sod farms, etc.) are located throughout the state.

This turf scenario is considered to be essentia lly generic, with no dis tinction made between sod farms, golf course fairways, greens and tees, or residential lawns. To develop a turf scenario the soil was modified by adding a 2 cm thick layer of thatch on top of the soil profile. The thatch layer has the following properties: bulk density = 0.37; field capacity = 0.47; wilting point =

### -Page 229 of 292- 

## 0.27; organic carbon = 7.5%. Curve numbers were selected based on good condition open space areas as specified in TR-55, that is for hydrologic soil groups C. A 2 cm layer of thatch is typical for golf course fairways, but is probably thicker than average fo r golf course greens. The soil selected to simulate turf grass is an Adamsville sand, a hyperthermic, uncoated Aquic Quartzipsamment. Adamsville sand ranges from a Hydrologic Group A soil to a Hydrologic Group C soil, depending on the water table. Fo r the purpose of this modeling, EFED used the

curve numbers from the PIC of the Adamsville sand as a Group C soil. The weather data is from

weather station W12834 in Daytona Beach, Florida.

The residential scenario is in tended to be used as a surroga te for all urban/suburban home

and residential uses in the San Francisco Bay area of California. Crop parameters have been chosen to reflect residential turf areas, primarily lawns, within the urban area. Residential Lawns are irrigated year round, even dur ing the wet season. Tierra soils were chosen to represent

residential areas. Tierra is a Hydrologic Group D soil which a ccount for approximately 40% of urban soils in drainage, these soils are fine allu vial deposits. The weathe r data is from weather station W23234 in San Fransisco, CA.

Indaziflam use on forestry was represen ted by a surrogate scenario, North Carolina Apples (NCapplesSTD.txt). This scenario is descri bed above. It was sel ected as a surrogate to represent a vulnerable scenario for forestry appl ications due to the precipitation that it receives, and the soil types. It is reasonabl e to use the apple scenario as a surrogate for forestry uses since the apple tree is physiologically simila r to commercial forestry trees.

For the hardscape use, a provisional scenar io (FLimpervious.txt) was used to represent high exposure sites resulting from applications directly to impervious surfaces (e.g., patio, sidewalk and driveway cracks, on paths and gr avel areas, along fence lines). The Florida impervious scenario was modified from an existing California impervious scenario (CAimperviousRLF.txt) developed for the endanger ed species assessments in California. The provisional scenario represents a conservative hi gh-end exposure resulting from applications of indaziflam to hardscapes in West Palm Beac h. Florida was chosen, specifically West Palm Beach, to represent conservative exposure estimates because the precipitation is on average greater in this region of the country compared to other areas (e.g., Fresno, California). The

scenario uses weather data from West Palm Beac h, FL (W12844). The scenario, in its entirety is

included below.

FLimpervious.txt

PRZM Variable

Record # Name Value Parameter Name and Guidance Source Comments 1 TITLE "FLimpervious.txt, 1/5/2010" Title of input file
2 HTITLE "West Palm Beach, FL; MLRA 155; Metfile: W12844.dvf" Short description of file: modification of CA impervious scenario

3 PFAC 0.77 Pan factor (dimensionless)

SFAC 0 Snowmelt factor (cm/C)
IPEIND 0 Pan factor flag - 0 = pan data read from meteorology

file ANETD 33 Min. depth from which evaporation is extracted during

### -Page 230 of 292- fallow period (cm); 10 cm = soil with limited drainage INICRP 1 "Flag for initial crop if simulation date is before
emergence date (see Record 10); 1 = yes, 2 = no" Always should be 1 ISCOND 1 "Surface condition of initial crop if INICRP = 1; 1 = fallow, 2 = cropping, 3 = residue"

6 ERFLAG 4 "Flag to calculate erosion; 0 = none, 2 = MUSLE, 3 = MUST, 4 = MUSS; note that a value of 1 is meaningless; MUSS selected by EPA and industry as most appropriate."

7 "Only needed if ERFLAG = 2,3, or 4 (Record 6)" USLEK 0 Universal soil loss equation (K) of soil erodability USLELS 5.18 Universal soil loss equation (LS) length-slope topographic factor USLEP 1 Universal soil loss equation (P) practice factor AFIELD 172 Area of field or plot (ha); EPA default is 10 email
from Sid Abel (98 12 28) IREG 4 Location of NRCS 24-hour hyetograph/Soil Conservation Service rainfall distribution region
SLP 15 Land slope (%) HL 600 "Hydraulic length (m); for a circular 10 ha field emptying into a 1 ha pond (when linked to EXAMS), default HL = 354 m"

8 NDC 1 Number of different crops in simulation (1 to 5) FL Impervious 9 (repeat this record NDC times)
ICNCN 1 Crop number CINTCP 0 Maximum interception storage of crop (cm) AMXDR 0 Maximum rooting depth of crop (cm) COVMAX 0 Maximum areal coverage of canopy (%) ICNAH 1 "Surface condition of crop after harvest date (see Record 11); 1 = fallow, 2 = cropping, 3 = residue"
CN (x3) 98 "Runoff curve numbers of antecedent moisture condition for fallow, cropping, and residue (three values); note that runoff and leaching are very sensitive to these factors."

98

98 WFMAX 0 "Maximum dry weight of crop at full canopy (kg/m2), required if CAM = 3 (Record 16) else set to 0.0" HTMAX 0 Maximum canopy height (cm) at maturation date (Record 11)

RECORD9A 1 24 Crop Number and Number of RUSLE Dates

RECORD9B 0101 1601 0102 1602 0103 1603 0104 1604 0105 1605 0106 1606

0107 1607 0108 1608 RUSLE Dates

RECORD9C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

.000 .000 .000 .000 USLEC

RECORD9D .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 Mannings N

RECORD9E 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98

98 98 98 98 Curve Number

RECORD9B 0109 1609 0110 1610 0111 1611 0112 1612 RUSLE Dates

RECORD9C .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 USLEC RECORD9D .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 .011 Mannings N

RECORD9E 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Curve Number

### -Page 231 of 292- 10 NCPDS 30 Number of cropping periods (sum of NDC for all cropping
dates in Record 11)

11 (Repeat this record NCPDS times)

FL Impervious EMD 1 Integer day of crop emergence
EMM 1 Integer month of crop emergence
IYREM 61 Integer year of crop emergence MAD 2 Integer day of crop maturation MAM 1 Integer month of crop maturation IYRMAT 61 Integer year of crop maturation
HAD 31 Integer day of crop harvest
HAM 12 Integer month of crop harvest
IYRHAR 61 Integer year of crop harvest INCROP 1 Crop number associated with NDC (Record 8)

19 STITLE unclassified silt loam, West Palm Beach County Brief description of soil properties

20 CORED 46 Total depth of soil core (cm); must be sum of all horizon thicknesses in Record 33 and at least as deep as the root depth in Record 9 BDFLAG 0 "Bulk density flag; 0 = bulk density known and
entered in Record 33, 1 = mineral value entered" THFLAG 0 "Field capacity and wilting point flag; 0 = water
contents are entered, 1 = calculated by model." KDFLAG 0 "Soil adsorption coefficient; 0 = Kd entered in Record 37, 1 = calculated by model." Submission studies HSWZT 0 "Drainage flag; 0 = free draining, 1 = restricted (should
be set to zero)" email from Sid Abel (99 03 10) MOC 0 "Method of characteristics flag; 1 = yes, 0 = no; this flag is used for the leaching program and PRZM is not recommended as a leaching model by the EPA at this time." email from Sid Abel (99 03 10) IRFLAG 0 "Irrigation flag; 0 = no irrigation, 1 = year round, 2 = during cropping period only." ITFLAG 0 "Soil temperature simulation flag; 1 = yes, 0 = no (must = 1 if nitrogen is being simulated)" IDFLAG 0 "Thermal conductivity and heat capacity flag; 1 =
yes, 0 = no." BIOFLG 0 "Biodegradation flag; 1 = yes, 0 = no; this flag is used when transformation occurs only by the microbial pathway and requires knowledge of microbe population characteristics" email from Sid Abel (99

03 10)

33 NHORIZ 3 Number of horizons

Horizon 1: 34 "(Repeat Records 34, 36, and 37 for each horizon)"

HORIZN 1 Horizon number
THKNS 10 Thickness of horizon (cm) BD 1.9 Bulk density if BDFLAG = 0 or mineral density if BDFLAG = 1
(Record 20) (g/cm3)
THETO 0.28 "Initial soil water content in horizon (cm3/cm3); if sitespecific value not known, use field capacity"

### -Page 232 of 292- AD 0 "Soil drainage parameter if HSWZT = 1 (Record 20), else set to 0.0 (day-1); note that the # of compartments (= DPN/THKNS) is needed to

determine AD" DISP 0 Pesticide hydrodynamic solute dispersion coefficient for

each NCHEM; should be set to zero unless field data are available for

calibration ADL 0 Lateral soil drainage parameter if HSWZT = 1 (Record 20)

(should be set to zero)

37 DPN 0.1 Thickness of compartments in horizon (cm) THEFC 0.28 Field capacity in horizon (cm3/cm3) THEWP 0.28 Wilting point in horizon (cm3/cm3) OC 0 Organic carbon in horizon (%)

Horizon 2: 34 "(Repeat Records 34, 36, and 37 for each horizon)"

HORIZN 2 Horizon number
THKNS 5 Thickness of horizon (cm) BD 1.4 Bulk density if BDFLAG = 0 or mineral density if BDFLAG = 1
(Record 20) (g/cm3)
THETO 0.28 "Initial soil water content in horizon (cm3/cm3); if sitespecific value not known, use field capacity" AD 0 "Soil drainage parameter if HSWZT = 1 (Record 20), else set to 0.0 (day-1); note that the # of compartments (= DPN/THKNS) is needed to

determine AD" DISP 0 Pesticide hydrodynamic solute dispersion coefficient for

each NCHEM; should be set to zero unless field data are available for

calibration ADL 0 Lateral soil drainage parameter if HSWZT = 1 (Record 20)

(should be set to zero)

37 DPN 5 Thickness of compartments in horizon (cm) THEFC 0.28 Field capacity in horizon (cm3/cm3) THEWP 0.164 Wilting point in horizon (cm3/cm3) OC 1.16 Organic carbon in horizon (%)

Horizon 3: 34 "(Repeat Records 34, 36, and 37 for each horizon)"

HORIZN 3 Horizon number
THKNS 31 Thickness of horizon (cm) BD 1.43 Bulk density if BDFLAG = 0 or mineral density if BDFLAG = 1
(Record 20) (g/cm3)
THETO 0.252 "Initial soil water content in horizon (cm3/cm3); if sitespecific value not known, use field capacity" AD 0 "Soil drainage parameter if HSWZT = 1 (Record 20), else set to 0.0 (day-1); note that the # of compartments (= DPN/THKNS) is needed to

determine AD" DISP 0 Pesticide hydrodynamic solute dispersion coefficient for

each NCHEM; should be set to zero unless field data are available for

calibration ADL 0 Lateral soil drainage parameter if HSWZT = 1 (Record 20)

(should be set to zero)

37 DPN 1 Thickness of compartments in horizon (cm) THEFC 0.252 Field capacity in horizon (cm3/cm3)

### -Page 233 of 292- THEWP 0.145 Wilting point in horizon (cm3/cm3) OC 0.73 Organic carbon in horizon (%)

40 ILP 0 "Flag for initial pesticide levels before simulation start
date; 1 = yes, 0 = no" CFLAG 0 "Conversion flag for initial pesticide levels; 0 = mg/kg, 1 = kg/ha, blank if ILP = 0"

### -Page 234 of 292- 

# Appendix H. Aquatic Model Input/Output Data.

Table H-1. Summary of Input/Output Files.

File name Date Location/Simulation

Input/Output File for SCI-GROW

Saf-eco.sci Apr. 15, 2009 National screen

Input Files for PRZM/EXAMS FLcitrus.prz Nov. 13, 2009 Citrus Use NCapples.prz Nov. 13, 2009 Pome Fruit use ORstonefruit.prz Nov. 10, 2009 Stone Fruit use GAtreenuts.prz Nov. 10, 2009 Tree Nut use NYgrapes.prz Nov. 13, 2009 Grape use CAolives.prz Nov. 23, 2009 Olive use

FLturf.prz Nov. 10, 2009 Turf uses CAresidential.prz Nov. 13, 2009 Residential lawn use CAresidentialORN.prz Nov. 16, 2009 Ornamental use NCforestry.prz Nov. 23, 2009 Forestry use

Crop Scenario Files for PRZM/EXAMS FLcitrusSTD.txt May 29, 2007 Collier an d Hendry Counties, FL/ Citrus Use NCapplesSTD.txt May 29, 2007 Henerson County, NC/Pome Fruit & Forestry Uses ORberriesOP.txt June 14, 2007 Marion County, OR/Stone Fruit Use

GApecansSTD.txt Mitchell and Doughtery Counties, GA/Tree Nut

Use NYgrapesSTD.txt May 29, 2007 Chautauqua County, NY/Grape Use CAolivesRLF_V2.txt March 26, 2008 Porterville, CA/Olive Use

FLtufSTD.txt Feb. 21, 2006 Lake Kissimmee/Inidan River Region, FL/Turf

Use

CAresidentialRLF.txt Feb. 20, 1007 San Fransico Bay Area, California

Home Lawn Use

Ornamental Use Hardscape Use

CAimperviousRLF.txt Feb. 20, 2007 San Fransico Bay Area, California

Home Lawn Use

Ornamental Use Hardscape Use FLimpervious.txt Jan. 6, 2010 West Palm Beach, Florida/Hardscape use

Weather Data Files for PRZM/EXAMS W12844.dvf July 3, 2002 West Palm Beach, Florida

W03812.dvf July 3, 2002 Asheville, North Carolina

W24232.dvf July 3, 2002 Salem, Oregon W93805.dvf July 3, 2002 Ta llahassee/Apalachicola, Florida

W14860.dvf July 3, 2002 Erie, Pennsylvania

W93193.dvf July 3, 2002 Fresno, California W12834.dvf July 3, 2002 Daytona Beach, Florida

W23234.dvf July 3, 2002 San Fransico, California

### -Page 235 of 292- 

## Example Input/Output Data for Individual Simulations

SCI-GROW Input/Output File.

SCIGROW

VERSION 2.3

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL

FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:indaziflam ag

time is 1/ 8/2010 11:36: 6

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 0.134 1.0 0.134 4.50E+02 50.0

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.74E-02

************************************************************************



## PRZM/EXAMS Example Input/Output File.

stored as FLcitrus_2.out

Chemical: indaziflam

PRZM environment: FLcitrusSTD.txt modifi ed Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 12:45:56 EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 05:14:08 Metfile: w12844.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 05:14:22 Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Da y 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.529 0.5245 0.5134 0.4924 0.4821 0.2479

1962 1.313 1.298 1.267 1.182 1.134 0.7093

1963 1.189 1.182 1.15 1.086 1.054 0.8842

1964 2.614 2.593 2.551 2.498 2.434 1.594

1965 2.869 2.853 2.816 2.716 2.575 2.122

1966 2.881 2.858 2.801 2.679 2.592 2.339

1967 2.429 2.413 2.351 2.261 2.21 2.053

1968 4.178 4.144 4.095 3.834 3.645 2.715

1969 3.246 3.218 3.129 2.927 2.829 2.642

1970 3.08 3.052 2.949 2.81 2.704 2.339

1971 2.31 2.29 2.251 2.111 2.069 1.863

1972 2.319 2.295 2.228 2.099 2.01 1.693

1973 2.165 2.147 2.114 2.045 2.017 1.769

1974 1.732 1.719 1.683 1.602 1.566 1.49

1975 2.434 2.411 2.373 2.231 2.142 1.634

1976 3.527 3.49 3.344 3.223 3.138 2.454

1977 3.77 3.754 3.68 3.457 3.287 2.863

1978 3.582 3.55 3.447 3.242 3.14 2.711

### -Page 236 of 292- 1979 3.487 3.454 3.373 3.176 3.057 2.544

1980 3.303 3.273 3.213 3.078 2.961 2.668

1981 3.655 3.618 3.515 3.461 3.352 2.663

1982 2.898 2.875 2.817 2.694 2.605 2.431

1983 2.715 2.69 2.643 2.491 2.378 2.093

1984 2.977 2.953 2.862 2.758 2.649 2.176

1985 2.21 2.193 2.155 2.049 2.024 1.938

1986 1.977 1.965 1.925 1.844 1.805 1.638

1987 2.127 2.106 2.059 1.981 1.922 1.527

1988 4.25 4.203 4.017 3.712 3.569 2.447

1989 2.882 2.87 2.821 2.719 2.647 2.273

1990 2.69 2.671 2.623 2.487 2.39 2.012

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 4.25 4.203 4.095 3.834 3.645 2.863

0.0645161290322581 4.178 4.144 4.017 3.712 3.569 2.715

0.0967741935483871 3.77 3.754 3.68 3.461 3.352 2.711

0.129032258064516 3.655 3.618 3.515 3.457 3.287 2.668

0.161290322580645 3.582 3.55 3.447 3.242 3.14 2.663

0.193548387096774 3.527 3.49 3.373 3.223 3.138 2.642

0.225806451612903 3.487 3.454 3.344 3.176 3.057 2.544

0.258064516129032 3.303 3.273 3.213 3.078 2.961 2.454

0.290322580645161 3.246 3.218 3.129 2.927 2.829 2.447

0.32258064516129 3.08 3.052 2.949 2.81 2.704 2.431

0.354838709677419 2.977 2.953 2.862 2.758 2.649 2.339

0.387096774193548 2.898 2.875 2.821 2.719 2.647 2.339

0.419354838709677 2.882 2.87 2.817 2.716 2.605 2.273

0.451612903225806 2.881 2.858 2.816 2.694 2.592 2.176

0.483870967741936 2.869 2.853 2.801 2.679 2.575 2.122

0.516129032258065 2.715 2.69 2.643 2.498 2.434 2.093

0.548387096774194 2.69 2.671 2.623 2.491 2.39 2.053

0.580645161290323 2.614 2.593 2.551 2.487 2.378 2.012

0.612903225806452 2.434 2.413 2.373 2.261 2.21 1.938

0.645161290322581 2.429 2.411 2.351 2.231 2.142 1.863

0.67741935483871 2.319 2.295 2.251 2.111 2.069 1.769

0.709677419354839 2.31 2.29 2.228 2.099 2.024 1.693

0.741935483870968 2.21 2.193 2.155 2.049 2.017 1.638

0.774193548387097 2.165 2.147 2.114 2.045 2.01 1.634

0.806451612903226 2.127 2.106 2.059 1.981 1.922 1.594

0.838709677419355 1.977 1.965 1.925 1.844 1.805 1.527

0.870967741935484 1.732 1.719 1.683 1.602 1.566 1.49

0.903225806451613 1.313 1.298 1.267 1.182 1.134 0.8842

0.935483870967742 1.189 1.182 1.15 1.086 1.054 0.7093

0.967741935483871 0.529 0.5245 0.5134 0.4924 0.4821 0.2479

0.1 3.7585 3.7404 3.6635 3.4606 3.3455 2.7067 Average of yearly averages:

2.01774666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: FLcitrus_2

Metfile: w12844.dvf

### -Page 237 of 292- PRZM scenario: FLcitrusSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: indaziflam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 301.36 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry 2.62e-10 atm-m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 5.1e-10 torr Solubility sol 1.2 mg/L

Kd Kd 9.1 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L Photolysis half-life kdp 85.5 days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 230.4 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 275.3 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 4 0 days Half-life Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half-life Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.095 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 20-05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-mmm

Interval 1 interval 90 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app. app. rate 1 apprate 0.056 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)

### -Page 238 of 292- 

# Appendix I. Example T-REX Output for Indaziflam.

Dose-based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and Chronic RQs for Mammmals Based on the Proposed Crop (food) Uses of Indaziflam (Chronic RQs for birds and acute RQs for birds and mammals were not calculated because definitive toxicity endpoints were unavailable)

Table I.1c. Upper Bound Kenaga, Chronic Mammalian Dose-Based Risk Quotients

EECs and RQs

Short Grass Tall Grass Broadleaf

Plants/

Small Insects Fruits/Pods/

Seeds/ Large

Insects Granivore Size

Class (grams) Adjusted

NOAEL

EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ EEC RQ

15 151.65 30.1 0.20 13.8 0.09 16.9 0.11 1.89 0.01 0.42 <0.01

35 122.70 20.8 0.17 9.56 0.08 11.7 0.10 1.30 0.01 0.29 <0.01

1000 53.07 4.84 0.09 2.22 0.04 2.72 0.05 0.30 0.01 0.06 <0.01



# TREX Upper Bound Ken aga Mammalian Results

Mammalian Body Ingestion (Fdry) Ingestion (Fwet) % body wgt FI

Class Weight (g bwt/day) (g/day) consumed (kg-diet/day)

15 3 14 95 1.43E-02

Herbivores/ 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01

15 3 3 21 3.18E-03

Grainvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03

1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02

Mammalian Body Adjusted Adjusted

Class Weight LD50 NOAEL

15 0.00 151.65

Herbivores/ 35 0.00 122.70

insectivores 1000 0.00 53.07

15 0.00 151.65

Grainvores 35 0.00 122.70

1000 0.00 53.07

### -Page 239 of 292- 

# Appendix J. Example Terr plant (v. 1.2.1) Input and Output for Indaziflam

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4). Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name Indaziflam

PC code 80818

Use Food
Application Method Ground Spray

Application Form liquid Solubility in Water (ppm) 1.2-4.4

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 0.085 lbs ai/A

Incorporation I 1 none
Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

Table 3. EECs for Indaziflam. Units in lbs ai/A.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00085
Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0085 Spray drift A*D 0.00085 Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.0017
Total for semi-aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.00935

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in lbs ai/A.

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor
Plant type EC 25 

### NOAEC EC 25 

### NOAEC

Monocot 0.00016 0.000062 0.0021 0.000932

Dicot 0.00011 0.000062 0.00011 0.000062

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi-aq uatic areas exposed to Indaziflam through runoff and/or spray drift.*

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi-Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non-listed 10.63 58.44 5.31

Monocot listed 27.42 150.81 13.71

Dicot non-listed 15.45 85.00 7.73

Dicot listed 27.42 150.81 13.71

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulti ng in potential for risk to that plant group.

### -Page 240 of 292- 

# Appendix K. Ea rthworm Fugacity

Use of fugacity approach to estimate expo sures to small mammals consuming earthworms contaminated with pesticides

The T-REX model (USEPA 2008) is useful for a ssessing exposures of terrestrial animals to pesticide residues on foliar surfac es of crops and seeds. The m odel cannot be used to assess pesticide exposures to terrestrial animal s resulting from consumption of earthworms contaminated with pesticide mass present in the so il of the application site. In order to explore the potential exposures of mammals and birds to pesticides in the soil and earthworms on the treatment site, a simple fugacity approach can be employed to estimate concentrations of the pesticide of interest earthworms.

Fugacity is most often regarded as the "escap ing tendency" of a chemi cal from a particular phase. Fugacity (F) has units of pressure, generally pascals (Pa) , and can be related to phase concentrations. For any particular environmental phase ( e.g., water, soil, air, or biota) there is a corresponding "fugacity capac ity" with un its of mol/m 3 

## -Pa and is denoted by Z. The relationship between fugacity, fugacity capac ity and chemical concentratio n (C) is defined by Equation 1.

Fugacity capacities for a given ch emical are calculated for the phase s of interest as part of the exposure point estimation methodology (Mackay and Paterson 1981). The following calculations of fugacity capacities for soil (Z S 

## ) and earthworms (Z E 

## ) (Equations 2 and 3, respectively) require several chemical-speci fic parameters and assumptions of system temperature (25 o 

## C) and steady state equilibrium. Parameter values relevant to Equations 2 and 3

are defined in Table 1.

Fugacity capacities for a given ch emical are calculated for the phase s of interest as part of the exposure point concentration estimation methodology. By definition, the ratio between Z values of different phases (compartments) e quals the partiti oning coefficient ( e.g., Equation 4).

In this approach, it is assumed that a pesticide partitions between the soil, the (pore) water and

the air contained within the soil of the treatme nt site. It is assumed that earthworms dwelling within the soil are exposed to a pesticide via inge stion of contaminated so il. The concentration of a pesticide in earthworm tissues can be calculated according to Equation 5 (see Table 1 for 

## FZC Equation *.1 =

H K Z Equation Sd

S 

## ρ * .2 =

H KL Z Equation OW

E 

## * .3 =

OW

water oloc 

## K Z Z Equation = tan 

## .4

### -Page 241 of 292- 

## parameter definitions).

Table 1. Summary of parameters relev ant to earthworm fugacity model.

Symbol Definition Units

C E 

### Chemical concentration in earthworm tissue mol/m 3



### C E 

### ' Chemical concentration in earthworm tissue g/kg

C S 

### Chemical concentration in soil mol/m 3



### H Henry’s Law constant m 3 

### -Pa/mol

K d 

### Soil partitioning coefficient cm 3 

### /g

K OW 

### Octanol to water partition coefficient none

L Lipid fraction of earthworm none

MW molecular weight of chemical g/mol

Z E 

### Fugacity capacity of pesticide in earthworms mol/m 3 

### -Pa

Z S 

### Fugacity capacity of pesticide in soil mol/m 3 

### -Pa

ρ E 

### density of earthworm kg/m 3



### ρ S 

### Bulk density of soil g/cm 3



## Equation 5 can be redefined using equations 2 and 3 as follows in Equation 6. Equation 6 is used to calculate the concentration of a pesticide in earthworms inhabiting the soil of treatment sites.

C S 

## is intended to be representative of the steady-stat e concentrations of the pesticide of interest in soil. This value is calculated using PRZM. Kd and Kow are chemical-specific parameters. Kd

should be consistent with th e value input into PRZM. ρ S 

## is dependant upon the soil properties of

the selected PRZM scenario used to derive C S 

## . L is based on the lipid content of earthworms, which was assumed to be 0.01 (Cobb et al. 1995). The resulting C E 

## value is in units of mol/m 3



## . This value is converted to units of g/kg usi ng equation 7. The densit y of the earthworm ( ρ E 

## ) is assumed to be 1000 kg/m 3 

## (equivalent to density of water).

References:



## Cobb, G.P., E.H. Hol, P.W. Allen, J.A Gagne, R.J. Kendall. 1995. Uptake, metabolism, and toxicity of terbufos in the earthworm ( Lumbricus terrestris ) exposed to COUNTER-15G in

artificial soils. E nviron. Toxicol. Chem. 14(2):279-285.

Mackay, D. and S. Paterson. 1981. Calculatin g fugacity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 15: 1006-

1014. sd ow S

E 

## K KLC C Equation
ρ * ** .6 =

E E

E 

## MWC C Equation
ρ * .7 '



## = 

## ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

=

S E

SE 

## Z Z CC Equation * .5

### -Page 242 of 292- 

## USEPA. 2008. User’s Guide: T-REX Version 1. 4.1 (Terrestrial Residue Exposure model). United States Environmental Protection Agency . Environmental Fate and Effects Division.



# Tables 2 -7 Input/Outputs, EECs and RQs for Chronic Toxicity of Indaziflam to Mammals and Birds from Proposed Granular Uses on Turf (Assumptions

for Acute and Chronic Toxicities due to Non-definitive Endpoints)

Real Toxicity Endpoint

Table 2. Characteristics of indazilfam.
Parameter (symbol) Value Units

Pesticide Name indaziflam none Molecular weight (MW) 301.36 g/mol

Octanol-water Partiti on Coefficient (Kow) 631 none
Soil partition coefficient (Kd) 9.1 cm 3 

### /g

Table 3. Soil parameters.
Parameter (symbol) Value Units

Bulk density of soil ( ρ s)* 1.65 g/cm 3



### Concentration of pesticide in soil (estimated using PRZM) 0.06 g/m 3



### Concentration of indazilfam in soil (Cs) 1.99E-04 mol/m 3



### Table 4. Earthworm parameters. Parameter (symbol) Value Units
Lipid fraction of earthworm (L) 0.01 none Water fraction of earthworm (W) 0.84 none
Density of earthworm ( ρ E) 1000 kg/m 3



### Concentration of indazilfam in earthworm (CE) 8.37E-05 mol/m 3



### Concentration of indazilfam in earthworm (CE') 0.000025 g/kg*
*equivalent to mg/g

### -Page 243 of 292- Table 5. Mammalian toxicity data for indazilfam. Endpoint/Parameter (symbol) Value Units

Acute oral LD 50 

### 2000 mg/kg-bw LD 50 

### >2000
Body weight of acute test animal* (TW) 350 g

Chronic NOAEL 317 mg/kg-bw NOAEL=317

Chronic NOAEC 69 mg/kg-diet NOAEC=69
Body weight of chronic test animal* (TW) 350 g Body weight of assessed animal (AW) 15 g Food intake of assessed animal (F) 17.9 g/day Body weight normalized food intake of assessed animal (F N 

### ) 1192 g/kg-bw-day

*For rats, the default body weight is 350 g, if no other data are available.

Table 6. Avian toxicity data for indaziflam. Endpoint/Parameter (symbol) Value Units

Acute oral LD 50 

### 2000 mg/kg-bw LD 50 

### >2000 Body weight of test animal for LD 50 

### * (TW) 1580 g

Subacute dietary LC 50 

### 5007 mg/kg-diet LC 50 

### >5007

Chronic NOAEC 95 mg/kg-diet NOAEC<95
Mineau Scaling Factor** 1.15 none Body weight of assessed animal (AW) 20 g Food intake of assessed animal (F) 28.47 g/day Body weight normalized food intake of assessed animal (F N 

### ) 1424 g/kg-bw-day

*Unless study specific data are available: For bobwhite quail, assume 178 g. For mallard duck, assume 1580 g.

**Default value is 1.15. Consult Mineau et al . (1996) to obtain pesticide specific values.

Table 7. Mammalian and avian risk quotients for indaziflam.

Endpoint EEC Toxicity

Value RQ

Mammalian, acute dose-based 0.03 4395.7 0.00

Mammalian, chronic dose-based 0.03 696.7 0.00
Mammalian, chronic dietary-based 0.03 69.0 0.00

Avian, acute, dose-based 0.04 1038.5 0.00
Avian, acute, dietary-based 0.03 5007.0 0.00

Avian, chronic, dietary-based 0.03 95.0 0.00

### -Page 244 of 292- 

# Appendix L. LOCATES Ou tput of Listed Species.

Table M. Species Listing forProposed Uses of Indaziflam

zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Abalone, White Haliotis sorenseni Endangered Gastropod

Abutilon eremitopetalum (ncn) Abutilon eremitopetalum Endangered Dicot

Abutilon sandwicense (ncn) Abutilon sandwicense Endangered Dicot

Achyranthes mutica (ncn) Achyranthes mutica Endangered Dicot

Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata (ncn) Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata Endangered Dicot

Adobe Sunburst, San Joaquin Pseudobahia peirsonii Threatened Dicot

A'e (Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum) Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum Endangered Dicot

A'e (Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) Zanthoxylum hawaiiense Endangered Dicot

'Aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum) Nothocestrum breviflorum Endangered Dicot

'Aiea (Nothocestrum peltatum) Nothocestrum peltatum Endangered Dicot

'Akepa, Hawaii Loxops coccineus coccineus Endangered Bird

'Akepa, Maui Loxops coccineus ochraceus Endangered Bird

'Akia Loa, Kauai (Hemignathus procerus) Hemignathus procerus Endangered Bird

'Akia Pola'au (Hemignathus munroi) Hemignathus munroi Endangered Bird

'Akoko (Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana) Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana Endangered Dicot

'Akoko (Chamaesyce deppeana) Chamaesyce deppeana Endangered Dicot

'Akoko (Chamaesyce herbstii) Chamaesyce herbstii Endangered Dicot

'Akoko (Chamaesyce kuwaleana) Chamaesyce kuwaleana Endangered Dicot

'Akoko (Chamaesyce rockii) Chamaesyce rockii Endangered Dicot

'Akoko (Chamaesyce skottsbergii var.

skottsbe Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. kalaeloana Endangered Dicot

'Akoko (Euphorbia haeleeleana) Euphorbia haeleeleana Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope adscendens) Melicope adscendens Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope balloui) Melicope balloui Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope haupuensis) Melicope haupuensis Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope knudsenii) Melicope knudsenii Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope lydgatei) Melicope lydgatei Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope mucronulata) Melicope mucronulata Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope munroi) Melicope munroi Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope ovalis) Melicope ovalis Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope pallida) Melicope pallida Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope quadrangularis) Melicope quadrangularis Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope reflexa) Melicope reflexa Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope saint-johnii) Melicope saint-johnii Endangered Dicot

Alani (Melicope zahlbruckneri) Melicope zahlbruckneri Endangered Dicot

Albatross, Short-tailed Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus Endangered Bird

Allocarya, Calistoga Plagiobothrys strictus Endangered Dicot

Alopecurus, Sonoma Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Endangered Monocot

### -Page 245 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Alsinidendron obovatum (ncn) Alsinidendron obovatum Endangered Dicot

Alsinidendron trinerve (ncn) Alsinidendron trinerve Endangered Dicot

Alsinidendron viscosum (ncn) Alsinidendron viscosum Endangered Dicot

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened Dicot

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened Dicot

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened Dicot

Amaranth, Seabeach Amaranthus pumilus Threatened Dicot

Amaranthus brownii (ncn) Amaranthus brownii Endangered Dicot

Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis Endangered Gastropod

Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila Endangered Dicot

Ambrosia, South Texas Ambrosia cheiranthifolia Endangered Dicot

Amole, Cammatta Canyon Chlorogalum purpureum var. reductum Threatened Monocot

Amole, Purple Chlorogalum purpureum var. purpureum Threatened Monocot

Amphianthus, Little Amphianthus pusillus Threatened Dicot

Amphianthus, Little Amphianthus pusillus Threatened Dicot

Amphianthus, Little Amphianthus pusillus Threatened Dicot

Amphipod, Hay's Spring Stygobromus hayi Endangered Crustacean

Amphipod, Illinois Cave Gammarus acherondytes Endangered Crustacean

Amphipod, Kauai Cave Spelaeorchestia koloana Endangered Crustacean

Amphipod, Noel's Gammarus desperatus Endangered Crustacean

Amphipod, Peck's Cave Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki Endangered Crustacean

'Anaunau (Lepidium arbuscula) Lepidium arbuscula Endangered Dicot

Anole, Culebra Island Giant Anolis roosevelti Endangered Reptile

'Anunu (Sicyos alba) Sicyos alba Endangered Dicot

Aristida chaseae (ncn) Aristida chaseae Endangered Monocot

Arrowhead, Bunched Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered Monocot

Arrowhead, Bunched Sagittaria fasciculata Endangered Monocot

Asplenium fragile var. insulare (ncn) Asplenium fragile var. insulare Endangered Ferns

Aster, Decurrent False Boltonia decurrens Threatened Dicot

Aster, Decurrent False Boltonia decurrens Threatened Dicot

Aster, Florida Golden Chrysopsis floridana Endangered Dicot

Aster, Ruth's Golden Pityopsis ruthii Endangered Dicot

Auerodendron pauciflorum (ncn) Auerodendron pauciflorum Endangered Dicot

Aupaka (Isodendrion hosakae) Isodendrion hosakae Endangered Dicot

Aupaka (Isodendrion laurifolium) Isodendrion laurifolium Endangered Dicot

Aupaka (Isodendrion longifolium) Isodendrion longifolium Threatened Dicot

Avens, Spreading Geum radiatum Endangered Dicot

Avens, Spreading Geum radiatum Endangered Dicot

'Awikiwiki (Canavalia molokaiensis) Canavalia molokaiensis Endangered Dicot

'Awiwi (Centaurium sebaeoides) Centaurium sebaeoides Endangered Dicot

'Awiwi (Hedyotis cookiana) Hedyotis cookiana Endangered Dicot

Ayenia, Texas Ayenia limitaris Endangered Dicot

Baccharis, Encinitas Baccharis vanessae Threatened Dicot

Bankclimber, Purple Elliptoideus sloatianus Threatened Bivalve

Bankclimber, Purple Elliptoideus sloatianus Threatened Bivalve

Barbara Buttons, Mohr's Marshallia mohrii Threatened Dicot

### -Page 246 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Barbara Buttons, Mohr's Marshallia mohrii Threatened Dicot

Barberry, Island Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis Endangered Dicot

Barberry, Nevin's Berberis nevinii Endangered Dicot

Bariaco Trichilia triacantha Endangered Dicot

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Hawaiian Hoary Lasiurus cinereus semotus Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

### -Page 247 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long-nosed Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered Mammal

Bat, Lesser (=Sanborn's) Long-nosed Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Endangered Mammal

Bat, Mexican Long-nosed Leptonycteris nivalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Mexican Long-nosed Leptonycteris nivalis Endangered Mammal

Bat, Ozark Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Ozark Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii ingens Endangered Mammal

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Endangered Mammal

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Endangered Mammal

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Endangered Mammal

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Endangered Mammal

Bat, Virginia Big-eared Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii virginianus Endangered Mammal

Beaked-rush, Knieskern's Rhynchospora knieskernii Threatened Monocot

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Mammal

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Mammal

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Mammal

Bear, Grizzly Ursus arctos horribilis Threatened Mammal

Bear, Louisiana Black Ursus americanus luteolus Threatened Mammal

Bear, Louisiana Black Ursus americanus luteolus Threatened Mammal

Bear, Louisiana Black Ursus americanus luteolus Threatened Mammal

Beardtongue, Penland Penstemon penlandii Endangered Dicot

Beargrass, Britton's Nolina brittoniana Endangered Monocot

Bear-poppy, Dwarf Arctomecon humilis Endangered Dicot

Beauty, Harper's Harperocallis flava Endangered Monocot

Bedstraw, El Dorado Galium californicum ssp. sierrae Endangered Dicot

Bedstraw, Island Galium buxifolium Endangered Dicot

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, Coffin Cave Mold Batrisodes texanus Endangered Insect

Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid Stygoparnus comalensis Endangered Insect

Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle Heterelmis comalensis Endangered Insect

Beetle, Delta Green Ground Elaphrus viridis Threatened Insect

Beetle, Helotes Mold Batrisodes venyivi Endangered Insect

Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling Water Brychius hungerfordi Endangered Insect

Beetle, Kretschmarr Cave Mold Texamaurops reddelli Endangered Insect

Beetle, Mount Hermon June Polyphylla barbata Endangered Insect

### -Page 248 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Threatened Insect

Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Threatened Insect

Beetle, Northeastern Beach Tiger Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Threatened Insect

Beetle, Ohlone Tiger Cicindela ohlone Endangered Insect

Beetle, Puritan Tiger Cicindela puritana Threatened Insect

Beetle, Puritan Tiger Cicindela puritana Threatened Insect

Beetle, Puritan Tiger Cicindela puritana Threatened Insect

Beetle, Salt Creek Tiger Cicindela nevadica lincolniana Endangered Insect

Beetle, Tooth Cave Ground Rhadine persephone Endangered Insect

Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Threatened Insect

Bellflower, Brooksville Campanula robinsiae Endangered Dicot

Birch, Virginia Round-leaf Betula uber Threatened Dicot

Bird's-beak, Palmate-bracted Cordylanthus palmatus Endangered Dicot

Bird's-beak, Pennell's Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Endangered Dicot

Bird's-beak, salt marsh Cordylanthus mariti mus ssp. maritimus Endangered Dicot

Bird's-beak, Soft Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis Endangered Dicot

Birds-in-a-nest, White Macbridea alba Threatened Dicot

Bittercress, Small-anthered Cardamine micranthera Endangered Dicot

Bittercress, Small-anthered Cardamine micranthera Endangered Dicot

Blackbird, Yellow-shouldered Agelaius xanthomus Endangered Bird

Bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs Lesquerella congesta Threatened Dicot

Bladderpod, Kodachrome Lesquerella tumulosa Endangered Dicot

Bladderpod, Lyrate Lesquerella lyrata Threatened Dicot

Bladderpod, Missouri Lesquerella filiformis Threatened Dicot

Bladderpod, Missouri Lesquerella filiformis Threatened Dicot

Bladderpod, San Bernardino Mountains Lesquerella kingii ssp. bernardina Endangered Dicot

Bladderpod, Spring Creek Lesquerella perforata Endangered Dicot

Bladderpod, White Lesquerella pallida Endangered Dicot

Bladderpod, Zapata Lesquerella thamnophila Endangered Dicot

Blazing Star, Ash Meadows Mentzelia leucophylla Threatened Dicot

Blazing Star, Heller's Liatris helleri Threatened Dicot

Blazing Star, Scrub Liatris ohlingerae Endangered Dicot

Bluecurls, Hidden Lake Trichostema austromontanum ssp. compactum Threatened Dicot

Bluegrass, Hawaiian Poa sandvicensis Endangered Monocot

Bluegrass, Mann's (Poa mannii) Poa mannii Endangered Monocot

Bluegrass, Napa Poa napensis Endangered Monocot

Bluegrass, San Bernardino Poa atropurpurea Endangered Monocot

Blue-star, Kearney's Amsonia kearneyana Endangered Dicot

Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Endangered Dicot

Bluet, Roan Mountain Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Endangered Dicot

Boa, Mona Epicrates monensis monensis Threatened Reptile

Boa, Puerto Rican Epicrates inornatus Endangered Reptile

Bobwhite, Masked Colinus virginianus ridgwayi Endangered Bird

Bonamia menziesii (ncn) Bonamia menziesii Endangered Dicot

Bonamia, Florida Bonamia grandiflora Threatened Dicot

Boxwood, Vahl's Buxus vahlii Endangered Dicot

### -Page 249 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Brodiaea, Chinese Camp Brodiaea pallida Threatened Monocot

Brodiaea, Thread-leaved Brodiaea filifolia Threatened Monocot

Broom, San Clemente Island Lotus dendroideus ssp. traskiae Endangered Dicot

Buckwheat, Cushenbury Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Endangered Dicot

Buckwheat, Ione (incl. Irish Hill) Eriogonum apricum (incl. var. prostratum) Endangered Dicot

Buckwheat, Scrub Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium Threatened Dicot

Buckwheat, Southern Mountain Wild Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum Threatened Dicot

Buckwheat, Steamboat Eriogonum ovalifolium var. williamsiae Endangered Dicot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Endangered Monocot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Endangered Monocot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Endangered Monocot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Endangered Monocot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Endangered Monocot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed Bristle) Scirpus ancistrochaetus Endangered Monocot

Bush-mallow, San Clemente Island Malacothamnus clementinus Endangered Dicot

Bush-mallow, Santa Cruz Island Malacothamnus fascicula tus var. nesioticus Endangered Dicot

Buttercup, Autumn Ranunculus aestivalis (=acriformis) Endangered Dicot

Butterfly Pl ant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Dicot

Butterfly Pl ant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Dicot

Butterfly Pl ant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis Threatened Dicot

Butterfly, Bay Checkerspot (Wright's euphydryas) Euphydryas editha bayensis Threatened Insect

Butterfly, Behren's Silverspot Speyeria zerene behrensii Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Callippe Silverspot Speyeria callippe callippe Endangered Insect

Butterfly, El Segundo Blue Euphilotes battoides allyni Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Fender's Blue Icaricia icarioides fenderi Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaeides melissa samuelis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Lange's Metalmark Apodemia mormo langei Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Lotis Blue Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Mission Blue Icaricia icarioides missionensis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Myrtle's Silverspot Speyeria zerene myrtleae Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened Insect

Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened Insect

Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened Insect

Butterfly, Palos Verdes Blue Glaucopsyche lygdamus palosverdesensis Endangered Insect

### -Page 250 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Butterfly, Quino Checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino (=E. e. wrighti) Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Saint Francis' Satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Saint Francis' Satyr Neonympha mitchellii francisci Endangered Insect

Butterfly, San Bruno Elfin Callophrys mossii bayensis Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Schaus Swallowtail Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Smith's Blue Euphilotes enoptes smithi Endangered Insect

Butterfly, Uncompahgre Fritillary Boloria acrocnema Endangered Insect

Butterweed, Layne's Senecio layneae Threatened Dicot

Butterwort, Godfrey's Pinguicula ionantha Threatened Dicot

Button-celery, San Diego Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Bakersfield Opuntia treleasei Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Black Lace Echinocereus reichenbachii var. albertii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Brady Pincushion Pediocactus bradyi Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Bunched Cory Coryphantha ramillosa Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Chisos Mountain Hedgehog Echinocereus chisoensis var. chisoensis Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Cochise Pincushion Coryphantha robbinsorum Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Key Tree Pilosocereus robinii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Knowlton Pediocactus knowltonii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Knowlton Pediocactus knowltonii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Kuenzler Hedgehog Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Lee Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. leei Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Lloyd's Mariposa Echinomastus mariposensis Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Mesa Verde Sclerocactus mesae-verdae Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Mesa Verde Sclerocactus mesae-verdae Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Nellie Cory Coryphantha minima Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Nichol's Turk's Head Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Peebles Navajo Pediocactus peeblesianus peeblesianus Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Pima Pineapple Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina Endangered Dicot

Cactus, San Rafael Pediocactus despainii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus (=Echinocactus,=Utahia) sileri Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Sneed Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Sneed Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Star Astrophytum asterias Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Tobusch Fishhook Ancistrocactus tobuschii Endangered Dicot

Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Sclerocactus glaucus Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Sclerocactus glaucus Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Winkler Pediocactus winkleri Threatened Dicot

Cactus, Wright Fishhook Sclerocactus wrightiae Endangered Dicot

Calyptranthes Thomasiana (ncn) Calyptranthes thomasiana Endangered Dicot

Campeloma, Slender Campeloma decampi Endangered Gastropod

Campion, Fringed Silene polypetala Endangered Dicot

Campion, Fringed Silene polypetala Endangered Dicot

Capa Rosa Callicarpa ampla Endangered Dicot

Caracara, Audubon's Crested Polyborus plancus audubonii Threatened Bird

### -Page 251 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Caribou, Woodland Rangifer tarandus caribou Endangered Mammal

Caribou, Woodland Rangifer tarandus caribou Endangered Mammal

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Threatened Dicot

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Threatened Dicot

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Threatened Dicot

Catchfly, Spalding's Silene spaldingii Threatened Dicot

Catesbaea Melanocarpa (ncn) Catesbaea melanocarpa Endangered Dicot

Catfish, Yaqui Ictalurus pricei Threatened Fish

Cat's-eye, Terlingua Creek Cryptantha crassipes Endangered Dicot

Cavefish, Alabama Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni Endangered Fish

Cavefish, Ozark Amblyopsis rosae Threatened Fish

Cavefish, Ozark Amblyopsis rosae Threatened Fish

Cavefish, Ozark Amblyopsis rosae Threatened Fish

Cavesnail, Tumbling Creek Antrobia culveri Endangered Gastropod

Ceanothus, Coyote Ceanothus ferrisae Endangered Dicot

Ceanothus, Pine Hill Ceanothus roderickii Endangered Dicot

Ceanothus, Vail Lake Ceanothus ophiochilus Threatened Dicot

Centaury, Spring-loving Centaurium namophilum Threatened Dicot

Centaury, Spring-loving Centaurium namophilum Threatened Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chaffseed, American Schwalbea americana Endangered Dicot

Chamaecrista glandulosa (ncn) Chamaecrista glandulosa var. mirabilis Endangered Dicot

Chamaesyce Halemanui (ncn) Chamaesyce halemanui Endangered Dicot

Checker-mallow, Keck's Sidalcea keckii Endangered Dicot

Checker-mallow, Kenwood Marsh Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Endangered Dicot

Checker-mallow, Nelson's Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened Dicot

Checker-mallow, Nelson's Sidalcea nelsoniana Threatened Dicot

Checker-mallow, Pedate Sidalcea pedata Endangered Dicot

Checker-mallow, Wenatchee Mountains Sidalcea oregana var. calva Endangered Dicot

Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Fish

Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Fish

Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Fish

Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Fish

Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans Endangered Fish

Chub, Borax Lake Gila boraxobius Endangered Fish

Chub, Chihuahua Gila nigrescens Threatened Fish

Chub, Gila Gila intermedia Endangered Fish

Chub, Gila Gila intermedia Endangered Fish

Chub, Humpback Gila cypha Endangered Fish

Chub, Humpback Gila cypha Endangered Fish

### -Page 252 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Chub, Humpback Gila cypha Endangered Fish

Chub, Humpback Gila cypha Endangered Fish

Chub, Hutton Tui Gila bicolor ssp. Threatened Fish

Chub, Hutton Tui Gila bicolor ssp. Threatened Fish

Chub, Mohave Tui Gila bicolor mohavensis Endangered Fish

Chub, Oregon Oregonichthys crameri Endangered Fish

Chub, Owens Tui Gila bicolor snyderi Endangered Fish

Chub, Pahranagat Roundtail Gila robusta jordani Endangered Fish

Chub, Slender Erimystax cahni Threatened Fish

Chub, Slender Erimystax cahni Threatened Fish

Chub, Sonora Gila ditaenia Threatened Fish

Chub, Spotfin Erimonax monachus Threatened Fish

Chub, Spotfin Erimonax monachus Threatened Fish

Chub, Spotfin Erimonax monachus Threatened Fish

Chub, Spotfin Erimonax monachus Threatened Fish

Chub, Spotfin Erimonax monachus Threatened Fish

Chub, Virgin River Gila seminuda (=robusta) Endangered Fish

Chub, Virgin River Gila seminuda (=robusta) Endangered Fish

Chub, Virgin River Gila seminuda (=robusta) Endangered Fish

Chub, Yaqui Gila purpurea Endangered Fish

Chumbo, Higo Harrisia portoricensis Threatened Dicot

Chupacallos Pleodendron macranthum Endangered Dicot

Cladonia, Florida Perforate Cladonia perforata Endangered Lichen

Clarkia, Pismo Clarkia speciosa ssp. immaculata Endangered Dicot

Clarkia, Presidio Clarkia franciscana Endangered Dicot

Clarkia, Springville Clarkia springvillensis Threatened Dicot

Clarkia, Vine Hill Clarkia imbricata Endangered Dicot

Cliffrose, Arizona Purshia (=cowania) subintegra Endangered Dicot

Clover, Fleshy Owl's Castilleja campestr is ssp. succulenta Threatened Dicot

Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Endangered Dicot

Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Endangered Dicot

Clover, Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Endangered Dicot

Clover, Monterey Trifolium trichocalyx Endangered Dicot

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Threatened Dicot

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Threatened Dicot

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Threatened Dicot

Clover, Prairie Bush Lespedeza leptostachya Threatened Dicot

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered Dicot

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered Dicot

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered Dicot

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered Dicot

Clover, Running Buffalo Trifolium stoloniferum Endangered Dicot

Clover, Showy Indian Trifolium amoenum Endangered Dicot

Cobana Negra Stahlia monosperma Threatened Dicot

Combshell, Southern (=Penitent mussel) Epioblasma penita Endangered Bivalve

Combshell, Southern (=Penitent mussel) Epioblasma penita Endangered Bivalve

### -Page 253 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Combshell, Upland Epioblasma metastriata Endangered Bivalve

Combshell, Upland Epioblasma metastriata Endangered Bivalve

Combshell, Upland Epioblasma metastriata Endangered Bivalve

Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus Endangered Bird

Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus Endangered Bird

Coneflower, Smooth Echinacea laevigata Endangered Dicot

Coneflower, Smooth Echinacea laevigata Endangered Dicot

Coneflower, Smooth Echinacea laevigata Endangered Dicot

Coneflower, Tennessee Purple Echinacea tennesseensis Endangered Dicot

Coot, Hawaiian (=Alae keo keo) Fulica americana alai Endangered Bird

Coqui, Golden Eleutherodactylus jasperi Threatened Amphibian

Cordia bellonis (ncn) Cordia bellonis Endangered Dicot

Coyote-thistle, Loch Lomond Eryngium constancei Endangered Dicot

Crane, Mississippi Sandhill Grus canadensis pulla Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Crane, Whooping Grus americana Endangered Bird

Cranichis Ricartii Cranichis ricartii Endangered Monocot

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus aculabrum) Cambarus aculabrum Endangered Crustacean

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus aculabrum) Cambarus aculabrum Endangered Crustacean

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus zophonastes) Cambarus zophonastes Endangered Crustacean

Crayfish, Nashville Orconectes shoupi Endangered Crustacean

Crayfish, Shasta Pacifastacus fortis Endangered Crustacean

Creeper, Hawaii Oreomystis mana Endangered Bird

Creeper, Molokai (Kakawahie) Paroreomyza flammea Endangered Bird

Creeper, Oahu (Alauwahio) Paroreomyza maculata Endangered Bird

Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus Threatened Reptile

Crow, Hawaiian ('Alala) Corvus hawaiiensis Endangered Bird

Crownbeard, Big-leaved Verbesina dissita Threatened Dicot

Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley Atriplex coronata var. notatior Endangered Dicot

Cui-ui Chasmistes cujus Endangered Fish

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Endangered Bird

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Endangered Bird

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Endangered Bird

Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis Endangered Bird

Cyanea undulata (ncn) Cyanea undulata Endangered Dicot

Cycladenia, Jones Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis) Threatened Dicot

Cycladenia, Jones Cycladenia jonesii (=humilis) Threatened Dicot

### -Page 254 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Cypress, Gowen Cupressus goveniana ssp. goveniana Threatened Conf/cycds

Cypress, Santa Cruz Cupressus abramsiana Endangered Conf/cycds

Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis Endangered Fish

Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis Endangered Fish

Dace, Blackside Phoxinus cumberlandensis Threatened Fish

Dace, Blackside Phoxinus cumberlandensis Threatened Fish

Dace, Blackside Phoxinus cumberlandensis Threatened Fish

Dace, Clover Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus Endangered Fish

Dace, Desert Eremichthys acros Threatened Fish

Dace, Foskett Speckled Rhinichthys osculus ssp. Threatened Fish

Dace, Independence Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus Endangered Fish

Dace, Kendall Warm Springs Rhinichthys osculus thermalis Endangered Fish

Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea Endangered Fish

Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea Endangered Fish

Daisy, Lakeside Hymenoxys herbacea Threatened Dicot

Daisy, Lakeside Hymenoxys herbacea Threatened Dicot

Daisy, Lakeside Hymenoxys herbacea Threatened Dicot

Daisy, Maguire Erigeron maguirei Threatened Dicot

Daisy, Parish's Erigeron parishii Threatened Dicot

Daisy, Willamette Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens Endangered Dicot

Daphnopsis hellerana (ncn) Daphnopsis hellerana Endangered Dicot

Darter, Amber Percina antesella Endangered Fish

Darter, Amber Percina antesella Endangered Fish

Darter, Bayou Etheostoma rubrum Threatened Fish

Darter, Bluemask (=jewel) Etheostoma / Endangered Fish

Darter, Bluemask (=jewel) Etheostoma / Endangered Fish

Darter, Boulder Etheostoma wapiti Endangered Fish

Darter, Boulder Etheostoma wapiti Endangered Fish

Darter, Cherokee Etheostoma scotti Threatened Fish

Darter, Duskytail Etheostoma percnurum Endangered Fish

Darter, Duskytail Etheostoma percnurum Endangered Fish

Darter, Etowah Etheostoma etowahae Endangered Fish

Darter, Fountain Etheostoma fonticola Endangered Fish

Darter, Goldline Percina aurolineata Threatened Fish

Darter, Goldline Percina aurolineata Threatened Fish

Darter, Leopard Percina pantherina Threatened Fish

Darter, Leopard Percina pantherina Threatened Fish

Darter, Maryland Etheostoma sellare Endangered Fish

Darter, Niangua Etheostoma nianguae Threatened Fish

Darter, Okaloosa Etheostoma okaloosae Endangered Fish

Darter, Relict Etheostoma chienense Endangered Fish

Darter, Slackwater Etheostoma boschungi Threatened Fish

Darter, Slackwater Etheostoma boschungi Threatened Fish

Darter, Snail Percina tanasi Threatened Fish

Darter, Snail Percina tanasi Threatened Fish

Darter, Snail Percina tanasi Threatened Fish

### -Page 255 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Darter, Vermilion Etheostoma chermocki Endangered Fish

Darter, Watercress Etheostoma nuchale Endangered Fish

Dawn-flower, Texas Prairie (=Texas Bitterweed) Hymenoxys texana Endangered Dicot

Deer, Columbian White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Endangered Mammal

Deer, Columbian White-tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus Endangered Mammal

Deer, Key Odocoileus virginianus clavium Endangered Mammal

Delissea rhytodisperma (ncn) Delissea rhytidosperma Endangered Dicot

Diellia erecta (ncn) Diellia erecta Endangered Ferns

Diellia falcata (ncn) Diellia falcata Endangered Ferns

Diellia pallida (ncn) Diellia pallida Endangered Ferns

Diellia unisora (ncn) Diellia unisora Endangered Ferns

Diplazium molokaiense (ncn) Diplazium molokaiense Endangered Ferns

Dogweed, Ashy Thymophylla tephroleuca Endangered Dicot

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Somatochlora hineana Endangered Insect

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Somatochlora hineana Endangered Insect

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Somatochlora hineana Endangered Insect

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Somatochlora hineana Endangered Insect

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald Somatochlora hineana Endangered Insect

Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Endangered Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Endangered Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Endangered Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's Oxypolis canbyi Endangered Dicot

Dubautia latifolia (ncn) Dubautia latifolia Endangered Dicot

Dubautia pauciflorula (ncn) Dubautia pauciflorula Endangered Dicot

Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) Anas wyvilliana Endangered Bird

Duck, Laysan Anas laysanensis Endangered Bird

Dudleya, Conejo Dudleya abramsii ssp. parva Threatened Dicot

Dudleya, Marcescent Dudleya cymosa ssp. marcescens Threatened Dicot

Dudleya, Santa Clara Valley Dudleya setchellii Endangered Dicot

Dudleya, Santa Cruz Island Dudleya nesiotica Threatened Dicot

Dudleya, Santa Monica Mountains Dudleya cymosa ssp. ovatifolia Threatened Dicot

Dudleya, Verity's Dudleya verityi Threatened Dicot

Dwarf-flax, Marin Hesperolinon congestum Threatened Dicot

Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened Bird

Eider, Spectacled Somateria fischeri Threatened Bird

Eider, Steller's Polysticta stelleri Threatened Bird

Elepaio, Oahu Chasiempis sandwichensis ibidis Endangered Bird

Elimia, Lacy Elimia crenatella Threatened Gastropod

Elktoe, Appalachian Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered Bivalve

Elktoe, Appalachian Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered Bivalve

Erubia Solanum drymophilum Endangered Dicot

Eugenia Woodburyana Eugenia woodburyana Endangered Dicot

Evening-primrose, Antioch Dunes Oenothera deltoides ssp. howellii Endangered Dicot

Evening-primrose, Eureka Valley Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis Endangered Dicot

Evening-primrose, San Benito Camissonia benitensis Threatened Dicot

### -Page 256 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Fairy Branchinecta conservatio Endangered Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Branchinecta longiantenna Endangered Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Riverside Streptocephalus woottoni Endangered Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, San Diego Branchinecta sandiegonensis Endangered Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Branchinecta lynchi Threatened Crustacean

Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis Endangered Bird

Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis Endangered Bird

Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis Endangered Bird

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fanshell Cyprogenia stegaria Endangered Bivalve

Fatmucket, Arkansas Lampsilis powelli Threatened Bivalve

Fern, Adiantum vivesii Adiantum vivesii Endangered Ferns

Fern, Alabama Streak-sorus Thelypteris pilosa var. alabamensis Threatened Ferns

Fern, Aleutian Shield Polystichum aleuticum Endangered Ferns

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Threatened Ferns

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Threatened Ferns

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Threatened Ferns

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Threatened Ferns

Fern, American hart's-tongue Asplenium scolopendrium var. americanum Threatened Ferns

Fern, Elaphoglossum serpens Elaphoglossum serpens Endangered Ferns

Fern, Pendant Kihi (Adenophorus periens) Adenophorus periens Endangered Ferns

Fern, Thelypteris inabonensis Thelypteris inabonensis Endangered Ferns

Fern, Thelypteris verecunda Thelypteris verecunda Endangered Ferns

Fern, Thelypteris yaucoensis Thelypteris yaucoensis Endangered Ferns

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Ferret, Black-footed Mustela nigripes Endangered Mammal

Fiddleneck, Large-flowered Amsinckia grandiflora Endangered Dicot

Finch, Laysan Telespyza cantans Endangered Bird

Finch, Nihoa Telespyza ultima Endangered Bird

Flannelbush, Mexican Fremontodendron mexicanum Endangered Dicot

Flannelbush, Pine Hill Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens Endangered Dicot

Fleabane, Zuni Erigeron rhizomatus Threatened Dicot

### -Page 257 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Fleabane, Zuni Erigeron rhizomatus Threatened Dicot

Fly, Delhi Sands Flower-loving Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Endangered Insect

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Bird

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Bird

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Bird

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Bird

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Bird

Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus Endangered Bird

Four-o'clock, Macfarlane's Mirabilis macfarlanei Threatened Dicot

Four-o'clock, Macfarlane's Mirabilis macfarlanei Threatened Dicot

Fox, San Joaquin Kit Vulpes macrotis mutica Endangered Mammal

Fox, San Miguel Island Urocyon littoralis littoralis Endangered Mammal

Fox, Santa Catalina Island Urocyon littoralis catalinae Endangered Mammal

Fox, Santa Cruz Island Urocyon littoralis santacruzae Endangered Mammal

Fox, Santa Rosa Island Urocyon littoralis santarosae Endangered Mammal

Frankenia, Johnston's Frankenia johnstonii Endangered Dicot

Fringe Tree, Pygmy Chionanthus pygmaeus Endangered Dicot

Fringepod, Santa Cruz Island Thysanocarpus conchuliferus Endangered Dicot

Fritillary, Gentner's Fritillaria gentneri Endangered Monocot

Frog, California Red-legged Rana aurora draytonii Threatened Amphibian

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Rana chiricahuensis Threatened Amphibian

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Rana chiricahuensis Threatened Amphibian

Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi DPS) Rana capito sevosa Endangered Amphibian

Frog, Mountain Yellow-legged Gopherus agassizii Endangered Amphibian

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum Threatened Dicot

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum Threatened Dicot

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum Threatened Dicot

Fruit, Earth (=geocarpon) Geocarpon minimum Threatened Dicot

Gahnia Lanaiensis (ncn) Gahnia lanaiensis Endangered Monocot

Gambusia, Big Bend Gambusia gaigei Endangered Fish

Gambusia, Clear Creek Gambusia heterochir Endangered Fish

Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis Endangered Fish

Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis Endangered Fish

Gambusia, San Marcos Gambusia georgei Endangered Fish

Gecko, Monito Sphaerodactylus micropithecus Endangered Reptile

Geranium, Hawaiian Red-flowered Geranium arboreum Endangered Dicot

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Endangered Dicot

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Endangered Dicot

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Endangered Dicot

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Endangered Dicot

Gerardia, Sandplain Agalinis acuta Endangered Dicot

Gesneria pauciflora (ncn) Gesneria pauciflora Threatened Dicot

Gilia, Hoffmann's Slender-flowered Gilia tenuiflora ssp. hoffmannii Endangered Dicot

Gilia, Monterey Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria Endangered Dicot

Gnatcatcher, Coastal California Polioptila californica californica Threatened Bird

Goby, Tidewater Eucyclogobius newberryi Endangered Fish

### -Page 258 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Goetzea, Beautiful (Matabuey) Goetzea elegans Endangered Dicot

Golden Sunburst, Hartweg's Pseudobahia bahiifolia Endangered Dicot

Goldenrod, Blue Ridge Solidago spithamaea Threatened Dicot

Goldenrod, Blue Ridge Solidago spithamaea Threatened Dicot

Goldenrod, Houghton's Solidago houghtonii Threatened Dicot

Goldenrod, Short's Solidago shortii Endangered Dicot

Goldenrod, Short's Solidago shortii Endangered Dicot

Goldenrod, White-haired Solidago albopilosa Threatened Dicot

Goldfields, Burke's Lasthenia burkei Endangered Dicot

Goldfields, Contra Costa Lasthenia conjugens Endangered Dicot

Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis Endangered Bird

Gooseberry, Miccosukee Ribes echinellum Threatened Dicot

Gooseberry, Miccosukee Ribes echinellum Threatened Dicot

Gouania hillebrandii (ncn) Gouania hillebrandii Endangered Dicot

Gouania meyenii (ncn) Gouania meyenii Endangered Dicot

Gouania vitifolia (ncn) Gouania vitifolia Endangered Dicot

Gourd, Okeechobee Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp.

okeechobeensis Endangered Dicot

Grass, California Orcutt Orcuttia californica Endangered Monocot

Grass, Colusa Neostapfia colusana Threatened Monocot

Grass, Eureka Dune Swallenia alexandrae Endangered Monocot

Grass, Fosberg's Love Eragrostis fosbergii Endangered Monocot

Grass, Hairy Orcutt Orcuttia pilosa Endangered Dicot

Grass, Sacramento Orcutt Orcuttia viscida Endangered Dicot

Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Orcuttia inaequalis Threatened Monocot

Grass, Slender Orcutt Orcuttia tenuis Threatened Dicot

Grass, Solano Tuctoria mucronata Endangered Monocot

Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed Xyris tennesseensis Endangered Monocot

Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed Xyris tennesseensis Endangered Monocot

Grass, Tennessee Yellow-eyed Xyris tennesseensis Endangered Monocot

Grasshopper, Zayante Band-winged Trimerotropis infantilis Endangered Insect

Ground-plum, Guthrie's Astragalus bibullatus Endangered Dicot

Groundsel, San Francisco Peaks Senecio franciscanus Threatened Dicot

Guajon Eleutherodactylus cooki Threatened Amphibian

Gumplant, Ash Meadows Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Threatened Dicot

Gumplant, Ash Meadows Grindelia fraxino-pratensis Threatened Dicot

Haha (Cyanea acuminata) Cyanea acuminata Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea asarifolia) Cyanea asarifolia Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii) Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis) Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea Crispa) (=Rollandia crispa) Cyanea (=Rollandia) crispa Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea dunbarii) Cyanea dunbarii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea glabra) Cyanea glabra Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana) Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana Endangered Dicot

### -Page 259 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Haha (Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae) Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii) Cyanea hamatiflora carlsonii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora) Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea humboldtiana) Cyanea humboldtiana Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea koolauensis) Cyanea koolauensis Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea longiflora) Cyanea longiflora Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea Macrostegia var. gibsonii) Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea mannii) Cyanea mannii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea mceldowneyi) Cyanea mceldowneyi Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea pinnatifida) Cyanea pinnatifida Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea platyphylla) Cyanea platyphylla Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea procera) Cyanea procera Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea recta) Cyanea recta Threatened Dicot

Haha (Cyanea remyi) Cyanea remyi Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea shipmanii) Cyanea shipmannii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea stictophylla) Cyanea stictophylla Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea St-Johnii) (=Rollandia StJohnii) Cyanea st-johnii Endangered Dicot

Haha (Cyanea superba) Cyanea superba Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra crenata) Cyrtandra crenata Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra dentata) Cyrtandra dentata Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra giffardii) Cyrtandra giffardii Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra limahuliensis) Cyrtandra limahuliensis Threatened Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra munroi) Cyrtandra munroi Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra polyantha) Cyrtandra polyantha Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra subumbellata) Cyrtandra subumbellata Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra tintinnabula) Cyrtandra tintinnabula Endangered Dicot

Ha'Iwale (Cyrtandra viridiflora) Cyrtandra viridiflora Endangered Dicot

Hala Pepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis) Pleomele hawaiiensis Endangered Monocot

Haplostachys Haplostachya (ncn) Haplostachys haplostachya Endangered Dicot

Harebells, Avon Park Crotalaria avonensis Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Dicot

Harvestman, Bee Creek Cave Texella reddelli Endangered Arachnid

Harvestman, Bone Cave Texella reyesi Endangered Arachnid

Harvestman, Robber Baron Cave Texella cokendolpheri Endangered Arachnid

Hau Kauhiwi (Hibiscadelphus woodi) Hibiscadelphus woodii Endangered Dicot

Hau Kuahiwi (Hibiscadelphus distans) Hibiscadelphus distans Endangered Dicot

Hawk, Hawaiian (Io) Buteo solitarius Endangered Bird

### -Page 260 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Hawk, Puerto Rican Broad-winged Buteo platypterus brunnescens Endangered Bird

Hawk, Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned Accipiter striatus venator Endangered Bird

Heartleaf, Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis naniflora Threatened Dicot

Heartleaf, Dwarf-flowered Hexastylis naniflora Threatened Dicot

Heather, Mountain Golden Hudsonia montana Threatened Dicot

Heau (Exocarpos luteolus) Exocarpos luteolus Endangered Dicot

Hedyotis degeneri (ncn) Hedyotis degeneri Endangered Dicot

Hedyotis parvula (ncn) Hedyotis parvula Endangered Dicot

Hedyotis St.-Johnii (ncn) Hedyotis st.-johnii Endangered Dicot

Hesperomannia arborescens (ncn) Hesperomannia arborescens Endangered Dicot

Hesperomannia arbuscula (ncn) Hesperomannia arbuscula Endangered Dicot

Hesperomannia lydgatei (ncn) Hesperomannia lydgatei Endangered Dicot

Hibiscus, Clay's Hibiscus clayi Endangered Dicot

Higuero De Sierra Crescentia portoricensis Endangered Dicot

Hilo Ischaemum (Ischaemum byrone) Ischaemum byrone Endangered Monocot

Holei (Ochrosia kilaueaensis) Ochrosia kilaueaensis Endangered Dicot

Holly, Cook's Ilex cookii Endangered Dicot

Honeycreeper, Crested ('Akohekohe) Palmeria dolei Endangered Bird

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis Threatened Dicot

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis Threatened Dicot

Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis Threatened Dicot

Hypericum, Highlands Scrub Hypericum cumulicola Endangered Dicot

Iguana, Mona Ground Cyclura stejnegeri Threatened Reptile

'Ihi'Ihi (Marsilea villosa) Marsilea villosa Endangered Ferns

Ilex sintenisii (ncn) Ilex sintenisii Endangered Dicot

Iliau (Wilkesia hobdyi) Wilkesia hobdyi Endangered Dicot

Ipomopsis, Holy Ghost Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus Endangered Dicot

Iris, Dwarf Lake Iris lacustris Threatened Monocot

Iris, Dwarf Lake Iris lacustris Threatened Monocot

Irisette, White Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered Monocot

Irisette, White Sisyrinchium dichotomum Endangered Monocot

Isopod, Lee County Cave Lirceus usdagalun Endangered Crustacean

Isopod, Madison Cave Antrolana lira Threatened Crustacean

Isopod, Socorro Thermosphaeroma thermophilus Endangered Crustacean

Ivesia, Ash Meadows Ivesia kingii var. eremica Threatened Dicot

Ivesia, Ash Meadows Ivesia kingii var. eremica Threatened Dicot

Jacquemontia, Beach Jacquemontia reclinata Endangered Dicot

Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered Mammal

Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered Mammal

Jaguarundi, Gulf Coast Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitli Endangered Mammal

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca Endangered Mammal

Jaguarundi, Sinaloan Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi tolteca Endangered Mammal

Jewelflower, California Caulanthus californicus Endangered Dicot

Jewelflower, Metcalf Canyon Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Endangered Dicot

Jewelflower, Tiburon Streptanthus niger Endangered Dicot

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica Threatened Dicot

### -Page 261 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica Threatened Dicot

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica Threatened Dicot

Joint-vetch, Sensitive Aeschynomene virginica Threatened Dicot

Kamakahala (Labordia cyrtandrae) Labordia cyrtandrae Endangered Dicot

Kamakahala (Labordia lydgatei) Labordia lydgatei Endangered Dicot

Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis) Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis Endangered Dicot

Kamakahala (Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaen) Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis Endangered Dicot

Kamakahala (Labordia triflora) Labordia triflora Endangered Dicot

Kamanomano (Cenchrus agrimonioides) Cenchrus agrimonioides Endangered Monocot

Kanaloa kahoolawensis (ncn) Kanaloa kahoolawensis Endangered Dicot

Kangaroo Rat, Fresno Dipodomys nitratoides exilis Endangered Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Giant Dipodomys ingens Endangered Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay Dipodomys heermanni morroensis Endangered Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, San Bernardino Merriam's Dipodomys merriami parvus Endangered Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Stephens' Dipodomys stephensi (incl. D. cascus) Endangered Mammal

Kangaroo Rat, Tipton Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides Endangered Mammal

Kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia) Colubrina oppositifolia Endangered Dicot

Kaulu (Pteralyxia kauaiensis) Pteralyxia kauaiensis Endangered Dicot

Kidneyshell, Triangular Ptychobranchus greenii Endangered Bivalve

Kidneyshell, Triangular Ptychobranchus greenii Endangered Bivalve

Kidneyshell, Triangular Ptychobranchus greenii Endangered Bivalve

Kio'Ele (Hedyotis coriacea) Hedyotis coriacea Endangered Dicot

Kiponapona (Phyllostegia racemosa) Phyllostegia racemosa Endangered Dicot

Kite, Everglade Snail Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered Bird

Koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) Kokia drynarioides Endangered Dicot

Koki'o (Kokia kauaiensis) Kokia kauaiensis Endangered Dicot

Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus) Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus Endangered Dicot

Koki'o Ke'oke'o (Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae) Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae Endangered Dicot

Kolea (Myrsine juddii) Myrsine juddii Endangered Dicot

Kolea (Myrsine linearifolia) Myrsine linearifolia Threatened Dicot

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha) Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha Endangered Dicot

Ko'oko'olau (Bidens wiebkei) Bidens wiebkei Endangered Dicot

Ko'oloa'ula (Abutilon menziesii) Abutilon menziesii Endangered Dicot

Kopa (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi) Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi Endangered Dicot

Kuawawaenohu (Alsinidendron lychnoides) Alsinidendron lychnoides Endangered Dicot

Kulu'I (Nototrichium humile) Nototrichium humile Endangered Dicot

Ladies'-tresses, Canelo Hills Spiranthes delitescens Endangered Monocot

Ladies'-tresses, Navasota Spiranthes parksii Endangered Monocot

Ladies'-tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Monocot

Ladies'-tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Monocot

### -Page 262 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Ladies'-tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened Monocot

Larkspur, Baker's Delphinium bakeri Endangered Dicot

Larkspur, San Clemente Island Delphinium variegatum ssp. kinkiense Endangered Dicot

Larkspur, Yellow Delphinium luteum Endangered Dicot

Lau'ehu (Panicum niihauense) Panicum niihauense Endangered Monocot

Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago hawaiensis) Plantago hawaiensis Endangered Dicot

Laukahi Kuahiwi (Plantago princeps) Plantago princeps Endangered Dicot

Laulihilihi (Schiedea stellarioides) Schiedea stellarioides Endangered Dicot

Layia, Beach Layia carnosa Endangered Dicot

Lead-plant, Crenulate Amorpha crenulata Endangered Dicot

Leather-flower, Alabama Clematis socialis Endangered Dicot

Leather-flower, Morefield's Clematis morefieldii Endangered Dicot

Lepanthes eltorensis (ncn) Lepanthes eltoroensis Endangered Monocot

Leptocereus grantianus (ncn) Leptocereus grantianus Endangered Dicot

Lessingia, San Francisco Lessingia germanorum (=L.g. var. germanorum) Endangered Dicot

Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare Endangered Lichen

Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare Endangered Lichen

Lichen, Rock Gnome Gymnoderma lineare Endangered Lichen

Lily, Minnesota Trout Erythronium propullans Endangered Monocot

Lily, Pitkin Marsh Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Endangered Monocot

Lily, Tiburon Mariposa Calochortus tiburonensis Threatened Monocot

Lily, Western Lilium occidentale Endangered Monocot

Lily, Western Lilium occidentale Endangered Monocot

Limpet, Banbury Springs Lanx sp. Endangered Gastropod

Lipochaeta ve nosa (ncn) Lipochaeta venosa Endangered Dicot

Liveforever, Laguna Beach Dudleya stolonifera Threatened Dicot

Liveforever, Santa Barbara Island Dudleya traskiae Endangered Dicot

Lizard, Blunt-nosed Leopard Gambelia silus Endangered Reptile

Lizard, Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Uma inornata Threatened Reptile

Lizard, Island Night Xantusia riversiana Threatened Reptile

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia affinis) Pritchardia affinis Endangered Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia kaalae) Pritchardia kaalae Endangered Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia munroi) Pritchardia munroi Endangered Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia napaliensis) Pritchardia napaliensis Endangered Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia remota) Pritchardia remota Endangered Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia schattaueri) Pritchardia schattaueri Endangered Monocot

Lo`ulu (Pritchardia viscosa) Pritchardia viscosa Endangered Monocot

Lobelia monostachya (ncn) Lobelia monostachya Endangered Dicot

Lobelia niihauensis (ncn) Lobelia niihauensis Endangered Dicot

Lobelia oahuensis (ncn) Lobelia oahuensis Endangered Dicot

Locoweed, Fassett's Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Threatened Dicot

Logperch, Conasauga Percina jenkinsi Endangered Fish

Logperch, Conasauga Percina jenkinsi Endangered Fish

Logperch, Roanoke Percina rex Endangered Fish

Lomatium, Bradshaw's Lomatium bradshawii Endangered Dicot

Lomatium, Cook's Lomatium cookii Endangered Dicot

### -Page 263 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Loosestrife, Rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered Dicot

Loosestrife, Rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered Dicot

Lousewort, Furbish Pedicularis furbishiae Endangered Dicot

Lupine, Clover Lupinus tidestromii Endangered Dicot

Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) Threatened Dicot

Lupine, Kincaid's Lupinus sulphureus (=oreganus) ssp. kincaidii (=var. kincaidii) Threatened Dicot

Lupine, Nipomo Mesa Lupinus nipomensis Endangered Dicot

Lupine, Scrub Lupinus aridorum Endangered Dicot

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis Threatened Mammal

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis Threatened Mammal

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis Threatened Mammal

Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis Threatened Mammal

Lyonia truncata var. proctorii (ncn) Lyonia truncata var. proctorii Endangered Dicot

Lysimachia fi lifolia (ncn) Lysimachia filifolia Endangered Dicot

Lysimachia lydgatei (ncn) Lysimachia lydgatei Endangered Dicot

Lysimachia maxima (ncn) Lysimachia maxima Endangered Dicot

Madtom, Neosho Noturus placidus Threatened Fish

Madtom, Neosho Noturus placidus Threatened Fish

Madtom, Neosho Noturus placidus Threatened Fish

Madtom, Pygmy Noturus stanauli Endangered Fish

Madtom, Scioto Noturus trautmani Endangered Fish

Madtom, Smoky Noturus baileyi Endangered Fish

Madtom, Yellowfin Noturus flavipinnis Threatened Fish

Madtom, Yellowfin Noturus flavipinnis Threatened Fish

Madtom, Yellowfin Noturus flavipinnis Threatened Fish

Madtom, Yellowfin Noturus flavipinnis Threatened Fish

Mahoe (Alectryon macrococcus) Alectryon macrococcus Endangered Dicot

Makou (Peucedanum sandwicense) Peucedanum sandwicense Threatened Dicot

Malacothrix, Island Malacothrix squalida Endangered Dicot

Malacothrix, Santa Cruz Island Malacothrix indecora Endangered Dicot

Mallow, Kern Eremalche kernensis Endangered Dicot

Mallow, Peter's Mountain Iliamna corei Endangered Dicot

Manaca, palma de Calyptronoma rivalis Threatened Monocot

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered Marine mml

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered Marine mml

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered Marine mml

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered Marine mml

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered Marine mml

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Endangered Marine mml

Manioc, Walker's Manihot walkerae Endangered Dicot

Manzanita, Del Mar Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia Endangered Dicot

Manzanita, Ione Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Threatened Dicot

Manzanita, Morro Arctostaphylos morroensis Threatened Dicot

Manzanita, Pallid Arctostaphylos pallida Threatened Dicot

### -Page 264 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Manzanita, Presidio (=Raven's) Arctostaphylos hookeri var. ravenii Endangered Dicot

Manzanita, Santa Rosa Island Arctostaphylos confertiflora Endangered Dicot

Ma'o Hau Hele (Hibiscus brackenridgei) Hibiscus brackenridgei Endangered Dicot

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea apokremnos) Schiedea apokremnos Endangered Dicot

Ma'oli'oli (Schiedea kealiae) Schiedea kealiae Endangered Dicot

Mapele (Cyrtandra cyaneoides) Cyrtandra cyaneoides Endangered Dicot

Mariscus fauriei (ncn) Mariscus fauriei Endangered Monocot

Mariscus pennatiformis (ncn) Mariscus pennatiformis Endangered Monocot

Marstonia, Royal (=Royal Snail) Pyrgulopsis ogmorhaphe Endangered Gastropod

Meadowfoam, Butte County Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica Endangered Dicot

Meadowfoam, Large-flowered Woolly Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Grandiflora Endangered Dicot

Meadowfoam, Sebastopol Limnanthes vinculans Endangered Dicot

Meadowrue, Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered Dicot

Meadowrue, Cooley's Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered Dicot

Mehamehame (Flueggea neowawraea) Flueggea neowawraea Endangered Dicot

Meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave Cicurina venii Endangered Arachnid

Milkpea, Small's Galactia smallii Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Applegate's Astragalus applegatei Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Ash Meadows Astragalus phoenix Threatened Dicot

Milk-vetch, Braunton's Astragalus brauntonii Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Clara Hunt's Astragalus clarianus Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Coachella Valley Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Coastal Dunes Astragalus tener var. titi Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Cushenbury Astragalus albens Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Deseret Astragalus desereticus Threatened Dicot

Milk-vetch, Fish Slough Astragalus lentiginosus var. piscinensis Threatened Dicot

Milk-vetch, Heliotrope Astragalus montii Threatened Dicot

Milk-vetch, Holmgren Astragalus holmgreniorum Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Holmgren Astragalus holmgreniorum Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Jesup's Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Jesup's Astragalus robbinsii var. jesupi Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Lane Mountain Astragalus jaegerianus Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Mancos Astragalus humillimus Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Mancos Astragalus humillimus Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Osterhout Astragalus osterhoutii Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Pierson's Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii Threatened Dicot

Milk-vetch, Sentry Astragalus cremnophylax var. cremnophylax Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Shivwits Astragalus ampullarioides Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Triple-ribbed Astragalus tricarinatus Endangered Dicot

Milk-vetch, Ventura Marsh Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Endangered Dicot

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Threatened Dicot

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Threatened Dicot

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Threatened Dicot

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Threatened Dicot

Milkweed, Mead's Asclepias meadii Threatened Dicot

Milkweed, Welsh's Asclepias welshii Threatened Dicot

### -Page 265 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Milkweed, Welsh's Asclepias welshii Threatened Dicot

Millerbird, Nihoa Acrocephalus familiaris kingi Endangered Bird

Minnow, Devils River Dionda diaboli Threatened Fish

Minnow, Loach Tiaroga cobitis Threatened Fish

Minnow, Loach Tiaroga cobitis Threatened Fish

Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery Hybognathus amarus Endangered Fish

Mint, Garrett's Dicerandra christmanii Endangered Dicot

Mint, Lakela's Dicerandra immaculata Endangered Dicot

Mint, Longspurred Dicerandra cornutissima Endangered Dicot

Mint, Otay Mesa Pogogyne nudiuscula Endangered Dicot

Mint, San Diego Mesa Pogogyne abramsii Endangered Dicot

Mint, Scrub Dicerandra frutescens Endangered Dicot

Mitracarpus Maxwelliae Mitracarpus maxwelliae Endangered Dicot

Mitracarpus Polycladus Mitracarpus polycladus Endangered Dicot

Monardella, Willowy Monardella linoides ssp. viminea Endangered Dicot

Monkey-flower, Michigan Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis Endangered Dicot

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Threatened Dicot

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Threatened Dicot

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Threatened Dicot

Monkshood, Northern Wild Aconitum noveboracense Threatened Dicot

Moorhen, Hawaiian Common Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis Endangered Bird

Morning-glory, Stebbins Calystegia stebbinsii Endangered Dicot

Moth, Blackburn's Sphinx Manduca blackburni Endangered Insect

Moth, Kern Pr imrose Sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe Threatened Insect

Mountain Beaver, Point Arena Aplodontia rufa nigra Endangered Mammal

Mountainbalm, Indian Knob Eriodictyon altissimum Endangered Dicot

Mountain-mahogany, Catalina Island Cercocarpus traskiae Endangered Dicot

Mouse, Alabama Beach Peromyscus polionotus ammobates Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach Peromyscus polionotus phasma Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Peromyscus polionotus allophrys Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Key Largo Cotton Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Pacific Pocket Perognathus longimembris pacificus Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Mammal

Mouse, Preble's Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Mammal

Mouse, Salt Marsh Harvest Reithrodontomys raviventris Endangered Mammal

Mouse, Southeastern Beach Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris Threatened Mammal

Mouse, St. Andrew Beach Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis Endangered Mammal

Mucket, Orangenacre Lampsilis perovalis Threatened Bivalve

Mucket, Orangenacre Lampsilis perovalis Threatened Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

### -Page 266 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis abrupta Endangered Bivalve

Munroidendron racemosum (ncn) Munroidendron racemosum Endangered Dicot

Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmo ratus marmoratus Threatened Bird

Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmo ratus marmoratus Threatened Bird

Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmo ratus marmoratus Threatened Bird

Mussel, Acornshell Southern Epioblasma othcaloogensis Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Acornshell Southern Epioblasma othcaloogensis Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Black (=Curtus' Mussel) Clubshell Pleurobema curtum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell Pleurobema clava Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell Medionidus parvulus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell Medionidus parvulus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell Medionidus parvulus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell Epioblasma brevidens Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell Epioblasma brevidens Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell Epioblasma brevidens Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell Epioblasma brevidens Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe Alasmidonta atropurpurea Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe Alasmidonta atropurpurea Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe Alasmidonta atropurpurea Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Pigtoe Pleurobema gibberum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dark Pigtoe Pleurobema furvum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Fine-lined Pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Threatened Bivalve

### -Page 267 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Mussel, Fine-lined Pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Fine-lined Pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Fine-rayed Pigtoe Fusconaia cuneolus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Fine-rayed Pigtoe Fusconaia cuneolus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Fine-rayed Pigtoe Fusconaia cuneolus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Flat Pigtoe (=Marshall's Mussel) Pleurobema marshalli Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Gulf Moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Gulf Moccasinshell Medionidus penicillatus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge Tait's Mussel) Pleurobema taitianum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge Tait's Mussel) Pleurobema taitianum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Carolina Lasmigona decorata Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Carolina Lasmigona decorata Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated Potamilus inflatus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated Potamilus inflatus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated Potamilus inflatus Threatened Bivalve

Mussel, Ochlockonee Moccasinshell Medionidus simpsonianus Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Oval Pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Oval Pigtoe Pleurobema pyriforme Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema perovatum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema perovatum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema perovatum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell Pleurobema perovatum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Oyster Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Oyster Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Oyster Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Oyster Epioblasma capsaeformis Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly) Obovaria retusa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly) Obovaria retusa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly) Obovaria retusa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick Pearly) Obovaria retusa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Scaleshell Leptodea leptodon Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe Fusconaia cor Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe Fusconaia cor Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe Fusconaia cor Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny-rayed Pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny-rayed Pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny-rayed Pocketbook Lampsilis subangulata Endangered Bivalve

### -Page 268 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Mussel, Southern Clubshell Pleurobema decisum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Clubshell Pleurobema decisum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Clubshell Pleurobema decisum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Pigtoe Pleurobema georgianum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Pigtoe Pleurobema georgianum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Pigtoe Pleurobema georgianum Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Speckled Pocketbook Lampsilis streckeri Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Endangered Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula fragosa Endangered Bivalve

Mustard, Carter's Warea carteri Endangered Dicot

Mustard, Penland Alpine Fen Eutrema penlandii Threatened Dicot

Mustard, Slender-petaled Thelypodium stenopetalum Endangered Dicot

Myrcia Paganii Myrcia paganii Endangered Dicot

Na'ena'e (Dubautia herbstobatae) Dubautia herbstobatae Endangered Dicot

Na'ena'e (Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis) Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis Endangered Dicot

Nani Wai'ale'ale (Viola kauaensis var. wahiawaensis) Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis Endangered Dicot

Nanu (Gardenia mannii) Gardenia mannii Endangered Dicot

Na'u (Gardenia brighamii) Gardenia brighamii Endangered Dicot

Naucorid, Ash Meadows Ambrysus amargosus Threatened Insect

Naupaka, Dwarf (Scaevola coriacea) Scaevola coriacea Endangered Dicot

Navarretia, Few-flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora (=N. pauciflora) Endangered Dicot

Navarretia, Many-flowered Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha Endangered Dicot

Navarretia, Spreading Navarretia fossalis Threatened Dicot

Nehe (Lipochaeta fauriei) Lipochaeta fauriei Endangered Dicot

Nehe (Lipochaeta kamolensis) Lipochaeta kamolensis Endangered Dicot

Nehe (Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla) Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla Endangered Dicot

Nehe (Lipochaeta micrantha) Lipochaeta micrantha Endangered Dicot

Nehe (Lipochaeta tenuifolia) Lipochaeta tenuifolia Endangered Dicot

Nehe (Lipochaeta waimeaensis) Lipochaeta waimeaensis Endangered Dicot

Neraudia angulata (ncn) Neraudia angulata Endangered Dicot

Neraudia ovata (ncn) Neraudia ovata Endangered Dicot

Neraudia sericea (ncn) Neraudia sericea Endangered Dicot

Nightjar, Puerto Rico Caprimulgus noctitherus Endangered Bird

Nioi (Eugenia koolauensis) Eugenia koolauensis Endangered Dicot

Niterwort, Amargosa Nitrophila mohavensis Endangered Dicot

Niterwort, Amargosa Nitrophila mohavensis Endangered Dicot

Nohoanu (Geranium multiflorum) Geranium multiflorum Endangered Dicot

Nuku Pu'u Hemignathus lucidus Endangered Bird

Oak, Hinckley Quercus hinckleyi Threatened Dicot

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Endangered Mammal

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis Endangered Mammal

### -Page 269 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

'Oha (Delissea rivularis) Delissea rivularis Endangered Dicot

'Oha (Delissea subcordata) Delissea subcordata Endangered Dicot

'Oha (Delissea undulata) Delissea undulata Endangered Dicot

'Oha (Lobelia gaudichaudii koolauensis) Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia drepanomorpha) Clermontia drepanomorpha Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia lindseyana) Clermontia lindseyana Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes) Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis) Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia peleana) Clermontia peleana Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia pyrularia) Clermontia pyrularia Endangered Dicot

'Oha Wai (Clermontia samuelii) Clermontia samuelii Endangered Dicot

'Ohai (Sesbania tomentosa) Sesbania tomentosa Endangered Dicot

'Ohe'ohe (Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa) Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa Endangered Dicot

'Olulu (Brighamia insignis) Brighamia insignis Endangered Dicot

Onion, Munz's Allium munzii Endangered Monocot

'O'o, Kauai (='A'a) Moho braccatus Endangered Bird

Opuhe (Urera kaalae) Urera kaalae Endangered Dicot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Eastern Prairie Fringed Platanthera leucophaea Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara Threatened Monocot

Otter, Northern Sea Enhydra lutris kenyoni Threatened Marine mml

Otter, Southern Sea Enhydra lutris nereis Threatened Marine mml

'O'u (Honeycreeper) Psittirostra psittacea Endangered Bird

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Bird

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Bird

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Bird

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Bird

Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened Bird

Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Bird

Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Bird

### -Page 270 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Bird

Oxytheca, Cushenbury Oxytheca parishii var. goodmaniana Endangered Dicot

Paintbrush, As h-grey Indian Castilleja cinerea Threatened Dicot

Paintbrush, Golden Castilleja levisecta Threatened Dicot

Paintbrush, San Clemente Island Indian Castilleja grisea Endangered Dicot

Paintbrush, Soft-leaved Castilleja mollis Endangered Dicot

Paintbrush, Tiburon Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta Endangered Dicot

Palila Loxioides bailleui Endangered Bird

Palo Colorado (Ternstroemia luquillensis) Ternstroemia luquillensis Endangered Dicot

Palo de Jazmin Styrax portoricensis Endangered Dicot

Palo de Nigua Cornutia obovata Endangered Dicot

Palo de Ramon Banara vanderbiltii Endangered Dicot

Palo de Rosa Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon Endangered Dicot

Pamakani (Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana) Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana Endangered Dicot

Panicgrass, Carter's (Panicum fauriei var.carteri) Panicum fauriei var. carteri Endangered Monocot

Panther, Florida Puma (=Felis) concolor coryi Endangered Mammal

Parrot, Puerto Rican Amazona vittata Endangered Bird

Parrotbill, Maui Pseudonestor xanthophrys Endangered Bird

Pauoa (Ctenitis squamigera) Ctenitis squamigera Endangered Ferns

Pawpaw, Beautiful Deeringothamnus pulchellus Endangered Dicot

Pawpaw, Four-petal Asimina tetramera Endangered Dicot

Pawpaw, Rugel's Deeringothamnus rugelii Endangered Dicot

Pearlshell, Louisiana Margaritifera hembeli Threatened Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Alabama Lamp Lampsilis virescens Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Alabama Lamp Lampsilis virescens Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Appalachian Monkeyface Quadrula sparsa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Appalachian Monkeyface Quadrula sparsa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Appalachian Monkeyface Quadrula sparsa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Birdwing Conradilla caelata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Birdwing Conradilla caelata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking Hemistena lata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking Hemistena lata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking Hemistena lata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking Hemistena lata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean Villosa trabalis Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean Villosa trabalis Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean Villosa trabalis Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Monkeyface Quadrula intermedia Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Monkeyface Quadrula intermedia Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Monkeyface Quadrula intermedia Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Curtis' Epioblasma florentina curtisii Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Dromedary Dromus dromas Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Dromedary Dromus dromas Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Dromedary Dromus dromas Endangered Bivalve

### -Page 271 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook Potamilus capax Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Green-blossom Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Green-blossom Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye Lampsilis higginsii Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye Lampsilis higginsii Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye Lampsilis higginsii Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye Lampsilis higginsii Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye Lampsilis higginsii Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little-wing Pegias fabula Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little-wing Pegias fabula Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little-wing Pegias fabula Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little-wing Pegias fabula Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange-footed Plethobasus cooperianus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange-footed Plethobasus cooperianus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange-footed Plethobasus cooperianus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange-footed Plethobasus cooperianus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange-footed Plethobasus cooperianus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Pale Lilliput Toxolasma cylindrellus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Pale Lilliput Toxolasma cylindrellus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled-blossom Epioblasma toru losa torulosa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled-blossom Epioblasma toru losa torulosa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled-blossom Epioblasma toru losa torulosa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled-blossom Epioblasma toru losa torulosa Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Turgid-blossom Epioblasma turgidula Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Turgid-blossom Epioblasma turgidula Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Cat's Paw Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback Plethobasus cicatricosus Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Yellow-blossom Epioblasma florentina florentina Endangered Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Yellow-blossom Epioblasma florentina florentina Endangered Bivalve

Pebblesnail, Flat Lepyrium showalteri Endangered Gastropod

Pelos del Diablo Aristida portoricensis Endangered Monocot

Penny-cress, Kneeland Prairie Thlaspi californicum Endangered Dicot

### -Page 272 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Pennyroyal, Todsen's Hedeoma todsenii Endangered Dicot

Penstemon, Blowout Penstemon haydenii Endangered Dicot

Pentachaeta, Lyon's Pentachaeta lyonii Endangered Dicot

Pentachaeta, White-rayed Pentachaeta bellidiflora Endangered Dicot

Peperomia, Wheeler's Peperomia wheeleri Endangered Dicot

Petrel, Hawaiian Dark-rumped Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Endangered Bird

Phacelia, Clay Phacelia argillacea Endangered Dicot

Phacelia, Island Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis Endangered Dicot

Phacelia, North Park Phacelia formosula Endangered Dicot

Phlox, Texas Trailing Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis Endangered Dicot

Phlox, Yreka Phlox hirsuta Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia hirsuta (ncn) Phyllostegia hirsuta Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia kaalaensis (ncn) Phyllostegia kaalaensis Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia knudsenii (ncn) Phyllostegia knudsenii Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia mannii (ncn) Phyllostegia mannii Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia mollis (ncn) Phyllostegia mollis Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia parviflora (ncn) Phyllostegia parviflora Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia velutina (ncn) Phyllostegia velutina Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia waimeae (ncn) Phyllostegia waimeae Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia warshaueri (ncn) Phyllostegia warshaueri Endangered Dicot

Phyllostegia wawrana (ncn) Phyllostegia wawrana Endangered Dicot

Pigeon, Puerto Rican Plain Columba inornata wetmorei Endangered Bird

Pilo (Hedyotis mannii) Hedyotis mannii Endangered Dicot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pink, Swamp Helonias bullata Threatened Monocot

Pinkroot, Gentian Spigelia gentianoides Endangered Dicot

Piperia, Yadon's Piperia yadonii Endangered Monocot

Pitaya, Davis' Green Echinocereus viridiflorus var. davisii Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Alabama Canebrake Sarracenia rubra alabamensis Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Green Sarracenia oreophila Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Mountain Sweet Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Endangered Dicot

Pitcher-plant, Mountain Sweet Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii Endangered Dicot

Platanthera holochila (ncn) Platanthera holochila Endangered Monocot

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

### -Page 273 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus Endangered Bird

Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened Bird

Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened Bird

Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Threatened Bird

Plum, Scrub Prunus geniculata Endangered Dicot

Poa siphonoglossa (ncn) Poa siphonoglossa Endangered Monocot

Po'e (Portulaca sclerocarpa) Portulaca sclerocarpa Endangered Dicot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

### -Page 274 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Pogonia, Small Whorled Isotria medeoloides Threatened Monocot

Polygala, Lewton's Polygala lewtonii Endangered Dicot

Polygala, Tiny Polygala smallii Endangered Dicot

Polygonum, Scott's Valley Polygonum hickmanii Endangered Dicot

Polystichum calderonense (ncn) Polystichum calderonense Endangered Ferns

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Dicot

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Dicot

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Dicot

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Dicot

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Dicot

Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Dicot

Pondweed, Little Aguja Creek Potamogeton clystocarpus Endangered Monocot

Poolfish, Pahrump (= Pahrump Killifish) Empetrichthys latos Endangered Fish

Po'ouli Melamprosops phaeosoma Endangered Bird

Popcornflower, Rough Plagiobothrys hirtus Endangered Dicot

Popolo 'Aiakeakua (Solanum sandwicense) Solanum sandwicense Endangered Dicot

Popolo Ku Mai (Solanum incompletum) Solanum incompletum Endangered Dicot

Poppy, Sacramento Prickly Argemone pleiacantha ssp. pinnatisecta Endangered Dicot

Poppy-mallow, Texas Callirhoe scabriuscula Endangered Dicot

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana Threatened Dicot

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana Threatened Dicot

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana Threatened Dicot

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana Threatened Dicot

Potato-bean, Price's Apios priceana Threatened Dicot

Potentilla, Hickman's Potentilla hickmanii Endangered Dicot

Prairie Dog, Utah Cynomys parvidens Threatened Mammal

Prairie-chicken, Attwater's Greater Tympanuchus cupido attwateri Endangered Bird

Prickly-apple, Fragrant Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans Endangered Dicot

Prickly-ash, St. Thomas Zanthoxylum thomasianum Endangered Dicot

Primrose, Maguire Primula maguirei Threatened Dicot

Pronghorn, Sonoran Antilocapra americana sonoriensis Endangered Mammal

Pseudoscorpion, Tooth Cave Tartarocreagris texana Endangered Arachnid

Pteris lidgatei (ncn) Pteris lidgatei Endangered Ferns

Pua'ala (Brighamia rockii) Brighamia rockii Endangered Dicot

Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes Endangered Fish

Pupfish, Comanche Springs Cyprinodon elegans Endangered Fish

Pupfish, Desert Cyprinodon macularius Endangered Fish

Pupfish, Desert Cyprinodon macularius Endangered Fish

Pupfish, Devils Hole Cyprinodon diabolis Endangered Fish

### -Page 275 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Pupfish, Leon Springs Cyprinodon bovinus Endangered Fish

Pupfish, Owens Cyprinodon radiosus Endangered Fish

Pupfish, Warm Springs Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis Endangered Fish

Purple Bean Villosa perpurpurea Endangered Bivalve

Purple Bean Villosa perpurpurea Endangered Bivalve

Purple Bean Villosa perpurpurea Endangered Bivalve

Pussypaws, Mariposa Calyptridium pulchellum Threatened Dicot

Pu'uka'a (Cyperus trachysanthos) Cyperus trachysanthos Endangered Monocot

Pygmy-owl, Cactus Ferruginous Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum Endangered Bird

Quillwort, Black-spored Isoetes melanospora Endangered Ferns

Quillwort, Black-spored Isoetes melanospora Endangered Ferns

Quillwort, Louisiana Isoetes louisianensis Endangered Ferns

Quillwort, Louisiana Isoetes louisianensis Endangered Ferns

Quillwort, Louisiana Isoetes louisianensis Endangered Ferns

Quillwort, Mat-forming Isoetes tegetiformans Endangered Ferns

Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Endangered Mammal

Rabbit, Pygmy Brachylagus idahoensis Endangered Mammal

Rabbit, Riparian Brush Sylvilagus bachmani riparius Endangered Mammal

Rabbitsfoot, Rough Quadrula cylindrica strigillata Endangered Bivalve

Rabbitsfoot, Rough Quadrula cylindrica strigillata Endangered Bivalve

Rail, California Clapper Rallus longirostris obsoletus Endangered Bird

Rail, Light-footed Clapper Rallus longirostris levipes Endangered Bird

Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered Bird

Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered Bird

Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis Endangered Bird

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge-nosed Crotalus willardi obscurus Threatened Reptile

Rattlesnake, New Mexican Ridge-nosed Crotalus willardi obscurus Threatened Reptile

Rattleweed, Hairy Baptisia arachnifera Endangered Dicot

Reed-mustard, Barneby Schoenocrambe barnebyi Endangered Dicot

Reed-mustard, Clay Schoenocrambe argillacea Threatened Dicot

Reed-mustard, Shrubby Schoenocrambe suffrutescens Endangered Dicot

Remya kauaiensis (ncn) Remya kauaiensis Endangered Dicot

Remya montgomeryi (ncn) Remya montgomeryi Endangered Dicot

Remya, Maui Remya mauiensis Endangered Dicot

Rhadine exilis (ncn) Rhadine exilis Endangered Insect

Rhadine infernalis (ncn) Rhadine infernalis Endangered Insect

Rhododendron, Chapman Rhododendron chapmanii Endangered Dicot

Rice Rat (=Silver Rice Rat) Oryzomys palustris natator Endangered Mammal

Ridge-cress (=Pepper-cress), Barneby Lepidium barnebyanum Endangered Dicot

Riffleshell, Northern Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Endangered Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Endangered Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Endangered Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Endangered Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Endangered Bivalve

Riffleshell, Tan Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri) Endangered Bivalve

Riffleshell, Tan Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri) Endangered Bivalve

### -Page 276 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Riffleshell, Tan Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri) Endangered Bivalve

Riversnail, Anthony's Athearnia anthonyi Endangered Gastropod

Riversnail, Anthony's Athearnia anthonyi Endangered Gastropod

Rock-cress, Hoffmann's Arabis hoffmannii Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Large (=Braun's) Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. ampla Rollins Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Large (=Braun's) Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. ampla Rollins Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, McDonald's Arabis mcdonaldiana Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Santa Cruz Island Sibara filifolia Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Shale Barren Arabis serotina Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Shale Barren Arabis serotina Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Small Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata

Fernald Endangered Dicot

Rock-cress, Small Arabis perstellata E. L. Braun var. perstellata

Fernald Endangered Dicot

Rock-pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) Arkansia wheeleri Endangered Bivalve

Rock-pocketbook, Ouachita (=Wheeler's pm) Arkansia wheeleri Endangered Bivalve

Rocksnail, Painted Leptoxis taeniata Threatened Gastropod

Rocksnail, Plicate Leptoxis plicata Endangered Gastropod

Rocksnail, Round Leptoxis ampla Threatened Gastropod

Rosemary, Apalachicola Conradina glabra Endangered Dicot

Rosemary, Cumberland Conradina verticillata Threatened Dicot

Rosemary, Cumberland Conradina verticillata Threatened Dicot

Rosemary, Etonia Conradina etonia Endangered Dicot

Rosemary, Short-leaved Conradina brevifolia Endangered Dicot

Roseroot, Leedy's Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi Threatened Dicot

Roseroot, Leedy's Sedum integrifolium ssp. leedyi Threatened Dicot

Rush-pea, Slender Hoffmannseggia tenella Endangered Dicot

Rush-rose, Island Helianthemum greenei Threatened Dicot

Salamander, Barton Springs Eurycea sosorum Endangered Amphibian

Salamander, California Tiger Ambystoma californiense Endangered Amphibian

Salamander, Cheat Mountain Plethodon nettingi Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, Desert Slender Batrachoseps aridus Endangered Amphibian

Salamander, Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, Flatwoods Ambystoma cingulatum Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, Red Hills Phaeognathus hubrichti Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, San Marcos Eurycea nana Threatened Amphibian

Salamander, Santa Cruz Long-toed Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum Endangered Amphibian

Salamander, Shenandoah Plethodon shenandoah Endangered Amphibian

Salamander, Sonora Tiger Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi Endangered Amphibian

Salamander, Texas Blind Typhlomolge rathbuni Endangered Amphibian

Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar Endangered Fish

Salmon, Chinook (California Coastal Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Central Valley Fall Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

### -Page 277 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Salmon, Chinook (Central Valley Spring Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Lower Columbia River) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Lower Columbia River) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Puget Sound) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Sacramento River Winter Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Endangered Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Fall Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Fall Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Snake River Fall Run) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Snake River spring/summer) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Snake River spring/summer) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Snake River spring/summer) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Upper Columbia River Spring) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Endangered Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Upper Columbia River Spring) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Endangered Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Upper Willamette River) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Upper Willamette River) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chum (Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chum (Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta Threatened Fish

Salmon, Chum (Hood Canal Summer population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta Threatened Fish

Salmon, Coho (Central California Coast population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch Endangered Fish

Salmon, Coho (Southern OR/Northern CA Coast) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch Threatened Fish

Salmon, Coho (Southern OR/Northern CA Coast) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch Threatened Fish

Salmon, Sockeye (Ozette Lake population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka Threatened Fish

Salmon, Sockeye (Snake River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka Endangered Fish

Salmon, Sockeye (Snake River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka Endangered Fish

Salmon, Sockeye (Snake River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka Endangered Fish

Sandalwood, Lanai (='Iliahi) Santalum freycinetianum var. lanaiense Endangered Dicot

Sandlace Polygonella myriophylla Endangered Dicot

Sand-verbena, Large-fruited Abronia macrocarpa Endangered Dicot

Sandwort, Bear Valley Arenaria ursina Threatened Dicot

Sandwort, Cumberland Arenaria cumberlandensis Endangered Dicot

Sandwort, Cumberland Arenaria cumberlandensis Endangered Dicot

### -Page 278 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Sandwort, Marsh Arenaria paludicola Endangered Dicot

Sanicula mariversa (ncn) Sanicula mariversa Endangered Dicot

Sanicula purpurea (ncn) Sanicula purpurea Endangered Dicot

Sawfish, Smalltooth Pristis pectinata Endangered Fish

Schiedea haleakalensis (ncn) Schiedea haleakalensis Endangered Dicot

Schiedea helleri (ncn) Schiedea helleri Endangered Dicot

Schiedea hookeri (ncn) Schiedea hookeri Endangered Dicot

Schiedea kaalae (ncn) Schiedea kaalae Endangered Dicot

Schiedea kauaiensis (ncn) Schiedea kauaiensis Endangered Dicot

Schiedea lydgatei (ncn) Schiedea lydgatei Endangered Dicot

Schiedea membranacea (ncn) Schiedea membranacea Endangered Dicot

Schiedea nuttallii (ncn) Schiedea nuttallii Endangered Dicot

Schiedea sarmentosa (ncn) Schiedea sarmentosa Endangered Dicot

Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda (ncn) Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda Endangered Dicot

Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina (ncn) Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina Threatened Dicot

Schiedea verticillata (ncn) Schiedea verticillata Endangered Dicot

Schiedea, Diamond Head (Schiedea adamantis) Schiedea adamantis Endangered Dicot

Schoepfia arenaria (ncn) Schoepfia arenaria Threatened Dicot

Scrub-Jay, Florida Aphelocoma coerulescens Threatened Bird

Sculpin, Pygmy Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus) Threatened Fish

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

### -Page 279 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

### -Page 280 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Threatened Reptile

Sea turtle, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Threatened Reptile

Sea-blite, California Suaeda californica Endangered Dicot

Seagrass, Johnson's Halophila johnsonii Threatened Monocot

Seal, Caribbean Monk Monachus tropicalis Endangered Marine mml

Seal, Caribbean Monk Monachus tropicalis Endangered Marine mml

Seal, Guadalupe Fur Arctocephalus townsendi Threatened Marine mml

Seal, Hawaiian Monk Monachus schauinslandi Endangered Marine mml

Sea-lion, Steller (eastern) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened Marine mml

Sea-lion, Steller (eastern) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened Marine mml

Sea-lion, Steller (eastern) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened Marine mml

Sea-lion, Steller (eastern) Eumetopias jubatus Threatened Marine mml

Sedge, Golden Carex lutea Endangered Monocot

Sedge, Navajo Carex specuicola Threatened Monocot

Sedge, Navajo Carex specuicola Threatened Monocot

Sedge, White Carex albida Endangered Monocot

Shagreen, Magazine Mountain Mesodon magazinensis Threatened Gastropod

Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's Puffinus auricularis newelli Threatened Bird

Sheep, Peninsular Bighorn Ovis canadensis Endangered Mammal

Sheep, Sierra Nevada Bighorn Ovis canadensis californiana Endangered Mammal

Shiner, Arkansas River Notropis girardi Threatened Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River Notropis girardi Threatened Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River Notropis girardi Threatened Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River Notropis girardi Threatened Fish

### -Page 281 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Shiner, Beautiful Cyprinella formosa Threatened Fish

Shiner, Beautiful Cyprinella formosa Threatened Fish

Shiner, Blue Cyprinella caerulea Threatened Fish

Shiner, Blue Cyprinella caerulea Threatened Fish

Shiner, Blue Cyprinella caerulea Threatened Fish

Shiner, Cahaba Notropis cahabae Endangered Fish

Shiner, Cape Fear Notropis mekistocholas Endangered Fish

Shiner, Palezone Notropis albizonatus Endangered Fish

Shiner, Palezone Notropis albizonatus Endangered Fish

Shiner, Palezone Notropis albizonatus Endangered Fish

Shiner, Pecos Bluntnose Notropis simus pecosensis Threatened Fish

Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Endangered Fish

Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Endangered Fish

Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Endangered Fish

Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Endangered Fish

Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Endangered Fish

Shiner, Topeka Notropis topeka (=tristis) Endangered Fish

Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate Sorex ornatus relictus Endangered Mammal

Shrike, San Clemente Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi Endangered Bird

Shrimp, Alabama Cave Palaemonias alabamae Endangered Crustacean

Shrimp, California Freshwater Syncaris pacifica Endangered Crustacean

Shrimp, Kentucky Cave Palaemonias ganteri Endangered Crustacean

Shrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave Palaemonetes cummingi Threatened Crustacean

Silene alexandri (ncn) Silene alexandri Endangered Dicot

Silene hawaiiensis (ncn) Silene hawaiiensis Threatened Dicot

Silene lanceolata (ncn) Silene lanceolata Endangered Dicot

Silene perlmanii (ncn) Silene perlmanii Endangered Dicot

Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa Threatened Fish

Silversword, Haleakala ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum Threatened Dicot

Silversword, Ka'u (Argyroxiphium kauense) Argyroxiphium kauense Endangered Dicot

Silversword, Mauna Kea ('Ahinahina) Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicense Endangered Dicot

Skink, Blue-tailed Mole Eumeces egregius lividus Threatened Reptile

Skink, Sand Neoseps reynoldsi Threatened Reptile

Skipper, Carson Wandering Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Endangered Insect

Skipper, Carson Wandering Pseudocopaeodes eunus obscurus Endangered Insect

Skipper, Laguna Mountain Pyrgus ruralis lagunae Endangered Insect

Skipper, Pawnee Montane Hesperia leonardus montana Threatened Insect

Skullcap, Florida Scutellaria floridana Threatened Dicot

Skullcap, Large-flowered Scutellaria montana Threatened Dicot

Skullcap, Large-flowered Scutellaria montana Threatened Dicot

Slabshell, Chipola Elliptio chipolaensis Threatened Bivalve

Smelt, Delta Hypomesus transpacificus Threatened Fish

Snail, Armored Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Bliss Rapids Taylorconcha serpenticola Threatened Gastropod

### -Page 282 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Snail, Chittenango Ovate Amber Succinea chittenangoensis Threatened Gastropod

Snail, Flat-spired Three-toothed Triodopsis platysayoides Threatened Gastropod

Snail, Iowa Pleistocene Discus macclintocki Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Iowa Pleistocene Discus macclintocki Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Lioplax Cylindrical Lioplax cyclostomaformis Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Morro Shoulderband Helminthoglypta walkeriana Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Newcomb's Erinna newcombi Threatened Gastropod

Snail, Noonday Mesodon clarki nantahala Threatened Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella abbreviata) Achatinella abbreviata Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella apexfulva) Achatinella apexfulva Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bellula) Achatinella bellula Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella buddii) Achatinella buddii Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella bulimoides) Achatinella bulimoides Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella byronii) Achatinella byronii Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella caesia) Achatinella caesia Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella casta) Achatinella casta Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella cestus) Achatinella cestus Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella concavospira) Achatinella concavospira Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella curta) Achatinella curta Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decipiens) Achatinella decipiens Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella decora) Achatinella decora Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella dimorpha) Achatinella dimorpha Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella elegans) Achatinella elegans Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fulgens) Achatinella fulgens Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella fuscobasis) Achatinella fuscobasis Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juddii) Achatinella juddii Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella juncea) Achatinella juncea Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lehuiensis) Achatinella lehuiensis Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella leucorraphe) Achatinella leucorraphe Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lila) Achatinella lila Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella livida) Achatinella livida Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella lorata) Achatinella lorata Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella mustelina) Achatinella mustelina Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella papyracea) Achatinella papyracea Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella phaeozona) Achatinella phaeozona Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pulcherrima) Achatinella pulcherrima Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella pupukanioe) Achatinella pupukanioe Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella rosea) Achatinella rosea Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella sowerbyana) Achatinella sowerbyana Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella spaldingi) Achatinella spaldingi Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella stewartii) Achatinella stewartii Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella swiftii) Achatinella swiftii Endangered Gastropod

### -Page 283 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella taeniolata) Achatinella taeniolata Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella thaanumi) Achatinella thaanumi Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella turgida) Achatinella turgida Endangered Gastropod

Snail, O'ahu Tree (Achatinella valida) Achatinella valida Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Painted Snake Coiled Forest Anguispira picta Threatened Gastropod

Snail, Pecos Assiminea Assiminea pecos Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Pecos Assiminea Assiminea pecos Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Snake River Physa Physa natricina Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Stock Island Tree Orthalicus reses (not incl. nesodryas) Threatened Gastropod

Snail, Tulotoma Tulotoma magnifica Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Utah Valvata Valvata utahensis Endangered Gastropod

Snail, Virginia Fringed Mountain Polygyriscus virginianus Endangered Gastropod

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh Nerodia clarkii taeniata Threatened Reptile

Snake, Concho Water Nerodia paucimaculata Threatened Reptile

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptile

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptile

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptile

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptile

Snake, Eastern Indigo Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Reptile

Snake, Giant Garter Thamnophis gigas Threatened Reptile

Snake, Lake Erie Water Nerodia sipedon insularum Threatened Reptile

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Threatened Reptile

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Threatened Reptile

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta Threatened Reptile

Snake, San Francisco Garter Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia Endangered Reptile

Snakeroot Eryngium cuneifolium Endangered Dicot

Sneezeweed, Virginia Helenium virginicum Threatened Dicot

Sneezeweed, Virginia Helenium virginicum Threatened Dicot

Snowbells, Texas Styrax texanus Endangered Dicot

Sparrow, Cape Sable Seaside Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis Endangered Bird

Sparrow, Florida Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Endangered Bird

Sparrow, San Clemente Sage Amphispiza belli clementeae Threatened Bird

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (ncn) Spermolepis hawaiiensis Endangered Dicot

Spider, Government Canyon Cave Neoleptoneta microps Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Kauai Cave Wolf Adelocosa anops Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Madla's Cave Cicurina madla Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Robber Baron Cave Cicurina baronia Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Spruce-fir Moss Microhexura montivaga Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Spruce-fir Moss Microhexura montivaga Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Tooth Cave Neoleptoneta myopica Endangered Arachnid

Spider, Vesper Cave Cicurina vespera Endangered Arachnid

Spikedace Meda fulgida Threatened Fish

Spikedace Meda fulgida Threatened Fish

Spinedace, Big Spring Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis Threatened Fish

Spinedace, Little Colorado Lepidomeda vittata Threatened Fish

Spinedace, White River Lepidomeda albivallis Endangered Fish

### -Page 284 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Spineflower, Ben Lomond Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana Endangered Dicot

Spineflower, Howell's Chorizanthe howellii Endangered Dicot

Spineflower, Monterey Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens Threatened Dicot

Spineflower, Orcutt's Chorizanthe orcuttiana Endangered Dicot

Spineflower, Robust Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Endangered Dicot

Spineflower, Scotts Valley Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii Endangered Dicot

Spineflower, Slender-horned Dodecahema leptoceras Endangered Dicot

Spineflower, Sonoma Chorizanthe valida Endangered Dicot

Spinymussel, James River Pleurobema collina Endangered Bivalve

Spinymussel, James River Pleurobema collina Endangered Bivalve

Spinymussel, James River Pleurobema collina Endangered Bivalve

Spinymussel, Tar River Elliptio steinstansana Endangered Bivalve

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Spiraea, Virginia Spiraea virginiana Threatened Dicot

Springfish, Hiko White River Crenichthys baileyi grandis Endangered Fish

Springfish, Railroad Valley Crenichthys nevadae Threatened Fish

Springfish, White River Crenichthys baileyi baileyi Endangered Fish

Springsnail, Alamosa Tryonia alamosae Endangered Gastropod

Springsnail, Bruneau Hot Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis Endangered Gastropod

Springsnail, Koster's Juturnia kosteri Endangered Gastropod

Springsnail, Roswell Pyrgulopsis roswellensis Endangered Gastropod

Springsnail, Socorro Pyrgulopsis neomexicana Endangered Gastropod

Spurge, Deltoid Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea Endangered Dicot

Spurge, Garber's Chamaesyce garberi Threatened Dicot

Spurge, Hoover's Chamaesyce hooveri Threatened Dicot

Spurge, Telephus Euphorbia telephioides Threatened Dicot

Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Fish

Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Fish

Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Fish

Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Fish

Squawfish, Colorado Ptychocheilus lucius Endangered Fish

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Carolina Northern Flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Delmarva Peninsula Fox Sciurus niger cinereus Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Mount Graham Red Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis Endangered Mammal

Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground Spermophilus brunneus brunneus Threatened Mammal

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Threatened Coral

### -Page 285 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Steelhead, (California Central Valley population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Central California Coast population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Lower Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Lower Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Middle Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Middle Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Northern California population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Snake River Basin population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Snake River Basin population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Snake River Basin population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (South-Central California population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Southern California population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Endangered Fish

Steelhead, (Upper Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Upper Columbia River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Upper Willamette River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, (Upper Willamette River population) Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Threatened Fish

Steelhead, Puget Sound Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened Fish

Stenogyne angustifolia (ncn) Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia Endangered Dicot

Stenogyne bifida (ncn) Stenogyne bifida Endangered Dicot

Stenogyne campanulata (ncn) Stenogyne campanulata Endangered Dicot

Stenogyne kanehoana (ncn) Stenogyne kanehoana Endangered Dicot

Stickleback, Unarmored Threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Endangered Fish

Stickseed, Showy Hackelia venusta Endangered Dicot

Stickyseed, Baker's Blennosperma bakeri Endangered Dicot

Stilt, Hawaiian (=Ae'o) Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Endangered Bird

Stirrupshell Quadrula stapes Endangered Bivalve

Stonecrop, Lake County Parvisedum leiocarpum Endangered Dicot

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Bird

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Bird

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Bird

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Bird

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Bird

Stork, Wood Mycteria americana Endangered Bird

### -Page 286 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Sturgeon, Alabama Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, green Acipenser medirostris Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, White Acipenser transmontanus Endangered Fish

Sturgeon, White Acipenser transmontanus Endangered Fish

Sucker, June Chasmistes liorus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Lost River Deltistes luxatus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Lost River Deltistes luxatus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Modoc Catostomus microps Endangered Fish

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Fish

Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus Endangered Fish

### -Page 287 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Sucker, Santa Ana Catostomus santaanae Threatened Fish

Sucker, Shortnose Chasmistes brevirostris Endangered Fish

Sucker, Shortnose Chasmistes brevirostris Endangered Fish

Sucker, Warner Catostomus warnerensis Threatened Fish

Sucker, Warner Catostomus warnerensis Threatened Fish

Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii Endangered Dicot

Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii Endangered Dicot

Sumac, Michaux's Rhus michauxii Endangered Dicot

Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus Threatened Dicot

Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus Threatened Dicot

Sunflower, San Mateo Woolly Eriophyllum latilobum Endangered Dicot

Sunflower, Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered Dicot

Sunflower, Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered Dicot

Sunflower, Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered Dicot

Sunray, Ash Meadows Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata Threatened Dicot

Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool Lepidurus packardi Endangered Crustacean

Taraxacum, California Taraxacum californicum Endangered Dicot

Tarplant, Gaviota Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa Endangered Dicot

Tarplant, Otay Deinandra (=Hemizonia) conjugens Threatened Dicot

Tarplant, Santa Cruz Holocarpha macradenia Threatened Dicot

Tectaria Estremerana Tectaria estremerana Endangered Ferns

Tern, California Least Sterna antillarum browni Endangered Bird

Tern, California Least Sterna antillarum browni Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Interior (population) Least Sterna antillarum Endangered Bird

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

### -Page 288 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii dougallii Endangered Bird

Ternstroemia subsessilis (ncn) Ternstroemia subsessilis Endangered Dicot

Tetramolopium arenarium (ncn) Tetramolopium arenarium Endangered Dicot

Tetramolopium capillare (ncn) Tetramolopium capillare Endangered Dicot

Tetramolopium filiforme (ncn) Tetramolopium filiforme Endangered Dicot

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (ncn) Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum Endangered Dicot

Tetramolopium remyi (ncn) Tetramolopium remyi Endangered Dicot

Tetramolopium rockii (ncn) Tetramolopium rockii Threatened Dicot

Thelypody, Howell's Spectacular Thelypodium howellii spectabilis Threatened Dicot

Thistle, Chorro creek Bog Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense Endangered Dicot

Thistle, Fountain Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Endangered Dicot

Thistle, La Graciosa Cirsium loncholepis Endangered Dicot

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri Threatened Dicot

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri Threatened Dicot

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri Threatened Dicot

Thistle, Pitcher's Cirsium pitcheri Threatened Dicot

Thistle, Sacramento Mountains Cirsium vinaceum Threatened Dicot

Thistle, Suisun Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum Endangered Dicot

Thornmint, San Diego Acanthomintha ilicifolia Threatened Dicot

Thornmint, San Mateo Acanthomintha obovata ssp. duttonii Endangered Dicot

Threeridge, Fat (Mussel) Amblema neislerii Endangered Bivalve

Threeridge, Fat (Mussel) Amblema neislerii Endangered Bivalve

Thrush, Large Kauai Myadestes myadestinus Endangered Bird

Thrush, Molokai (Oloma'o) Myadestes lanaiensis rutha Endangered Bird

Thrush, Small Kauai (Puaiohi) Myadestes palmeri Endangered Bird

Toad, Arroyo Southwestern Bufo californicus (=microscaphus) Endangered Amphibian

Toad, Houston Bufo houstonensis Endangered Amphibian

Toad, Puerto Rican Crested Peltophryne lemur Threatened Amphibian

Toad, Wyoming Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys) Endangered Amphibian

Topminnow, Gila (Yaqui) Poeciliopsis occidentalis Endangered Fish

Topminnow, Gila (Yaqui) Poeciliopsis occidentalis Endangered Fish

Torreya, Florida Torreya taxifolia Endangered Conf/cycds

Torreya, Florida Torreya taxifolia Endangered Conf/cycds

Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizii Threatened Reptile

Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizii Threatened Reptile

Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizii Threatened Reptile

Tortoise, Desert Gopherus agassizii Threatened Reptile

Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus Threatened Reptile

Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus Threatened Reptile

Tortoise, Gopher Gopherus polyphemus Threatened Reptile

Towhee, Inyo Brown Pipilo crissalis eremophilus Threatened Bird

Townsendia, Last Chance Townsendia aprica Threatened Dicot

Tree Fern, Elfin Cyathea dryopteroides Endangered Ferns

Trematolobelia singularis (ncn) Trematolobelia singularis Endangered Dicot

Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens Endangered Monocot

### -Page 289 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Trillium, Persistent Trillium persistens Endangered Monocot

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum Endangered Monocot

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum Endangered Monocot

Trillium, Relict Trillium reliquum Endangered Monocot

Trout, Apache Oncorhynchus apache Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Columbia River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Columbia River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Columbia River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Columbia River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Klamath River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Klamath River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Klamath River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Bull (Klamath River population) Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Fish

Trout, Gila Oncorhynchus gilae Endangered Fish

Trout, Gila Oncorhynchus gilae Endangered Fish

Trout, Greenback Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Threatened Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi Threatened Fish

Trout, Little Kern Golden Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei Threatened Fish

Trout, Paiute Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris Threatened Fish

Tuctoria, Green's Tuctoria greenei Endangered Dicot

Turtle, Alabama Red-bellied Pseudemys alabamensis Endangered Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Bog (Northern population) Clemmys muhlenbergii Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Flattened Musk Sternotherus depressus Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Plymouth Red-bellied Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi Endangered Reptile

Turtle, Ringed Sawback Graptemys oculifera Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Ringed Sawback Graptemys oculifera Threatened Reptile

Turtle, Yellow-blotched Map Graptemys flavimaculata Threatened Reptile

Twinpod, Dudley Bluffs Physaria obcordata Threatened Dicot

Uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) Caesalpinia kavaiense Endangered Dicot

Ulihi (Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis) Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis Endangered Dicot

Umbel, Huachuca Water Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva Endangered Dicot

### -Page 290 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Uvillo Eugenia haematocarpa Endangered Dicot

Vernonia Proctorii (ncn) Vernonia proctorii Endangered Dicot

Vervain, California Verbena californica Threatened Dicot

Vetch, Hawaiian (Vicia menziesii) Vicia menziesii Endangered Dicot

Vigna o-wahuensis (ncn) Vigna o-wahuensis Endangered Dicot

Viola helenae (ncn) Viola helenae Endangered Dicot

Viola lanaiensis (ncn) Viola lanaiensis Endangered Dicot

Viola oahuensis (ncn) Viola oahuensis Endangered Dicot

Vireo, Black-capped Vireo atricapilla Endangered Bird

Vireo, Black-capped Vireo atricapilla Endangered Bird

Vireo, Least Bell's Vireo bellii pusillus Endangered Bird

Vole, Amargosa Microtus californicus scirpensis Endangered Mammal

Vole, Florida Salt Marsh Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli Endangered Mammal

Vole, Hualapai Mexican Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis Endangered Mammal

Wahane (Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii) Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii Endangered Monocot

Wahine Noho Kula (Isodendrion pyrifolium) Isodendrion pyrifolium Endangered Dicot

Wallflower, Ben Lomond Erysimum teretifolium Endangered Dicot

Wallflower, Contra Costa Erysimum capitatum var. angustatum Endangered Dicot

Wallflower, Menzie's Erysimum menziesii Endangered Dicot

Walnut, Nogal Juglans jamaicensis Endangered Dicot

Warbler (=Wood), Golden-cheeked Dendroica chrysoparia Endangered Bird

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii Endangered Bird

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii Endangered Bird

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii Endangered Bird

Warbler (=Wood), Kirtland's Dendroica kirtlandii Endangered Bird

Warbler, Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii Endangered Bird

Warbler, Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii Endangered Bird

Warea, Wide-leaf Warea amplexifolia Endangered Dicot

Watercress, Gambel's Rorippa gambellii Endangered Dicot

Water-plantain, Kral's Sagittaria secundifolia Threatened Monocot

Water-plantain, Kral's Sagittaria secundifolia Threatened Monocot

Water-willow, Cooley's Justicia cooleyi Endangered Dicot

Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Huperzia) mannii) Huperzia mannii Endangered Ferns

Wawae'Iole (Phlegmariurus (=Lycopodium) nutans) Lycopodium (=Phlegmariurus) nutans Endangered Ferns

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

### -Page 291 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whale, northern right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Endangered Marine mml

Whipsnake (=Striped Racer), Alameda Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Threatened Reptile

Whitlow-wort, Papery Paronychia chartacea Threatened Dicot

### -Page 292 of 292- 

## zhqSel_StateTaxa2

INVNAME SCINAME Status Taxa

Wild-buckwheat, Clay-loving Eriogonum pelinophilum Endangered Dicot

Wild-buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum Threatened Dicot

Wild-buckwheat, Gypsum Eriogonum gypsophilum Threatened Dicot

Wild-rice, Texas Zizania texana Endangered Monocot

Wings, Pigeon Clitoria fragrans Threatened Dicot

Wire-lettuce, Malheur Stephanomeria malheurensis Endangered Dicot

Wireweed Polygonella basiramia Endangered Dicot

Woodland-star, San Clemente Island Lithophragma maximum Endangered Dicot

Woodpecker, Ivory-billed Campephilus principalis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodpecker, Red-cockaded Picoides borealis Endangered Bird

Woodrat, Key Largo Neotoma floridana smalli Endangered Mammal

Woodrat, Riparian Neotoma fuscipes riparia Endangered Mammal

Woolly-star, Santa Ana River Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Endangered Dicot

Woolly-threads, San Joaquin Monolopia (=Lembertia) congdonii Endangered Dicot

Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus Endangered Fish

Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus Endangered Fish

Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus Endangered Fish

Xylosma crenatum (ncn) Xylosma crenatum Endangered Dicot

Yellowhead, Desert Yermo xanthocephalus Threatened Dicot

Yerba Santa, Lompoc Eriodictyon capitatum Endangered Dicot

Ziziphus, Florida Ziziphus celata Endangered Dicot