N
N
N
S
NH
HN
Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Re­
registration
of
Ametryn
CAS
Registry
Number
834­
12­
8
PC
Code
080801
Prepared
by:

John
E.
Ravenscroft,
Biologist
Kevin
Costello,
Risk
Assessment
Process
Leader
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Environmental
Risk
Branch
IV
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Mail
Code
7507C
Washington,
DC
20460
Reviewed
by:
Elizabeth
Behl,
Branch
Chief
2
Acknowledgment
The
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
would
like
to
thank
Syracuse
Research
Corporation
(
Mario
Citra,
Molly
Ramsey,
and
Philip
Goodrum)
and
Syracuse
Environmental
Research
Associates,
Inc.,
for
their
assistance
in
developing
the
environmental
fate
assessment
for
ametryn.
3
TABLE
of
CONTENTS
TABLE
of
CONTENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Predicted
Environmental
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Potential
Risk
to
Non­
target
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
Nature
and
Use
of
the
Chemical
Stressor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
Use
and
Use
Sites
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
Application
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
Identification
of
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Key
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
TRANSPORT
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
WATER
RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
Surface
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
Drinking
Water
EDWCs
(
Surface
Water)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
Ground
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
Monitoring
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
Florida
Sugarcane
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
Louisiana
Sugarcane
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
Hawaii
Pineapples
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
AQUATIC
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
EECs
for
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
Spray
Drift
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
TERRESTRIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
Foliar
Applications
and
Residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
Exposure
to
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
Spray
Drift
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
ECOTOX
database
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
RISK
ESTIMATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
Risk
to
Birds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
Risk
to
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
Nontarget
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
RISK
DESCRIPTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
4
Risk
To
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
Risk
to
Birds
and
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
Acute
risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
Chronic
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
Endocrine
Disruption
Potential
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
Risk
to
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
INDIRECT
EFFECTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
CRITICAL
HABITAT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
APPENDICIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
APPENDIX
A
 
USE
CLOSURE
MEMO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
APPENDIX
B
 
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Abiotic
Degradation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Hydrolysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Aqueous
Photolysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Soil
Photolysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Metabolism.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
Mobility
and
Persistence
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
Adsorption/
Desorption
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
Laboratory
Volatility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Field
Volatility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Bioaccumulation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
APPENDIX
C
 
PRZM
 
EXAMS
OUTPUTS
BY
CROP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
Corn
 
NC
(
east)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
Drinking
water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
90
ECO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
Corn
 
NC
(
west)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
Drinking
water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
95
ECO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
97
Sugarcane
 
FL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
100
Drinking
water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
100
ECO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
102
Sugarcane
 
LA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
Drinking
water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
105
ECO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
107
APPENDIX
D
 
SCI­
GROW
OUTPUT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
109
5
Corn
 
NC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
Pineapple
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
Sugarcane
 
FL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
110
Sugarcane
 
HI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
Sugarcane
 
LA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
111
Sugarcane
 
PR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
112
Sugarcane
 
TX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
113
APPENDIX
E
 
TERRESTRIAL
EECs
:
ELL­
FATE
and
TERRPLANT
SPREADSHEETS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
113
Max
residues
using
FATE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
115
Corn,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
117
Corn,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
118
Pineapple,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
119
Pineapple,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
120
Sugarcane,
FL,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
121
Sugarcane,
FL,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
121
Sugarcane,
HI,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
122
Sugarcane,
HI,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
124
Sugarcane,
LA,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
125
Sugarcane,
LA,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
126
Sugarcane,
PR,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
127
Sugarcane,
PR,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
128
Sugarcane,
TX,
max
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
129
Sugarcane,
TX,
mean
residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
130
TERRPLANT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
131
APPENDIX
F
 
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
Acute
and
Subacute
Toxicity
to
Birds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
133
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Birds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
134
Acute
and
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
135
Toxicity
to
Insects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
135
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
136
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
140
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
140
Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
140
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
141
Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
141
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
142
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
142
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Chronic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
142
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
142
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrate,
Chronic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
143
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
143
6
APPENDIX
G
 
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
143
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
145
APPENDIX
H
 
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
LISTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
147
Corn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
147
Pineapple
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
164
Sugarcane
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
177
7
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This
report
focused
on
assessing
and
characterizing
potential
risks
resulting
from
the
proposed
agricultural
uses
of
ametryn
on
corn,
pineapples,
and
sugarcane.
Ametryn
is
a
selective
systemic
herbicide,
absorbed
by
the
leaves
and
roots,
with
translocation
through
the
xylem.
It
is
used
to
control
most
annual
grasses
(
pre­
and
post­
emergent)
and
broadleaf
weeds
through
inhibition
of
the
photosynthesis
II
pathway.

Predicted
Environmental
Exposure
Ametryn
is
a
persistent
herbicide.
A
single
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
suggests
that
this
is
an
important
route
of
dissipation
in
the
environment,
with
an
observed
half­
life
of
84
days.
Ametryn
is
stable
to
hydrolysis,
and
degrades
slowly
by
aquatic
photolysis
(
368
days).

Since
ametryn
is
persistent,
degradates
were
not
observed
at
high
concentrations
in
laboratory
tests.
Only
one
degradate
was
observed
at
greater
than
10%
of
applied
parent
(
GS­
11355
in
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study).
Nonetheless,
since
degradates
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11354)
and
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11355)
are
significantly
similar
in
structure
to
parent
ametryn,
they
were
included
in
the
drinking
water
exposure
assessment
as
possible
degradates
of
concern.

Ametryn
was
observed
to
be
highly
mobile
in
3
of
4
soils
in
laboratory
tests
(
Kd
=
1.07
to
1.21
in
loam,
sandy
loam
and
sand
soils,
26.2
in
a
clay
soil).
Given
its
persistence
and
mobility,
transport
of
ametryn
to
ground
water
and
surface
water
is
expected
from
normal
agricultural
use.
Monitoring
of
ametryn
concentrations
in
ground
water
and
surface
water
is
limited,
however.
Ametryn
was
not
included
among
analytes
in
the
NAWQA
program,
for
instance.
Monitoring
in
Hawaii
of
ground
water
in
pineapple
use
areas
in
the
mid­
1990'
s
resulted
in
a
maximum
concentration
similar
in
magnitude
to
that
predicted
with
the
ground­
water
screening
model
SCIGROW
(
Screening
Concentration
in
Ground
Water).
Quarterly
surface­
water
monitoring
on
the
borders
of
the
Everglades
Agricultural
Area
(
EAA)
has
resulted
in
surface
water
concentrations
well
below
those
estimated
for
maximum
application
rates
by
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
models,
but
the
frequency
of
the
sampling
is
not
sufficient
for
the
estimation
of
potential
acute
exposure,
nor
extensive
enough
to
allow
a
conservative
estimate
of
potential
chronic
exposure.

Potential
Risk
to
Non­
target
Organisms
Potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
is
summarized
in
Table
1a.
Consistent
with
its
use
as
an
herbicide,
ametryn
is
expected
to
pose
a
risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants.
Ametryn
was
very
highly
toxic
to
most
terrestrial
plants
tested
in
laboratory
studies,
with
complete
mortality
of
test
plants
for
some
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
study
at
application
rates
well
8
below
those
indicated
on
ametryn
product
labels.
The
level
of
exposure
via
spray
drift
estimated
with
the
AgDrift
model
would
exceed
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
for
all
ametryn
uses
to
distances
Table
1a.
Summary
of
LOC
exceedancesa
by
taxa
and
use
for
Ametryn.

Useb
Terrestrial
Freshwater
Estuarine/
marine
Aquatic
Plants
Birds
Mammals
Insects
Plants
Amphibians/
Reptiles
Fish
Inverts
Fish
Inverts
Corn
(
2/
1/
NA)
C
C,
E
A,
E
C
A,
E
Pineapple
(
7.2/
1/
NA)
C
A,
C,
E
A,
E
C
A,
E
Sugarcane
FL
(
1.2/
3/
30)
C
A,
C,
E
A,
E
E
E
C,
E
C,
E
C,
E
A,
E
Sugarcane
HI
(
7.2/
2.4/
2.4)
C
A,
C,
E
A,
E
A,
E
Sugarcane
LA
(
2,
2.4x4/
5
/
30)
C
A,
C,
E
A,
E
E
C,
E
C,
E
C,
E
C,
E
A,
E
Sugarcane
PR
(
8,
4x2/
3/
30)
C
A,
C,
E
A,
E
A,
E
Sugarcane
TX
(
2/
3/
30)
C
A,
C,
E
A,
E
A,
E
a
letter
in
table
corresponds
to
type
of
LOC
exceedance:
A
=
acute;
C
=
chronic;
E
=
endangered;
ND
=
no
data
b
for
each
use,
the
numbers
in
parentheses
indicate:
application
rate/
number
of
applications/
interval
of
hundreds
of
feet
from
the
treated
field.
For
aerial
application
to
sugarcane,
the
predicted
exposure
would
be
above
the
LOC
at
a
distance
greater
than
the
999
foot
limit
of
the
AgDrift
model.

No­
effect
levels
were
not
determined
for
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
laboratory
tests,
because
effects
were
observed
at
the
lowest
doses
tested.
Noeffect
levels
are
used
to
compute
risk
quotients
for
endangered
plants.
Therefore,
exposure
from
spray
drift
which
would
lead
to
exceedence
of
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
expected
to
occur
some
unspecified
distance
even
beyond
those
calculated
for
non­
endangered
plants.

Risk
to
aquatic
plants
was
evaluated
using
a
single
submitted
toxicity
study
performed
on
green
algae,
and
additional
information
derived
from
the
ECOTOX
database.
Risk
quotients
calculated
using
Tier
II
aquatic
models
exceed
the
acute
LOC
for
aquatic
plants
by
a
large
margin
for
both
corn
and
sugarcane.
In
addition,
the
calculated
exposure
of
aquatic
habitats
by
spray
drift
alone
is
enough
to
exceed
the
LOCs
in
the
screening
assessment.

The
screening
assessment
indicates
an
exceedence
of
the
chronic
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrate
LOC
in
Louisiana
and
chronic
freshwater
invertebrate
LOC
in
Florida.
The
endangered
species
9
acute
risk
LOCs
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
from
use
on
sugarcane
in
Louisiana
and
Florida
are
also
exceeded.

Ametryn
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds,
and
slightly
toxic
to
mammals.
However,
due
to
high
application
rates,
acute
risk
quotients
for
mammals
were
above
the
acute
risk
LOC
for
pineapple
and
sugarcane,
and
above
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
all
crops.
As
detailed
in
Appendix
A,
the
label
specifies
different
application
rates
and
intervals
for
sugarcane
for
each
state
in
which
it
is
grown.
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
also
indicates
a
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
birds
for
all
three
uses.

Both
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
birds
and
mammals
are
based
on
maximum
application
rates,
minimum
application
intervals
and
the
default
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
35
days.
Chronic
risk
quotients
for
birds
slightly
exceeds
the
level
of
concern
for
corn
and
for
sugarcane
in
Florida,
which
represent
the
two
major
uses
of
ametryn.
If
risk
quotients
for
these
two
scenarios
are
calculated
using
median
predicted
residues
(
for
the
maximum
application
rates)
on
food
items
instead
of
peak
residues,
then
the
exposure
estimates
result
in
risk
quotient
values
below
the
level
of
concern.

Chronic
mammalian
RQs
exceed
chronic
LOCs
for
all
feed
items
for
all
uses
of
ametryn
(
RQ
range
=
2.3
to
160),
based
on
the
results
of
a
2­
generation
rat
study.
A
rat
carcinogenicity
study
resulted
in
decreased
body
weights
and
gain
effects
and
also
histological
changes
in
the
testes,
kidney
and
pituitary
in
males
and
in
the
liver
and
pancreas
in
females.
Risk
quotients
calculated
with
the
NOAEC
from
this
study
would
also
exceed
chronic
LOCs
for
all
feed
items
for
all
uses
of
ametryn.

The
level
of
certainty
in
the
prediction
of
chronic
risk
to
birds
and
acute
risk
to
mammals
could
be
improved
with
additional
data
on
potential
exposure.
If
foliar
dissipation
data
specific
to
ametryn
indicate
that
the
herbicide
dissipates
at
a
rate
faster
than
the
default
value
of
35
days
used
in
the
screening
assessment,
then
estimated
exposure
and
the
resulting
risk
quotients
for
sugarcane,
to
which
multiple
applications
can
be
made,
would
be
reduced.
Chemical­
specific
data
reporting
total
foliar
residues
of
ametryn
on
wildlife
feed
items
would
allow
a
refinement
of
predicted
exposure
for
all
crops
using
a
chemical­
specific
foliar
degradation
rate.

PROBLEM
FORMULATION
The
purpose
of
this
assessment
is
to
estimate
ecological
risks
from
currently
registered
uses
of
ametryn.
The
Agency
is
required
by
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
to
review
and,
as
warranted,
reregister
all
existing
pesticide
products
that
contain
active
ingredients
initially
registered
before
November
1,
1984.
The
goal
of
the
reregistration
program
is
to
update
labeling
and
use
requirements
and
to
mitigate
(
when
possible)
potential
unreasonable
risks
associated
with
older
pesticide
active
ingredients.
10
The
analysis
plan
and
rationale
for
completing
this
assessment
(
i.
e.,
the
problem
formulation)
has
been
to
determine
whether
current
label
uses
of
ametryn
provide
a
means
of
exposure
that
could
potentially
represent
an
unreasonable
likelihood
of
adverse
effects
(
risk)
to
nontarget
species,
including
threatened
and
endangered
species,
which
could
potentially
impact
the
reregistration
eligibility
decision
under
FIFRA,
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA)
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA).

The
Agency
routinely
incorporates
measures
of
exposure
and
effects
for
the
pesticide
active
ingredients
in
the
risk
assessment
process
for
all
regulatory
decisions.
Available
formulated
product
information,
environmental
fate
data,
and
toxicological
data
are
examined
to
determine
the
need
to
expand
beyond
the
focus
on
the
active
ingredient
and
may
result
in
consideration
of
pesticide
formulations,
inert
ingredients,
or
degradates
of
the
active
ingredient
in
a
particular
risk
assessment
to
support
(
re)
registration
of
a
particular
product.
This
data
may
come
from
a
number
of
sources,
including
section
6(
a)(
2)
data,
open
literature
data
retrieved
through
ECOTOX
(
discussed
in
the
ecological
effects
characterization
section
of
this
document),
and
direct
submission
of
data
in
support
of
(
re)
registration.

Maximum
application
rates
on
vulnerable
soils
for
representative
crops
are
selected
for
modeling
environmental
concentrations
for
this
screening­
level
deterministic
(
risk
quotient­
based)
assessment.
This
assessment
is
not
intended
to
represent
a
site
or
time­
specific
analysis,
i.
e.
assessments
are
intended
to
represent
a
national­
level
exposure
based
on
vulnerable
soils
as
opposed
to
being
a
regionally
specific
exposure
assessment.
Likewise,
the
most
sensitive
toxicity
endpoints
are
used
from
surrogate
test
species
to
estimate
treatment­
related
direct
effects
on
acute
mortality
and
chronic
reproductive,
growth
and
survival
assessment
endpoints.
Toxicity
tests
are
intended
to
determine
pesticidal
effects
on
birds,
mammals,
fish,
terrestrial
and
aquatic
invertebrates
and
plants.
These
tests
include
short­
term
acute,
subacute
and
reproduction
studies
and
are
typically
arranged
in
a
hierarchical
or
tiered
system
which
progresses
from
basic
laboratory
tests
to
applied
field
studies.
The
studies
are
used
to
evaluate
the
potential
of
a
pesticide
to
cause
adverse
effects,
to
determine
whether
further
testing
is
required,
and
to
determine
the
need
for
precautionary
label
statements
to
minimize
the
potential
adverse
effects
to
nontarget
animals
and
plants
(
CFR
40
§
158.202,
2002).

Ametryn
is
not
co­
formulated
with
other
active
ingredients,
but
may
be
tank
mixed
with
other
pesticides.
OPP
screening­
level
risk
assessments
do
not
routinely
include
an
evaluation
of
mixtures
of
multiple
active
ingredients
product
formulations
or
those
prepared
by
the
applicator
(
i.
e,
commonly
referred
to
as
tank
mixtures).

Nature
and
Use
of
the
Chemical
Stressor
In
accordance
with
risk
assessment
guidance,
the
Agency
documents
the
scope
of
the
chemical
stressor(
s)
considered
in
the
risk
assessment,
the
rationale
for
their
consideration,
the
methods
used
to
evaluate
the
potential
risks,
and
their
contribution
to
the
overall
conclusions
of
the
risk
assessment.
The
characterization
of
pesticide
use
allows
the
risk
assessors
and
risk
managers
to
11
focus
the
risk
assessment
on
specific
use
patterns
that
are
considered
representative
of
all
uses
of
a
particular
pesticide.
Concentrating
on
specific
use
patterns
allows
the
risk
assessor
to
chose
scenarios
that
reasonably
representive
of
the
exposure
and
those
that
may
have
the
most
potential
for
ecological
impact
among
all
uses
of
a
particular
pesticide.

Ametryn
is
an
S­
triazine
herbicide
used
on
terrestrial
food
and
feed
crops.
Table
1b
lists
the
current
commercially­
available
formulations
of
ametryn.
Use
and
application
information
contained
in
this
document
has
been
taken
from
the
use
closure
memorandum
found
in
Appendix
A.
The
EFED
ametryn
risk
assessment
has
been
prepared
in
support
of
the
re­
registration
eligibility
decision
(
RED).

Table
1b.
Currently
available
formulations
of
ametryn.

Registration
#
Company
Name
Product
Name
%
Active
Ingredient
Formulation
100­
579
Syngenta
Crop
Protection
Ametryn
Technical
90
Technical
100­
786
Syngenta
Crop
Protection
EVIK
80
WDG
80*
Water
dispersible
granule
48273­
3
Marman
USA
Inc
AMETRYNE
80W
80*
Wettable
powder
51036­
105
Micro­
Flo
Company
LLC
AMETRYNE
4FL
44
Flowable
concentrate
*
These
products
are
76.0%
Ametryn
and
4.0%
related
compounds,
equaling
80.0%
active
ingredients.

Mode
of
Action
Ametryn
is
a
selective
systemic
herbicide,
absorbed
by
the
leaves
and
roots,
with
translocation
through
the
xylem.
It
is
used
to
control
most
annual
grasses
(
pre­
and
post­
emergent)
and
broadleaf
weeds.
It
inhibits
photosynthesis.

Use
and
Use
Sites
The
technical
registrant
is
supporting
the
continued
use
of
ametryn
in
three
terrestrial
food
crops:
sugarcane,
corn
(
pop,
field,
and
sweet),
and
pineapples.
The
technical
registrant
has
agreed
to
voluntarily
cancel
all
other
registered
uses
including:
bananas,
plantains,
and
all
general
herbicidal
uses
(
industrial
sites,
rights
of
way,
airports
and
landing
fields,
and
uncultivated
non­
agricultural
areas).
The
registrant
has
also
indicated,
they
do
not
plan
to
support
established
regional
residual
tolerances
for
taniers,
yams,
and
cassava
roots.
Previous
to
1996,
ametryn
had
been
registered
for
use
on
oranges,
grapefruit,
and
potatoes.

Ametryn
is
applied
to
corn
mostly
in
southeastern
states,
particularly
North
Carolina
and
South
Carolina,
with
some
use
in
Georgia
and
Texas.
Small
amounts
are
also
used
in
mid­
western
states
(
WI,
OH,
IL).
Sugarcane
use
occurs
mostly
in
Florida,
with
some
use
also
in
Hawaii,
Texas
and
Louisiana.
Ametryn
is
applied
to
pineapple
in
Hawaii
and
in
Puerto
Rico.
Table
2
lists
the
estimated
uses
of
ametryn
in
2003.
Figure
1
shows
the
estimated
annual
agricultural
use
of
ametryn
for
the
contiguous
48
states
in
the
year
1997
based
on
data
collected
by
the
USGS
Pesticide
National
Synthesis
Project.
12
Application
Methods
Ametryn
products
are
not
co­
formulated
with
any
other
pesticide
active
ingredient
(
ai);
however,
ametryn
may
be
used
in
tank
mixes
(
with
other
pesticides.).
Ametryn
can
be
applied
by
aerial
equipment
(
sugar
cane
only)
and
by
ground
boom
sprayers.
For
corn
(
pop,
field,
&
sweet),
ametryn
is
used
as
a
directed
spray
for
soil
treatment
post­
emergence.
Ametryn
is
used
as
a
banded
treatment
on
rattooned
sugar
cane,
or
as
a
broadcast
spray
(
pre­
emergence,
rattoon,
and
post­
emergence).
For
pineapple,
ametryn
is
applied
as
a
ground
spray.

Table
2.
Screening
level
estimates
of
agricultural
uses
of
ametryn
as
of
April,
2003
Crop
Pounds
of
Active
Ingredient
Percent
of
Crop
Treated
Corn
200,000
<
2.5
Hay,
Other
<
500
Sugarcane
90,000
30
Sweet
Corn
3,000
<
2.5
13
Figure
1.
1997
estimate
of
annual
agricultural
use
of
ametryn
based
on
data
collected
by
the
USGS
Pesticide
National
Synthesis
Project.

Identification
of
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined,
per
Agency
guidelines,
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected"
which
are
"
operationally
defined
by
an
ecological
entity
and
its
attributes"
(
USEPA,
2004).
The
ecological
entity
can
be
a
species,
a
functional
group
of
species,
a
community,
an
ecosystem,
or
another
entity
of
importance
or
concern.
An
attribute
is
the
characteristic
of
the
entity
that
is
important
to
protect
and
is
potentially
at
risk.

Defining
an
assessment
endpoint
involves
two
steps:
1)
identifying
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk,
and
2)
operationally
defining
the
assessment
endpoint
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
selection
of
the
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.

Typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risk
assessments
include
reduced
survival
and/
or
reproductive
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species
from
direct
acute
or
direct
chronic
exposures.
Aquatic
animal
groups
that
are
typically
characterized
in
the
risk
assessment
include:
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
Terrestrial
animal
groups
include:
birds,
mammals,
beneficial
insects,
and
earthworms.
All
assessment
endpoints
are
characterized
at
the
individual
level
in
order
to
protect
threatened
and
endangered
species.
However,
risks
to
higher
biological
levels
(
i.
e.,
populations
and
communities)
can
be
inferred
from
this
approach
(
e.
g.,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survival
and
fecundity
may
impact
both
population
stability
and
growth
and
habitat
carrying
capacity).
Indirect
effects
to
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
also
examined
and,
when
required,
are
characterized
in
a
species­
specific
assessment
conducted
after
the
screening­
level
risk
assessment
is
completed.

For
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants,
the
screening
assessment
endpoint
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species).
Existing
testing
requirements
have
the
capacity
to
evaluate
emergence
of
seedlings
and
vegetative
vigor.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
the
endpoints
of
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
may
not
address
all
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plant
life
cycle
components,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
in
active
growth
have
the
potential
to
impact
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.
14
For
aquatic
plants,
the
assessment
endpoint
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measurement
endpoints
for
this
assessment
endpoint
focus
on
algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements.

The
ecological
relevance
of
selecting
the
above­
mentioned
assessment
endpoints
is
as
follows:
1)
complete
exposure
pathways
exist
for
these
receptors;
2)
the
receptors
may
be
potentially
sensitive
to
pesticides
in
affected
media
and
in
residues
on
plants,
seeds,
and
insects;
and
3)
the
receptors
could
potentially
inhabit
areas
where
pesticides
are
applied,
or
areas
where
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
may
impact
the
sites
because
suitable
habitat
is
available.

Ecological
measurement
endpoints
for
this
screening­
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms,
supplemented
by
the
open
literature
where
applicable,
in
the
following
broad
groupings:

1.
Birds
(
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail)
used
as
surrogate
species
for
terrestrialphase
amphibians
and
reptiles,
2.
Mammals
(
laboratory
rat),
3.
Freshwater
Fish
(
rainbow
trout
and
fathead
minnow)
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians,
4.
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
Daphnia
magna),
5.
Estuarine/
marine
fish
(
sheepshead
minnow),
6.
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
Americamysis
bahia),
7.
Terrestrial
plants
(
corn,
onion,
ryegrass,
wheat,
buckwheat,
cucumber,
soybean,
sunflower,
tomato,
and
turnip),
and
8.
Algae
and
aquatic
plants
(
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitatum).

Within
each
of
these
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data.
The
selection
is
made
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
within
a
particular
surrogate
group.
If
additional
toxicity
data
is
available
from
other
sources,
the
selection
of
an
endpoint
may
not
be
limited
to
the
surrogate
species
listed
above,
but
may
be
expanded
to
include
those
data
for
other
groups
or
species
which
has
been
deemed
of
sufficient
quality
by
EFED
scientists
for
use
in
the
risk
assessment.

A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
ametryn
and
its
degradates
is
provided
in
Table
3.

Conceptual
Model
In
order
for
a
chemical
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
ecological
receptors
in
biologically
significant
concentrations.
Exposure
pathways
are
defined
as
the
means
by
which
a
contaminant
moves
in
the
environment
from
a
source
to
an
ecological
receptor.
For
an
ecological
exposure
pathway
to
be
complete,
it
must
have
a
source,
a
release
mechanism,
an
environmental
transport
medium,
a
point
of
exposure
for
ecological
receptors,
and
a
feasible
route
of
exposure.
15
Potential
mechanisms
of
transformation
of
the
parent
are
another
area
of
consideration.
Which
degradates
are
formed
in
the
environment,
their
potential
concentrations,
and
their
physiochemical
and
toxicological
characteristics
are
examined.

Ecological
receptors
that
may
potentially
be
exposed
to
ametryn
include
terrestrial
and
semiaquatic
wildlife
(
i.
e.,
mammals,
birds,
and
reptiles),
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants,
and
terrestrial
soil
and
aquatic
sediment
invertebrates.
Additionally,
aquatic
organisms
(
i.
e.,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
amphibians,
and
aquatic
plants)
are
potential
receptors
via
exposure
through
the
potential
migration
of
ametryn
from
the
application
site
through
runoff
and
spray
drift.
The
routes
of
exposure
are
considered
and
presented
in
the
conceptual
model
(
Figure
2).

Table
3.
Summary
of
Assessment
and
Measurement
Endpoints
for
Ametryn.

Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoint
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds
a.
Bobwhite
quail
acute
oral
LD50
b.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
subacute
dietary
LD50
c.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals
a.
Laboratory
rat
acute
oral
LD50
b.
Laboratory
rat
chronic
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
a.
Rainbow
trout
and
fathead
minnow
acute
LC50
b.
Fathead
minnow
chronic
(
early­
life)
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
c.
Water
flea
acute
EC50
d.
Water
flea
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
b.
Estimated
chronic
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
for
freshwater
fish
c.
Mysid
shrimp
and
Quahog
clam
acute
LC50
Perpetuation
of
individuals
and
populations
of
nontarget
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
species
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species)
Monocot
and
dicot
seedling
emergence,
seed
germination,
and
vegetative
vigor
EC25
values
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
Maintenance
and
growth
of
individuals
and
populations
of
aquatic
plants
from
standing
crop
or
biomass
Algal
EC50
values
for
growth
rate
and
biomass
measurements
LD
50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
level.
LOAEC
=
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
level.
LC
50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
16
Ametryn
Application
to
Foliage
Ametryn
Biolysis
Chemolysis
Spray
Drift
Runoff
/
Erosion
Aquatic
Environments
Leaching
/
Subsurface
Transport
Dermal
Uptake
Gill
Uptake
Ingestion
Aquatic
Vertebrates
/
Invertebrates
Terrestrial
Environments
Dermal
Uptake
Ingestion
Birds
/
Mammals
Direct
Contact
/
Root
Uptake
Aquatic
Plants
Direct
Contact
/
Root
Uptake
Terrestrial
Plants
EC
50/
EC
25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50%/
25%
of
the
test
population.

Figure
2.
Conceptual
model
depicting
ecological
risk
based
on
the
proposed
ametryn
application
to
foliage.

The
sources
and
mechanisms
of
release
of
ametryn
are
aerial
and
ground
applications
via
foliar
applications
to
crop
and
soil
pre­
emergence
applications.
As
ametryn
exhibits
moderate
to
high
mobility
in
soils,
surface
water
runoff
and
ground
water
percolation
is
expected
from
application
sites.
Spray
drift
from
aerial
applications
to
sugar
cane
may
potentially
transport
ametryn
to
nontarget
areas.
Volatilization
is
not
considered
to
be
a
viable
release
mechanism
for
ametryn.

Key
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
17
The
following
uncertainties
and
information
gaps
were
identified
as
part
of
the
problem
formulation.
Except
where
indicated
below,
it
is
not
clear
whether
additional
data
meant
to
clarify
this
points
would
lead
to
lesser
or
greater
predictions
of
risk:

9.
Chronic
data
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
were
not
submitted
by
the
registrant;
therefore,
measurement
endpoints
were
estimated
based
on
the
acuteto
chronic
NOAEC
ratio
for
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrates,
respectively.
10.
Chronic
data
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
were
not
submitted
by
the
registrant.
11.
Risks
to
semiaquatic
wildlife
via
consumption
of
pesticide­
contaminated
fish
were
not
evaluated.
However,
given
that
bioaccumulation
of
ametryn
is
low,
ingestion
of
fish
by
piscivorus
wildlife
is
not
likely
to
be
of
concern
12.
Surrogates
were
used
to
predict
potential
risks
for
species
with
no
data
(
i.
e.,
reptiles
and
amphibians).
It
was
assumed
that
use
of
surrogate
effects
data
is
sufficiently
conservative
to
apply
the
broad
range
of
species
within
taxonomic
groups.
If
other
species
are
more
or
less
sensitive
to
ametryn
and
its
degradates
than
the
surrogates,
risks
may
be
under
or
overestimate,
respectively.
13.
Additional
environmental
fate
data
would
allow
refinement
of
the
exposure
assessment
through
the
replacement
of
default
assumptions
with
this
data.
For
instance,
the
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
half­
life
used
in
the
assessment
was
estimated,
in
the
absence
of
data,
as
twice
the
90th
percentile
on
the
mean
of
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
data.
Actual
data
could
provide
a
half­
life
well
below
that
value
of
504
days.
Since
the
default
half­
lives
in
the
the
exposure
models
leads
to
a
simulated
year­
to­
year
accumulation
in
the
standard
pond
scenario,
lower
half­
lives
could
lead
to
significantly
lower
risk
quotients,
perhaps
changing
the
conclusion
of
the
aquatic
risk
assessment.
14.
For
terrestrial
exposure,
foliar
dissipation
data
would
replace
the
conservative
default
assumption
of
35
days.
This
could
lead
to
a
significant
reduction
in
predicted
risk
to
birds
and
mammals
through
ingestion
of
treated
feed.
15.
Ecological
effects
data
are
not
available
for
ametryn
degradates,
and
they
are
not
included
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment.
Due
to
the
persistence
of
ametryn
in
laboratory
studies,
the
only
degradation
product
observed
at
>
10%
of
total
residues
was
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11355),
observed
at
12.2%
14
days
post
application
in
an
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
(
MRID
41752401).
The
Health
Effects
Division
suggested
that
this
thiomethyl
metabolite
be
included
in
the
drinking
water
exposure
assessment,
both
in
light
of
the
amount
formed,
and
because
its
structural
similarity
to
parent
ametryn
suggests
it
is
of
possible
toxicological
concern
to
humans.
Because
another
minor
thiomethyl
metabolite,
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11354),
is
also
formed
through
aerobic
soil
metabolism
of
ametryn,
it
is
included
in
the
drinking
water
exposure
assessment
along
with
GS­
11355.
16.
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
simulates
estimated
ecological
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
a
standard
pond
resulting
from
runoff
from
agricultural
fields
and
spray
drift.
The
18
applicability
of
these
runoff
models
to
the
highly
managed
hydrology
of
the
Everglades
Agricultural
Area
is
uncertain,
leading
to
uncertainty
in
the
EECs
for
Florida
sugarcane.
In
addition,
PRZM­
EXAMS
scenarios
for
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico
have
not
been
developed;
the
potential
screening
EECs
in
these
areas
are
assumed
to
be
similar
to
those
predicted
for
Florida
and
Louisiana.

ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
TRANSPORT
CHARACTERIZATION
Based
on
the
submitted
environmental
fate
data,
its
physio­
chemical
properties,
the
proposed
use
patterns,
and
information
found
in
the
published
literature,
ametryn
is,
in
general,
expected
to
be
a
persistent
compound
that
exhibits
moderate
to
high
mobility
in
most
soils
except
for
clay
where
its
mobility
is
low.
Table
4
summarizes
the
physio­
chemical
properties
of
ametryn.
More
complete
information
on
the
environmental
fate
studies
can
be
located
in
APPENDIX
B.

Ametryn
is
persistent
in
the
environment.
Photolysis
half­
lives
on
soil
surfaces
and
in
water
were
85­
123
days
(
MRIDs
41169602,
41169603)
and
368
days
(
MRID
41169601),
respectively.
Ametryn
did
not
hydrolyze
in
sterile
buffer
solutions
at
25
oC
at
pH
5,
7,
and
9
(
MRID
40995812),
suggesting
that
it
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
under
environmental
conditions.
The
main
route
of
degradation
appears
to
be
aerobic
degradation
with
an
observed
half­
life
of
84
days
in
a
sandy
loam
held
at
a
constant
temperature
of
25
oC
during
a
laboratory
controlled
study
(
MRID
41752401).

Based
on
packed
soil
columns
leaching
studies,
ametryn
is
likely
to
be
mobile
in
sandy
loams
and
loam
soil,
but
relatively
immobile
in
clays
with
high
organic
matter
content
(
MRID
41169604).
Approximately
40%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
found
in
either
the
leachate,
or
the
soil
column
at
depths
greater
than
3
inches
for
the
sand,
loam,
and
sandy
loam;
while
over
90%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
detected
in
the
upper
1
inch
of
the
clay
packed
column.
The
mobility
did
not
appear
to
be
dependent
upon
the
percentage
of
organic
matter,
clay
content,
or
cation
exchange
capacity
(
CEC)
of
the
soils.
In
a
second
study,
Freundlich
adsorption
coefficients
of
26.16,
1.09,
1.07,
and
1.21
were
measured
for
a
clay,
sandy
soil,
sandy
loam,
and
loam
soil,
respectively
(
MRID
40995813).
Using
the
linear
portion
of
the
adsorption
isotherm
and
accounting
for
the
percentage
of
organic
carbon,
organic
carbon
partition
coefficient
(
K
oc)
values
were
927,
205,
96,
and
257
for
the
clay,
sandy
soil,
sandy
loam,
and
loam
soil,
respectively.
These
K
oc
values
suggest
that
ametryn
has
high
to
moderate
mobility
in
all
the
soils
except
for
the
clay
where
its
mobility
is
low.
These
data
also
suggest
that
adsorption
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment
in
the
water
column
will
be
limited.
Ametryn
has
a
low
vapor
pressure
(
2.74x10­
6
mm
Hg)
at
room
temperature
and
is
unlikely
to
volatilize
significantly
from
soil
surfaces.
19
The
only
degradation
product
observed
at
>
10%
of
total
residues
was
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS11355),
observed
at
12.2%
14
days
post
application
in
an
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
(
MRID
41752401).
Similar
to
the
parent,
ametryn's
degradation
products
are
persistent
and
relatively
mobile
in
many
soils
and
should
be
considered
possible
groundwater
contaminants.
Degradation
products
of
other
triazine
herbicides,
such
as
atrazine,
have
been
identified
as
among
the
most
frequent
ground
water
contaminants
of
any
pesticide
residue.

In
column
studies
using
a
sandy
loam,
the
degradation
product,
2­
ethylamino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
34048)
was
identified
throughout
the
column,
as
were
degradation
products
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11354),
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS11355),
2,4­
diamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
26831),
2­
ethylamino­
4­
isopropylamino­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
32083),
and
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
28304).
Two
minor
degradation
products
were
also
identified:
2,4­
Diamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
17791)
and
2­
Amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
17794).
Very
little
CO
2
evolution
(
2%)
was
observed
from
ametryn
treated
soil
84
days
post­
application.
Neither
ametryn
nor
its
degradation
products
are
considered
volatile.

Three
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
have
been
submitted
to
the
Agency,
all
of
which
were
characterized
as
"
supplemental".
The
half­
lives
for
ametryn
in
these
studies
ranged
from
35
to
62
days.
Degradates
GS­
34048,
GS­
17794,
and
GS­
11354
were
included
among
the
analytes
in
these
studies.
Parent
ametryn
was
not
detected
in
these
studies
at
depths
below
12
inches.
Degradate
GS­
34048
was
detected
at
low
concentrations
at
all
depths
sampled
(
to
48
inches)
in
two
of
three
studies.

Table
4.
General
fate
and
physical­
chemical
properties
of
ametryn
based
on
information
submitted
by
the
registrant.

PARAMETER
VALUE
SOURCE
Chemical
Name
Ametryn
­­

Chemical
Name
(
CAS)
N­
ethyl­
N
'­(
1­
methylethyl)­
6­
(
methylthio)­
1,3,5­
triazine­
2,4­
diamine
CAS
Registry
No.:
834­
12­
8
Molecular
Formula
C
9
H
17
N
5
S
Molecular
Weight
227.3
­­

Water
Solubility
(
25
oC)
185
mg/
L
MRID
40995812
Vapor
Pressure
(
25
oC)
2.74
x
10­
6
mmHg
MRID
40995812
Hydrolysis
Half­
life
(
pH
5,
7,
9;
25
oC)
stable
MRID
40885812
Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
pH
7)
t1/
2
=
368
days
MRID
41169601
Soil
Photolysis
Half­
life
t1/
2
=
85­
123
days
MRIDs
41169602,
41169603
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
t1/
2
=
84
days
MRID
41752401
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
stable
MRID
41752401
PARAMETER
VALUE
SOURCE
Chemical
Name
Ametryn
­­

Chemical
Name
(
CAS)
N­
ethyl­
N
'­(
1­
methylethyl)­
6­
(
methylthio)­
1,3,5­
triazine­
2,4­
diamine
CAS
Registry
No.:
834­
12­
8
Molecular
Formula
C
9
H
17
N
5
S
Molecular
Weight
227.3
­­

Water
Solubility
(
25
oC)
185
mg/
L
MRID
40995812
Vapor
Pressure
(
25
oC)
2.74
x
10­
6
mmHg
MRID
40995812
Hydrolysis
Half­
life
(
pH
5,
7,
9;
25
oC)
stable
MRID
40885812
Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
pH
7)
t1/
2
=
368
days
MRID
41169601
Soil
Photolysis
Half­
life
t1/
2
=
85­
123
days
MRIDs
41169602,
41169603
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
t1/
2
=
84
days
MRID
41752401
20
Organic
Carbon
Partition
Coefficient
(
Koc)
927,
205,
96,
257
MRID
40995813
Soil
Partition
Coefficient
(
Kd,
mL/
g)
26.16,
1.09,
1.07,
1.21
MRID
40995813
Bioconcentration
Factor
(
BCF)
in
fish
No
Data
­­

WATER
RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT
This
section
identifies
the
data
used
as
the
source
of
the
input
parameter
values,
as
well
as
the
actual
input
parameter
values,
used
in
modeling
to
determine
the
Estimated
Drinking
Water
Concentrations
(
EDWC)
for
the
drinking
water
assessment
and
the
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EEC)
for
the
ecological
risk
assessment;
and
specifies
which
values
are
to
be
used
as
EDWCs
or
EECs
for
the
two
risk
assessments.

In
determining
surface
water
EDWCs
for
the
drinking
water
assessment
and
the
EECs
for
the
ecological
risk
assessments,
OPP
utilized
the
Tier
II
screening
models
PRZM/
EXAMS;
groundwater
EDWCs
for
the
drinking
water
assessment
were
generated
using
the
screening
model
SCI­
GROW.
Reported
values
are
chosen
to
represent
the
maximum
estimated
contamination
levels
resulting
from
the
labeled
uses.
The
general
fate
and
physical­
chemical
property
data
used
as
the
source
of
the
input
parameter
values
for
modeling
were
obtained
from
the
guideline
studies
and
other
submissions
from
the
registrant.

Surface
Water
21
The
EDWCs/
EECs
for
surface
water
bodies
were
determined
using
the
Tier
II
screening­
level
simulation
models
PRZM
(
v.
3.12;
input
generated
by
PE4VO1.
pl,
dated
8/
8/
03)
and
EXAMS
(
2.98.04).
Table
5
presents
parameter
values
utilized
for
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
for
the
four
use
scenarios
for
which
surface
water
modeling
was
conducted.
Input
parameters
representing
the
chemical
properties
of
ametryn
were
chosen
consistent
with
the
EFED
guidance
document
"
Guidance
for
Chemistry
and
Management
Practice
Input
Parameters
For
Use
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides."
Model
results
are
also
sensitive
to
simulation
of
agronomic
practices,
such
as
application
method
and
application
dates.
Such
input
parameters
were
chosen
by
consulting
the
product
label,
USDA
crop
profiles
for
each
state,
or
in
the
case
of
Florida
sugarcane,
consulting
the
Palm
Beach
County
Extension
(
Curtis
Rainholt,
Regional
Extension
Agent,
University
of
Florida
Institute
of
Food
and
Agricultural
Sciences,
personal
communication).

Potential
contaminants
of
concern
considered
in
the
drinking
water
exposure
assessment
are
parent
ametryn
and
the
degradates
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11354)
and
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11355).
These
metabolites,
which
are
primarily
formed
through
aerobic
soil
metabolism
of
ametryn,
were
identified
by
the
Health
Effects
Division
as
being
of
possible
toxicological
concern
based
on
their
structural
similarity
to
parent
ametryn;
no
data
are
available
to
assess
the
toxicity
of
these
degradates,
though.

The
EECs
calculated
for
the
ecological
risk
assessment
are
based
on
data
for
parent
ametryn
alone.
No
toxicity
data
is
available
for
the
degradates.
Given
the
persistence
of
ametryn,
however,
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
for
total
toxic
residues
in
a
single
study
was
not
much
longer
than
for
ametryn
alone
(
91
vs
84
days).
Additional
information
on
the
models
PRZM
and
EXAMS
can
be
located
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/.

Modeling
scenarios
were
chosen
for
this
assessment
based
on
nationwide
distribution
of
ametryn
use.
These
scenarios
are
intended
to
represent
ametryn
use
on
the
crop
in
locations
simulated,
and
to
serve
as
surrogates
for
other
areas
in
which
those
crops
are
grown:

Ametryn
is
applied
to
corn
mostly
in
southeastern
states,
particularly
North
Carolina
and
South
Carolina,
with
some
use
in
Georgia
and
Texas.
Small
amounts
are
also
used
in
midwestern
states
(
WI,
OH,
IL).
Therefore,
corn
scenarios
for
eastern
and
western
North
Carolina
were
chosen
to
reflect
the
predominant
use
of
ametryn
on
corn
in
the
southeastern
United
States.

Sugarcane
use
occurs
mostly
in
Florida,
with
some
use
also
in
Hawaii,
Texas
and
Louisiana.
Standard
scenarios
are
available
for
Florida
and
Louisiana
sugarcane,
and
the
simulations
with
these
scenarios
modeled
ametryn
applications
according
to
the
labels
for
those
states.
As
described
below,
drinking
water
in
Hawaii
is
predominantly
derived
from
ground
water,
and
the
DWEC
calculated
with
the
screening
model
SCI­
GROW
is
recommended
for
Hawaii
sugarcane.
Surface
water
is
the
main
source
of
drinking
water
in
the
Texas
sugarcane
region;
the
DWECs
from
the
Florida
and
Louisiana
scenarios
are
recommended
as
surrogates
for
sugarcane
in
Texas.

Ametryn
is
applied
to
pineapple
in
Hawaii
and
in
Puerto
Rico.
The
ground­
water
DWEC
from
SCI­
GROW
is
recommended
for
Hawaii
pineapple.
No
PRZM
scenario
is
currently
available
for
22
Puerto
Rico.
The
DWECs
from
the
Florida
and
Louisiana
sugarcane
scenarios
are
recommended
as
screening
surrogates
for
pineapple
in
Puerto
Rico,
since
the
higher
concentrations
from
these
scenarios
make
them
more
conservative
surrogates
than
the
corn
scenarios,
and
because
the
weather
data
for
Louisiana
and
Florida
should
be
better
surrogates
for
Puerto
Rico
than
data
from
North
Carolina.

Table
5.
PRZM/
EXAMS
input
parameter
values
for
ametryn.

Parameter
Value
Source
Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
A/
application)
NC
corn
(
east):
2
NC
corn
(
west):
2
FL
sugarcane:
1.2
LA
sugarcane:
2.4
Maximum
label
rates,
Product
label
for
`
Evik
DF'
(
Syngenta)

Number
of
Applications
NC
corn
(
east):
1
NC
corn
(
west):
1
FL
sugarcane:
3
LA
sugarcane:
5
Maximum
label
rates,
Product
label
for
`
Evik
DF'
(
Syngenta)

Interval
Between
Applications
(
days)
NC
corn
(
east):
­
NC
corn
(
west):
­
FL
sugarcane:
30
LA
sugarcane:
:
30
Product
label
for
`
Evik
DF'
(
Syngenta)

Application
Type
and
Depth
of
Incorporation
(
cm)
ground
spray:
0
aerial:
0
Input
parameter
guidance
Date
of
First
Application
NC
corn
(
east):
April
18th
NC
corn
(
west):
April
18th
FL
sugarcane:
February
15th
LA
sugarcane:
August
23rd
Organic
Carbon
Partition
Coefficient
(
K
oc;
mL/
g)
371
(
average
of
K
oc)
MRID
40995812
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
252
(
ametryn
parent)
273
(
total
toxic
residues
for
DW
assessment)
MRID
41752401
input
value
is
three
times
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
90th
percentile
on
mean
for
a
single
value)

Spray
Drift
Fraction
(
aerial
spray)
ground:
0.01
(
eco)
0.064
(
dw)
aerial:
0.05
(
eco)
0.16
(
dw)
Input
parameter
guidance
Application
Efficiency
ground:
0.99
aerial:
0.95
Input
parameter
guidance
Molecular
Weight
(
g/
mole)
227..
3
MRID
40995812
Vapor
Pressure
(
Torr)
2.74
x
10­
4
MRID
40995812
Solubility
in
Water
at
25oC
(
ppm)
1850
input
value
based
on
10
times
the
water
solubility
value
reported
in
MRID
40995812
as
per
input
parameter
guidance
(
Table
2.5)

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
504
(
ametryn)
546
(
total
toxic
residues)
input
value
is
2
times
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
halflife
input
value
(
as
per
input
parameter
guidance,
Table
2.5).

Hydrolysis
Half­
life
@
pH
7
(
days)
stable
MRID
40885812
Aquatic
Photolysis
Half­
life
@
pH7
(
days)
368
MRID
41169601
23
Drinking
Water
EDWCs
(
Surface
Water)

The
EDWCs
recommended
by
OPP
for
use
in
the
human
health
risk
assessment
for
ametryn
are
presented
in
Table
6.
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
was
performed
for
corn
scenarios
in
North
Carolina,
and
sugarcane
scenarios
in
Florida
and
Louisiana.
Scenarios
have
not
been
developed
for
pineapple
in
Hawaii
or
Puerto
Rico.
However,
since
most
drinking
water
in
Hawaii
use
areas
is
derived
from
ground
water
supplies,
recommended
EDWCs
for
pineapple
and
sugarcane
uses
in
Hawaii
are
those
calculated
using
the
ground­
water
screening
model
SCI­
GROW2
(
which
does
not
require
specific
use
scenarios).

When
estimating
surface­
water
DWEC's,
model
output
concentrations
are
adjusted
with
percent
cropped
area
factors
(
PCAs).
The
PCAs
used
represent
the
maximum
areal
fraction
that
any
HUC­
8
watershed
in
the
United
States
is
planted
to
the
crop
of
interested.
The
PCA
for
corn
is
0.46,
which
is
consistent
with
a
HUC­
8
watershed
in
Illinois.
For
crops
which
do
not
currently
have
a
crop­
specific
PCA,
the
national
default
of
0.87
is
used,
which
represents
the
HUC­
8
watershed
with
the
greatest
areal
fraction
planted
to
any
crop
nationally.

Because
the
use
areas
for
the
three
crops
treated
with
ametryn
are
distinct
from
one
another,
they
are
unlikely
to
be
co­
located.
Therefore,
the
DWECs
for
each
crop
can
be
considered
separately
for
the
human
dietary
risk
assessment.
The
DWECs
below
for
the
scenarios
modeled
reflect
values
from
PRZM/
EXAMS
which
have
been
adjusted
with
regional
percent
cropped
area
factors.
The
regional
PCAs
used
represent
the
maximum
areal
fraction
that
any
HUC­
8
watershed
in
the
particular
major
basin
(
HUC­
2
watershed)
of
the
United
States
is
planted
to
the
crop
of
interest.

As
described
above,
the
sugarcane
simulations
for
Louisiana
and
Florida
are
recommended
as
surrogates
for
sugarcane
in
Texas
and
Puerto
Rico,
and
the
corn
simulations
in
North
Carolina
are
recommended
as
surrogates
for
the
less
common
corn
use
elsewhere
in
the
country.
The
regional
PCA
factors
for
Florida,
Louisiana
and
North
Carolina
do
not
apply
to
those
outside
areas.
Therefore,
the
DWECs
adjusted
with
the
default
national
PCAs
should
be
used
for
dietary
exposure
assessments
for
these
other
areas.

Table
6.
Surface
water
DWECs
based
on
ametryn
use
on
sugarcane
and
corn,
adjusted
for
regional
PCAs.

Scenario
Region
Regiona
l
PCA
1­
in­
10
year
acute
(
ppb)
1­
in­
10
year
chronic
(
ppb)
30­
year
daily
average
(
ppb)

Florida
sugarcane
South
Atlantic­
Gulf
38%
96
19
12
Louisiana
sugarcane
Lower
Mississippi
85%
362
92
73
24
Eastern
North
Carolina
corn
South
Atlantic­
Gulf
38%
23
7.3
4.7
Western
North
Carolina
corn
Tennessee
38%
22
7.6
5.4
The
DWEC's
below
are
adusted
with
national­
scale
PCA's,
and
are
recommended
for
ametryn
uses
for
which
the
modeled
scenarios
serve
as
surrogates
(
such
as
Texas
sugarcane,
midwest
corn,
and
Puerto
Rico
sugarcane
and
pineapple).
The
PCAs
used
represent
the
maximum
areal
fraction
that
any
HUC­
8
watershed
in
the
United
States
is
planted
to
the
crop
of
interested.
The
PCA
for
corn
is
0.46,
which
is
consistent
with
a
HUC­
8
watershed
in
Illinois.
Since
a
cropspecific
PCA
has
not
been
derived
for
sugarcane,
the
national
default
of
0.87
is
used,
which
represents
the
HUC­
8
watershed
with
the
greatest
areal
fraction
planted
to
any
crop.

Table
7.
Surface
water
EEC's
for
drinking
water
exposure
assessment
based
on
ametryn
use
on
sugarcane
and
corn,
adjusted
with
national
PCA's
Scenario
Surrogate
for:
1­
in­
10
year
acute
(
ppb)
1­
in­
10
year
chronic
(
ppb)
30­
year
daily
average
(
ppb)

Florida
sugarcane
Puerto
Rico
crops
219
44
27
Louisiana
sugarcane
Puerto
Rico
crops
371
94
75
Eastern
North
Carolina
corn
Midwestern
corn
28
8.8
5.7
Western
North
Carolina
corn
Midwestern
corn
26
9.2
6.6
Ground
Water
Estimates
for
groundwater
concentrations
were
made
using
the
Tier
I
screening
model
SCIGROW2
(
Screening
Concentrations
in
Ground
Water).
SCI­
GROW2
is
based
on
a
regression
approach
which
relates
ground­
water
concentrations
measured
in
prospective
ground­
water
monitoring
studies
to
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
rate
and
soil­
water
partitioning
properties
of
the
chemical.
The
model
provides
a
groundwater
exposure
value
to
be
used
in
determining
the
potential
risk
to
human
health
from
drinking
water
contaminated
with
the
pesticide.
SCI­
GROW2
estimates
likely
groundwater
concentrations
if
the
pesticide
is
used
at
the
maximum
allowable
rate
in
areas
where
groundwater
is
vulnerable
to
contamination.
Characteristics
of
such
vulnerable
areas
include
high
rainfall,
rapidly
permeable
soil,
and
a
shallow
aquifer.
In
most
cases,
a
large
majority
of
the
use
area
will
have
groundwater
that
is
less
vulnerable
to
contamination
than
the
areas
used
to
derive
the
SCI­
GROW2
estimate.
Input
parameter
values
utilized
for
SCI­
GROW2
are
presented
in
Table
8.
The
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
shown
accounts
for
the
degradation
of
parent
ametryn
plus
degradates
of
concern
GS­
11354
and
GS­
11355.
The
result
of
the
SCI­
GROW
modeling
for
the
seven
use
scenarios
are
presented
in
Table
9.

Table
8.
SCI­
GROW2
input
parameter
values
for
ametryn.
25
Parameter
Value
Source
Maximum
Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
A/
application)
corn:
2
pineapple:
7.2
sugarcane:
varies
by
state
Maximum
label
rates,
Product
label
for
`
Evik
DF'
(
Syngenta)

Maximum
Number
of
Applications
per
Year
corn:
1
pineapple:
1
sugarcane:
varies
by
state
Maximum
label
rates,
Product
label
for
`
Evik
DF'
(
Syngenta)

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Half­
life
(
days)
91
(
total
toxic
residues)
MRID
41752401
Organic
Carbon
Partition
Coefficient
(
K
oc)
96
Input
value
is
lowest
value
of
four
reported
values
in
MRID
40995813
as
per
input
parameter
guidance
Table
9.
Ground
water
EDWCs
based
on
ametryn
use
on
sugarcane,
pineapple
and
corn.

Scenario
Ground­
water
concentration
(
ppb)

Florida
sugarcane
4.7
Louisiana
sugarcane
15.1
Texas
sugarcane
7.8
Puerto
Rico
sugarcane
21
Hawaii
sugarcane
15.6
Hawaii
pineapple
9.4
Corn
2.6
Monitoring
Data
Since
ametryn
was
not
included
among
the
analytes
in
the
National
Water­
Quality
Assessment
NAWQA
program,
surface
water
monitoring
data
are
limited.
Some
monitoring
data
are
available,
but
the
frequency
of
the
sampling
is
not
sufficient
for
the
estimation
of
potential
acute
exposure,
nor
extensive
enough
to
allow
a
conservative
estimate
of
potential
chronic
exposure.
The
monitoring
data
and
hydrology
information
described
below
is
important,
however,
to
help
put
the
modeling
results
described
above
in
perspective.

Florida
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
in
Florida
is
grown
in
the
Everglades
Agricultural
Area,
which
is
located
to
the
south
and
east
of
Lake
Okeechobee,
and
north
of
the
Florida
Everglades
(
Figure
3).
The
South
Florida
Water
Management
District
(
SFWMD),
the
State
of
Florida,
and
the
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
USACE)
have
worked
to
maintain
the
viability
of
the
EAA
as
cropland
and
to
control
and
reduce
transport
of
agricultural
chemicals
(
particularly
phosphorus)
into
Lake
Okeechobee
and
the
Everglades.
This
is
being
accomplished
through
the
adoption
of
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs)
in
agriculture,
and
through
the
extensive
engineering
involved
in
the
Comprehensive
Everglades
Restoration
Plan
(
CERP).
26
Figure
3:
The
Everglades
Agricultural
Area
27
While
the
Best
Management
Practices
are
intended
mainly
for
sediment
control
and
phosphorus
reduction,
they
may
also
serve
to
reduce
pesticide
transport.
For
instance,
farmers
in
south
Florida
pump
water
from
their
fields
during
a
normal
rainy
season
(
June
to
November)
into
drainage
canals
to
prevent
damage
to
their
crops
(
Ken
Todd,
Water
Resource
Manager
Palm
Beach
County,
personal
communication,
2002).
One
BMP
recommends
waiting
for
the
first
inch
of
rainfall
to
occur
before
pumping,
to
reduce
particulates
and
(
to
some
extent)
phosphorus
discharge.
BMPs
which
extend
holding
time,
or
settle
organic
matter
from
agricultural
water,
can
allow
time
for
pesticide
degradation
or
reduce
transport
of
entrained
pesticides.

Water
management
to
achieve
these
goals
is
accomplished
through
pumping
of
water
into
and
out
of
drainage
canals.
In
order
to
maintain
the
viability
of
sugarcane
in
the
EAA,
the
water
table
must
be
maintained
at
a
depth
of
at
least
6
to
12
inches
below
ground
surface.
Ground
water
pumped
from
the
EAA
is
directed
through
a
series
of
private
canals
to
four
main
public
drainage
canals
which
bring
water
out
of
the
EAA:
the
Miami
Canal,
the
North
New
River
Canal,
the
Hillsboro
Canal,
and
the
West
Palm
Beach
Canal.

The
water
from
each
of
the
public
drainage
canals
is
directed
through
constructed
wetlands
known
as
Stormwater
Treatment
Areas
(
STAs).
Each
STA
is
a
collection
of
constructed
wetlands
built
to
meet
phosphorous
loading
goals
established
by
the
CERP.
The
retarded
flow
of
water
through
the
STAs,
although
designed
to
reduce
phosphorous
levels,
should
also
reduce
the
load
of
pesticides
leaving
the
EAA
as
well
by
providing
more
time
for
the
pesticides
to
degrade.
Since
ametryn
degrades
slowly
relative
to
water
movements
in
the
canals,
and
it
does
not
bind
too
strongly
to
sediments,
this
may
be
a
less
efficient
removal
mechanism
for
ametryn
than
for
phosphorous.

The
SFWMD
includes
pesticides
among
the
analytes
it
monitors
in
surface
water
samples
taken
at
the
inflow
and
outflow
points
of
the
public
canals.
Monitoring
results
from
quarterly
sampling
between
1998
and
2003
indicate
that,
despite
traveling
through
the
canals
of
the
EAA,
or
constructed
wetlands,
ametryn
is
still
detectable
in
the
water
of
the
drainage
canals.

The
concentrations
reported
in
these
monitoring
studies
are
significantly
less
than
those
resulting
from
PRZM­
EXAMS
simulation
modeling.
This
can
be
accounted
for,
in
part,
by
the
dissimilarity
of
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
reservoir
modeling
scenario
to
the
hydrology
of
the
EAA.
Some
reduction
in
concentrations
would
be
expected
from
flow
to
and
through
the
STAs.
Also,
the
monitoring
of
ametryn
by
the
SFWMD
is
for
parent
only,
and
does
not
include
the
metabolites
of
potential
toxicological
concern.

In
addition,
while
the
modeling
results
appear
to
be
a
conservative
estimate,
the
lesser
concentrations
in
the
monitoring
may
also
be
due
to
the
frequency
of
sampling
in
the
monitoring
program.
Quarterly
sampling
is
not
sufficient
to
establish
potential
acute
drinking
water
concentrations
of
ametryn.
By
possibly
missing
peak
concentrations
of
ametryn
in
surface
water,
chronic
concentrations
that
could
be
calculated
with
the
monitoring
data
should
also
be
considered
a
rough
estimate.
28
The
highest
concentrations
detected
in
the
quarterly
sampling
(
up
to
0.7
ppb)
occurred
during
the
winter
and
early
spring.
Ametryn
is
applied
as
a
post­
emergent
pesticide
to
sugarcane,
and
would
most
likely
be
applied
during
that
period.
Florida
sugarcane
is
planted
from
September
to
February,
although
emergence
of
the
ratoon
crops
could
lead
to
treatment
at
other
times.
The
use
closure
memo
for
ametryn
indicated
that
treatment
of
sugarcane
in
Florida
occurs
3
times
per
year,
with
a
minimum
30
day
interval.

Another
uncertainty
in
the
drinking
water
assessment
for
ametryn
use
on
Florida
sugarcane
stems
from
the
location
of
drinking
water
sources
in
relation
to
the
EAA.
Drainage
canals
from
sugarcane
fields
are
not
used
directly
for
drinking
water,
but
water
from
drainage
canals
eventually
feeds
water
bodies
used
in
southern
Florida
for
drinking
water
supply.

The
Everglades
Restoration
Plan
includes
Water
Preserve
Areas
in
the
current
Water
Conservation
Areas,
which
will
be
used
in
part
to
redirect
water
away
from
the
coast,
restoring
flow
through
the
Everglades.
The
city
of
West
Palm
Beach
derives
part
of
its
water
supply
from
the
drainage
canal
L­
8,
which
passes
through
the
Water
Conservation
Area.
Water
from
this
canal
is
diverted
to
M
Canal,
which
travels
through
25
square
miles
of
water
catchment
and
wetlands
and
into
Clear
Lake,
where
the
CWS
for
West
Palm
Beach
is
located.
The
distance
from
L­
8
to
Clear
Lake
is
about
22
miles.

Three
community
water
systems
(
CWS)
draw
from
the
southern
end
of
Lake
Okeechobee.
Water
flows
from
Lake
Okeechobee
predominantly
through
the
Caloosahatchee
River
to
the
west,
the
St.
Lucie
River
to
the
east,
and
south
through
the
EAA
toward
the
Everglades
(
South
Florida
Water
Management
District,
http://
www.
sfwmd.
gov/
org/
wrp/
wrp_
okee/
2_
wrp_
okee_
info/
maps/
homepagemap.
html).
The
South
Florida
Water
Management
District
(
SFWMD)
tightly
manages
water
in
this
area
to
direct
water
where
it
is
needed
or
for
flood
control.
However,
water
may
also
be
flushed
back
from
the
EAA
into
Lake
Okeechobee,
perhaps
once
every
two
years
(
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
personal
communication,
2002).

Louisiana
Sugarcane
According
to
the
1997
USDA
Census
of
Agriculture,
and
information
provided
by
registrant
Syngenta,
there
is
little
use
of
ametryn
on
sugarcane
in
Louisiana.
Monitoring
studies
support
the
supposition
that
concentrations
of
herbicides
in
surface
water
would
decrease
with
decreasing
use
(
Scribner,
et
al,
2000).
The
results
of
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
are
an
indication
of
the
concentrations
that
could
occur
if
the
chemical
is
used
according
to
the
label,
and
may
be
conservative
on
a
regional
scale
if
few
growers
use
ametryn
on
sugarcane
in
Louisiana.

A
study
of
herbicide
runoff
from
treated
fields
in
Louisiana
indicated
that
the
soils
and
weather
in
the
area
are
conducive
to
offsite
transport
(
Bengston
and
Selim,
2001).
The
study
investigated
the
runoff
from
three
types
of
applications
of
metribuzin
and
triazine
herbicide
atrazine
between
1994
to
1999.
The
application
types
were
a
high
rate
broadcast
(
1.8
lb
for
atrazine,
2.0
for
metribuzin),
a
"
standard"
application
of
half
those
rates
in
a
36­
inch
band
over
the
row,
and
a
low
rate
of
0.6
lb
and
0.7
lb,
respectively,
in
a
24­
inch
band.
Atrazine
was
applied
to
the
test
field
in
January
and
29
December,
1994.
The
average
rate
of
atrazine
loss
in
runoff
for
these
treatments
was
7.8,
5.7
and
5.0
percent
of
applied
active
ingredient
for
the
high,
standard
and
low
application
rates,
respectively.
Metribuzin
was
applied
in
the
spring
of
1994,
1995
and
1997,
and
had
average
loss
in
runoff
of
3.5,
2.9
and
1.2
percent
of
applied
active
ingredient
for
the
high,
standard
and
low
application
rates,
respectively.

In
June,
1997,
atrazine
and
metribuzin
were
applied
2
hours
before
the
onset
of
a
75­
year
storm.
Metribuzin
was
detected
at
maximum
if
431
ppb
the
day
of
the
storm,
with
99%
of
the
total
loss
(
51%
of
applied)
occurring
that
day.
Total
atrazine
loss
after
the
storm
was
only
4.5%
of
active
ingredient
applied,
88%
of
which
occurred
the
first
day.
However,
the
maximum
concentration
of
atrazine
(
85
ppb)
was
not
observed
until
day
21;
the
day
0
concentration
of
atrazine
was
30
ppb.
The
total
loss
of
atrazine
during
this
rare
event
was
much
less
than
that
of
metribuzin,
and
was
not
significantly
different
than
that
which
can
occur
under
normal,
high­
precipitation
conditions
of
Louisiana.

It
is
not
clear
that
ametryn
loss
would
be
equivalent
to
that
of
atrazine,
although
both
chemicals
are
triazine
herbicides.
The
recent
interim
RED
for
atrazine
describes
it
similarly
persistent
to
ametryn
(
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
of
"
3
to
4
months"
compared
to
84
days
for
ametryn),
and
slightly
more
mobile
(
K
d
values
<
1.0
for
sand,
sandy
loam
and
loam
soils,
2.49
on
clay).

There
are
a
number
of
community
water
supplies
which
draw
from
the
Mississippi
and
Atchafalaya
Rivers
in
the
sugarcane
production
area
of
southern
Louisiana
(
Figure
4).
Transport
of
pesticides
in
surface
water
is
complicated
by
leveeing
of
the
Mississippi
River
in
Louisiana
and
the
system
of
drainage
canals
in
southern
Louisiana.
While
agricultural
areas
around
tributaries
can
potentially
contribute
to
contamination
of
drinking
water
supplies,
drainage
from
fields
along
leveed
portions
of
the
Mississippi
River
may
follow
the
longer
path
through
managed
drainage
canals
to
a
potential
drinking
water
supply.

Residents
of
the
western
portion
of
the
Louisiana
sugarcane
area
draw
drinking
water
from
the
ground
water
of
the
Chicot
aquifer
of
southwest
Louisiana.
This
aquifer
is
a
"
sole
source"
aquifer
that
is
susceptible
to
contamination
(
Figure
5).

In
order
to
comply
with
TMDL
requirements,
the
Louisiana
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Forestry
(
LDAF)
conducted
surface
water
monitoring
in
2002
and
2003
in
the
Barataria
Basin,
a
major
sugarcane
production
area.
However,
ametryn
was
not
included
among
the
analytes.
Atrazine,
another
triazine
herbicide,
is
"
the
most
commonly
used
herbicide
in
sugarcane
culture,"
and
was
detected
at
all
10
sites
sampled.
The
highest
concentrations
found
in
monthly
sampling
were
those
most
directly
correlated
with
the
times
of
use
on
sugarcane
30
Figure
4:
Sugarcane
production
in
Louisiana
vs.
ground
water
as
drinking
water
supply
31
Figure
5:
Sole
source
aquifers
of
EPA
Region
6
32
Hawaii
Pineapples
Pineapple
is
produced
primarily
on
the
islands
of
Oahu
and
Maui.
Public
water
supplies
in
Oahu
are
provided
entirely
by
ground
water.
The
deep
volcanic­
rock
aquifer
in
central
Oahu
and
Honolulu
supplies
more
than
90
percent
of
the
island's
public
water
supply
and
is
designated
as
a
Sole
Source
Drinking­
Water
Aquifer
by
the
USEPA.
The
aquifer
is
highly
permeable
and
unconfined
except
near
the
coast
(
see
map,
p.
20),
making
it
vulnerable
to
contamination
despite
depths
to
water
of
hundreds
of
feet
in
most
places.
(
NAWQA
Circular
1239).

Most
public
drinking
water
on
Maui
is
also
derived
from
ground
water.
The
USGS
reports
that
"
in
1998,
about
76
percent
of
the
ground
water
supplied
by
the
County
of
Maui
Department
of
Water
Supply
(
DWS)
to
the
island
was
from
the
Iao
aquifer".
A
portion
of
the
land
which
overlies
the
Iao
aquifer,
which
lies
on
the
flank
of
the
West
Maui
Volcano,
consists
of
sloping
alluvial
and
colluvial
plains
extending
east
from
the
mountains.
In
the
past,
sugarcane
was
grown
on
these
plains,
"
but
presently
the
land
is
used
for
macadamia
nuts,
pineapple,
papaya,
or
left
fallow"
(
Meyer
and
Presley,
2001).

Ametryn
was
included
among
the
analytes
in
a
ground­
water
monitoring
study
in
pineapple
growing
areas.
Samples
were
collected
by
the
Ciba­
Geigy
Corporation
from
1992
to
1994,
and
analyzed
for
residues
of
atrazine
and
ametryn.
Ametryn
degradates
GS­
11354,
GS­
26831
and
rarely
GS­
11355
were
also
included
as
analytes.
Ametryn
was
rarely
detected
in
ground­
water
samples,
although
the
maximum
concentration
detected
was
7.6
ppb.
Degradates
of
ametryn
were
not
detected
in
any
sample.
The
total
toxic
residue
concentration
calculated
by
SCI­
GROW
for
this
annual
application
rate
is
9.8
ppb.

Ground
water
in
Hawaii
is
particularly
vulnerable
to
contamination
from
agricultural
chemicals.
The
USGS
NAWQA
program
reports
that,
"
although
overlying
rock
is
weathered
to
depths
of
50
 
200
feet
(
Hunt,
1996),
this
soil
and
clay­
rich
overburden
does
not
prevent
downward
migration
of
chemicals
applied
or
spilled
at
land
surface."
A
recent
ground­
water
monitoring
program
on
Oahu
confirmed
the
correlation
of
land
use
with
the
types
of
organic
chemicals
detected.
However,
radioisotope
dating
indicated
that
most
ground­
waters
in
the
30
public
supply
wells
sampled
were
last
in
contact
with
air
(
at
or
above
the
water
table)
sometime
between
1950
and
1980
(
Hunt,
2004).
Therefore,
detections
of
herbicides
in
present
and
former
agricultural
areas
reflect
pesticide
applications
of
several
decades
past.
Three
herbicides
introduced
to
the
island
since
1990
were
only
detected
in
samples
from
15
monitoring
wells
sampled
to
study
contamination
of
more
recently
recharged
ground
water.

Ametryn
was
not
included
among
the
analytes
in
this
study.
Atrazine,
however,
was
detected
in
57
percent
of
the
public
supply
wells,
and
93
percent
of
the
monitoring
wells.
Atrazine
degradates
were
also
detected
in
as
many
as
23%
of
the
supply
wells,
and
47%
of
the
monitoring
wells.
Most
other
pesticides
detected
followed
the
pattern
of
a
higher
detection
rate
in
the
shallower
monitoring
wells.
The
results
of
this
study
suggest
that
use
of
herbicides
such
as
ametryn
may
lead
to
long­
term,
low­
concentration
contamination
of
public
supply
wells
on
Oahu.
33
AQUATIC
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
EECs
for
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Table
10
displays
peak,
21­
day
maximum
and
60­
day
maximum
surface
water
concentrations
predicted
using
PRZM/
EXAMS.
There
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
results
of
the
modeling
shown
below
since
there
are
not
sufficient
data
available
describing
the
persistence
of
ametryn.
As
shown
in
Table
5,
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
used
in
the
modeling
was
derived
by
multiplying
the
single
available
half­
life
by
a
factor
of
three
(
approximating
the
90th
percentile
on
the
mean).
Since
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
data
are
not
available
for
ametryn,
the
default
model
input
was
derived
by
multiplying
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
input
by
a
factor
of
two.
The
resulting
half­
lives
used
in
the
EEC
modeling
were
252
and
504
days,
respectively.

Since
outflow
is
not
simulated
from
the
standard
pond
as
it
is
for
the
index
reservoir
for
estimated
drinking
water
concentrations,
these
long
half­
lives
result
in
an
accumulation
of
ametryn
in
the
standard
pond
over
the
30­
year
simulation.
Additional
data
on
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
and
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
of
ametryn
would
allow
modeling
of
possible
concentrations
without
the
use
of
default
input
parameters
for
ametryn
persistence.
If
the
submitted
half­
lives
are
shorter
than
the
calculated
default
values,
the
predicted
aquatic
EECs
could
be
significantly
lower.

Table
10.
Surface
water
1­
in­
10
year
21­
day
and
1­
in­
10
year
60­
day
concentrationsa
(
in
ppb)
of
ametryn
for
ecological
risk
assessments
Crop
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Peak
(
ppb)
1­
in­
10
Year
21­
day
(
ppb)
1­
in­
10
Year
60­
day
(
ppb)

NC
corn
(
east)
Surface
water
2
84
82
80
NC
corn
(
west)
Surface
water
2
78
77
75
FL
sugarcane
Surface
water
1.2
(
3x,
30
day
interval)
309
302
295
LA
sugarcane
Surface
water
2/
2.4
(
x4)
(
30
day
interval)
792
759
755
a
concentrations
predicted
using
PRZM/
EXAMS
model.

Spray
Drift
Since
aquatic
plants
are
very
sensitive
to
ametryn,
spray
drift
exposure
estimates
were
refined
using
the
spray
drift
model
AgDrift
(
v.
2.01).
Default
drift
assumptions
used
in
PRZM/
EXAMS
simulate
5%
and
1%
at
100
feet
from
the
edge
of
a
treated
field
for
aerial
and
ground
applications,
respectively.
AgDrift
allows
the
user
to
estimate
the
concentration
of
a
chemical
that
could
occur
in
an
adjacent
pond
or
wetland
from
instantaneous
incorporation
of
spray
drift
at
points
as
far
as
999
feet
from
the
treated
field.
34
Tables
11
and
12
show
the
estimated
concentration
in
a
pond
or
wetland
at
varying
distances
from
the
aerial
application
of
ametryn
to
sugarcane,
using
a
Tier
1
AgDrift
simulation.
Sugarcane
is
the
only
crop
for
which
aerial
application
is
allowed.
Tables
13
and
14
show
the
rate
of
deposition
at
varying
distances
from
ground
application
of
ametryn
to
sugarcane,
corn
and
pineapple.
The
estimates
for
each
crop
are
based
on
the
maximum
single
application
that
can
be
made
according
to
ametryn
product
labels.
For
crops
that
have
multiple
applications
per
season,
the
maximum
exposure
could
be
greater,
if
plants
treated
with
the
first
application
survive
and
are
exposed
to
additional
applications.
Since
wind
direction
and
velocity
will
not
necessarily
be
the
same
each
time
a
chemical
is
applied,
it
is
not
certain
that
plants
exposed
during
the
first
application
would
be
exposed
to
the
second
application.

Table
11.
Estimated
concentration
of
ametryn
in
a
nearby
pond
through
spray
drift
from
a
single
application
at
varying
distance
from
the
edge
of
field
(
aerial
spray)

Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Concentration
of
Ametryn
(
ppb)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
In
a
Nearby
Pond
0
feet
50
feet
100
feet
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
8.5
5.0
3.4
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
51
30.0
20.6
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
17.0
10.0
6.9
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
56.7
33.3
22.9
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
14.2
8.3
5.7
Table
12.
Estimated
concentration
of
ametryn
in
a
nearby
wetland
through
spray
drift
from
a
single
application
at
varying
distance
from
the
edge
of
field
(
aerial
spray)

Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Concentration
of
Ametryn
(
ppb)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
In
a
Nearby
Wetland
0
feet
50
feet
100
feet
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
113
67
46
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
681
400
275
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
227
133
92
Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Concentration
of
Ametryn
(
ppb)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
In
a
Nearby
Wetland
0
feet
50
feet
100
feet
35
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
756
444
305
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
189
111
76
Table
13.
Estimated
concentration
of
ametryn
in
a
nearby
pond
through
spray
drift
from
a
single
application
at
varying
distance
from
the
edge
of
field
(
ground
spray)

Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Concentration
of
Ametryn
(
ppb)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
In
a
Nearby
Pond
0
feet
50
feet
100
feet
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
1.8
0.5
0.4
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
10.8
3.1
2.2
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
3.6
1.0
0.7
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
12.0
3.4
2.4
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
3.0
0.9
0.6
Corn
2
3.0
0.9
0.6
Pineapple
7.2
10.8
3.1
2.2
Table
14.
Estimated
concentration
of
ametryn
in
a
nearby
wetland
through
spray
drift
from
a
single
application
at
varying
distance
from
the
edge
of
field
(
ground
spray)

Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Concentration
of
Ametryn
(
ppb)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
In
a
Nearby
Wetland
0
feet
50
feet
100
feet
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
24
6
4
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
144
40
29
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
48
13
9
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
160
45
32
Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Concentration
of
Ametryn
(
ppb)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
In
a
Nearby
Wetland
0
feet
50
feet
100
feet
36
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
40
11
8
Corn
2
40
11
8
Pineapple
7.2
144
40
29
The
Tier
1
scenario
assumes
a
10
mph
wind
during
application,
a
10­
foot
release
height
for
aerial
applications,
and
a
default
spray
droplet
size
(
fine
to
medium
for
aerial
application,
very
fine
to
fine
for
ground
application).
Specific
label
language
which
proscribes
certain
spray
practices
would
allow
a
refinement
of
the
exposure
assessment.

TERRESTRIAL
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
Foliar
Applications
and
Residues
Exposure
to
feed
items
for
terrestrial
animals
was
evaluated
using
estimated
environmental
concentrations
generated
from
a
spreadsheet­
based
model
(
Ell­
FATE)
that
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
The
model
uses
the
same
principle
as
the
batch
code
models
FATE
and
TERREEC
for
calculation
of
terrestrial
estimated
exposure
concentrations
(
TEEC)
on
plant
surfaces
following
application.
Further
explanation
of
the
model
is
presented
in
APPENDIX
E.

The
terrestrial
exposure
assessment
is
based
on
the
methods
of
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).
Terrestrial
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
nongranular
formulations
were
derived
for
ametryn
use
crops
(
corn,
pineapple,
and
sugarcane)
using
maximum
application
rates
and
minimum
intervals
between
applications.
The
predicted
maximum
and
mean
residues
of
ametryn
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
for
corn,
pineapple,
and
sugarcane
are
presented
in
Table
15.
Uncertainties
in
the
terrestrial
EECs
are
primarily
associated
with
a
lack
of
data
on
interception
and
subsequent
dissipation
from
foliar
surfaces.
When
data
are
absent,
as
in
this
case,
EFED
assumes
a
35­
day
foliar
dissipation
half
life,
based
on
the
work
of
Willis
and
McDowell
(
1987).

Table
15.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
(
ppm)
following
label
specified
applications
of
Ametryn
to
corn,
pineapple,
and
sugarcane.
37
Crop
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Food
Items
Predicted
Maximum
Residue
EEC
(
ppm)
1
Predicted
Mean
Residue
EEC
(
ppm)
2
Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
Short
grass
480
170
Tall
grass
220
72
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
270
90
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
30
14
Pineapple
max
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
Short
grass
1728
612
Tall
grass
792
259
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
972
324
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
108
50
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
535
189
Tall
grass
245
80
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
301
100
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
33
16
Sugarcane
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
1728
612
Tall
grass
792
259
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
972
324
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
108
50
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x
4)

(
5
/
30)
Short
grass
1211
429
Tall
grass
555
182
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
681
227
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
76
35
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)

(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
2075
735
Tall
grass
951
311
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
1167
389
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
130
61
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
891
316
Tall
grass
408
134
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
501
167
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
56
26
1
Predicted
maximum
and
mean
residues
are
based
on
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).
2
Predicted
mean
residues
from
Fletcher
et
al.:
Short
grass
=
85;
Tall
grass
=
36;
Broadleaf
plants
/
insects
=
45;
and
Seeds
/
fruits
=
7
Exposure
to
Terrestrial
Plants
Terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
(
wetland)
areas
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
from
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift.
The
EEC
values
for
potential
nontarget
terrestrial
plant
exposure
from
a
non­
granular
pesticide
application
were
calculated
using
EFED's
TerrPlant
Excel
worksheet
(
Table
16).
The
exposure
characterization
to
this
group
employs
runoff
and
spray
drift
scenarios
to
estimate
the
amount
of
pesticide
that
could
potentially
move
offsite.
Exposure
38
calculations
are
based
on
a
pesticide's
water
solubility
and
the
amount
of
pesticide
present
on
the
soil
surface
within
the
first
inch
of
soil
depth.
For
dry
areas,
the
loading
of
pesticide
active
ingredient
from
runoff
to
an
adjacent
nontarget
area
is
assumed
to
occur
from
one
acre
of
treatment
to
one
acre
of
nontarget
area.
For
semi­
aquatic
areas,
runoff
is
considered
to
occur
from
a
larger
source
area
with
active
ingredient
loading
originating
from
10
acres
of
treated
area
to
a
single
acre
of
nontarget
wetland.
Default
spray
drift
assumptions
are
1%
for
ground
applications
and
5%
for
aerial,
airblast,
forced
air
and
chemigation
applications.
Ametryn
is
formulated
as
a
flowable,
wettable
product
and
is
meant
to
be
sprayed.
Ametryn's
aerial
application
to
sugarcane
has
the
potential
for
high
nontarget
impact
via
spray
drift,
while
its
moderately
high
mobility
and
persistence
can
potentially
cause
non­
target
impacts
through
runoff.
Applied
ametryn
is
assumed
not
to
be
incorporated,
based
on
application
method.

Table
16.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EECs)
for
applications
of
ametryn
to
terrestrial
plants
(
lbs
a.
i./
A).

Crop
Application
Rate
lbs
a.
i./
A
#
app
/
interval,
days
Application
Method
Total
loading
to
adjacent
areas1
Total
loading
to
semi­
aquatic
areas2
Drift
EEC3
Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
Ground
spray
0.12
1.02
0.02
Pineapple
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
Ground
spray
0.43
3.67
0.072
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
0.96
8.16
0.16
Aerial
spray
1.28
5.6
0.80
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
0.72
6.12
0.12
Aerial
spray
0.96
4.20
0.60
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x4)

(
5
/
30)
Ground
spray
0.36
3.06
0.06
Aerial
spray
0.48
2.10
0.30
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)

(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
0.70
5.92
0.12
Aerial
spray
0.93
4.06
0.58
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
0.22
1.84
0.04
Aerial
spray
0.29
1.26
0.18
1
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
2
EEC
=
Channelized
Runoff
+
Drift
3
for
ground:
application
rate
x
0.01;
for
aerial:
application
rate
x
0.05
39
Spray
Drift
Since
terrestrial
plants
are
sensitive
to
ametryn,
spray
drift
exposure
estimates
were
refined
using
the
spray
drift
model
AgDrift
(
v.
2.01).
Default
drift
assumptions
used
in
the
TERR­
PLANT
model
simulate
5%
and
1%
at
100
feet
from
the
edge
of
a
treated
field
for
aerial
and
ground
applications,
respectively.
AgDrift
allows
the
user
to
estimate
the
effective
application
rate
in
pounds
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
(
lb
ai/
acre)
of
a
chemical
by
spray
drift
at
points
as
far
as
999
feet
from
the
treated
field.

Table
17
shows
the
rate
of
deposition
at
varying
distances
from
the
aerial
application
of
ametryn
to
sugarcane.
Sugarcane
is
the
only
crop
for
which
aerial
application
is
allowed.
Table
17
shows
the
rate
of
deposition
at
varying
distances
from
ground
application
of
ametryn
to
sugarcane,
corn
Table
17.
Off­
target
terrestrial
exposure
to
ametryn
through
spray
drift
at
varying
distance
from
the
edge
of
field
(
aerial
spray)

Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Rate
of
Ametryn
Deposition
(
lb
ai/
acre)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
feet)

0
100
200
400
600
800
900
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
0.6
0.12
0.056
0.03
0.02
0.015
0.015
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
3.6
0.7
0.34
0.17
0.12
0.10
0.089
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
1.2
0.23
0.11
0.056
0.04
0.032
0.030
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
4
0.78
0.38
0.19
0.13
0.11
0.099
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
1
0.20
0.094
0.047
0.033
0.027
0.025
Table
18.
Off­
target
terrestrial
exposure
to
ametryn
through
spray
drift
at
varying
distance
from
the
edge
of
field
(
ground
spray)

Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Rate
of
Ametryn
Deposition
(
lb
ai/
acre)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
feet)

50
100
200
400
600
800
900
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
0.02
0.01
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.001
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
0.13
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.006
0.004
0.003
0.003
Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Rate
of
Ametryn
Deposition
(
lb
ai/
acre)
at
Specified
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
feet)

50
100
200
400
600
800
900
40
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
0.14
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.009
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.002
Corn
2
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.002
Pineapple
7.2
0.13
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
and
pineapple.
The
estimates
for
each
crop
are
based
on
the
maximum
single
application
that
can
be
made
according
to
ametryn
product
labels.
For
crops
that
have
multiple
applications
per
season,
the
maximum
exposure
could
be
greater,
if
plants
treated
with
the
first
application
survive
and
are
exposed
to
additional
applications.

The
spray
drift
estimates
above
were
derived
using
Tier
1
terrestrial
exposure
assumptions
in
AgDrift.
These
include
assumptions
such
as
a
spray
release
height
of
10
feet
for
aerial
application,
applying
spray
with
a
fine
to
medium
droplet
size.
Ground
applications
for
Tier
1
assume
a
very
fine
to
fine
spray
as
a
default,
and
both
scenarios
simulate
application
in
a
10
mile­
per­
hour
wind.

Language
included
on
the
ametryn
product
labels
suggests
best
management
practices
to
reduce
spray
drift
from
aerial
application
to
sugarcane.
These
suggestions
include
an
800­
foot
buffer
from
"
sensitive
plants"
when
using
a
formulation
of
ametryn
alone,
or
500­
feet
for
ametryn
formulated
with
diuron.
The
label
language
also
suggests
use
of
"
low­
drift
nozzles,"
but
a
target
droplet
size
is
not
specified.

ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
CHARACTERIZATION
APPENDIX
F
discusses
the
17
ecological
toxicology
studies
submitted
by
the
registrant
for
consideration:
82%
were
classified
as
core
and
having
provided
useful
information
toward
fulfilling
the
required
guidelines.
The
remaining
(
18%)
studies
were
classified
as
supplemental.

Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
terrestrial
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
assessment
of
risk
or
hazard
makes
the
assumption
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

Ametryn
is
slightly
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
exposure
basis
(
LD
50
=
1162
mg/
kg
bodyweight);
following
chronic
exposure,
reduced
growth
(
NOEC
=
13
mg/
kg)
was
observed.
41
Ametryn
is
practically
nontoxic
to
bees
based
on
an
acute
contact
study.
No
mortality
was
observed
in
subacute
dietary
toxicity
studies
with
mallard
ducks
and
bobwhite
quail
(
LC
50
>
5620
ppm).
Both
surrogate
species
responded
similarly
(
NOEC
=
300
mg/
kg
diet)
with
reduced
growth
and
reproduction
following
chronic
exposure
(
Table
19).

Table
19.
Summary
of
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
data
for
terrestrial
organisms
exposed
to
ametryn.

Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
LD
50
(
mg/
kg
bw)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
(
MRID)
5­
day
LC
50
(
ppm)
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
(
MRID)
NOEC/
LOEC
(
ppm)
(
MRID)
Affected
Endpoints
Northern
bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
>
2250
practically
nontoxic
(
409958­
01)
>
5620
practically
non­
toxic
(
409958­
03)
300
/
900
(
415476­
01)
growth
and
reproduction
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
­­
­­
>
5620
practically
non­
toxic
(
409958­
02)
300
/
900
(
415476­
02)
growth
and
reproduction
Honey
bee
Apis
meliferus
>
0.1
(
mg/
bee
contact)
practically
nontoxic
(
409958­
11)
­­
­­
­­
­­

Laboratory
rat
Rattus
norvegicus
1162
slightly
toxic
(
409958­
14)
­­
­­
21
/
145
mg/
kg/
d
(
406499­
06,
411842­
01,
403820­
01)

13
/
130
mg/
kg/
d
(
403499­
05)
growth;
testes,
kidney,
liver,
pancreas
effects
pup
weights
and
reduced
weight
gain
Consistent
with
its
chemical
use
as
an
herbicide,
ametryn
is
toxic
to
terrestrial
plants;
dicots
are
more
sensitive
to
ametryn
than
monocots,
with
lettuce
(
EC
25
=
0.006
lb
ai/
acre)
and
cucumbers
(
EC
25
=
0.002
lb
ai/
acre)
being
the
most
sensitive
indicators
in
the
vegetative
vigor
and
seedling
emergence
tests,
respectively.
Table
20
summarizes
the
most
sensitive
toxicity
endpoints
calculated
or
observed
in
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
studies.

Table
20.
Summary
of
nontarget
terrestrial
phytotoxicity
using
both
monocotyledon
and
dicotyledon
plant
species
exposed
to
ametryn.
a
Study
Type
Species
EC25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC50
(
lb
ai/
A)
NOEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
MRID
Author,
Year
Vegetative
Vigor
Monocot
­
onion
0.105
dw
0.209
ph
0.05
dw
409958­
09
Canez,
1998
Dicot
­
lettuce
0.006
dw
0.015
dw
<
0.006
dw
409958­
09
Canez,
1998
Study
Type
Species
EC25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC50
(
lb
ai/
A)
NOEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
MRID
Author,
Year
42
Seedling
Emergence
Monocot
­
oat
0.083
dw
0.335
dw
0.05
dw
409958­
08
Canez,
1998
Dicot
­
cucumber
0.002
pe
0.016
pe
<
0.002
pe
409958­
08
Canez,
1998
Dicot
­
lettuce
0.027
dw
0.093
dw
0.013
ph,
dw
409958­
08
Canez,
1998
Seed
Germination
Monocot
­
onion
25.9
pg
644
pg
2.0
pg
409958­
07
Canez,
1998
Dicot
­
cabbage
ND
pg
ND
pg

8.0
all
409958­
07
Canez,
1998
a
For
each
toxicity
endpoint,
the
parameter
in
which
these
concentrations
were
observed
are
listed.
dw
=
dry
weight,
ph
=
plant
height,
pr
=
phytotoxicity
rating,
pe
=
percentage
of
seedlings
emerged,
rl
=
radicle
length
measurements,
pg
=
percentage
of
seed
germinated,
all
=
all
parameters
measured;
ND
=
not
determined
Table
21
summarizes
the
most
sensitive
endpoints
used
in
the
hazard
assessment
of
aquatic
animals.
Ametryn
is
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
Following
chronic
exposure,
freshwater
fish
exhibited
reduced
growth
(
NOEC
=
0.7
mg/
L)
while
freshwater
invertebrates
exhibited
reduced
reproduction
(
Daphnia
NOEC
=
0.24
mg/
L).

Table
21.
Summary
of
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
toxicity
estimates
using
Ametryn.

Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
96­
hr
LC
50
(
mg/
L)
48­
hr
EC
50
(
mg/
L)
Acute
Toxicity
(
MRID)
NOEC
/
LOEC
(
mg/
L)
Affected
Endpoints
(
MRID)

Rainbow
trout
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
(
TGAI)
3.6
­­
moderately
toxic
(
428616­
02)
­­
­­

Fathead
minnow
Pimephales
promelas
16
­­
slightly
toxic
(
428616­
01)
0.7
/
1.4
Growth
(
411897­
03,
423252­
03)

Water
flea
Daphnia
magna
­­
28
slightly
toxic
(
409958­
06)
0.24
/
0.32
Reduced
reproduction
(
411897­
02,
423252­
02)

Sheepshead
minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
5.8
­­
moderately
toxic
(
411149­
02)
0.25*
­­

Mysid
shrimp
Mysidopsis
bahia
2.3
­­
moderately
toxic
(
411149­
01)
0.02**
 
*
based
on
fathead
minnow
ACR
of
22.9
**
based
on
daphnid
ACR
of
116.7
No
chronic
toxicity
data
were
available
for
estuarine/
marine
fish.
A
chronic
toxicity
value
for
sheepshead
minnow
is
estimated
from
the
results
of
the
acute
toxicity
study,
assuming
that
the
acute/
chronic
toxicity
ratio
(
ACR)
is
the
same
as
that
seen
in
the
freshwater
fathead
minnow
study
(
16
mgL­
1/
0.7
mg
L­
1
=
22.9).
Based
on
this
ACR,
the
estimated
chronic
toxicity
to
sheepshead
minnow
is
0.25
mg/
L).
Similarly,
the
ACR
from
the
freshwater
invertebrate
study
is
used
to
43
estimate
a
chronic
toxicity
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Using
the
ACR
from
the
Daphnia
studies
(
28
mg
L­
1/
0.24
mg
L­
1
=
116.7),
a
chronic
toxicity
value
of
0.02
mg/
L
is
estimated
for
mysid
shrimp.

Table
22
contains
the
aquatic
plant
registrant­
submitted
data
that
were
available
for
use
in
this
assessment.
Only
one
submitted
study
was
available
to
evaluate
the
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
nonvascular
aquatic
plants.

Table
22.
Summary
of
the
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
aquatic
plants.

Species
EC50
(
µ
g/
L)
Acute
toxicity
(
MRID)

Green
algae
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitatum
3.67
(
NOEC
=
1.14)
very
highly
toxic
(
409958­
10)

ECOTOX
database
OPP
utilized
the
ECOTOX
(
Ecotoxicology
Database
System)
on­
line
database
to
supplement
the
registrant
submitted
data
for
the
parent
compound
as
well
as
its
degradates.
ECOTOX
is
a
comprehensive
computer­
based
system
that
provides
single
chemical
toxic
effect
data
for
aquatic
life,
terrestrial
plants
and
terrestrial
wildlife
derived
predominately
from
peer­
reviewed
literature.
For
a
more
in­
depth
discussion
of
the
ECOTOX
on­
line
database,
see
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox/.

ECOTOX
contained
120
records
covering
acute
toxicity
studies
examining
ametryn
effects
on
aquatic
plants
and
animals.
Of
the
44
records
for
fish
species,
there
were
19
records
that
specified
tests
similar
to
OPP's
acute
freshwater
fish
96­
hr
LC
50
toxicity
test
(
Guideline
72­
1).
The
LC
50
values
reported
in
these
records
ranged
from
0.3
mg/
L
(
Poecilia
reticulata,
guppy)
to
27
mg/
L
(
Carassius
carassius,
Crucian
carp).
One
amphibian,
the
Japanese
toad
(
Bufo
japonicus),
was
listed
in
the
database
output
and
exhibited
an
LC
50
of
3.8
to
5.6
mg/
L.
These
data
suggest
that
amphibians
exhibit
sensitivity
roughly
similar
to
freshwater
fish.
Additionally,
there
were
four
freshwater
and
marine
snail
studies
with
reported
endpoints
ranging
from
6.0
to
6.8
mg/
L.
These
snails
were
less
sensitive
than
the
other
invertebrate
species
for
which
data
were
submitted
to
the
Agency.

Forty­
five
records
contained
toxicity
information
on
aquatic
plants,
both
vascular
and
non­
vascular
species.
Two
of
those
records
reported
7­
day
EC
50
(
similar
test
to
the
registrant­
submitted
nonvascular
plant
study)
endpoints
of
10
and
52
µ
g/
l
for
the
vascular
species
of
duckweed
Lemna
perpusilla
and
Spirodela
polyrhiza,
respectively.
While
neither
species
is
as
sensitive
to
the
guideline
green
algal
study,
these
data
are
useful
in
this
assessment
as
there
was
no
vascular
aquatic
plant
study
submitted
in
support
of
the
registration
of
ametryn.

Also,
26
aquatic
plant
records
report
short­
term
photosynthesis
inhibition
toxicity
tests
on
various
species
of
algae
and
diatoms
with
an
EC
50
range
of
10
to
135
µ
g/
l.
While
these
data
are
useful
in
characterizing
potential
non­
target
effects
of
ametryn,
none
of
the
reported
endpoints
were
as
sensitive
as
the
guideline
study
with
the
green
algae,
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitatum.
44
The
terrestrial
database
output
contained
117
records
covering
acute
toxicity
studies
to
plants
and
animals.
Twenty­
seven
records
listed
were
registrant­
submitted
studies
in
support
of
the
reregistration
of
ametryn.
The
balance
of
the
output
consisted
of
plant
efficacy
studies
reporting
a
percent
effect
and
not
a
discrete
endpoint.
The
guideline
plant
studies,
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor,
were
submitted
to
OPP
and
classified
as
core,
so
EFED
did
not
need
to
rely
on
open
literature
for
terrestrial
plant
data.

RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
RISK
ESTIMATION
To
evaluate
the
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
from
the
use
of
ametryn,
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
from
the
ratio
of
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
to
ecotoxicity
values.
RQs
are
then
compared
to
levels
of
concern
(
LOC's)
used
by
OPP
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Risk
presumptions,
along
with
the
corresponding
RQs
and
LOCs
are
summarized
in
Tables
23
through
25
(
see
APPENDIX
G
for
more
discussion).
The
exposure
estimates
in
this
screening
assessment
are
derived
using
maximum
label
rates
and
minimum
application
intervals
for
each
use.
Since
the
sugarcane
label
has
state­
specific
application
rates
and
intervals,
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
are
different
for
each
state
in
which
sugarcane
is
grown.
When
available,
field
studies
and
incident
data
are
compared
to
risk
estimates
for
ametryn.

Table
23.
Risk
presumptions
for
terrestrial
animals
(
birds
and
wild
mammals)

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
LC
50
or
LD
50/
ft2
or
LD
50/
day3
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC
50
or
LD
50/
ft2
or
LD
50/
day
(
or
LD
50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC
50
or
LD
50/
ft2
or
LD
50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
1
abbreviation
for
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg/
ft2
3
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
LD
50
*
wt.
of
bird
LD
50
*
wt.
of
bird
Table
24.
Risk
presumptions
for
aquatic
animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
LC
50
or
EC
50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC
50
or
EC
50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC
50
or
EC
50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
1
EEC
=
(
ppm
or
ppb)
in
water
Table
25.
Risk
presumptions
for
plants
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
45
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
EC
25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC
05
or
NOEC
1
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC2/
EC
50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC
05
or
NOEC
1
1
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
2
EEC
=
(
ppb/
ppm)
in
water
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
For
pesticides
applied
as
a
nongranular
product
(
e.
g.,
liquid,
dust),
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
on
food
items
following
product
application
are
compared
to
LC
50
values
to
assess
risk.
The
predicted
peak
and
mean
residues
of
a
pesticide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
a
direct
single
application
at
1
lb
ai/
A
is
presented
in
Table
26.

Table
26.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
(
ppm)
following
a
single
applications
at
1
lb
ai/
A.

Application
Rate
Food
Items
EEC
(
ppm)
Predicted
Maximum
Residue1
EEC
(
ppm)
Mean1
1
lb
a.
i./
A
Short
grass
240
27
Tall
grass
110
10
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
135
11
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
15
1
1
Predicted
maximum
and
mean
residues
are
for
a
1
lb
ai/
a
application
rate
and
are
based
on
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).

Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
used
for
terrestrial
exposure
on
potential
food
items
are
derived
from
the
Kenaga
nomograph,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994),
based
on
a
large
set
of
actual
field
residue
data.
The
upper
limit
values
from
the
nomograph
represent
the
95th
percentile
of
residue
values
from
actual
field
measurements
(
Hoerger
and
Kenega,
1972).
The
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
modifications
to
the
Kenaga
nomograph
are
based
on
measured
field
residues
from
249
published
research
papers,
including
information
on
118
species
of
plants,
121
pesticides,
and
17
chemical
classes.
These
modifications
represent
the
95th
percentile
of
the
expanded
data
set.
Risk
quotients
are
based
on
the
most
sensitive
acute
LC
50
and
chronic
NOAEC
for
birds
(
in
this
instance,
bobwhite
quail)
and
acute
LD
50
and
chronic
NOAEC
for
mammals
(
based
on
lab
rat
studies).

Risk
to
Birds
46
Since
ametryn
is
practically
nontoxic
to
birds
on
both
an
acute
oral
and
subacute
dietary
basis
and
no
mortality
was
observed
at
the
highest
dose
of
ametryn
tested
(
i.
e.,
LC
50>
5620
ppm),
no
acute
risk
quotients
are
calculated.

Chronic
LOC's
for
birds,
based
on
maximum
estimated
environmental
concentrations,
were
exceeded
for
some
feed
items
(
RQ
range:
0.10
 
6.92)
in
all
of
the
crops
modeled
(
Table
27).
The
highest
chronic
LOC
exceedances
were
calculated
for
sugarcane
uses
(
RQ
range:
0.11
 
6.92).
Only
the
"
fruits/
pods/
seeds/
large
insect"
category
for
these
crops
had
RQs
below
the
LOC.
Estimated
mean
residue
values
are
roughly
65%
less
than
maximum
estimated
concentrations
used
in
calculating
chronic
RQ's;
chronic
RQ's
based
on
mean
residues
would
decrease
by
roughly
the
same
percent.
However,
even
using
the
estimated
mean
residue
values,
there
were
still
chronic
risk
LOC
exceedances
for
use
on
sugarcane.

Table
27.
Avian
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
nongranular
products
of
Ametryn
based
on
a
bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
of
300
ppm.

Use
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Food
Items
Maximum
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
a
Chronic
RQ
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
Short
grass
480
1.60e
Tall
grass
220
0.73
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
270
0.90
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
30
0.10
Pineapple
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
Short
grass
1728
5.76e
Tall
grass
792
2.64e
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
972
3.24e
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
108
0.36
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
535
1.78e
Tall
grass
245
0.82
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
301
1.00e
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
33
0.11
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
1728
5.76e
Tall
grass
792
2.64e
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
972
3.24e
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
108
0.36
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x
4)

(
5
/
30)
Short
grass
1211
4.04e
Tall
grass
555
1.85e
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
681
2.27e
Use
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Food
Items
Maximum
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
a
Chronic
RQ
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

47
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
76
0.25
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)

(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
2075
6.92e
Tall
grass
951
3.17e
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
1167
3.89e
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
130
0.43
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
891
2.97e
Tall
grass
408
1.36e
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
501
1.67e
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
56
0.19
a
estimated
environmental
concentrations
predicted
using
1st­
order
degradation
model
based
on
foliar
dissipation.
e
exceeds
chronic
risk
level
of
concern
(
RQ

1.0)

Table
28.
Avian
chronic
risk
quotients
for
uses
of
ametryn
based
on
a
bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
of
300
ppm
and
using
the
mean
residue
EECs.

Use
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Food
Items
Mean
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
a
Chronic
RQ
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
Short
grass
170
0.57
Tall
grass
72
0.24
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
90
0.30
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
14
0.05
Pineapple
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
Short
grass
612
2.04b
Tall
grass
259
0.86
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
324
1.08b
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
50
0.17
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
189
0.63
Tall
grass
80
0.27
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
100
0.33
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
16
0.05
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
612
2.04b
Tall
grass
259
0.86
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
324
1.08b
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
50
0.17
Use
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Food
Items
Mean
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
a
Chronic
RQ
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

48
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x
4)

(
5
/
30)
Short
grass
429
1.43b
Tall
grass
182
0.61
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
227
0.76
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
35
0.12
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)

(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
735
2.45b
Tall
grass
311
1.04b
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
389
1.30b
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
61
0.20
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
Short
grass
316
1.05b
Tall
grass
134
0.45
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
167
0.56
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
26
0.09
a
estimated
environmental
concentrations
predicted
using
1st­
order
degradation
model
based
on
foliar
dissipation.
b
exceeds
chronic
risk
level
of
concern
(
RQ

1.0)

Risk
to
Mammals
Although
ametryn
is
practically
nontoxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
exposure
basis,
estimated
environmental
concentration
are
sufficiently
high
to
exceed
acute
risk,
acute
restricted
use
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
pineapple
and
sugarcane,
except
for
Florida
(
Table
29).
Acute
restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass
for
all
of
the
uses
modeled.

Table
29.
Acute
RQ
values
for
small
(
15­
g),
intermediate
(
35­
g)
and
large
(
1,000­
g)
mammals
feeding
on
short
or
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
large
insects
and
seeds
exposed
to
Ametryn
following
single
and
multiple
applications
based
on
a
rat
LD50
=
1162
mg/
kg
diet.

Use
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Body
Weight,
g
Mammalian
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Plants/
Small
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Seeds
Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
15
0.39b
0.18c
0.22b
0.02
0.01
35
0.27b
0.12c
0.15c
0.02
0.00
1000
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
Use
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Body
Weight,
g
Mammalian
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Plants/
Small
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Seeds
49
Pineapple
max
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
15
1.41a
0.65a
0.79a
0.09
0.02
35
0.98a
0.45b
0.55a
0.06
0.01
1000
0.22b
0.10c
0.13c
0.01
0.00
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
15
0.44b
0.20b
0.25b
0.03
0.01
35
0.30b
0.14c
0.17c
0.02
0.00
1000
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.00
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
15
1.41a
0.65a
0.79a
0.09
0.02
35
0.98a
0.45b
0.55a
0.06
0.01
1000
0.22b
0.10
0.13
0.01
0.00
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x4)

(
5
/
30)
15
0.98a
0.45b
0.56a
0.06
0.98a
35
0.22b
0.32b
0.69a
0.04
0.22b
1000
0.16c
0.07
0.09
0.01
0.00
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)

(
3
/
30)
15
1.70a
0.78a
0.95a
0.11c
0.02
35
1.18a
0.54a
0.66a
0.07
0.02
1000
0.27b
0.12c
0.15c
0.02
0.00
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
15
0.73a
0.33b
0.41b
0.05
0.01
35
0.51a
0.23b
0.28b
0.03
0.01
1000
0.12c
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.00
a
exceeds
acute
risk
(
RQ

0.5),
restricted
use
(
RQ

0.2)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.1)
b
exceeds
acute
restricted
use
(
RQ

0.2)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.1)
C
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.1)

A
2­
generation
rat
reproduction
study
resulted
in
a
NOAEL
of
13
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
reduction
in
growth
in
the
F2
generation.
Resulting
RQ's
exceed
chronic
LOC's
for
all
feed
items
for
all
uses
of
ametryn
(
RQ
range
=
2.3
to
160)
(
Table
30).
Although
not
an
equivalent
type
of
study
to
the
two­
generation
rat
chronic
study,
a
rat
carcinogenicity
study
resulted
in
a
NOAEL
of
21
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weights
and
gain
effects
and
also
histological
changes
in
the
testes,
kidney
and
pituitary
in
males
and
in
the
liver
and
pancreas
in
females.
The
effects
in
the
males
indicate
a
potential
for
effects
on
organs
involved
in
endocrine
processes.
While
the
NOAEL
from
this
study
was
not
used
quantitatively,
the
qualitative
results
from
the
study
(
i.
e.,
effects
on
the
endocrine
organs)
are
useful
in
substantiating
the
results
of
the
chronic
rat
data.

Table
30.
Chronic
RQ
values
for
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
seeds
exposed
to
ametryn
following
single
and
multiple
applications
based
on
NOAEL
of
13
mg/
kg/
d.
50
Crop
(
State)
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
(#
app
/
interval,
days)
Mammalian
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Plants/
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects/
seeds
Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
37
17
21
2.3
Pineapple
(
max)
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
133
61
75
8.3
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
(
3
/
30)
41
19
23
2.6
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
109
50
56
6.8
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2
/
2.4
(
x4)
(
5
/
30)
93
43
52
5.8
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
/
4
(
x2)
(
3
/
30)
160
73
90
10
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
(
3
/
30)
69
31
39
4.3
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plants
Acute
non­
endangered
and
acute
endangered
RQs
were
calculated
using
TerrPlant
following
the
procedure
outlined
in
APPENDIX
F
and
then
were
compared
to
the
LOC
=
1.0.
Acute
nonendangered
species
emergence
RQs
in
adjacent
and
semi­
aquatic
areas
(
Table
31)
exceeded
the
LOC
in
all
crops
modeled
(
adjacent
RQ
range:
1.45
 
15.4
(
monocots),
60
 
640
(
dicots);
semi­
aquatic
RQ
range:
8.43
 
98.3
(
monocots),
350
 
4080
(
dicots)).
Non­
endangered
species
drift
RQs
exceeded
the
LOC
in
all
crops
modeled
for
dicots
(
RQ
range:
3.33
 
133).
Non­
endangered
monocot
drift
RQs
were
lower
(
RQ
range:
0.19
 
7.62),
but
many
uses
for
both
ground
unincorporated
and
aerial
application
methods
still
exceeded
the
LOC,
with
the
exception
of
corn.

Table
31
.
Acute
non­
endangered
RQ
values
for
plant
species
from
non­
granular
applications
of
ametryn.

Crop
Application
Rate
lbs
a.
i./
A
#
app
/
interval,
days
Application
method
Emergence
RQs
Adjacent
Areas1
Emergence
RQs
Semi­
aquatic
Areas2
Drift
RQs3
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
Ground
spray
1.45
60.0
12.3
510
0.19
3.33
Pineapple
max
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
Ground
spray
5.20
216
44.2
1836
0.69
12.0
51
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
2.60
108
22.1
918
0.34
6.0
Aerial
spray
3.47
144
15.2
630
1.71
30
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
8.67
360
73.7
3060
1.14
20.0
Aerial
11.6
480
50.60
2100
5.71
100
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x4)
(
5
/
30)
Ground
spray
8.39
348
71.3
2985
1.10
19.3
Aerial
11.18
464
48.9
2030
5.52
96.7
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
11.6
480
98.3
4080
1.52
26.7
Aerial
15.4
640
67.4
2800
7.62
133
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
4.34
180
36.9
1530
0.57
10.0
Aerial
spray
5.78
240
25.3
1050
2.86
50.0
1
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
2
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
3
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
Acute
endangered
terrestrial
nontarget
plant
RQs
in
adjacent
and
semi­
aquatic
areas
(
Table
32)
exceed
the
LOC
for
all
crops
modeled
(
adjacent
RQ
range:
2.4
 
25.6
(
monocots),
9.23
 
98.5
(
dicots);
semi­
aquatic
RQ
range:
14
 
163
(
monocots),
53.9
 
628
(
dicots)).
Endangered
species
dicot
drift
RQs
exceeded
the
LOC
in
all
uses
(
RQ
range:
>
3.3
 
>
133).
The
most
sensitive
dicot
NOAEC
was
in
lettuce
(<
0.006
mg/
kg
ai,
the
lowest
treatment
level
tested).
As
a
result,
all
calculated
RQs
are
greater
than
the
value
reported..
Endangered
species
monocot
drift
RQs
were
lower
(
RQ
range:
0.4
 
16);
however,
the
LOC
was
exceeded
in
sugarcane,
except
for
ground
spray
in
Florida.

Table
32.
Acute
Endangered
RQ
values
for
plant
species
from
non­
granular
applications
of
ametryn.

Crop
Application
Rate
lbs
a.
i./
A
#
app
/
interval,
days
Application
method
Emergence
RQs
Adjacent
Areas1
Emergence
RQs
Semi­
aquatic
Areas2
Drift
RQs3
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Monocot
Dicot
Corn
2
(
1
/
NA)
Ground
spray
2.40
>
60
20.4
>
510
0.40
>
3.3
52
Pineapple
max
7.2
(
1
/
NA)
Ground
spray
8.64
>
216
73.4
>
1836
1.44
>
12.0
Sugarcane
FL
1.2
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
4.32
>
108
36.7
>
918
0.72
>
6.00
Aerial
5.76
>
144
25.2
>
630
3.60
>
30.0
HI
7.2
/
2.4
/
2.4
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
14.4
>
360
122
>
3060
2.40
>
20.0
Aerial
19.2
>
480
84
>
2100
12.0
>
100
LA
2
/
2.4
(
x4)
(
5
/
30)
Ground
spray
13.9
>
348
118
>
2958
2.32
>
19.3
Aerial
18.6
>
464
81.2
>
2030
11.6
>
96.7
PR
8
/
4
(
x2)
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
19.2
>
480
163
>
4080
3.20
>
26.7
Aerial
25.6
>
640
112
>
2800
16.0
>
133
TX
2
(
3
/
30)
Ground
spray
7.20
>
180
61.2
>
1530
1.20
>
10.0
Aerial
9.60
>
240
42.0
>
1050
6.00
>
50.0
1
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
NOAEC
2
RQ
=
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
NOAEC
3
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
NOAEC
Also,
26
aquatic
plant
records
report
short­
term
photosynthesis
inhibition
toxicity
tests
on
various
species
of
algae
and
diatoms
with
an
EC
50
range
of
10
to
135
µ
g/
l.
While
these
data
are
useful
in
characterizing
potential
non­
target
effects
of
ametryn,
none
of
the
reported
endpoints
were
as
sensitive
as
the
guideline
study
with
the
green
algae,
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitatum.
However,
the
EC
50
values
in
many
of
these
studies
are
well
below
the
concentrations
of
ametryn
that
could
be
expected
in
surface
water
as
modeled
with
PRZM­
EXAMS
in
both
corn
and
sugarcane
(
peak
EEC
range:
78
 
844
ppb).

Nontarget
Aquatic
Animals
Surface
water
concentrations
resulting
from
ametryn
application
to
corn
in
North
Carolina
and
sugarcane
grown
in
Florida
and
Louisiana
were
predicted
with
the
Tier
II
models
PRZM­
EXAMS.
Peak
EECs
were
then
compared
to
acute
toxicity
endpoints
to
derive
acute
risk
quotients.
The
21­
day
EECs
were
compared
to
chronic
toxicity
endpoints
(
NOEC)
to
derive
chronic
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
invertebrates
and
60­
day
EECs
were
compared
to
chronic
toxicity
endpoints
for
freshwater
53
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
33).
This
risk
assessment
does
not
estimate
risk
to
benthic
organisms
since
no
benthic
invertebrate
toxicity
study
was
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
ametryn.

For
the
current
application
rates
modeled
on
corn
in
North
Carolina
and
sugarcane
in
Florida
and
Louisiana
where
ametryn
is
applied,
acute
RQs
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
were
generally
lower
than
the
chronic
RQs.
Both
sugarcane
uses
exceeded
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
freshwater
fish.
Chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates
in
the
Florida
and
Louisiana
scenario
and
also
fish
in
the
Louisiana
scenario.
Acute
RQ
values
ranged
from
0.02
 
0.23
for
freshwater
fish
and
from
0.003
­
0.03
for
freshwater
invertebrates.
Chronic
RQ
values
ranged
from
0.11
 
1.15
for
freshwater
fish
and
from
0.32
 
3.38
for
freshwater
invertebrates.

Table
33.
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
exposed
to
ametryn.

Crop
Application
Seasonal
Rate
(#
of
apps)
EECs
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Peak
/
21­
day
Average
60­
day
Average
(
µ
g/
L)
Freshwater
Fish
a
LC
50
=
3600
µ
g/
L
Freshwater
Invertebrateb
LC
50
=
28000
µ
g/
L
Freshwater
Fish
a
NOEC
=
700
µ
g/
L
Freshwater
Invertebrateb
NOEC
=
240
µ
g/
L
NC
corn
(
east)
84
82
80
0.02
 
 
0.003
 
 
 
 
0.11
 
0.34
 
NC
corn
(
west)
78
77
75
0.02
 
 
0.003
 
 
 
 
0.11
 
0.32
 
FL
sugarcane
3.6
(
3)
309
302
295
0.09e
 
 
0.01
 
 
 
 
0.42
 
1.2f
 
LA
sugarcane
11.6
(
5)
792
759
755
0.22d
 
 
0.03
 
 
 
 
1.1f
 
3.2f
­­

a
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
b
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
c
exceeds
acute
risk
(
RQ

0.5),
restricted
use
(
RQ

0.1)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.05)
d
exceeds
acute
restricted
use
(
RQ

0.1)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.05)

e
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.05)
f
exceeds
chronic
level
of
concern
(
RQ

1.0)

Acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
were
exceeded
in
the
Florida
and
Louisiana
sugarcane
(
Table
34).
No
data
have
been
supplied
by
the
registrant
demonstrating
chronic
toxicity
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Additionally,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
appeared
to
be
similarly
sensitive
to
ametryn
when
compared
with
their
freshwater
counterparts.
As
with
the
freshwater
animals,
both
sugarcane
uses
exceeded
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
both
acute
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Acute
RQ
values
ranged
from
0.01
 
0.15
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
from
0.03
­
0.37
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
54
Table
34.
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
exposed
to
ametryn.

Crop
Application
Rate
(#
of
apps)
EECs
Peak
/
21­
day
Average
60­
day
Average
(
ug/
L)
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Estuarine/
marine
Fisha
LC
50
=
5800
µ
g/
L
Estuarine/
marine
Invertebrateb
LC
50
=
2300
µ
g/
L
Estuarine/
marine
Fisha
NOEC
=
250
µ
g/
Lg
Estuarine/
marine
Invertebrate
NOEC
=
20
µ
g/
Lg
NC
corn
(
east)
2
(
1)
84
82
80
0.01
 
 
0.04
 
 
 
 
0.32
 
4.1f
_

NC
corn
(
west)
2
(
1)
78
77
75
0.01
 
 
0.03
 
 
 
 
0.3
 
3.9f
_

FL
sugarcane
1.2
(
3)
309
302
295
0.05e
 
 
0.13d
 
 
 
 
1.2f
 
15.0f
_

LA
sugarcane
2.4
(
5)
792
759
755
0.14d
 
 
0.34d
 
 
 
 
3.
f
 
38.0f
_

a
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
b
Mysid
shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
c
exceeds
acute
risk
(
RQ

0.5),
restricted
use
(
RQ

0.1)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.05)
d
exceeds
acute
restricted
use
(
RQ

0.1)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.05)
e
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

0.05)
f
exceeds
chronic
level
of
concern
(
RQ

1.0)
g
calculated
value
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
acute­
to­
chronic
toxicity
ratio
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates
would
be
similar
to
that
for
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrates
There
were
no
chronic
toxicity
studies
available
to
assess
the
chronic
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates.
An
estimated
NOEC
value
of
250
ppb
was
derived
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
acute
to
chronic
NOEC
ratio
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
is
the
same
as
that
for
freshwater
fish.
Similarly,
an
estimated
NOEC
value
of
20
ppb
was
derived
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
acute
to
chronic
NOEC
ratio
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
is
the
same
as
that
for
freshwater
invertebrates.
There
is
uncertainty
associated
with
extrapolation
from
freshwater
to
estuarine/
marine
chronic
NOEC
values,
because
quantifiable
taxonomic
sensitivity
factors
between
the
two
broad
categories
of
aquatic
organisms
do
not
exist.
Chronic
risk
quotients
calculated
with
these
extrapolated
toxicity
endpoints
suggest
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
The
chronic
risk
quotient
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
in
the
Florida
sugarcane
scenario
equal
to
the
LOC
of
1.0,
and
the
RQ
of
3.2
for
Louisiana
sugarcane
exceeds
this
LOC.
Chronic
risk
quotients
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
all
four
corn
and
sugarcane
scenarios,
with
an
RQ
range
of
3.9
to
40.6.

Nontarget
Aquatic
Plants
55
Surface
water
concentrations
resulting
from
ametryn
application
to
corn
grown
in
North
Carolina
and
sugarcane
grown
in
Florida
and
Louisiana
were
predicted
with
the
Tier
II
models
PRZM­
EXAMS.
Peak
EECs
were
then
compared
to
acute
EC
50
and
NOAEC
toxicity
endpoints
to
derive
acute
nonendangered
and
endangered
species
RQs,
respectively.
Acute
non­
endangered
and
endangered
species
RQs
for
aquatic
vascular
and
non­
vascular
plants
are
summarized
in
Table
35.
Acute
non­
endangered
RQs
exceed
the
LOC
for
both
vascular
and
non­
vascular
plants
(
RQ
range:
8
 
84
(
vascular)
and
21
 
230
(
non­
vascular))
in
both
the
corn
and
sugarcane
scenarios.
There
was
no
registrant­
submitted
data
for
aquatic
vascular
plants;
however,
there
were
two
records
in
the
ECOTOX
database
that
reported
7­
day
EC
50
(
a
similar
test
to
the
registrant­
submitted
non­
vascular
plant
study)
endpoints
of
10
and
52
µ
g/
l
for
the
vascular
species
of
duckweed
Lemna
perpusilla
and
Spirodela
polyrhiza,
respectively.
No
NOAEC
was
reported.
EFED
used
the
Lemna
perpusilla
study
(
EC
50
=
10
µ
g/
l)
to
calculate
an
acute
non­
endangered
RQ
for
vascular
plants.
Acute
endangered
species
RQs
for
nonvascular
plants
also
exceed
the
LOC
(
RQ
range:
68
 
740).

Table
35.
Acute
non­
endangered
and
endangered
species
risk
quotients
for
aquatic
vascular
and
nonvascular
plants
exposed
to
ametryn.

Crop
Application
Rate
(#
of
apps)
EECs
Acute
Non­
Endangered
Risk
Quotients
Acute
Endangered
Species
Risk
Quotients
Peak
(
µ
g/
L)
Vascular
planta
EC
50
=
10
µ
g/
L
Non­
vascular
plantb
EC
50
=
3.67
µ
g/
L
Vascular
plant
Non­
vascular
plantb
NOAEC
=
1.14
µ
g/
L
NC
corn
(
east)
2
(
1)
84
8c
23c
 
74c
NC
corn
(
west)
2
(
1)
78
8c
21c
 
68c
FL
sugarcane
1.2
(
3)
309
31c
84c
 
271c
LA
sugarcane
2.4
(
5)
792
79c
216c
 
695c
a
Duckweed
(
Lemna
perpusilla),
from
ECOTOX
online
database,
reference
#
8628,
Liu,
L.
C.,
and
A.
Cendeno­
Maldonado,
1974,
Effects
of
Fluometuron,
Prometryne,
Ametryne,
and
Diuron
on
Growth
of
Two
Lemna
Species,
J.
Agric.
Univ.
P.
R.
63(
4):
483­
488
b
Green
alga
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum)
c
exceeds
acute
risk
(
RQ

1.0)
and
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
RQ

1.0)

RISK
DESCRIPTION
Based
on
the
results
of
the
screening
assessment
described
above,
the
use
of
ametryn
on
corn,
sugarcane
and
pineapple
poses
a
risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants.
The
predicted
amount
of
exposure
from
drift
alone
would
be
greater
than
the
amount
which
caused
complete
mortality
for
the
most
sensitive
terrestrial
plants
tested
in
the
seedling
emergence
study.
The
predicted
amount
of
exposure
also
exceeded
the
amount
of
ametryn
in
the
laboratory
studies
that
caused
reductions
in
dry
weight
in
all
test
subjects
of
the
most
sensitive
plant
tested.
This
level
of
effect
could
potentially
lead
to
risk
to
plant
communities,
and
subsequent
indirect
effects
to
56
endangered
herbivores.
These
levels
of
exposure
extend
to
different
distances
from
the
treated
field
for
the
different
ametryn
use
crops,
but
are
predicted
for
all
crops
modeled.

Expected
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
the
screening
assessment
exceed
acute
levels
of
concern
for
mammals
for
all
ametryn
labeled
uses.
A
2­
generation
rat
reproduction
study
resulted
in
a
chronic
NOAEL
of
13
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
reduction
in
growth
in
the
F2
generation.
RQs
exceed
chronic
LOCs
for
all
feed
items
for
all
uses
of
ametryn
(
RQ
range
=
2.3
to
160).
A
rat
carcinogenicity
study
resulted
in
a
NOAEL
of
21
mg/
kg/
day,
based
on
decreased
body
weights
and
gain
effects
and
also
histological
changes
in
the
testes,
kidney
and
pituitary
in
males
and
in
the
liver
and
pancreas
in
females.
The
effects
in
the
males
indicate
a
potential
for
effects
on
organs
involved
in
the
endocrine
system.
Risk
quotients
calculated
with
the
NOAEC
from
this
study
would
also
exceed
chronic
LOCs
for
all
feed
items
for
all
uses
of
ametryn.

The
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
birds
is
indicated
for
all
ametryn
crops,
based
on
the
risk
quotients
described
in
the
Risk
Estimation
section.
However,
because
of
the
wide
range
of
application
rates
for
these
crops,
the
certainty
in
this
finding
of
risk
is
different
for
the
different
use
scenarios.
For
instance,
the
chronic
LOC
for
corn
is
exceeded
for
only
the
short
grass
feed
item,
and
refinement
of
the
exposure
estimate
with
foliar
dissipation
data
for
ametryn
could
possibly
bring
the
risk
quotient
of
1.6
below
the
LOC.
The
use
of
ametryn
on
sugarcane
in
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico,
however,
would
result
in
exceedence
of
the
LOC
at
rates
below
those
suggested
on
the
product
label.

The
screening
assessment
for
aquatic
organisms
indicated
a
possible
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
invertebrates
and
endangered
species
concerns
for
freshwater
fish
from
the
use
of
ametryn
on
sugarcane.
Due
to
the
very
different
hydrology
of
the
different
sugarcane
use
areas,
there
is
uncertainty
that
these
risks
extend
beyond
Florida
and
Louisiana,
the
scenarios
modeled
in
the
assessment.
In
addition,
surface
water
monitoring
in
Florida,
while
not
sufficiently
extensive
to
establish
potential
acute
concentrations,
did
not
result
in
concentrations
approaching
those
predicted
by
the
model.

As
described
in
the
Exposure
Characterization,
there
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
results
of
the
aquatic
EECs
since
there
are
not
sufficient
data
available
describing
the
persistence
of
ametryn.
As
shown
in
Table
5,
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
used
in
the
modeling
was
derived
by
multiplying
the
single
available
half­
life
by
a
factor
of
three
(
approximating
the
90th
percentile
on
the
mean).
Since
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
data
are
not
available
for
ametryn,
the
default
model
input
was
derived
by
multiplying
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
input
by
a
factor
of
two.
The
resulting
half­
lives
used
in
the
EEC
modeling
were
252
and
504
days,
respectively.

Since
outflow
is
not
simulated
from
the
standard
pond
as
it
is
for
the
index
reservoir
for
estimated
drinking
water
concentrations,
these
long
half­
lives
result
in
an
accumulation
of
ametryn
in
the
standard
pond
over
the
30­
year
simulation.
Additional
data
on
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
and
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
of
ametryn
would
allow
modeling
of
possible
concentrations
without
the
use
of
default
input
parameters
for
ametryn
persistence.
If
the
submitted
half­
lives
are
shorter
than
the
calculated
default
values,
the
predicted
aquatic
EECs
could
be
significantly
lower,
and
risk
quotients
might
not
exceed
the
LOCs
as
described
in
the
Risk
Estimation.
57
The
surface­
water
EECs
derived
with
PRZM­
EXAMS
are
meant
not
only
to
represent
the
specific
scenarios
simulated,
but
to
be
screening
assessment
surrogates
for
ametryn
crops
in
other
states
for
which
standard
scenarios
have
not
been
developed.
The
EECs
from
the
Florida
and
Louisiana
sugarcane
scenarios
are
recommended
as
screening
surrogates
for
sugarcane
in
Texas
and
Hawaii,
and
for
pineapple
in
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico,
since
the
higher
concentrations
from
these
scenarios
make
them
more
conservative
surrogates
than
the
corn
scenarios,
and
because
the
high­
rainfall
weather
data
for
Louisiana
and
Florida
should
be
better
surrogates
for
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico
than
data
from
North
Carolina.
There
is
some
uncertainty
involved
with
using
individual
scenarios
as
surrogates
for
crops
in
other
parts
of
the
nation,
but
the
application
rates
on
sugarcane
in
Texas
are
similar
to
those
in
Louisiana
and
Florida,
and
the
rates
on
sugarcane
or
pineapple
in
Hawaii
or
Puerto
Rico
are
significantly
higher
(
see
Appendix
A).

Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
Risk
To
Terrestrial
Plants
The
screening
level
assessment
described
above
indicates
a
potential
risk
to
plants
at
application
rates
well
below
those
described
on
ametryn
product
labels.
In
fact,
application
rates
as
low
as
0.4
lb
ai/
acre
(
lettuce)
in
the
laboratory
studies
resulted
in
total
test
subject
mortality.
As
a
result,
risk
quotients
calculated
for
exposure
through
spray
drift
and
runoff,
and
from
spray
drift
alone,
exceed
the
LOC
to
a
degree
that
mitigation
of
the
risk
could
be
difficult
for
some
uses.

Refined
exposure
estimates
with
the
spray
drift
model
AgDrift
give
a
better
indication
of
the
potential
risk
to
plants.
Tier
1
estimates
of
drift
indicate
the
exposure
that
could
be
expected
at
varying
distances
from
a
treated
field.
(
see
Tables
15
and
16).
The
greatest
exposure
should
occur
from
application
to
sugarcane,
which
is
the
only
crop
for
which
aerial
application
is
allowed
on
the
label.
Under
the
Tier
1
aerial
application
scenario
for
sugarcane
in
all
five
use
states,
the
buffer
distance
that
would
be
necessary
to
reduce
spray
drift
to
the
EC25
for
the
most
sensitive
test
plant
in
the
vegetative
vigor
studies
(
lettuce)
is
beyond
the
999
ft
limit
in
AgDrift.

Ametryn
exposure
from
spray
drift
would
pose
a
greater
risk
closer
to
sugarcane
fields
treated
by
aerial
spray.
Mortality
would
occur
at
both
4
and
8
lb
ai/
acre.
Table
36
details
the
distance
from
the
edge
of
treated
fields
at
which
cabbage
(
1.0
lb
ai/
acre),
cucumbers
(
0.5
lb
ai/
acre)
and
lettuce
(
0.4
lb
ai/
acre)
would
be
predicted
to
receive
a
dose
equivalent
to
the
lowest
dose
observed
to
cause
mortality
in
all
test
subjects
in
the
seedling
emergence
laboratory
study.

These
distances
from
the
treated
field
were
calculated
from
predicted
spray
drift
for
a
single
application
only.
If
plants
beyond
these
zones
were
to
be
exposed
to
ametryn
through
runoff
or
drift
from
later
treatments
as
well,
the
damage
could
be
extended
out
further.
If
non­
target
plants
of
similar
sensitivity
to
cabbage,
cucumbers
or
lettuce
reacted
similarly
to
the
reaction
of
these
crops
in
the
laboratory,
community
effects
might
be
possible
which
could
alter
the
assemblage
of
plants
adjacent
to
sugarcane
fields.
It
is
possible
that
complete
mortality
would
not
even
be
necessary
for
certain
types
of
plants
to
be
out­
competed
by
other
less
sensitive
plants.
In
such
an
instance,
these
effects
might
occur
at
distances
greater
than
that
shown
in
the
table
below.
58
Table
36.
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
feet)
at
which
Ametryn
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Would
be
Deposited
at
Rates
which
Caused
100%
Mortality
of
Cabbage,
Cucumbers
and
Lettuce
in
the
Seedling
Emergence
Test
Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Maximum
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
feet)
at
Which
Ametryn
Might
Cause
100%
Plant
Mortality
in
Indicated
Crop
Cabbage
Cucumber
Lettuce
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
­
7
13
Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
69
138
171
Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
7
30
56
Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
75
154
184
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
­
23
33
Refined
exposure
estimates
indicate
that
ametryn
exposure
from
ground
application
would
also
exceed
terrestrial
plant
LOCs
far
from
treated
fields
sugarcane,
corn
and
pineapple
(
see
Table
37).
As
shown
below,
spray
drift
exposure
equal
to
the
most
sensitive
EC
25
values
calculated
from
the
vegetative
vigor
and
seedling
emergence
studies
would
be
deposited
hundreds
of
feet
away
from
treated
fields.
The
first
distance
shown
for
each
scenario
is
that
calculated
by
the
Tier
1
terrestrial
model
assuming
a
very
fine
to
fine
spray.
The
values
in
parentheses
which
follow
are
calculated
simulating
fine
to
medium/
coarse
droplets.
For
most
scenarios,
deposition
equivalent
to
the
toxicity
endpoints
would
still
be
predicted
hundreds
of
feet
from
the
field
in
spite
of
the
larger
droplet
size.

Table
37.
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
feet)
at
which
Ametryn
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Would
be
Deposited
at
Rates
Equal
to
the
Most
Sensitive
EC25
Values
for
Vegetative
Vigor
and
Seedling
Emergence
Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
ft)
at
Which
Rate
of
Ametryn
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Would
be
Deposited
Equal
to
Tox
Endpoint
0.002
lb
ai/
acre
0.006
lb
ai/
acre
Sugarcane
(
FL)
1.2
620
(
351)
207
(
85)

Sugarcane
(
HI)
7.2
>
1000
(>
1000)
>
1000
(
741)

Sugarcane
(
LA)
2.4
>
1000
(
741)
423
(
217)

Sugarcane
(
PR)
8
>
1000
(>
1000)
>
1000
Sugarcane
(
TX)
2
971
(
614)
351
(
171)
Crop
(
State)
Max.
Single
Application
Rate
lbs.
a.
i./
A
Distance
From
Edge
of
Field
(
ft)
at
Which
Rate
of
Ametryn
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Would
be
Deposited
Equal
to
Tox
Endpoint
0.002
lb
ai/
acre
0.006
lb
ai/
acre
59
Corn
2
971
(
614)
351
(
171)

Pineapple
7.2
>
1000
(>
1000)
>
1000
(
741)

If
seeds
of
sensitive
plants
fail
to
emerge,
or
if
a
sufficient
number
of
plants
are
damaged
within
a
swath
hundreds
of
feet
from
treated
fields,
community
structure
among
those
plants
could
change.
Recent
research
on
the
effects
of
herbicides
or
herbicides
plus
fertilizer
on
plant
community
structure
provide
some
evidence
of
this
possibility
(
Kleijn
and
Snoeijing,
1997
and
Jobin,
et
al,
1997).
A
comparative
study
of
the
flora
of
hedgerows
and
woodland
edges
in
southern
Quebec,
for
instance,
found
a
relatively
greater
proportion
of
annual
and
introduced
species
near
fields
that
had
recently
been
treated
with
herbicides
in
comparison
to
non­
cropped
land,
which
had
a
higher
proportion
of
native
and
perennial
species
(
Jobin,
et
al,
1997).
The
reduction
of
diversity
within
a
plant
community,
either
by
direct
damage
or
decreased
ability
to
compete,
could
result
in
a
loss
of
feed
or
habitat
for
endangered
terrestrial
animals.

The
risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
in
much
of
the
EAA
in
Florida
appears
to
be
reduced
by
the
density
of
agriculture
within
most
of
this
area.
The
percent
cropped
area
in
the
EAA
is
nearly
100%,
with
non­
crop
terrestrial
plants
located
predominantly
along
the
edges
of
drainage
canals.
The
main
risk
would
occur
along
the
borders
of
wildlife
preserves
abutting
the
EAA.
Spray
drift
from
adjacent
cropland
could
result
in
exposure
of
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
in
these
areas.

The
registrants
of
ametryn
suggest
mitigation
measures
that
would
help
reduce
exposure
from
aerial
application
to
sugarcane.
The
labels
state:

In
order
to
assure
that
spray
will
be
controllable
within
the
target
area
when
used
according
to
label
directions,
make
applications
at
a
maximum
height
of
10
ft.,
using
low­
drift
nozzles
at
a
maximum
pressure
of
40
psi,
and
restrict
application
to
periods
when
wind
speed
does
not
exceed
10
mph.
To
assure
that
spray
will
not
adversely
affect
adjacent
sensitive
nontarget
plants,
apply
(
ametryn,
eg
Evik
DF)
alone
by
aircraft
at
a
minimum
upwind
distance
of
800
ft
from
sensitive
plants,
or
apply
(
a
tank
mix,
eg
Evik
DF
+
Karmex)
at
a
minimum
upwind
distance
of
500
ft.
from
sensitive
plants.

If
sugarcane
growers
were
to
follow
these
recommendations,
then
both
spray
drift
and
runoff
to
adjacent
fields
would
be
reduced.
However,
the
spray
drift
model
AgDrift
indicates
that
spray
drift
to
adjacent
fields
would
still
result
in
exposure
above
LOCs.
Using
default
values
for
droplet
size
and
wind
speed
in
a
Tier
1
assessment,
but
including
an
800
ft
buffer,
results
in
an
exposure
through
spray
drift
above
the
LOCs
for
both
endangered
and
non­
endangered
plants.
As
described
above,
the
buffer
distance
that
would
be
necessary
to
reduce
spray
drift
to
the
EC25
for
the
most
sensitive
test
plant
in
the
vegetative
vigor
studies
(
lettuce)
is
beyond
the
1000
ft
limit
in
AgDrift.
60
Even
if
spray
drift
were
to
be
reduced
to
the
point
that
spray
drift
alone
would
not
exceed
plant
LOCs,
runoff
from
field
treated
with
ametryn
could
still
be
a
concern.
However,
the
likelihood
of
runoff
from
treated
field
to
adjacent
is
different
for
each
of
the
crop
scenarios.
For
instance,
the
direction
and
amount
of
water
flow
is
regulated
by
pumping
water
in
and
out
of
drainage
canals
in
the
Florida
sugarcane
areas,
both
for
flood
control
and
to
depress
the
water
table
below
the
fields.
When
runoff
is
transported
from
sugarcane
fields
in
Florida
and
Louisiana,
however,
it
is
dominantly
captured
in
edge
of
field
ditches
and
canals.
This
would
greatly
reduce
the
potential
for
the
movement
of
runoff
as
sheet
flow
through
adjacent
non­
crop
areas.

The
discussion
above
also
applies
to
risk
to
non­
endangered
plants,
for
which
EECs
are
compared
to
EC
25
values.
Risk
to
endangered
species
is
estimated
by
comparison
to
EECs
to
the
NOAEL
or
EC
05,
which
were
not
determined
for
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.
Since
the
spray
drift
data
described
above
indicates
that
exposure
above
the
non­
endangered
LOC
would
occur
hundreds
of
feet
from
fields
treated
with
ametryn,
and
beyond
the
capacity
of
AgDrift
to
predict
for
aerial
application
to
sugarcane,
the
endangered
species
is
exceeded
by
default
to
an
even
greater,
but
unknown
distance
from
the
treated
field.

Risk
to
Birds
and
Mammals
Acute
risk
Ametryn
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
Although
20
to
30%
mortality
was
observed
in
the
acute
oral
toxicity
test
(
LD
50
>
2250
mg/
kg
bw),
no
mortality
was
observed
in
the
subacute
dietary
toxicity
study
at
the
highest
concentration
tested.
(
LC
50
>
5620
ppm).
Mortality
might
occur
at
higher
concentrations
than
that
required
by
the
guidelines.
Based
on
the
results
of
these
studies,
however,
risk
quotients
are
presumed
not
to
exceed
LOC's.

Ametryn
is
slightly
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
exposure
basis,
with
an
acute
LD
50
for
rats
of
1162
mg/
kg
diet.
However,
the
maximum
application
rates
are
sufficiently
high
to
result
in
RQs
above
acute
risk
LOCs
for
some
crops,
and
endangered
species
LOC
exceedences
for
other
crops.
Acute
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
15g
and
35
g
mammals
are
exceeded
at
maximum
rates
for
pineapple
and
sugarcane
in
Hawaii,
Louisiana,
Puerto
Rico
and
Texas.
In
addition,
endangered
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
for
the
corn
use,
and
for
1000g
mammals
at
maximum
application
rates
for
pineapple
and
sugarcane
in
Hawaii,
Louisiana,
Puerto
Rico
and
Texas.
The
acute
restricted
use
LOC
of
0.2
is
exceeded
for
some
feed
items
for
all
ametryn
use
crops.

Chronic
Risk
The
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
birds
is
indicated
for
all
ametryn­
treated
crops.
However,
because
of
the
wide
range
of
application
rates
for
these
crops,
the
certainty
in
this
finding
of
risk
is
different
for
the
different
use
scenarios.
For
instance,
the
chronic
LOC
for
sugarcane
in
Florida
is
exceeded
for
only
the
short
grass
and
broadleaf
feed
items,
with
a
maximum
risk
quotient
of
1.78.
If
ametryn­
specific
data
were
to
indicate
a
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
5
days
or
less
(
instead
of
the
default
30
days),
these
risk
quotients
would
be
below
levels
of
concern.
On
the
other
hand,
peak
61
risk
quotients
for
use
on
sugarcane
at
maximum
rates
in
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
a
single
application;
the
risk
quotients
would
exceed
the
LOC
regardless
of
the
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
simulated.

The
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
mammals
is
also
indicated
for
all
ametryn­
treated
crops.
However,
unlike
the
results
of
the
screening
assessment
for
birds,
the
chronic
LOC
for
mammals
exceeded
on
all
feed
items
for
all
ametryn
uses.
In
addition,
the
range
of
the
RQ
values
(
2.3
to
160)
is
greater
than
that
for
birds;
refinement
of
the
exposure
estimate
with
foliar
dissipation
data
for
ametryn
will
not
bring
RQ's
below
the
chronic
LOC.
The
estimated
concentrations
from
a
single
application
at
the
1.2
lb
ai/
acre
rate
for
Florida
sugarcane
range
from
18
to
288
ppm,
all
of
which
result
in
risk
quotients
above
the
LOC.

Endocrine
Disruption
Potential
Based
on
results
of
the
chronic
avian
studies,
ametryn
may
have
the
potential
to
affect
endocrine
disrupting
processes
in
exposed
animals.
EPA
is
required
under
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
FQPA,
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.

For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
the
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allow,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).
When
the
appropriate
screening
and/
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
Agency's
EDSP
have
been
developed,
ametryn
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and/
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.

Risk
to
Aquatic
Organisms
Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
Based
on
modeling
of
maximum
application
rates
for
corn
in
North
Carolina,
and
for
sugarcane
in
Florida
and
Louisiana,
exposure
to
ametryn
through
runoff
would
pose
a
risk
to
aquatic
plants.
The
exposure
scenario
simulated
by
PRZM/
EXAMS
does
not
represent
the
managed
hydrology
of
Florida
sugarcane
fields
very
well.
Although
levees
around
some
drainage
canals
in
Florida
would
retard
runoff
to
the
canals
under
most
circumstances,
ametryn
could
be
directly
introduced
to
drainage
canals
by
intentional
pumping
during
rain
events
for
flood
control,
or
to
maintain
the
minimum
required
depth
to
the
water
table.
62
PRZM/
EXAMS
scenarios
are
not
available
for
Hawaii
sugarcane
or
pineapple.
Sugarcane
in
Hawaii,
however,
is
grown
under
conditions
which
would
appear
to
favor
runoff.
The
sugarcane
is
grown
on
sloping
(>
2%),
uneven
terrain
on
the
islands
of
Maui
and
Kauai.
Sugarcane
production
on
Oahu
ceased
after
the
1996
season
(
Klasner
and
Mikami,
2003).
More
than
90%
of
sugarcane
in
Hawaii
is
drip
irrigated
to
supplement
the
10
to
60
inches
of
rain
which
falls
annually.
Unirrigated
sugarcane
areas
receive
60
to
100
inches
of
rain
a
year.
Since
runoff
from
the
fields
could
erode
the
soil,
runoff
diversion
ditches
have
been
installed
in
most
fields.
Information
on
the
water
bodies
which
receive
this
diverted
water
would
allow
better
characterization
of
potential
risk
to
aquatic
plants
and
animals.

Spray
drift
modeling
indicates
a
potential
for
risk
to
aquatic
plants
from
spray
drift
exposure
alone,
as
well.
The
most
sensitive
species,
the
green
alga
Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitatum,
has
a
laboratory
EC
50
of
3.67
µ
g/
l.
As
shown
in
Table
10,
predicted
concentrations
of
ametryn
in
a
pond
or
wetland
100
feet
from
a
sugarcane
field
treated
aerially
would
exceed
that
value
for
all
use
states
(
except
for
Florida,
where
that
concentration
would
be
estimated
to
occur
at
a
distance
of
92
feet).
Concentrations
in
a
wetland
100
feet
from
a
treated
field
would
also
exceed
the
duckweed
(
Lemna
perpusilla)
EC
50
of
10
µ
g/
l
obtained
from
the
ECOTOX
database.
Since
the
LOC
for
aquatic
plants
is
1.0,
this
means
the
RQ
for
duckweed
would
exceed
the
LOC
at
100
feet.

The
EC
50
for
vascular
plants
is
equivalent
to
the
EC
99
level
for
nonvascular
plants.
That
is
to
say,
the
concentration
of
10
µ
g/
l
corresponds
to
the
dose
in
the
Selenastrum
capricornatum
study
at
which
the
green
alga
suffered
a
99%
inhibition
in
cell
count.
An
87%
inhibition
occurred
at
5
ug/
l.
As
shown
in
Table
10,
this
suggests
that
drainage
ditches
within
50
feet
of
treated
fields
(
based
on
the
pond
scenario)
or
wetlands
beyond
100
feet
could
suffer
almost
total
reduction
in
aquatic
plants
as
sensitive
as
the
Pseudokirchneriella
test
species.
If
sensitive
plants
were
damaged
by
spray
drift
(
and
runoff)
of
ametryn,
endangered
fish
species
which
feed
on
such
plants
could
suffer
indirect
effects.
Additional
data
would
be
needed,
however,
on
the
potential
of
aquatic
plants
to
recover
from
the
effects
of
ametryn
exposure.

The
exposure
estimates
are
based
on
instantaneous
mixing
to
a
pond
with
a
208.7
feet
width
and
6.56
ft
(
2
m)
depth,
and
a
wetland
with
the
same
width,
but
a
0.49
ft
depth.
These
estimates
could
be
refined
with
specific
information
on
the
width
and
depth
of
water
bodies
most
likely
to
occur
near
sugarcane
fields
in
each
state.
The
AgDrift
Tier
1
aquatic
drift
assessment
does
not
take
partitioning
to
the
soil
into
account,
but
duckweed
and
algae
at
or
near
the
surface
of
the
water
bodies
could
be
expected
to
be
exposed
to
spray
drift
hitting
the
water
body
before
a
small
portion
of
the
ametryn
is
partitioned
to
bottom
sediment.

The
confidence
in
the
risk
for
Florida
and
Louisiana
is
increased
by
the
presence
of
drainage
ditches
throughout
the
sugarcane
use
areas,
and
of
bayous
and/
or
wetlands
in
and
around
southern
Louisiana
and
the
Everglades
Agricultural
Area.
Surface
water
bodies
are
quite
likely
to
be
within
100
feet
of
treated
fields
in
these
areas.
However,
the
possible
risk
in
Louisiana
and
Florida
drainage
ditches
should
be
considered
in
the
context
of
local
needs;
drainage
ditches
in
these
areas
are
also
treated
to
remove
native
or
invasive
aquatic
plants
which
could
clog
the
ditches
and
make
them
less
effective
for
irrigation,
flood
control,
etc..
Nearby
natural
wetlands
and
wildlife
preserves,
however,
could
also
potentially
be
exposed.
63
Confidence
in
the
potential
risk
to
aquatic
plants
via
spray
drift
from
application
to
sugarcane
in
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico
stems
more
from
the
magnitude
of
the
predicted
exposure,
which
is
about
7
times
the
Pseudokirchneriella
EC
50
in
a
pond
at
100
feet,
or
about
100
times
for
a
wetland
located
at
100
feet
from
the
treated
field.
The
potential
for
additional
exposure
of
aquatic
plants
from
runoff
increases
the
likelihood
of
risk.

Estimated
concentrations
of
ametryn
in
adjacent
water
bodies
from
ground
spray
applications
are
significantly
less
than
those
from
aerial
application
to
sugarcane,
as
shown
in
Table
11.
Nevertheless,
the
predicted
concentrations
for
a
wetland
100
feet
from
the
treated
field
exceeds
the
EC
50
for
green
algae
for
all
uses
evaluated.
The
estimated
concentrations
for
a
pond
directly
adjacent
to
a
treated
field
also
exceed
the
EC
50
for
green
algae
(
except
for
Florida
sugarcane),
which
suggests
that
aquatic
plants
in
adjacent
drainage
ditches
would
also
be
vulnerable.

Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Species
Acute
risk
quotients
indicate
and
exceedence
of
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
for
sugarcane
in
Louisiana,
and
for
endangered
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
for
sugarcane
in
Louisiana
and
Florida.
There
were
no
chronic
toxicity
studies
available
to
assess
the
chronic
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates.
However,
as
described
above,
chronic
risk
quotients
as
high
as
3.2
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
40.6
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
were
estimated
by
assuming
that
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
in
toxicity
studies
for
freshwater
organisms
is
the
same
for
their
estuarine/
marine
counterparts.

Chronic
risk
quotients
calculated
with
these
extrapolated
toxicity
endpoints
suggest
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
However,
there
is
uncertainty
associated
with
extrapolation
from
freshwater
to
estuarine/
marine
chronic
NOEC
values,
because
quantifiable
taxonomic
sensitivity
factors
between
the
two
broad
categories
of
aquatic
organisms
do
not
exist.

In
addition,
since
PRZM/
EXAMS
simulates
runoff
to
a
standard
freshwater
pond,
there
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
use
of
these
estimated
concentrations
for
comparison
with
estuarine/
marine
toxicity
endpoints.
This
may
be
less
of
a
concern
in
Louisiana,
where
much
of
the
drainage
from
sugarcane
fields
is
directed
to
estuarine
rivers
and
bayous.
However,
as
described
above,
the
exposure
scenario
simulated
by
PRZM/
EXAMS
does
not
represent
the
managed
hydrology
of
Florida
sugarcane
fields
very
well,
and
most
of
the
water
leaving
the
Everglades
Agricultural
Area
travels
into
and
through
the
freshwater
Everglades.

Since
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling
was
not
performed
for
sugarcane
or
pineapple
in
Hawaii,
it
isn't
clear
whether
the
chronic
or
endangered
species
LOCs
would
also
be
exceeded
for
these
uses.
However,
there
are
currently
no
endangered
fish
listed
for
the
State
of
Hawaii.
There
are,
in
fact,
only
five
native
fish
species
in
the
State.
These
five
species
(
four
goby
species
and
an
eleotrid)
are
less
common
in
Hawaii
streams
than
introduced
species,
but
are
not
listed
as
endangered.
The
native
fish
spend
their
juvenile
stage
in
the
Pacific
Ocean,
but
return
to
freshwater
to
reproduce.
Native
aquatic
invertebrates
include
two
species
of
shrimp
(
one
estuarine),
and
"
a
few
native
snails"
(
again,
one
estuarine)
(
Oki
and
Brasher,
2003).
64
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
The
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
endangered
and
threatened
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
aquatic
vascular
and
non­
vascular
plants,
birds,
mammals,
and
non­
target
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants
are
exceeded
for
the
uses
of
ametryn
discussed
in
this
assessment.
Appendix
I
provides
a
list
of
endangered/
threatened
species
and
crop
acreage
at
the
state
level
for
the
taxonomic
groups
and
crops
of
concern.
Table
38
summarizes
the
number
of
species
listed
in
states
where
each
crop
is
grown.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
there
are
no
Federally
listed
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates/
mollusks.
The
registrant
must
provide
information
on
the
proximity
of
Federally
listed
endangered
species
to
the
ametryn
use
sites.
This
requirement
may
be
satisfied
in
one
of
three
ways:
1)
having
membership
in
the
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
(
Pesticide
Registration
[
PR]
Notice
2000­
2);
2)
citing
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
data;
or
3)
independently
producing
these
data,
provided
the
information
is
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
FIFRA
requirements.
The
information
will
be
used
by
the
OPP
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
develop
recommendations
to
avoid
adverse
effects
to
listed
species.

Table
38.
Endangered
and
threatened
species
summary
for
the
use
of
ametryn
on
corn,
pineapple
and
sugarcane.
This
summary
is
based
on
LOC
exceedances
from
RQ
calculations
in
each
taxonomic
grouping
in
this
risk
assessment.

Use
State
Total
species
listed
Taxonomic
Grouping
Bird
Mammal
Plant
Amphibian
Fish
Clam
Corn
Florida
61
9
10
42
 
 
 
Georgia
28
5
4
19
 
 
 
Illinois
13
3
2
8
 
 
 
North
Carolina
39
6
6
27
 
 
 
Ohio
7
2
1
4
 
 
 
South
Carolina
25
4
3
18
 
 
 
Texas
33
12
3
18
 
 
 
Wisconsin
10
3
1
6
 
 
 
Pineapple
Hawaii
154
18
2
134
 
 
 
Sugarcane
Florida
35
9
5
13
1
2
5
Hawaii
75
13
2
60
 
 
 
Louisiana
9
4
1
 
 
2
2
Texas
11
6
2
3
 
 
 
65
The
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
endangered
species
indicates
that
ametryn
exceeds
the
endangered
species
LOCs
for
the
following
combinations
of
analyzed
uses
and
species.
The
results
for
aquatic
species
are
based
on
modeling
for
corn
in
North
Carolina
and
for
sugarcane
in
Louisiana
and
Florida.
Because
of
the
LOC
exceedances
from
these
representative
use
scenarios,
endangered
fish
and
invertebrates
associated
with
use
of
ametryn
on
pineapple,
or
on
corn
and
sugarcane
in
other
states,
are
also
included
in
the
analysis
below:

!
Avian
"
chronic
­
corn
 
short
grass
­
pineapple
 
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
­
sugarcane
 
short
grass
(
all
states),
tall
grass
(
HI,
LA,
PR,
TX),
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
(
all
states)

!
Mammals
"
acute
­
corn
 
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
for
15
and
35
g
classes
­
pineapple
 
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
for
all
weight
classes
­
sugarcane
 
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
for
15
and
35
g
classes
(
all
states),
short
grass
for
1000
g
class
(
HI,
LA,
PR,
TX),
tall
grass
for
1000
g
class
(
PR),
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
for
1000
g
class
(
PR),
fruits/
pods/
large
insects
for
15
g
class
(
PR)

"
chronic
 
exceedances
in
all
uses
for
all
weight
classes
(
RQ
range:
2.3
 
160)

!
Terrestrial
plants
"
adjacent
 
exceedances
for
all
uses
(
RQ
range:
1.5
 
640)

"
semi­
aquatic
 
exceedances
for
all
uses
(
RQ
range:
12
 
4080)

"
drift
­
exceedances
for
all
uses
with
dicot
species
­
exceedances
for
monocots
in
pineapple
and
sugarcane
(
except
ground
spray
in
FL
and
TX)

!
Freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
"
Fish:
LA
sugarcane
"
Invertebrates:
sugarcane
(
FL
and
LA)

!
Estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
"
sugarcane
(
FL
and
LA)

!
Aquatic
plants
"
exceedances
in
corn
and
sugarcane
66
INDIRECT
EFFECTS
Pesticides
have
the
potential
to
exert
indirect
effects
upon
listed
organisms.
Herbicides,
for
example,
can
disrupt
primary
productivity
in
aquatic
habitats
through
their
effects
on
both
nonvascular
and
vascular
plants
while
their
potential
effects
on
terrestrial
plants
can
alter
riparian
habitat
along
streams,
etc..
Thus,
both
decreased
food
availability
and
destruction
of
habitat
can
result
as
indirect
effects.

In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
the
Agency
uses
the
direct
effect
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
endangered
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.
For
ametryn,
acute
risk
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
mammals
(
RQ
range:
2.3
to
160
)
across
all
uses
evaluated.
Chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
(
RQ:
1.15
for
Louisiana
sugarcane)
and
invertebrates
(
RQ
range:
1.08
to
3.38)
at
maximum
application
rates
used
on
sugarcane.

Consistent
with
ametryn's
intended
use
as
a
herbicide,
the
screening
assessment
indicates
that
risk
quotients
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants
exceed
non­
endangered
species
LOCs
by
factors
ranging
up
to
three
orders
of
magnitude
and
thus
there
is
a
potential
for
adverse
effects
to
those
species
that
rely
either
on
a
specific
plant
species
(
plant
species
obligates)
or
multiple
plant
species
(
plant
dependent)
for
some
important
aspect
of
their
life
cycle.
Additional
analysis
would
be
required
to
determine
whether
any
of
the
listed
species
associated
with
the
uses
evaluated
in
this
assessment
are
those
for
which
plants
are
a
critical
component
of
their
resource
needs.
If
plant
species
obligates
or
dependent
species
may
reside
within
the
ametryn
use
area,
the
temporal
and
geographical
nature
of
exposure
and
the
scope
of
the
effects
data
would
have
to
be
considered
to
determine
if
any
potential
effects
are
likely.

Additionally,
since
screening­
level
chronic
LOCs
for
birds
exceed
the
endangered
LOC
by
factors
ranging
as
high
as
6.9,
there
is
a
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
given
the
reduced
growth
and
reproduction
observed
following
chronic
dietary
exposure
from
most
of
the
forage
items
evaluated
(
small
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
insects).

CRITICAL
HABITAT
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
focus
is
placed
on
the
potential
for
effects
on
attributes
of
the
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
principal
critical
elements
of
the
habitat
that
are
important
to
the
conservation
of
the
species.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
to
biologically­
based
principle
critical
elements
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
and
nonlisted
organisms.
67
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
direct
effects
on
birds,
mammals,
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants,
and
indirect
effects
on
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals.

Available
information
at
the
screening­
level
assessment
does
not
allow
a
definitive
geographical
determination
of
the
occurrence
of
pesticide
use
in
areas
designated
as
critical
habitat
at
this
time.
Insofar
that
such
critical
habitat
locations
and
pesticide
use
sites
do
occur
in
the
same
areas,
there
may
be
a
potential
concern
for
those
critical
habitats
with
designated
principle
critical
elements
that
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
direct
and
indirect
effects.

References
Bengston,
R.
and
Selim,
M.,
2001
Herbicide
Losses
in
Surface
Runoff.
Louisiana
Agriculture,
vol
44,
no.
4.
http://
www.
getitgrowing.
com/
Communications/
LouisianaAgriculture/
agmag/
44_
4_
articles/
herbici
de.
asp
Hunt,
CD,
2004.
Ground­
Water
Quality
and
its
Relation
to
Land
Use
on
Oahu,
Hawaii,
2000­
01.
USGS
WRIR
03­
4305,
Honolulu
Hawaii,
76
pp.

Jobin,
B.,
Boutin,
C.
and
DesGranges,
J­
L,
1997.
Effects
of
Agricultural
Practices
on
the
Flora
of
Hedgerows
and
Woodland
Edges
in
Southern
Quebec.
Can.
J.
Plant
Sci.
77:
293­
99.

Klasner,
FL
and
Mikami,
CD,
2003.
Land
Use
on
the
Island
of
Oahu,
Hawaii,
1998.
USGS
WRIR
02­
4301,
Honolulu,
Hawaii,
20
pp.

Kleijn,
D.
and
Snoeijing,
G.
I.
J.,
1997.
Field
Boundary
Vegetation
and
the
Effects
of
Agrochemical
Drift:
Botanical
Change
Caused
by
Low
Levels
of
Herbicide
and
Fertilizer.
J.
Applied
Ecol.
34:
1413­
1425.

Oki,
DS
and
Brasher,
AMD,
2003.
Environmental
Setting
and
the
Effects
of
Natural
and
Human­
Related
Factors
on
Water
Quality
and
Aquatic
Biota,
Oahu,
Hawaii.
USGS
WRIR
03­
4156,
Honolulu
Hawaii,
98
pp.

USDA,
2000.
Crop
Profile
for
Sugarcane
in
Hawaii.

USEPA,
2004.
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations.
68
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX
A
 
USE
CLOSURE
MEMO
UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
69
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ametryn
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
Team
Members
FROM:
Mark
Howard,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508C)
Reregistration
Branch
III
SUBJECT:
Use
Closure
Memo
for
Ametryn;
PC
Code:
080801;
RED
Case
No.:
2010;
CAS
No.:
834­
12­
8
This
memorandum
was
developed
to
summarize
the
results
of
communications
between
the
RED
team
members
and
Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.,
the
technical
registrant
for
the
active
ingredient
ametryn,
CAS
name:
1,3,5­
Triazine,
2­(
ethylamino)­
4­(
isopropylamino)­
6­(
methylthio)­
.
This
memorandum
will
serve
as
the
Agency's
record
of
common
understanding
on
the
uses
of
ametryn
to
be
considered
in
risk
assessments
for
its
reregistration.
This
memo
includes
information
on
all
registered
products,
agricultural
uses,
overall
use
patterns,
and
the
status
of
the
existing
database.
This
memo
was
reviewed
by
RED
team
members,
the
US
Department
of
Agriculture,
and
Syngenta,
and
comments
were
included
as
appropriate.
Attachments
include:
The
RED
team
members;
Table
A2
(
Food/
Feed
Use
Patterns
Summary
for
Ametryn)
as
modified
by
the
registrant
(
Syngenta
has
voluntarily
cancelled
non­
Agriculture
uses,
so
Table
A3
is
no
longer
relevant);
a
copy
of
the
new
ametryn
product
label;
and
a
list
of
studies
currently
in
review
at
EPA.

BACKGROUND:

Ametryn
is
an
S­
Triazine
herbicide
used
on
terrestrial
food
and
feed
crops.
The
RED
is
scheduled
to
be
completed
in
June
of
2005.
Ametryn
will
not
be
included
in
the
cumulative
risk
assessment
for
atrazine,
simazine,
propazine,
and
their
degradants
(
desethyl­
s­
atrazine,
desisopropyl­
s­
atrazine,
diaminochlorotriazine)
as
determined
by
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs'
Health
Effects
Division
in
its
March
2002
report:
"
The
Grouping
of
a
Series
of
Triazine
Pesticides
Based
on
a
Common
Mechanism
of
Toxicity."

This
memorandum
serves
primarily
to
clarify
use
information
to
be
considered
for
the
reregistration
of
ametryn.
Data
to
support
this
memo
derives
from
the
Agency's
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
BEAD),
current
ametryn
labels,
and
information
provided
by
Syngenta
at
the
August
22,
2003,
SMART
meeting.
70
71
Table
1.
Formulations:

Registration
#
Company
Name
Product
Name
%
Active
Ingredient
Formulation
100­
579
Syngenta
Crop
Protection
Ametryn
Technical
90
Technical
100­
786
Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
EVIK
80
WDG
80*
Water
dispersible
granule
48273­
3
Marman
USA
Inc
AMETRYNE
80W
80*
Wettable
powder
51036­
105
Micro­
Flo
Company
LLC
AMETRYNE
4FL
44
Flowable
concentrate
*
These
products
are
76.0%
Ametryn
and
4.0%
related
compounds,
equaling
80.0%
active
ingredients.

Use
and
Use
Sites:

The
technical
registrant
is
supporting
the
continued
use
of
ametryn
in
three
terrestrial
food
crops:
sugar
cane,
corn
(
pop,
field,
and
sweet),
and
pineapples.
The
technical
registrant
has
agreed
to
voluntarily
cancel
all
other
registered
uses
including:
bananas,
plantains,
and
all
general
herbicidal
uses
(
industrial
sites,
rights
of
way,
airports
and
landing
fields,
and
uncultivated
nonagricultural
areas)
in
a
November
10,
2003
letter
to
EPA.
In
the
past,
ametryn
had
been
but
since
1996,
is
no
longer
registered
for
use
on
oranges,
grapefruit,
and
potatoes.
The
registrant
has
also
indicated,
they
do
not
plan
to
support
established
regional
residual
tolerances
for
taniers,
yams,
and
cassava
roots.

SUPPORTED
USES:
UNSUPPORTED
USES:

Corn
Bananas
(
and
plantains)
Pineapple
Non­
crop
land
Sugarcane
Taniers
Yams
Cassava
roots
Application
Methods:

Ametryn
products
are
not
co­
formulated
with
any
other
pesticide
active
ingredient
(
ai);
however,
ametryn
may
be
used
in
tank
mixes
(
with
other
ais.).
Ametryn
can
be
applied
by
aerial
equipment
(
sugar
cane
only)
and
by
ground
boom
sprayers.
For
corn
(
pop,
field,
&
sweet),
ametryn
is
used
as
a
directed
spray
for
soil
treatment
post­
emergence.
For
sugar
cane,
ametryn
is
used
as
a
band
treatment
(
ratoon),
or
as
a
broadcast
spray
(
pre­
emergence,
ratoon,
and
postemergence
For
pineapple,
ametryn
is
used
as
a
blanket
spray.
72
Relative
Usage:

Corn:
Mostly
used
in
southeastern
states,
particularly
North
Carolina
and
South
Carolina.
Some
use
in
Georgia
and
Texas.
With
small
amounts
used
in
Midwestern
states
as
well.
(
WI,
OH,
IL).
Sugar
Cane:
Mostly
Florida.
Also
some
in
Hawaii.
Small
quantities
in
Texas.
Some
use
in
Louisiana
as
well.
Not
currently
used
in
Puerto
Rico.
Pineapple:
Hawaii,
some
in
Puerto
Rico.

There
are
no
current
special
local
needs
registrations
of
ametryn.

At
the
SMART
meeting,
the
registrant
reported
35,000
lbs
of
ametryn
used
per
year
with
75%
on
bananas
and
plantains
and
the
remaining
25%
used
on
root
crops.
Although
it
is
not
currently
used
on
sugar
cane,
Syngenta
has
indicated
it
could
be
in
the
future.

Table
2.
Overall
Use
Patterns
Crop
Max
Single
Rate
(
Lbs/
ai/
A)
Applications/
Yr
Maximum
Lbs
/
A/
Yr/
Lbs
ai
/
year
Percent
Crop
Treated
Corn
(
Field,
Sweet,
Pop)
2.0
1
2.0
200,000
<
2.5
Pineapple*
7.2
NS**
7.2
58,000**
*
Sugarcane
(
state
dependent)
8.0***
5
16.0
90,000/
30
State
Use
Programs:
124,000
FL
1.2
3
3.6
LA
2/
2.4/
2.4/
2.4/
2.4
5
11.6
TX
2/
2/
2
3
6.0
HI
7.2/
2.4/
2.4
3
12.0
PR
8/
4/
4
3
16.0
Sugarcane
Retreatment
Intervals:
30
days
where
specified.

*
Pineapple
Typical
use
in
Hawaii,
per
Pineapple
Growers
Association
of
Hawaii,
is
a
1.6
lbs
ai/
A
application
preplant
or
immediately
postplant
plus
additional
1.6
lbs
ai/
A
applications
prior
to
flower
induction;
Syngenta
supports
this
practice
within
the
7.2
lbs
ai/
A/
yr/
crop
maximum.

NS
=
Not
Specified
on
Labeling
No
EPA
data
on
pineapple
***
Maximum
varies
by
Application
and
by
state
Sources
registrant
SMART
meeting,
Doane's,
NCSU
web
site,
BEAD
73
References:

Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.;
2003;
Proposed
revised
Evik
DF
EUP
label.
August,
2003.

Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.;
2003;
Ametryn
Overview.
Presentation
by
Syngenta
at
US
EPA
Ametryn
SMART
Meeting.
August
26,
2003.

Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.;
2003;
Registrant
Handwritten
Notes
to
Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
Use
Patterns
Summary
for
Ametryn.
Presentation
by
Syngenta
at
US
EPA
Ametryn
SMART
Meeting.
August
26,
2003.

Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.;
2003;
Ametryn,
Chemical
Code
080801,
Case
No.
2010
Voluntary
Deletion
of
Certain
Uses.
Letter
from
registrant;
September
11,
2003.

US
EPA.
OPPTS/
OPP/
BEAD;
2003,
Usage
Data
Report
­
Screening
Level
Estimates
of
Agricultural
Uses
of
Ametryn;
April
17,
2003.

US
EPA.
OPPTS/
OPP/
BEAD;
2003;
Table
A2.
Food/
Feed
Use
Patterns
Summary
for
Ametryn
&
Table
A3.
Non­
Food/
Non­
Feed
Use
Patterns
Summary
for
Ametryn;
April
2,
2003.

US
EPA.
OPPTS/
OPP/
BEAD;
2003;
RED
Use
Profile
Report
April
2,
2003.

EPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Information
Network
(
OPPIN).
2003.
Registration
and
Formulation
information
search
for
080801;
September
2003.
74
Status
of
Guideline
Database:

Agency
databases
indicate
there
are
six
outstanding
studies
and
52
studies
listed
as
in
review.
As
study
reviews
are
completed,
DERs
will
be
sent
to
the
technical
registrant.
First
outstanding
studies
and
then
studies
listed
as
in
review
are
listed
below:

Outstanding
Studies
­
No
MRIDs
available.
Listed
as
No
Decision/
Not
Satisfied:

EPA
does
not
have
any
waiver
requests
from
the
registrant
or
notations
in
CRMS
indicating
Agency
intentions
on
these
product
chemistry
studies.

63­
14
Oxidizing/
Reducing
Potential
Registrant
at
SMART
meeting
indicated
that
in
EPA's
response
to
the
(
ametryn)
Phase
Two
submission
this
product
specific
requirement
will
be
addressed
in
Phase
Five.

63­
15
Flammability
63­
18
Viscosity
63­
19
Miscibility
63­
21
Dielectric
Breakdown
Voltage
Registrant
at
the
SMART
meeting
said
the
studies
are
not
applicable
because
ametryn
is
not
a
liquid
they
would
be
addressed
in
Phase
Five..

171­
3
Directions
for
Use
No
information
available
about
any
submissions
for
this
guideline.

Studies
at
EPA
listed
as
In
Review
(
unless
otherwise
noted):

Guideline
No.
Name
MRID
Citation
Reference
61­
1
Chemical
Identity
61­
2(
a)
Description
of
Beginning
Materials
and
Manufacturing
Process
61­
2(
b)
Discussion
of
Formation
of
Impurities
40844701
Lail,
L.
(
1988)
Product
Chemistry:
Technical
Ametryn:
Study
No.
PC­
88­
018.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
205
p.

43335901
McCain,
P.
(
1994)
Technical
Ametryn
Product
Chemistry
(
Manufacturing
Process):
Addendum:
Lab
Project
Number.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
8
p.
75
62­
1
Preliminary
Analysis
62­
2
Certification
of
limits
62­
3
Analytical
Method
41067901
Lail,
L.
(
1989)
Technical
Ametryn:
Product
Chemistry:
Study
No.
PC­
89­
002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
108
p.

63­
2
Color
63­
3
Physical
State
63­
4
Odor
63­
5
Melting
Point
63­
7
Density
63­
8
Solubility
63­
9
Vapor
Pressure
63­
10
Dissociation
Constant
63­
11
Octonal/
Water
Partition
Coefficient
63­
12
pH
63­
16
Explodabilitiy
63­
17
Storage
Stability
63­
20
Corrosion
Characteristics
40877301
Lail,
L.
(
1988)
Technical
Ametryn:
Product
Chemistry:
Study
No.
PC­
88­
018.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
136
p.

82­
1(
a)
90­
Day
Feeding­
Rodent
40349906
Hazelette,
J.;
Green,
J.
(
1987)
Ametryn:
Combined
Chronic
Toxicity/
Oncogenicity
Study
in
Rats:
Laboratory
Study
No.
842119.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
4305
p.

82­
1(
b)
90­
Day
Feeding­
Nonrodent
40349902
O'Connor,
D.
(
1987)
Ametryn:
Chronic
Toxicity
Study
in
Dogs:
Laboratory
Study
No.
842118.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
665
p.

82­
2
21­
Day
Dermal
Rabbit/
Rat
41067902
Huber,
K.
(
1989)
Ametryn:
21­
Day
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Rabbits:
Study
No.
882215.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
326
p.

43407104
Sova,
J.
(
1994)
Submission
of
Additional
Information
To
Upgrade
The
21­
Day
Repeated
Dose
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
In
Rabbits:
Prometryn
Technical.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba
Crop
Protection.
7
p.
76
83­
1(
a)
Chronic
Toxicity­
Rodent
40349906
Hazelette,
J.;
Green,
J.
(
1987)
ibid.

83­
1(
b)
Chronic
Toxicity­
Nonrodent
40349902
O'Connor,
D.
(
1987)
ibid.

83­
3
Teratogenicity
­­
2
Species
153214
Infurna,
R.;
Youreneff,
M.;
Wallace,
P.;
et.
al
(
1985)
Ametryn
Technical:
A
Teratology
Study
in
Rabbits:
Report
85063.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
302
p.

153215
Infurna,
R.;
Wimbert,
K.;
Arthur,
A.
(
1985)
Ametryn
Technical:
A
Teratology
Study
in
Rats:
Report
85140.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
337
p.

83­
4
2­
generation
reproductive
study­
rat
40349905
Hummel,
H.;
Youreneff,
M.;
Yau,
E.
(
1987)
Ametryn
Technical:
Two­
generation
Reproduction
Study
in
Rats:
Laboratory
Study
No.
852048.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
1405
p.

84­
2(
b)
Structural
Chromosome
Aberration
study
41067903
Hertner,
T.
(
1989)
Ametry
Technical:
Structural
Chromosomal
Aberration
Test:
Micronucleus
Test,
Mouse:
Study
No.
881548.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Limited.
38
p.

84­
4
Other
Genotoxic
Effects.

41067904
Hertner,
T.
(
1989)
Ametryn
Technical:
Tests
for
other
Genotoxic
Effects:
Autoradiographic
DNA­
Repair
Test
on
Rat
Hepatocytes:
Study
No.
881549.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Ltd.
98
p.

122­
2
Aquatic
plant
growth
40995810
Hughes,
J.
(
1989)
Ametryn:
The
Toxicity
of
Ametryn
Technical
to
Selenastrum
capricornutum:
Study
No.
0267­
42­
1100­
1.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Malcolm
Pirnie,
Inc.
38
p.

123­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
40995809
Canez,
V.
(
1989)
Ametryn:
Nontarget
Phytotoxicity
Test:
Vegetative
Vigor
Tier
2:
Study
No.
LR
88­
55A.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Pan­
Agricultural
Labs,
Inc.
281
p.
77
160­
5
Chemical
Identity
Listed
as
No
Decision/
Not
Satisfied
40844701
Lail,
L.
(
1988)
Product
Chemistry:
Technical
Ametryn:
Study
No.
PC­
88­
018.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
205
p.

162­
3
Anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
Waiver
Request
was
submitted
and
found
Unacceptable
42861603
Skinner,
W.
(
1993)
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
of
(
Carbon
14)
Ametryn:
Lab
Project
Number:
354W:
171­
91.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
PTRL­
West,
Inc.
167
p.

164­
1
Terrestrial
field
dissipation
Guideline
status
listed
as
No
Decision/
Not
Satisfied
Several
submissions
for
this
guideline
were
determined
by
EPA
to
be
Unacceptable.

43578501
Wiepke,
T.
(
1995)
Responses
to
the
EPA
EFGWB
Review
of
Ametryn
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
Studies:
MRID
No.
418723­
01,
418723­
02,
and
417524­
02:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
95040.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
36
p.
(
No
Decision)

41701601
Judy,
D.;
Jacobson,
B.
(
1990)
Ametryn:
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
for
Evik
80W­­
Bareground
Application,
Louisiana
Site:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
37895.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Analytical
Bio­
Chemistry
Laboratories,
Inc.
219
p.
(
In
Review)

165­
2
Field
rotational
crop
CRMS
listed
this
guideline
as
Data
in
Review.
However
there
is
a
Phase
3
comment
says
this
study
is
reserved
based
on
a
Nov
1994
letter
but
there
is
a
1999
submission
from
the
registrant.
44783702
Lin,
K.
(
1999)
Ametryn­­
Field
Rotational
Crops
Following
Bare
Ground
Application
of
Evik
80W:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
80­
95:
102925:
80­
95­
A.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
107
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1900}

165­
4
Bioaccumulation
in
fish
42061901
Dionne,
E.
(
1991)
Bioconcentration
and
Elimination
of
(
Carbon
14)
Residues
by
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
Exposed
to
Ametryn:
Lab
Project
Number:
1781.
1090.
6264.
140:
91­
5­
3760:
155­
90.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Springborn
Labs,
Inc.
and
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
156
p.
78
166­
1
Small
GW
prospective
Status
is
listed
as
Waiver
Pending
in
CRMS
but
the
Phase
3
Comment
says
a
study
and
a
protocol
are
required.
Agency
also
notified
registrant
that
field
dissipation
study
would
not
satisfy
this
requirement
nor
would
a
atrazine/
simazine
study.
These
are
supposed
to
be
for
166­
2
Small
GW
­
retrospective,
Do
these
help
with
166­
1?

45629801
Yokley,
R.
(
2002)
FIFRA
Section
6(
a)(
2)
Annual
Ground
Water
Report
for
2001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
HAES
Resources
Department,
Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
33
p.

45870401
Yokley,
R.
(
2003)
FIFRA
Section
6(
a)
2
Annual
Ground
Water
Report
for
2002:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
2240­
02.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Syngenta
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
34
p.

171­
2
Chemical
Identity
40844701
Lail,
L.
(
1988)
Product
Chemistry:
Technical
Ametryn:
Study
No.
PC­
88­
018.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
205
p.

43335901
McCain,
P.
(
1994)
Technical
Ametryn
Product
Chemistry
(
Manufacturing
Process):
Addendum:
Lab
Project
Number.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
8
p.

171­
4(
a)
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Plants
44107901
Thalacker,
F.;
Ash,
S.
(
1996)
(
Carbon
14)­
Ametryn:
Nature
of
the
Residue
in
Bananas:
Lab
Project
Number:
HWI
6117­
270:
318­
94:
94.255.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hazleton
Wisconsin,
Inc.
141
p.
41397201
Yokley,
R.
(
1990)
Determination
of
Ametryn,
Prometryn,
and
Metabolites
by
U.
S.
Food
and
Drug
Administration
Multiresidue
Method
Testing:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
89064:
ABR­
77060:
102065.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
78
p.

171­
4(
b)
Nature
of
Residue
in
Livestock
43931001
Wu,
J.
(
1995)
Ametryn:
Storage
Stability
on
Ametryn:
Goat
and
Hen
Metabolism:
(
Supplement):
Lab
Project
Number:
RPT0023:
RPT0024:
88085.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Xenobiotic
Labs,
Inc.
27
p.

41662303
Liu,
D.
(
1990)
Ametryn:
Metabolism
of
?
carbon
14|­
Ametryn
in
Laying
Hens:
Analysis
and
Quantitation
of
Metabolites
in
Eggs,
Edible
Tissues,
and
Excreta:
Lab
Project
Number:
RPT0024.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Xenobiotic
Laboratories,
Inc.
350
p.

41662304
Lin,
P.
(
1990)
Metabolism
Study
in
Laying
Hens
Feeding
?
carbon
14|­
Ametryn:
Lab
Project
Number:
P01736.
Unpublished
study
prepared
prepared
by
Biological
Test
Center.
43
p.

41662305
Liu,
D.
(
1990)
Ametryn:
Metabolism
of
?
carbon
14|­
Ametryn
in
Lac­
tating
Goats:
Analysis
and
Quantitation
of
Metabolites
in
Milk,
Edible
Tissues,
and
Excreta:
Lab
Project
Number:
RPT0023.
Un­
published
study
prepared
by
Xenobiotic
Laboratories,
Inc.
142
p.

41662306
Lin,
P.
(
1990)
Metabolism
Study
in
Lactating
Goat
Feeding
?
carbon­
14|­
Ametryn:
Lab
Project
Number:
P01734.
Unpublished
study
pre­
pared
by
Biological
Test
Center.
53
p.
79
171­
4(
c)
Residue
Analytical
Methods
44477701
Lin,
K.
(
1997)
Determination
of
Residues
of
Ametryn,
GS­
11354,
GS­
11355,
and
GS­
26831
in
Animal
Tissue,
Milk,
and
Egg:
Lab
Project
Number:
AG­
649:
632­
95:
102925.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
55
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1340}

44477702
Lin,
K.
(
1997)
Validation
of
Analytical
Method
AG­
649
for
Determination
of
Ametryn,
GS­
11354,
GS­
11355,
and
GS­
26831
in
Animal
Tissues,
Milk,
and
Poultry
Eggs
by
Capillary
Gas
Chromatography:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
97127:
631­
95:
ANPHI­
96003.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
133
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1340}

171­
4(
c)
Magnitude
of
the
Residue
[
by
commodity]

44477705
Hamilton,
L.
(
1997)
Ametryn­­
Magnitude
of
the
Residues
in
Meat
and
Eggs
Resulting
from
the
Feeding
of
Three
Levels
to
Poultry:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
96110:
134­
95:
BIOL­
95005.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
187
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1480}

44477706
Boyette,
S.
(
1997)
Ametryn­­
Magnitude
of
the
Residues
in
Meat
and
Milk
Resulting
from
the
Feeding
of
Three
Levels
to
Dairy
Cattle:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
96046:
144­
95:
BIOL­
95006.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
186
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1480}

171­
4(
d)
Residue
Analytical
Method
Listed
as
in
Review.
No
MRID,
just
an
extension
request
with
a
due
date
of
Dec
31,
1997
to
submit
by
date.

171­
4(
e)
Storage
Stability
43931001
Wu,
J.
(
1995)
Ametryn:
Storage
Stability
on
Ametryn:
Goat
and
Hen
Metabolism:
(
Supplement):
Lab
Project
Number:
RPT0023:
RPT0024:
88085.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Xenobiotic
Labs,
Inc.
27
p.

44477703
Hayworth,
C.
(
1997)
Stability
of
Ametryn
and
Selected
Metabolites
in
Processed
Fractions
Under
Freezer
Storage
Conditions:
6­
Month
Interim
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
97124:
213­
96:
102925.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
107
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1380}

44477704
Hayworth,
C.
(
1997)
Stability
of
Ametryn
and
Selected
Metabolites
in
Meat,
Milk,
and
Eggs
Under
Freezer
Storage
Conditions:
14­
Month
Interim
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
97126:
222­
96:
102925.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
98
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1380}

44783701
Hayworth,
C.
(
1999)
Stability
of
Ametryn
and
Selected
Metabolites
in
Processed
Fractions
Under
Freezer
Storage
Conditions:
Final
Report:
Lab
Project
Number:
213­
96.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
100
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1380}
80
171­
4(
j)
Magnitude
of
residues
in
Meat/
Milk/
poultry
44477705
Hamilton,
L.
(
1997)
Ametryn­­
Magnitude
of
the
Residues
in
Meat
and
Eggs
Resulting
from
the
Feeding
of
Three
Levels
to
Poultry:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
96110:
134­
95:
BIOL­
95005.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
187
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1480}

44477706
Boyette,
S.
(
1997)
Ametryn­­
Magnitude
of
the
Residues
in
Meat
and
Milk
Resulting
from
the
Feeding
of
Three
Levels
to
Dairy
Cattle:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
96046:
144­
95:
BIOL­
95006.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Novartis
Crop
Protection,
Inc.
186
p.
{
OPPTS
860.1480}

43931000
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
(
1996)
Submission
of
Residue
Chemistry
Data
in
Support
of
the
Reregistration
of
Ametryn.
Transmittal
of
1
Study.

171­
4(
k)
Corn
41909501
Selman,
F.
(
1991)
Ametryn:
Magnitude
of
Residues
in
Field
Corn
For­
age,
Fodder,
Grain,
and
Processed
Corn
Grain
Fractions
Resulting
From
Applications
of
EVIK
80W:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
91001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corporation.
507
p.

41662302
Detra,
R.;
Chib,
J.
(
1990)
Ametryn:
Metabolism
of
Triazine­?
carbon­
14|­
Ametryn
in
Corn:
Lab
Project
Number:
N/
0963/
1800.
Unpublish­
ed
study
prepared
by
Battelle.
130
p.

171­
4(
k)
pineapple
41909502
Wong,
L.
(
1991)
Ametryn:
Pineapple
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Num­
ber:
36­
5294:
PGA­
ES
91­
5294:
96­
20­
26.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hawaiian
Sugar
Planters'
Association.
208
p.

171­
4(
k)
sugarcane
41662301
Detra,
R.;
Chib,
J.
(
1990)
Ametryn:
Metabolism
of
Triazine
?
carbon­
14|
Ametryn
in
Sugarcane:
Lab
Project
Number:
N/
0963/
1800.
Un­
published
study
prepared
by
Battelle
Columbus
Div.
94
p.

41846601
Selman,
F.
(
1991)
Ametryn­
Magnitude
of
Residues
in
Sugarcane
Forage
,
Stripped
Cane,
and
Stripped
Cane
Processed
Fractions
Resulting
from
Applications
of
Evik
80W:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
91002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
417
p.
81
171­
4(
l)
Corn
41909501
Selman,
F.
(
1991)
Ametryn:
Magnitude
of
Residues
in
Field
Corn
For­
age,
Fodder,
Grain,
and
Processed
Corn
Grain
Fractions
Resulting
From
Applications
of
EVIK
80W:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
91001.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corporation.
507
p.

171­
4(
l)
pineapple
41909502
Wong,
L.
(
1991)
Ametryn:
Pineapple
Residue
Study:
Lab
Project
Num­
ber:
36­
5294:
PGA­
ES
91­
5294:
96­
20­
26.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Hawaiian
Sugar
Planters'
Association.
208
p.

171­
4(
l)
sugarcane
41846601
Selman,
F.
(
1991)
Ametryn­
Magnitude
of
Residues
in
Sugarcane
Forage
,
Stripped
Cane,
and
Stripped
Cane
Processed
Fractions
Resulting
from
Applications
of
Evik
80W:
Lab
Project
Number:
ABR­
91002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Ciba­
Geigy
Corp.
417
p.

171­
5
Reduction
of
Residues
No
MRID
Guideline
status
listed
as
Research.
Phase
3
comment
suggests
that
concerns
based
on
triazine
ring
may
require
additional
(
at
the
table)
data
or
other
measures
to
reduce
residues.
Is
this
information
still
required?

202­
1
Drift
Field
Evaluation
No
MRID
See
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
Submissions
82
US
EPA
Ametryn
Team
EFED
Branch
Chief
Betsy
Behl
1034C
RAPL
Kevin
Costello
1021M
Fate/
Transport
Dirk
Young
1034L
Ecotoxicology
John
Ravenscroft
1008G
HED
Branch
Chief
Cathrine
Eiden
821F
Toxicologist
Pam
Hurley
806M
Chemist/
risk
assessor
Will
Donovan
821B
ORE
assessor
Rob
Travaglini
821E
BEAD
Economist
?

Label
Data
Cynthia
Doucoure
911N
Biologist
Nicole
Zinn
911F
Other
BEAD?

David
Widawski
Isty
Yusuf
Steve
Jarboe
Raefel
Prieto
Art
Grube
Gary
Bangs/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,

Michelle
Centra/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA,

Danette
Drew/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
83
Ametryn
Synonyms:

[
834­
12­
8]

1,3,5­
Triazine,
2­(
ethylamino)­
4­(
isopropylamino)­
6­(
methylthio)­;

2­
Ethylamino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine;

N­
ethyl­
N'­(
1­
methylethyl)­
6­(
methylthio)­
1,3,5­
Triazine­
2,4­
diamine;

Ametrex;

Ametryne;

Ametryn
;

Cemerin;

Evik;

Evik
80W;

Gesapax;

N­
ethyl­
N'­(
1­
methylethyl)­
6­(
methylthio)­
1,3,5­
Triazine­
2,4­
diamine;
84
APPENDIX
B
 
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
SUMMARY
Abiotic
Degradation
Hydrolysis
Ametryn
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
environmentally
relevant
pH's
and
temperatures.
Using
sterilized
aqueous
buffered
solutions
at
25

C,
ametryn
did
not
hydrolyze
at
pH
5,
7,
and
9
over
the
course
of
30
days
(
MRID
40885812).
The
submitted
study
was
classified
as
acceptable
and
provides
adequate
data
for
the
risk
assessment.

Aqueous
Photolysis
Aqueous
photolysis
is
not
expected
to
be
an
important
environmental
fate
process.
The
aqueous
photodegradation
half­
life
for
ametryn
was
calculated
to
range
from
169­
278
days
at
pH
7
when
irradiated
with
outdoor
sunlight
(
MRID
41169601).
The
minor
degradation
products
identified
in
this
study
were:

°
2,4­
diamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
26831),

°
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11354),
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS11355),

°
2,4­
diamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
26831),

°
2­
ethylamino­
4­
isopropylamino­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
32083),
and
°
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
28304).

These
degradation
products
were
also
noted
in
dark
control
samples
suggesting
that
another
degradation
process
may
have
been
the
fundamental
degradation
route
and
not
photolysis.
The
submitted
study
was
classified
as
acceptable
and
provided
adequate
data
for
the
risk
assessment.

Soil
Photolysis
Ametryn
photodegrades
slowly
on
soil
surfaces
with
half­
lives
in
the
range
of
85­
123
days.
These
halflives
were
calculated
for
ametryn
applied
at
10
ppm
to
sandy
loams
located
in
Florida
and
Maryland,
and
irradiated
with
outdoor
sunlight
(
MRID
41169602,
41169603).
The
half­
lives
in
the
Florida
soil
were
calculated
as
85
and
112
days
(
MRID
41169602),
while
the
half­
lives
in
Maryland
were
95
and
123
days
(
MRID
41169603).
The
minor
degradation
products
identified
in
these
studies
were
GS­
11354,
GS­
11355,
GS­
26831,
GS­
28304,
GS­
32083
and
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
17794).
These
degradation
products
were
also
noted
in
dark
control
samples
suggesting
that
biodegradation
may
have
been
the
fundamental
degradation
route
and
not
photolysis.
These
studies
were
classified
as
acceptable
and
provide
useful
data
for
the
risk
assessment.

Metabolism
85
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Ametryn
is
metabolized
slowly
in
soil
under
aerobic
conditions.
In
a
study
classified
as
acceptable,
[
14C]
ametryn,
at
9.8
ppm,
dissipated
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
84
days
in
an
aerobic
sandy
loam
that
was
incubated
in
the
dark
at
25
±
1

C
and
at
a
moisture
content
of
75%
of
field
capacity
for
1
year
(
MRID
41752401).
The
rate
of
degradation
did
not
follow
first­
order
kinetics
over
the
entire
course
of
the
experiment;
the
rate
of
degradation
decreased
significantly
after
the
initial
90
days.
Ametryn
decreased
from
88.4­
89.1%
of
the
initially
applied
radioactivity
immediately
following
application,
to
40.9­
44.7%
31
days
post
treatment,
and
2.9­
3.0%
365
days
post
treatment.
Using
only
the
initial
92
days
of
the
experiment,
the
registrant
calculated
half­
life
was
41
days.
The
degradation
products
were
GS­
11354,
GS­
11355,
and
GS­
32083.
Partially
resolved
degradation
products
were
2­
ethylamino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
34048)
+
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine(
GS­
17791)
and
GS­
26831
+
GS­
28304.
Additional
byproducts,
2­
ethylamino­
4­
amino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
17792)
and
GS­
17794,
were
also
isolated
from
a
sample
stored
for
seven
months.
Only
GS­
11355
was
found
to
be
present
at
>
10%
of
the
initial
amount
applied.
At
14
days
post
application,
GS­
11355
was
detected
at
a
maximum
of
11.6­
12.2%
of
the
initially
applied
radioactivity.
This
study
was
classified
as
acceptable
and
provides
a
value
that
will
be
used
in
determining
EEC's
for
the
ecological
risk
assessment.

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
[
14C]
Ametryn,
at
9.8
ppm
did
not
undergo
degradation
in
a
flooded
sandy
loam
soil
incubated
in
foil
wrapped
(
dark)
flasks
and
stored
at
25
±
1

C
for
62
days
following
a
31
day
incubation
under
aerobic
conditions
(
MRID
41752401).
This
study
was
classified
as
acceptable
and
provides
adequate
data
for
the
risk
assessment.

Mobility
and
Persistence
Adsorption/
Desorption
Based
on
soil
adsorption
coefficient
(
Kd)
values
determined
using
Freundlich
adsorption
isotherms
with
batch
equilibrium
study
data
and
the
Koc
values
that
were
obtained
by
normalizing
for
the
percentage
of
organic
carbon
content
in
the
soils,
ametryn
is
expected
to
have
high
to
moderate
mobility
in
sandy
soils,
sandy
loams,
and
loam
soils,
while
its
mobility
in
clay
soils
is
expected
to
be
lower.
The
extent
of
adsorption
does
not
appear
to
be
dependent
upon
the
percentage
of
organic
matter,
clay
content,
or
cation
exchange
capacity
(
CEC)
of
the
soils
tested.

Several
mobility
studies
were
submitted
for
the
parent
compound.
Soil
characteristics
and
the
results
of
the
soil
adsorption
experiments
for
one
study
(
MRID
40995813)
are
presented
in
Table
B1.
In
this
study,
the
adsorption
of
ametryn
was
studied
in
four
soils
(
4
grams
of
soil)
treated
with
20
mL
of
[
14C]
ametryn
at
five
concentrations
ranging
from
0.22
to
10.74

g/
mL.
This
soil
slurry
was
shaken
for
four
hours
at
24
oC.
After
the
equilibration
period,
the
Freundlich
adsorption
coefficients
were
measured
as
26.16,
1.09,
1.07,
and
1.21
for
a
clay,
sandy
soil,
sandy
loam,
and
loam
soil,
respectively.
This
corresponded
to
Koc
values
of
86
927,
205,
96,
and
257
for
the
clay,
sandy
soil,
sandy
loam,
and
loam
soil,
respectively.
The
Freundlich
desorption
K
values
were
27.77
for
the
clay,
3.02
for
the
sand
soil,
3.43
for
the
sandy
loam,
and
4.66
for
the
loam
soil.
This
study
was
classified
as
acceptable
and
provides
adequate
data
on
the
parent
compound
for
use
in
the
risk
assessment.

Table
B1.
Soil
adsorption
coefficients
for
ametryn
in
four
soils.
1
Soil
Property
Soil
Type
Clay
Sand
Sandy
loam
Loam
%
Sand
25.2
95.6
63.2
44
%
Silt
32.8
2.2
20
47
%
Clay
42
2.2
16.8
9
%
Organic
matter
4.8
0.9
1.9
0.8
pH
5.9
6.5
7.5
6.7
%
Field
capacity
36
3.8
15.8
11.7
CEC
(
meq/
100
g)
24.3
1.8
6.1
4.3
Bulk
density
(
g/
mL)
1.22
1.65
1.38
1.55
Kd
Koc
26.16927
1.09205
1.0796
1.21257
1
Data
obtained
from
MRID
40995813.

In
a
second
study
(
MRID
41169604),
adsorption
was
evaluated
by
studying
the
movement
of
ametryn
in
packed
columns
using
four
different
soil
types.
Approximately
2
kg
of
sand,
sandy
loam,
clay,
or
loam
soils
were
packed
to
a
depth
of
12
inches
in
PVC
tubing.
The
columns
were
immersed
in
water,
removed,
and
allowed
to
dry
to
field
capacity.
Soil
samples
treated
with
[
14C]
ametryn
at
a
concentration
of
10.75­
11.36
ppm
were
added
to
the
top
of
the
column
and
eluted
with
20
inches
(
2317
mL)
of
distilled
water
at
a
rate
of
a
<
1
inch
per
hour.
In
the
sandy
loam
and
loam
soil
columns,
2.65­
6.34%
of
the
radioactivity
was
recovered
in
the
leachate.
In
the
column
containing
the
sandy
soil,
0.29­
0.50%
of
the
radioactivity
was
recovered
in
the
leachate,
and
in
the
clay
column,
0.07­
0.14%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
recovered
in
the
leachate.
Greater
than
60%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
remained
in
the
upper
3
inches
of
the
soil
column
for
the
sand,
loam,
and
sandy
loam;
however,
the
rest
of
the
remaining
radioactivity
was
well
distributed
throughout
the
columns.
Greater
than
91%
of
the
radioactivity
remained
in
the
upper
1
inch
profile
of
the
clay
soil
column
suggesting
a
greater
adsorption
of
ametryn
in
this
soil.

In
a
third
study
that
was
considered
scientifically
sound,
but
not
acceptable
with
respect
to
Subdivision
N
guidelines,
it
was
determined
that
the
degradation
products
of
ametryn
(
GS­
11354,
GS­
11355,
GS­
32083,
GS­
26831,
GS­
17794
and
GS­
28304)
were
more
mobile
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
than
the
parent
compound
ametryn.
In
this
soil
column
leaching
experiment,
a
greater
portion
of
the
ametryn
degradation
products
87
were
detected
in
the
leachate,
and
at
deeper
depths
of
the
soil
column
than
the
parent
compound
leading
to
the
conclusion
that
the
degradation
products
have
higher
mobility
in
soil
than
ametryn.

Field
dissipation
studies
have
indicated
that
some
degradation
products
of
ametryn
have
great
mobility
in
sandy
soils
and
can
leach
deeper
into
soils
than
ametryn.
GS­
34048
leached
to
a
depth
of
6­
12
inches
in
a
field
dissipation
study
using
a
sandy
loam
(
MRID
41752402),
12­
18
inches
in
a
sandy
soil
used
to
grow
corn
(
MRID
41872301),
and
up
to
36­
48
inches
in
an
unvegetative
(
bare
ground)
sandy
soil
(
MRID
41872302).
Other
degradation
products
generally
did
not
leach
below
the
0­
6
inch
soil
profile.

Laboratory
Volatility
Laboratory
volatility
studies
for
ametryn
have
been
waived
since
this
compound
has
a
low
vapor
pressure
(
2.74x10­
6
mm
Hg
at
25

C),
resulting
in
an
estimated
airborne
concentration
of
less
than
3.3x10­
5
mg/
L
in
the
breathing
zone
of
workers
using
this
substance.

Field
Volatility
This
data
requirement
(
Guideline
#
163­
3)
was
waived.

Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
Three
separate
studies
were
submitted,
and
each
was
classified
as
supplemental.
In
the
first
study
(
MRID
41752402),
ametryn
and
its
degradates
dissipated
slowly
in
the
0­
6
inch
depth
of
a
silty
loam
sugercane
field
in
Louisiana
following
2
applications
spaced
1
month
apart
at
an
application
rate
of
2.5
lbs
a.
i./
A.
In
the
upper
0­
6
inch
soil
profile,
ametryn
averaged
1.1
ppm
immediately
after
the
first
application,
0.83
ppm
15
days
post
application,
and
0.29
ppm
31
days
post
application.
Following
the
second
application,
the
ametryn
concentration
was
1.3
ppm
(
immediately
after
application),
but
1.7
ppm
1
day
post
application.
The
concentration
decreased
to
0.89,
0.43,
0.35,
0.050,
and
0.011
ppm
3,
6,
28,
60,
and
422
days
post
application.
Ametryn
was
detected
only
once
at
a
depth
greater
than
6
inches.
The
average
half­
life
for
ametryn
was
calculated
using
the
data
from
0­
339
days
following
the
second
application
and
was
calculated
as
62
days
(
r2
=
0.89
).
In
the
0­
6
inch
profile,
GS­
34048
was
detected
at
0.044
ppm
following
the
first
application
and
0.13
ppm
following
the
second
application.
The
level
of
GS­
34048
was
0.21,
0.080,
0.040,
and
0.013
ppm
6,
60,
90,
and
330
days
after
the
second
application
of
ametryn.
This
degradate
was
detected
below
6
inches
on
two
occasions
at
levels
of
0.014­
0.015
ppm
20
and
60
days
after
the
second
application
of
ametryn.
GS­
17794
averaged
0.015­
0.033
ppm
at
the
0­
6
inch
depth
between
3
and
60
days
following
the
second
application
of
ametryn,
and
was
not
detected
below
6
inches.
GS­
13354
averaged
0.015­
0.026
ppm
at
the
0­
6
inch
depth
at
2
and
15
days,
respectively
following
the
first
application
of
ametryn,
and
0.017­
0.039
between
days
0­
28
following
the
second
application.
This
degradation
product
was
not
detected
below
6
inches.

A
second
supplemental
study
(
MRID
41872302)
showed
that
ametryn
and
its
degradation
products,
GS­
34048,
GS­
17794,
and
GS­
11354,
dissipated
slowly
in
a
sandy
soil
used
for
growing
corn
in
Illinois
following
a
single
application
at
2
lbs
a.
i./
A.
The
dissipation
of
ametryn
was
considered
bi­
phasic
with
fairly
rapid
dissipation
over
the
first
30
days
followed
by
much
slower
dissipation
thereafter.
In
the
0­
6
inch
88
depth
profile,
the
ametryn
concentrations
were
1,
0.36,
0.12,
0.056,
and
0.016
at
1,
6,
14,
28,
and
154
days
post
application,
respectively.
In
the
6­
12
inch
depth
profile,
the
maximum
concentration
of
ametryn
was
0.026
ppm,
which
was
observed
3
days
post
application.
Ametryn
was
not
detected
at
a
depth
greater
than
12
inches.
The
overall
half­
life
of
ametryn
in
the
0­
6
inch
core,
calculated
from
concentrations
on
days
0­
212,
was
35
days
(
r2
=
0.80
).
The
maximum
average
concentration
of
GS­
34048
was
0.21
ppm
(
observed
at
day
6)
in
the
0­
6
inch
depth
profile
and
was
present
at
concentrations

0.012
ppm
up
to
330
days
post
application.
This
degradate
was
detected
at
all
depths,
including
the
deepest
soil
profile
(
36­
48
inches)
at
a
maximum
concentration
of
0.017
ppm.
GS­
17794
and
GS­
11354
were
detected
at
maximum
average
concentrations
0.013
and
0.023
ppm,
respectively,
in
the
0­
6
inch
core,
but
were
not
detected
after
14
days
post
application,
and
were
not
detected
deeper
within
the
soil
profile.

A
third
supplemental
field
dissipation
study
(
MRID
41872301)
supported
the
conclusions
of
the
other
studies.
Ametryn
was
applied
once
at
4
lbs
a.
i./
A
to
an
unvegetative
field
in
Illinois
and
its
dissipation
was
monitored
over
time.
The
dissipation
of
ametryn
was
considered
bi­
phasic
with
fairly
rapid
dissipation
over
the
first
60
days
followed
by
much
slower
dissipation
thereafter.
The
half­
life
during
the
initial
60
days
was
about
9
days.
The
overall
dissipation
half­
life
(
using
concentrations
from
day
0
to
day
330)
in
the
0­
6
inch
core
was
calculated
as
48
days
(
r2
=
0.84).
In
the
0­
6
inch
depth
profile,
the
ametryn
concentrations
were
1.7,
1.3,
0.29,
0.078,
and
ranged
from
0.019­
0.021
ppm
at
1,
3,
14,
28,
and
60­
212
days,
respectively,
post
application.
In
the
6­
12
inch
soil
core,
the
maximum
concentration
(
0.043
ppm)
of
ametryn
was
observed
14
days
post
application.
Ametryn
was
not
detected
below
the
6­
12
inch
soil
profile.
GS­
34048
had
a
maximum
average
concentration
of
0.22
ppm
at
day
14
in
the
0­
6
inch
profile
and
was
present
at
concentrations

0.014
ppm
up
to
270
days.
GS­
34048
was
also
detected
at
all
depths
sampled,
including
the
deepest
(
36­
48
inches)
at
0.016
ppm.
GS­
17794
and
GS­
11354
were
detected
at
maximum
average
concentrations
0.020
and
0.026
ppm,
respectively,
in
the
0­
6
inch
core,
but
were
not
detected
after
28
days
post
application.
Neither
of
these
degradation
products
were
detected
at
any
of
the
deeper
levels.

Data
from
the
three
field
dissipation
studies
are
summarized
in
Table
B2.

Table
B2.
Terrestrial
field
dissipation
study
results.

MRID
Soil
Texture
(
0­
6
inch
depth)
Target
Applic.
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Site
Plot
Type
Dissipation
Half­
life
(
or
DT
50)
in
Soil
(
days)
Parent
Max.
Leaching
Depth
(
inches)
Major
Degradates1
&
Max.
Leaching
Depth
(
inches)
Applic.
Type/
Formulation
41752402
26%
sand;
67%
silt;
7%
clay;
1%
OM.
2.51
LA
sugarcane
field
t
1/
2
=
62
(
r2
=
0.89)
6­
12
GS­
34048
(
6­
12)

GS­
17794
(
0­
6)

GS­
11354
(
0­
6)
spray
applicator/
WP
41872302
93%
sand;
3%
silt;
4%
clay;
1.6%
OM.
2
IL
corn
field
t
1/
2
=
35
(
r2
=
0.80)
6­
12
GS­
34048
(
36­
48)

GS­
17794
(
0­
6)

GS­
11354
(
0­
6)
spray
applicator/
WP
41872301
93%
sand;
3%
silt;
4%
clay;
1.6%
OM.
4
IL
bareground
t
1/
2
=
48
(
r2
=
0.84)
6­
12
GS­
34048
(
36­
48)

GS­
17794
(
0­
6)

GS­
11354
(
0­
6)
spray
applicator/
WP
1
2­
ethylamino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
34048);
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
hydroxy­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
17794);
2­
amino­
4­
isopropylamino­
6­
methylthio­
s­
triazine
(
GS­
11354)

2
Applied
twice
with
an
interval
of
one
month.
89
Bioaccumulation
No
data
have
been
submitted
under
Guideline
#
165­
4
(
Accumulation
in
Fish)
and
Guideline
#
165­
5
(
Accumulation
­
Aquatic
Non­
target
Organisms).
These
data
are
still
required
for
the
risk
assessment.

APPENDIX
C
 
PRZM
 
EXAMS
OUTPUTS
BY
CROP
90
Corn
 
NC
(
east)

Drinking
water
stored
as
dwcorn3.
out
Chemical:
Ametryn
PRZM
environment:
NCcornEC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
10:
28
EXAMS
environment:
ir298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
34:
12
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
32.76
31.99
29.08
25.44
23.9
10.46
1966
50.75
49.72
46
39.95
35.55
16.17
1967
22.62
22.15
20.93
18.34
16.9
9.525
1968
16.86
16.48
15.06
12.98
11.88
6.671
1969
30.1
29.43
27.98
26.39
24.47
11.55
1970
9.139
8.961
8.374
7.546
7.288
5.44
1971
19.41
18.97
17.78
16.19
14.72
7.367
1972
58.21
56.83
53.29
44.99
39.88
17.24
1973
93.36
91.41
86.23
80.43
72.73
32.5
1974
52.58
51.42
49.28
42.52
37.87
19.89
1975
44.79
43.76
41.46
36.05
32.08
15.74
1976
47.61
46.56
42.66
35.95
32.52
15.7
1977
16.87
16.59
15.28
14.17
13
7.881
1978
27.46
26.83
24.87
22
19.49
9.015
1979
44.85
43.8
42.35
36.85
32.67
14.54
1980
53.53
52.48
48.98
42.52
37.97
17.45
1981
32.85
32.26
30.22
25.53
22.58
12.31
1982
24.33
23.79
21.68
20.41
18.84
9.717
1983
16.52
16.16
15.21
13.8
13.09
6.967
1984
38.09
37.31
34.07
30.05
26.77
12.03
1985
12.81
12.55
11.59
10.61
10.36
7.014
1986
19.65
19.2
17.95
15.08
13.68
7.691
1987
65.94
64.51
59.9
50.9
44.58
18.84
1988
11.62
11.43
10.86
9.793
9.076
7.428
1989
48.17
47.03
43.13
36.59
32.37
14.33
1990
24.3
23.76
22.14
20.39
18.75
10.17
Sorted
results
91
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037037037037037
93.36
91.41
86.23
80.43
72.73
32.5
0.0740740740740741
65.94
64.51
59.9
50.9
44.58
19.89
0.111111111111111
58.21
56.83
53.29
44.99
39.88
18.84
0.148148148148148
53.53
52.48
49.28
42.52
37.97
17.45
0.185185185185185
52.58
51.42
48.98
42.52
37.87
17.24
0.222222222222222
50.75
49.72
46
39.95
35.55
16.17
0.259259259259259
48.17
47.03
43.13
36.85
32.67
15.74
0.296296296296296
47.61
46.56
42.66
36.59
32.52
15.7
0.333333333333333
44.85
43.8
42.35
36.05
32.37
14.54
0.37037037037037
44.79
43.76
41.46
35.95
32.08
14.33
0.407407407407407
38.09
37.31
34.07
30.05
26.77
12.31
0.444444444444444
32.85
32.26
30.22
26.39
24.47
12.03
0.481481481481481
32.76
31.99
29.08
25.53
23.9
11.55
0.518518518518518
30.1
29.43
27.98
25.44
22.58
10.46
0.555555555555556
27.46
26.83
24.87
22
19.49
10.17
0.592592592592593
24.33
23.79
22.14
20.41
18.84
9.717
0.62962962962963
24.3
23.76
21.68
20.39
18.75
9.525
0.666666666666667
22.62
22.15
20.93
18.34
16.9
9.015
0.703703703703704
19.65
19.2
17.95
16.19
14.72
7.881
0.740740740740741
19.41
18.97
17.78
15.08
13.68
7.691
0.777777777777778
16.87
16.59
15.28
14.17
13.09
7.428
0.814814814814815
16.86
16.48
15.21
13.8
13
7.367
0.851851851851852
16.52
16.16
15.06
12.98
11.88
7.014
0.888888888888889
12.81
12.55
11.59
10.61
10.36
6.967
0.925925925925926
11.62
11.43
10.86
9.793
9.076
6.671
0.962962962962963
9.139
8.961
8.374
7.546
7.288
5.44
0.1
60.529
59.134
55.273
46.763
41.29
19.155
Average
of
yearly
averages:
12.4475384615385
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:

Output
File:
dwcorn3
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCcornEC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
ir298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
227.3
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
92
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
2.74e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
1850
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
371
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
368
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
546
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
273
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.064
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
18­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
IR
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
total
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

ECO
stored
as
corneco.
out
Chemical:
Ametryn
PRZM
environment:
NCcornEC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
10:
28
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
14.01
13.83
13.19
12.75
12.25
7.38
1966
28.63
28.41
27.68
26.84
25.99
19.07
1967
28.25
28.13
27.74
27
26.54
23.77
1968
28.61
28.5
28.06
27.37
26.94
25
1969
36.05
35.88
35.26
34.63
34.23
29.83
93
1970
30.66
30.61
30.42
30.16
30.01
29.37
1971
33.9
33.77
33.51
33.15
32.72
29.9
1972
50.66
50.3
49.69
47.92
46.78
38.24
1973
77.85
77.55
75.65
73.65
72.39
57.78
1974
76.4
76.07
75.29
73.68
72.36
65.17
1975
77.22
76.9
76.36
74.76
73.41
66.98
1976
80.43
80.13
78.91
76.73
75.38
69
1977
69.88
69.76
69.19
68.54
67.99
65.33
1978
69.29
69.08
68.36
67.32
66.27
61.71
1979
73.98
73.68
73
71.69
70.42
63.25
1980
79.06
78.77
77.7
75.93
74.47
66.46
1981
74.19
73.95
73.12
71.26
69.99
66.06
1982
69.37
69.21
68.43
67.95
67.25
63.42
1983
63.4
63.26
62.87
62.27
61.83
58.85
1984
68.09
67.82
66.88
65.87
64.78
58.94
1985
57.25
57.24
57.2
57.05
56.85
55.5
1986
57.17
57.02
56.51
55.19
54.41
52.44
1987
73.7
73.29
72.13
69.85
68.03
57.97
1988
59.6
59.58
59.52
59.35
59.14
56.38
1989
69.58
69.25
68.23
66.52
65.2
58.11
1990
62.98
62.8
62.25
61.68
60.98
57.43
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037037037037037
80.43
80.13
78.91
76.73
75.38
69
0.0740740740740741
79.06
78.77
77.7
75.93
74.47
66.98
0.111111111111111
77.85
77.55
76.36
74.76
73.41
66.46
0.148148148148148
77.22
76.9
75.65
73.68
72.39
66.06
0.185185185185185
76.4
76.07
75.29
73.65
72.36
65.33
0.222222222222222
74.19
73.95
73.12
71.69
70.42
65.17
0.259259259259259
73.98
73.68
73
71.26
69.99
63.42
0.296296296296296
73.7
73.29
72.13
69.85
68.03
63.25
0.333333333333333
69.88
69.76
69.19
68.54
67.99
61.71
0.37037037037037
69.58
69.25
68.43
67.95
67.25
58.94
0.407407407407407
69.37
69.21
68.36
67.32
66.27
58.85
0.444444444444444
69.29
69.08
68.23
66.52
65.2
58.11
0.481481481481481
68.09
67.82
66.88
65.87
64.78
57.97
0.518518518518518
63.4
63.26
62.87
62.27
61.83
57.78
0.555555555555556
62.98
62.8
62.25
61.68
60.98
57.43
0.592592592592593
59.6
59.58
59.52
59.35
59.14
56.38
0.62962962962963
57.25
57.24
57.2
57.05
56.85
55.5
0.666666666666667
57.17
57.02
56.51
55.19
54.41
52.44
94
0.703703703703704
50.66
50.3
49.69
47.92
46.78
38.24
0.740740740740741
36.05
35.88
35.26
34.63
34.23
29.9
0.777777777777778
33.9
33.77
33.51
33.15
32.72
29.83
0.814814814814815
30.66
30.61
30.42
30.16
30.01
29.37
0.851851851851852
28.63
28.5
28.06
27.37
26.94
25
0.888888888888889
28.61
28.41
27.74
27
26.54
23.77
0.925925925925926
28.25
28.13
27.68
26.84
25.99
19.07
0.962962962962963
14.01
13.83
13.19
12.75
12.25
7.38
0.1
78.213
77.916
76.762
75.111
73.728
66.616
Average
of
yearly
averages:
50.1284615384615
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:

Output
File:
corneco
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCcornEC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
227.3
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
2.74e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
1850
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
371
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
368
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
504
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
252
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
18­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
95
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Corn
 
NC
(
west)

Drinking
water
stored
as
dwcornw3.
out
Chemical:
Ametryn
PRZM
environment:
NCcornWC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
11:
14
EXAMS
environment:
ir298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
34:
12
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
26.27
25.67
23.88
22.23
20.3
9.546
1966
43.65
42.8
40.26
38.36
34.88
17.26
1967
34.79
34.01
31.1
27.97
25.68
14.38
1968
21.25
20.78
19.03
17.87
17.52
10.62
1969
27.76
27.16
25.12
21.78
21.18
13.85
1970
16.08
15.73
14.71
12.78
11.44
8.177
1971
21.77
21.29
19.62
17.61
17.15
9.77
1972
43.07
42.13
38.5
35.25
34.58
17.16
1973
93.84
92.28
84.37
71.49
67.55
32.9
1974
39.35
38.52
36.98
33.01
30.43
18.45
1975
46.33
45.38
41.73
37.56
33.61
16.79
1976
55.61
54.44
50.05
44.36
39.67
19.45
1977
16.43
16.18
14.97
14.6
14.23
10.58
1978
27.7
27.08
24.92
22.35
20.13
11.66
1979
30.85
30.17
29.1
26.55
24.32
12.63
1980
38.33
37.61
35.09
32.97
30.6
15.16
1981
48.49
47.34
43.27
36.53
32.28
15.97
1982
22.12
21.71
20.83
19.52
19.32
12.33
1983
17.91
17.53
16.33
15.17
14.1
9.016
1984
36.9
36.05
33.06
31.26
28.91
14.34
1985
25.91
25.32
23.74
20.13
17.9
10.28
1986
23.61
23.21
21.85
19.69
17.99
11.56
1987
62.19
60.88
57.42
50.68
44.76
21.3
96
1988
13.72
13.56
12.91
11.61
10.74
9.327
1989
40.01
39.08
36.27
34.65
32.72
16.06
1990
25.39
24.85
22.95
20.95
20.39
13.46
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037037037037037
93.84
92.28
84.37
71.49
67.55
32.9
0.0740740740740741
62.19
60.88
57.42
50.68
44.76
21.3
0.111111111111111
55.61
54.44
50.05
44.36
39.67
19.45
0.148148148148148
48.49
47.34
43.27
38.36
34.88
18.45
0.185185185185185
46.33
45.38
41.73
37.56
34.58
17.26
0.222222222222222
43.65
42.8
40.26
36.53
33.61
17.16
0.259259259259259
43.07
42.13
38.5
35.25
32.72
16.79
0.296296296296296
40.01
39.08
36.98
34.65
32.28
16.06
0.333333333333333
39.35
38.52
36.27
33.01
30.6
15.97
0.37037037037037
38.33
37.61
35.09
32.97
30.43
15.16
0.407407407407407
36.9
36.05
33.06
31.26
28.91
14.38
0.444444444444444
34.79
34.01
31.1
27.97
25.68
14.34
0.481481481481481
30.85
30.17
29.1
26.55
24.32
13.85
0.518518518518518
27.76
27.16
25.12
22.35
21.18
13.46
0.555555555555556
27.7
27.08
24.92
22.23
20.39
12.63
0.592592592592593
26.27
25.67
23.88
21.78
20.3
12.33
0.62962962962963
25.91
25.32
23.74
20.95
20.13
11.66
0.666666666666667
25.39
24.85
22.95
20.13
19.32
11.56
0.703703703703704
23.61
23.21
21.85
19.69
17.99
10.62
0.740740740740741
22.12
21.71
20.83
19.52
17.9
10.58
0.777777777777778
21.77
21.29
19.62
17.87
17.52
10.28
0.814814814814815
21.25
20.78
19.03
17.61
17.15
9.77
0.851851851851852
17.91
17.53
16.33
15.17
14.23
9.546
0.888888888888889
16.43
16.18
14.97
14.6
14.1
9.327
0.925925925925926
16.08
15.73
14.71
12.78
11.44
9.016
0.962962962962963
13.72
13.56
12.91
11.61
10.74
8.177
0.1
57.584
56.372
52.261
46.256
41.197
20.005
Average
of
yearly
averages:
14.3086923076923
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:

Output
File:
dwcornw3
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCcornWC.
txt
97
EXAMS
environment
file:
ir298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
227.3
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
2.74e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
1850
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
371
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
368
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
546
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
273
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.064
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
18­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
IR
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
total
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

ECO
stored
as
cornecow.
out
Chemical:
Ametryn
PRZM
environment:
NCcornWC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
11:
14
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
12.1
11.97
11.52
10.92
10.61
6.511
98
1966
26.88
26.66
26.23
25.4
24.94
19.04
1967
33.9
33.7
32.93
32.47
32.09
27.49
1968
35.28
35.22
34.95
34.25
34.18
31.58
1969
42.62
42.44
41.88
41.07
40.52
37.1
1970
40.41
40.27
39.88
39.14
38.63
37.88
1971
43.53
43.37
42.83
42.14
41.78
39.1
1972
55.54
55.29
54.3
52.81
51.98
45.9
1973
85.14
84.67
82.69
79.42
77.75
64.37
1974
77.23
76.98
76.4
75.45
74.7
70
1975
82.6
82.31
81.12
79.59
78.29
71.76
1976
88.3
87.98
86.7
85.3
83.9
75.97
1977
76.82
76.7
76.12
75.72
75.43
73.56
1978
77.35
77.14
76.4
75.36
74.37
70.8
1979
76.68
76.46
75.89
75.24
74.44
69.7
1980
78.4
78.21
77.05
76.52
75.68
69.92
1981
83.63
83.23
81.81
79.34
77.82
71.56
1982
73.94
73.75
73.28
72.86
72.76
70.41
1983
70.65
70.47
70.04
69.33
68.96
66.45
1984
75.33
75.1
74.04
73.56
72.89
67.29
1985
69.24
69.02
68.47
67.28
66.53
64.84
1986
66.74
66.6
66.11
65.45
64.98
63.54
1987
83.41
83.05
82.01
80.49
78.71
69.74
1988
71.3
71.28
71.2
70.98
70.73
67.71
1989
77.79
77.59
76.81
75.9
75.51
69.2
1990
73.35
73.13
72.34
71.5
71.51
69.1
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037037037037037
88.3
87.98
86.7
85.3
83.9
75.97
0.0740740740740741
85.14
84.67
82.69
80.49
78.71
73.56
0.111111111111111
83.63
83.23
82.01
79.59
78.29
71.76
0.148148148148148
83.41
83.05
81.81
79.42
77.82
71.56
0.185185185185185
82.6
82.31
81.12
79.34
77.75
70.8
0.222222222222222
78.4
78.21
77.05
76.52
75.68
70.41
0.259259259259259
77.79
77.59
76.81
75.9
75.51
70
0.296296296296296
77.35
77.14
76.4
75.72
75.43
69.92
0.333333333333333
77.23
76.98
76.4
75.45
74.7
69.74
0.37037037037037
76.82
76.7
76.12
75.36
74.44
69.7
0.407407407407407
76.68
76.46
75.89
75.24
74.37
69.2
0.444444444444444
75.33
75.1
74.04
73.56
72.89
69.1
0.481481481481481
73.94
73.75
73.28
72.86
72.76
67.71
0.518518518518518
73.35
73.13
72.34
71.5
71.51
67.29
99
0.555555555555556
71.3
71.28
71.2
70.98
70.73
66.45
0.592592592592593
70.65
70.47
70.04
69.33
68.96
64.84
0.62962962962963
69.24
69.02
68.47
67.28
66.53
64.37
0.666666666666667
66.74
66.6
66.11
65.45
64.98
63.54
0.703703703703704
55.54
55.29
54.3
52.81
51.98
45.9
0.740740740740741
43.53
43.37
42.83
42.14
41.78
39.1
0.777777777777778
42.62
42.44
41.88
41.07
40.52
37.88
0.814814814814815
40.41
40.27
39.88
39.14
38.63
37.1
0.851851851851852
35.28
35.22
34.95
34.25
34.18
31.58
0.888888888888889
33.9
33.7
32.93
32.47
32.09
27.49
0.925925925925926
26.88
26.66
26.23
25.4
24.94
19.04
0.962962962962963
12.1
11.97
11.52
10.92
10.61
6.511
0.1
84.083
83.662
82.214
79.86
78.416
72.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
57.3277307692307
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:

Output
File:
cornecow
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCcornWC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
227.3
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
2.74e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
1850
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
371
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
368
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
504
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
252
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
18­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
100
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Sugarcane
 
FL
Drinking
water
stored
as
dwflsug4.
out
Chemical:
Ametryn
PRZM
environment:
FLsugarcaneC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
42:
14
EXAMS
environment:
ir298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
34:
12
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
83.04
79.1
67.14
56.09
51.61
20.31
1962
96.83
92.25
78.45
72.05
64.67
26.24
1963
188
180
151
107
84.82
29.34
1964
153
147
131
119
100
36.61
1965
113
108
90.88
74.46
62.44
25.42
1966
88.72
84.58
72.87
59.59
51.81
29.83
1967
101
96.92
86.64
67.13
55.83
27.03
1968
163
155
144
109
90.3
34.29
1969
116
111
102
84.26
71.21
30.23
1970
165
159
134
99.16
98.32
42.65
1971
136
131
109
92.14
79.17
29.44
1972
250
239
211
168
139
48.53
1973
77.44
74.47
68.66
61.3
56.15
25
1974
50.75
48.44
42.95
36.45
33.75
17.99
1975
69.72
66.79
60.63
53.22
44.23
17.37
1976
125
120
101
79.91
67.19
28.92
1977
258
246
222
189
154
50.59
1978
83.39
79.84
68.38
59.5
52.76
23.04
1979
348
331
279
205
167
54.48
101
1980
104
99.57
87.11
68.26
60.69
28.15
1981
93.69
89.9
81.86
67.58
57.06
26.88
1982
252
244
211
180
156
55.5
1983
81.25
78.47
72.97
55.41
47.04
23.84
1984
154
147
124
98
99.08
41.58
1985
102
97.44
80.3
76.53
73.88
31.86
1986
66.32
64.32
56.89
46.63
38.78
20.8
1987
122
116
97.8
75.79
69.36
30.42
1988
150
144
124
116
101
39.85
1989
121
116
99.48
69.46
60.03
25.08
1990
89.54
85.46
74.97
62.13
52.26
22.51
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
348
331
279
205
167
55.5
0.0645161290322581
258
246
222
189
156
54.48
0.0967741935483871
252
244
211
180
154
50.59
0.129032258064516
250
239
211
168
139
48.53
0.161290322580645
188
180
151
119
101
42.65
0.193548387096774
165
159
144
116
100
41.58
0.225806451612903
163
155
134
109
99.08
39.85
0.258064516129032
154
147
131
107
98.32
36.61
0.290322580645161
153
147
124
99.16
90.3
34.29
0.32258064516129
150
144
124
98
84.82
31.86
0.354838709677419
136
131
109
92.14
79.17
30.42
0.387096774193548
125
120
102
84.26
73.88
30.23
0.419354838709677
122
116
101
79.91
71.21
29.83
0.451612903225806
121
116
99.48
76.53
69.36
29.44
0.483870967741936
116
111
97.8
75.79
67.19
29.34
0.516129032258065
113
108
90.88
74.46
64.67
28.92
0.548387096774194
104
99.57
87.11
72.05
62.44
28.15
0.580645161290323
102
97.44
86.64
69.46
60.69
27.03
0.612903225806452
101
96.92
81.86
68.26
60.03
26.88
0.645161290322581
96.83
92.25
80.3
67.58
57.06
26.24
0.67741935483871
93.69
89.9
78.45
67.13
56.15
25.42
0.709677419354839
89.54
85.46
74.97
62.13
55.83
25.08
0.741935483870968
88.72
84.58
72.97
61.3
52.76
25
0.774193548387097
83.39
79.84
72.87
59.59
52.26
23.84
0.806451612903226
83.04
79.1
68.66
59.5
51.81
23.04
0.838709677419355
81.25
78.47
68.38
56.09
51.61
22.51
0.870967741935484
77.44
74.47
67.14
55.41
47.04
20.8
0.903225806451613
69.72
66.79
60.63
53.22
44.23
20.31
102
0.935483870967742
66.32
64.32
56.89
46.63
38.78
17.99
0.967741935483871
50.75
48.44
42.95
36.45
33.75
17.37
0.1
251.8
243.5
211
178.8
152.5
50.384
Average
of
yearly
averages:
31.4593333333333
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:

Output
File:
dwflsug4
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLsugarcaneC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
ir298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
227.3
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
2.74E­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
1850
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
371
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
368
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
546
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
273
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.344
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.16
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
15­
02
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.

Interval
2
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.

Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
2
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
IR
103
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
total
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

ECO
stored
as
amflfeb.
out
Chemical:
Ametryn
PRZM
environment:
FLsugarcaneC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
42:
14
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
46.07
45.67
44.82
43.22
42.03
30.61
1962
90.71
89.94
86.99
84.57
84.74
67.71
1963
147
145
141
134
129
100
1964
182
181
177
174
170
138
1965
178
177
173
171
168
148
1966
192
191
189
186
183
166
1967
199
198
197
192
188
170
1968
236
234
232
224
218
187
1969
230
229
227
226
223
198
1970
264
263
259
253
248
221
1971
252
251
248
244
242
216
1972
311
309
304
297
288
240
1973
250
249
247
243
241
224
1974
213
213
210
208
207
198
1975
197
196
194
192
189
176
1976
220
219
215
207
203
181
1977
291
290
284
274
267
216
1978
238
237
234
230
227
212
1979
327
324
318
308
301
244
1980
276
275
272
266
261
241
1981
254
253
250
246
241
225
1982
331
330
326
316
308
260
1983
268
267
266
259
255
239
1984
294
293
288
281
276
246
1985
273
272
269
265
264
242
1986
240
239
237
233
230
218
1987
249
248
243
237
234
211
104
1988
271
270
264
258
255
222
1989
248
247
243
235
232
211
1990
218
217
215
213
209
193
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
331
330
326
316
308
260
0.0645161290322581
327
324
318
308
301
246
0.0967741935483871
311
309
304
297
288
244
0.129032258064516
294
293
288
281
276
242
0.161290322580645
291
290
284
274
267
241
0.193548387096774
276
275
272
266
264
240
0.225806451612903
273
272
269
265
261
239
0.258064516129032
271
270
266
259
255
225
0.290322580645161
268
267
264
258
255
224
0.32258064516129
264
263
259
253
248
222
0.354838709677419
254
253
250
246
242
221
0.387096774193548
252
251
248
244
241
218
0.419354838709677
250
249
247
243
241
216
0.451612903225806
249
248
243
237
234
216
0.483870967741936
248
247
243
235
232
212
0.516129032258065
240
239
237
233
230
211
0.548387096774194
238
237
234
230
227
211
0.580645161290323
236
234
232
226
223
198
0.612903225806452
230
229
227
224
218
198
0.645161290322581
220
219
215
213
209
193
0.67741935483871
218
217
215
208
207
187
0.709677419354839
213
213
210
207
203
181
0.741935483870968
199
198
197
192
189
176
0.774193548387097
197
196
194
192
188
170
0.806451612903226
192
191
189
186
183
166
0.838709677419355
182
181
177
174
170
148
0.870967741935484
178
177
173
171
168
138
0.903225806451613
147
145
141
134
129
100
0.935483870967742
90.71
89.94
86.99
84.57
84.74
67.71
0.967741935483871
46.07
45.67
44.82
43.22
42.03
30.61
0.1
309.3
307.4
302.4
295.4
286.8
243.8
Average
of
yearly
averages:
194.710666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
105
Data
used
for
this
run:

Output
File:
amflfeb
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLsugarcaneC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
227.3
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
2.74E­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
1850
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
371
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
368
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
504
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
252
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.344
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
15­
02
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.

Interval
2
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.

Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
2
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Sugarcane
 
LA
Drinking
water
Louisiana
Sugar
DW
for
Ametryn
106
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(
PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­

1961
300.000
288.000
260.000
207.000
162.000
47.260
1962
290.000
279.000
249.000
196.000
163.000
88.490
1963
204.000
196.000
180.000
151.000
131.000
75.780
1964
316.000
304.000
259.000
212.000
208.000
108.000
1965
170.000
163.000
141.000
130.000
125.000
75.920
1966
185.000
180.000
174.000
164.000
145.000
67.410
1967
168.000
162.000
122.000
83.850
79.920
62.140
1968
258.000
248.000
219.000
161.000
134.000
74.030
1969
210.000
202.000
173.000
137.000
131.000
81.970
1970
248.000
239.000
177.000
130.000
121.000
81.370
1971
367.000
352.000
312.000
185.000
152.000
88.060
1972
293.000
282.000
259.000
210.000
177.000
97.550
1973
391.000
380.000
235.000
198.000
165.000
91.870
1974
382.000
368.000
328.000
264.000
220.000
93.920
1975
281.000
272.000
237.000
176.000
148.000
71.070
1976
212.000
203.000
187.000
138.000
107.000
63.380
1977
313.000
304.000
265.000
215.000
179.000
105.000
1978
239.000
230.000
200.000
162.000
138.000
81.750
1979
200.000
192.000
179.000
162.000
147.000
84.170
1980
275.000
264.000
240.000
185.000
158.000
83.120
1981
205.000
197.000
181.000
151.000
139.000
70.510
1982
554.000
536.000
462.000
256.000
190.000
92.150
1983
523.000
503.000
433.000
335.000
278.000
124.000
1984
430.000
412.000
363.000
283.000
233.000
108.000
1985
208.000
201.000
174.000
156.000
141.000
88.450
1986
292.000
281.000
232.000
178.000
143.000
76.420
1987
255.000
245.000
228.000
194.000
165.000
84.900
1988
305.000
294.000
231.000
197.000
182.000
105.000
1989
364.000
352.000
323.000
267.000
209.000
110.000
1990
285.000
278.000
258.000
225.000
190.000
91.100
SORTED
FOR
PLOTTING
­­­­­­
­­­
­­­­­­­­

PROB
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
107
0.032
554.000
536.000
462.000
335.000
278.000
124.000
0.065
523.000
503.000
433.000
283.000
233.000
110.000
0.097
430.000
412.000
363.000
267.000
220.000
108.000
0.129
391.000
380.000
328.000
264.000
209.000
108.000
0.161
382.000
368.000
323.000
256.000
208.000
105.000
0.194
367.000
352.000
312.000
225.000
190.000
105.000
0.226
364.000
352.000
265.000
215.000
190.000
97.550
0.258
316.000
304.000
260.000
212.000
182.000
93.920
0.290
313.000
304.000
259.000
210.000
179.000
92.150
0.323
305.000
294.000
259.000
207.000
177.000
91.870
0.355
300.000
288.000
258.000
198.000
165.000
91.100
0.387
293.000
282.000
249.000
197.000
165.000
88.490
0.419
292.000
281.000
240.000
196.000
163.000
88.450
0.452
290.000
279.000
237.000
194.000
162.000
88.060
0.484
285.000
278.000
235.000
185.000
158.000
84.900
0.516
281.000
272.000
232.000
185.000
152.000
84.170
0.548
275.000
264.000
231.000
178.000
148.000
83.120
0.581
258.000
248.000
228.000
176.000
147.000
81.970
0.613
255.000
245.000
219.000
164.000
145.000
81.750
0.645
248.000
239.000
200.000
162.000
143.000
81.370
0.677
239.000
230.000
187.000
162.000
141.000
76.420
0.710
212.000
203.000
181.000
161.000
139.000
75.920
0.742
210.000
202.000
180.000
156.000
138.000
75.780
0.774
208.000
201.000
179.000
151.000
134.000
74.030
0.806
205.000
197.000
177.000
151.000
131.000
71.070
0.839
204.000
196.000
174.000
138.000
131.000
70.510
0.871
200.000
192.000
174.000
137.000
125.000
67.410
0.903
185.000
180.000
173.000
130.000
121.000
63.380
0.935
170.000
163.000
141.000
130.000
107.000
62.140
0.968
168.000
162.000
122.000
83.850
79.920
47.260
1/
10
426.100
408.800
359.500
266.700
218.900
108.000
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
85.760
STANDARD
DEVIATION
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
16.525
UPPER
90%
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT
ON
MEAN
=
90.240
ECO
108
Louisiana
Sugarcane
EECs
for
Ametryn
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(
PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­

1961
196.000
194.000
183.000
139.000
109.000
30.550
1962
273.000
271.000
224.000
217.000
216.000
192.000
1963
340.000
338.000
330.000
300.000
279.000
263.000
1964
452.000
451.000
447.000
429.000
423.000
357.000
1965
466.000
465.000
459.000
454.000
449.000
424.000
1966
508.000
507.000
504.000
499.000
494.000
452.000
1967
488.000
485.000
473.000
462.000
462.000
442.000
1968
539.000
538.000
524.000
512.000
507.000
465.000
1969
532.000
530.000
525.000
519.000
519.000
491.000
1970
587.000
584.000
560.000
550.000
544.000
516.000
1971
637.000
634.000
629.000
573.000
569.000
536.000
1972
646.000
644.000
641.000
635.000
629.000
577.000
1973
714.000
713.000
647.000
619.000
615.000
581.000
1974
725.000
723.000
716.000
710.000
701.000
629.000
1975
691.000
690.000
683.000
669.000
662.000
605.000
1976
620.000
619.000
613.000
604.000
599.000
562.000
1977
678.000
676.000
671.000
642.000
623.000
592.000
1978
682.000
681.000
678.000
673.000
668.000
616.000
1979
683.000
682.000
678.000
672.000
667.000
619.000
1980
668.000
666.000
663.000
641.000
638.000
603.000
1981
689.000
688.000
683.000
673.000
665.000
610.000
1982
794.000
786.000
742.000
633.000
623.000
585.000
1983
795.000
792.000
781.000
770.000
760.000
688.000
1984
771.000
767.000
759.000
751.000
724.000
683.000
1985
761.000
760.000
756.000
755.000
751.000
697.000
1986
730.000
728.000
715.000
710.000
707.000
656.000
1987
742.000
741.000
736.000
728.000
723.000
660.000
1988
746.000
745.000
739.000
732.000
724.000
672.000
1989
770.000
760.000
755.000
740.000
724.000
679.000
1990
800.000
799.000
793.000
785.000
778.000
702.000
SORTED
FOR
PLOTTING
­­­­­­
­­­
­­­­­­­­
109
PROB
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­

0.032
800.000
799.000
793.000
785.000
778.000
702.000
0.065
795.000
792.000
781.000
770.000
760.000
697.000
0.097
794.000
786.000
759.000
755.000
751.000
688.000
0.129
771.000
767.000
756.000
751.000
724.000
683.000
0.161
770.000
760.000
755.000
740.000
724.000
679.000
0.194
761.000
760.000
742.000
732.000
724.000
672.000
0.226
746.000
745.000
739.000
728.000
723.000
660.000
0.258
742.000
741.000
736.000
710.000
707.000
656.000
0.290
730.000
728.000
716.000
710.000
701.000
629.000
0.323
725.000
723.000
715.000
673.000
668.000
619.000
0.355
714.000
713.000
683.000
673.000
667.000
616.000
0.387
691.000
690.000
683.000
672.000
665.000
610.000
0.419
689.000
688.000
678.000
669.000
662.000
605.000
0.452
683.000
682.000
678.000
642.000
638.000
603.000
0.484
682.000
681.000
671.000
641.000
629.000
592.000
0.516
678.000
676.000
663.000
635.000
623.000
585.000
0.548
668.000
666.000
647.000
633.000
623.000
581.000
0.581
646.000
644.000
641.000
619.000
615.000
577.000
0.613
637.000
634.000
629.000
604.000
599.000
562.000
0.645
620.000
619.000
613.000
573.000
569.000
536.000
0.677
587.000
584.000
560.000
550.000
544.000
516.000
0.710
539.000
538.000
525.000
519.000
519.000
491.000
0.742
532.000
530.000
524.000
512.000
507.000
465.000
0.774
508.000
507.000
504.000
499.000
494.000
452.000
0.806
488.000
485.000
473.000
462.000
462.000
442.000
0.839
466.000
465.000
459.000
454.000
449.000
424.000
0.871
452.000
451.000
447.000
429.000
423.000
357.000
0.903
340.000
338.000
330.000
300.000
279.000
263.000
0.935
273.000
271.000
224.000
217.000
216.000
192.000
0.968
196.000
194.000
183.000
139.000
109.000
30.550
1/
10
791.700
784.100
758.700
754.600
748.300
687.500
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
539.485
STANDARD
DEVIATION
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
158.595
UPPER
90%
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT
ON
MEAN
=
582.482
110
APPENDIX
D
 
SCI­
GROW
OUTPUT
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
Corn
 
NC
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
9/
9/
2004
12:
48:
53
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.000
1.0
2.000
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
2.60E+
00
************************************************************************

Pineapple
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
8/
18/
2004
12:
36:
33
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
111
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

7.200
1.0
7.200
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
9.36E+
00
************************************************************************

Sugarcane
 
FL
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
1/
5/
2004
9:
15:
42
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1.200
3.0
3.600
2.31E+
02
84.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
1.58E+
00
************************************************************************

SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
9/
9/
2004
12:
48:
13
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1.200
3.0
3.600
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
4.68E+
00
************************************************************************

Sugarcane
 
HI
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
9/
9/
2004
12:
56:
13
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
112
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.400
5.0
12.000
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
1.56E+
01
************************************************************************

Sugarcane
 
LA
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
1/
5/
2004
9:
14:
46
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.400
5.0
12.000
2.31E+
02
84.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
5.27E+
00
************************************************************************

SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
1/
5/
2004
9:
15:
15
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.320
5.0
11.600
2.31E+
02
84.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
5.09E+
00
************************************************************************

SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
9/
9/
2004
12:
47:
43
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
113
11.600
1.0
11.600
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
1.51E+
01
************************************************************************

Sugarcane
 
PR
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
8/
18/
2004
12:
39:
52
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

4.000
4.0
16.000
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
2.08E+
01
************************************************************************

SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
8/
18/
2004
12:
40:
12
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

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

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

8.000
2.0
16.000
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
2.08E+
01
************************************************************************

Sugarcane
 
TX
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Ametryn
time
is
9/
9/
2004
12:
46:
47
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
114
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.000
3.0
6.000
9.60E+
01
91.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
7.80E+
00
************************************************************************

APPENDIX
E
 
TERRESTRIAL
EECs
:
ELL­
FATE
and
TERRPLANT
SPREADSHEETS
A
first­
order
decay
assumption
is
used
to
determine
the
concentration
at
each
day
after
initial
application
based
on
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
decay
is
calculated
from
the
first
order
rate
equation:

CT
=
Cie­
kT
or
in
log­
transformed
form:

ln
(
CT/
Ci)
=
­
kT
Where:

CT
=
concentration
at
time
T
Ci
=
concentration
in
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
present
initially
(
on
day
zero)
on
the
surfaces.

Ci
is
calculated
based
on
Kenaga
and
Fletcher
by
multiplying
the
application
rate,
in
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre,
by
240
for
short
grass,
110
for
tall
grass,
and
135
for
broad­
leaf
plants/
insects
and
15
for
seeds.
Additional
applications
are
converted
from
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
to
parts
per
million
(
PPM)
on
the
plant
surface
and
the
additional
mass
added
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application.

k=
degradation
rate
constant
determined
from
studies
of
hydrolysis,
photolysis,
microbial
degradation,
etc.
Since
degradation
rate
is
generally
reported
in
terms
of
half­
life,
the
rate
constant
is
calculated
from
the
input
half­
life
(
k
=
ln
2/
t
½
)
instead
of
being
input
directly.
Choosing
which
process
controls
the
degradation
rate
and
which
half­
life
to
use
in
terrestrial
exposure
calculations
is
open
for
debate
and
should
be
done
by
a
qualified
scientist.
115
T=
time,
in
days,
since
the
start
of
the
simulation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0.
The
simulation
is
set
to
run
for
365
days.

The
program
calculates
concentration
on
each
type
of
surface
on
a
daily
interval
for
one
year.
The
maximum
concentration
during
the
year
and
the
average
concentration
during
the
first
56
days
are
calculated.

EECs
for
LA,
HI,
and
PR
sugarcane
were
calculated
using
FATE.
The
current
version
of
Ell­
FATE
was
unable
to
calculate
the
EECs
due
to
the
uneven
application
rates.
The
maximum
EEC
for
both
mean
and
maximum
Kenaga
residues
during
each
run
was
used
as
exposure
value.

Max
residues
using
FATE
116
Sugarcane
Use
Regimes
by
State
Max
Single
Rate
Max
Seasonal
Ra
Apps/
Yr
FL
1.2
3.6
3
LA
2
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
11.6
5
TX
2
2
2
6
3
HI
7.2
2.4
2.4
12
3
PR
8
4
4
16
3
all
values
Tall
Grass
Short
Grass
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Seeds
Seeds
PPM
Initial
Conc
240
Initial
Conc
110
Initial
Conc
135
Initial
Conc
15
FL
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
MAX
EEC
535
245
301
33
LA
480
264.9815
220
121.4498
270
149.0521
30
16.5613
840.9815
464.2594
385.4498
212.7855
473.0521
261.1459
52.5613
29.0162
1040.2594
574.2697
476.7855
263.2069
585.1459
323.0267
65.0162
35.8918
1150.2697
635.0003
527.2069
291.0418
647.0267
357.1877
71.8918
39.6875
1211.0003
555.0418
681.1877
75.6875
MAX
EEC
1211
555
681
76
TX
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
MAX
EEC
891
408
501
56
HI
1728
953.9333
792
437.2195
972
536.5875
108
59.6208
1529.9333
844.5917
701.2195
387.1045
860.5875
475.0828
95.6208
52.787
1420.5917
651.1045
799.0828
88.787
MAX
EEC
1728
792
972
108
PR
1920
1059.926
880
485.7994
1080
596.2083
120
66.2454
2019.926
1115.09
925.7994
511.0827
1136.2083
627.2378
126.2454
69.6931
2075.09
951.0827
1167.2378
129.6931
MAX
EEC
2075
951
1167
130
MAX
EECs
FL
LA
TX
HI
PR
Short
Grass
535
1211
891
1728
2075
Tall
Grass
245
555
408
792
951
Broadleaf
301
681
501
972
1167
Seeds
33
76
56
108
130
117
Sugarcane
Use
Regimes
by
State
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Max
Single
Rate
Max
Seasonal
Ra
Apps/
Yr
FL
1.2
3.6
3
LA
2
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
11.6
5
TX
2
2
2
6
3
HI
7.2
2.4
2.4
12
3
PR
8
4
4
16
3
all
values
Tall
Grass
Short
Grass
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Seeds
Seeds
PPM
Initial
Conc
85
Initial
Conc
36
Initial
Conc
45
Initial
Conc
7
FL
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
MAX
EEC
189
80
100
16
LA
170
93.8476
72
39.7472
90
49.684
14
7.7286
297.8476
164.4252
126.1472
69.6389
157.684
87.0486
24.5286
13.5409
368.4252
203.3872
156.0389
86.1404
195.0486
107.6756
30.3409
16.7495
407.3872
224.896
172.5404
95.25
215.6756
119.0626
33.5495
18.5208
428.896
236.7698
181.65
227.0626
35.3208
MAX
EEC
429
182
227
35
TX
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
RAN
WITH
ELLFATE
MAX
EEC
316
134
167
26
HI
612
337.8514
259.2
143.09
324
178.8625
50.4
27.8231
541.8514
299.1262
229.49
126.69
286.8625
158.3609
44.6231
24.6339
503.1262
213.09
266.3609
41.4339
MAX
EEC
612
259
324
50
PR
680
375.3904
288
158.9889
360
198.7361
56
30.9145
715.3904
394.9275
302.9889
167.2634
378.7361
209.0793
58.9145
32.5234
734.9275
311.2634
389.0793
60.5234
MAX
EEC
735
311
389
61
MAX
mean
residue
EECs
FL
LA
TX
HI
PR
Short
Grass
189
429
316
612
735
Tall
Grass
80
182
134
259
311
Broadleaf
100
227
167
324
389
Seeds
16
35
26
50
61
118
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Corn
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
1
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
480.00
292.92
Tall
Grass
220.00
134.25
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
270.00
164.77
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
30.00
18.31
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
24
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.09
1.60
Tall
Grass
0.04
0.73
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.05
0.90
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.10
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.39
0.27
0.06
0.02
36.92
Tall
Grass
0.18
0.12
0.03
0.01
16.92
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.22
0.15
0.03
0.01
20.77
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
2.31
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.39
0.18
0.22
0.02
Herbivores/
35
66
0.27
0.12
0.15
0.02
insectivores
1000
15
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.00
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.00
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
36.92
16.92
20.77
2.31
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Corn,
max
residues
119
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Corn
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
2.00
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
1
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
170.00
103.74
Tall
Grass
72.00
43.94
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
90.00
54.92
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
14.00
8.54
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
0
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.03
0.57
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.24
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.02
0.30
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
0.05
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.14
0.10
0.02
0.01
13.08
Tall
Grass
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.00
5.54
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.07
0.05
0.01
0.00
6.92
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.08
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.14
0.06
0.07
0.01
Herbivores/
35
66
0.10
0.04
0.05
0.01
insectivores
1000
15
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
21
21
0.00
Grainivores
35
15
0.00
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
13.08
5.54
6.92
1.08
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Corn,
mean
residues
120
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Pineapple
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
7.2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
1
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
1728.00
1054.50
Tall
Grass
792.00
483.31
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
972.00
593.16
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
108.00
65.91
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
56
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.31
5.76
Tall
Grass
0.14
2.64
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.17
3.24
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.36
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
21
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
1.41
0.98
0.22
0.07
132.92
Tall
Grass
0.65
0.45
0.10
0.03
60.92
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.79
0.55
0.13
0.04
74.77
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.00
8.31
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
1.41
0.65
0.79
0.09
Herbivores/
35
66
0.98
0.45
0.55
0.06
insectivores
1000
15
0.22
0.10
0.13
0.01
21
21
0.02
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
132.92
60.92
74.77
8.31
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Pineapple,
max
residues
121
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Pineapple
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
7.20
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
1
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
612.00
373.47
Tall
Grass
259.20
158.17
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
324.00
197.72
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
50.40
30.76
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
36
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.11
2.04
Tall
Grass
0.05
0.86
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.06
1.08
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.17
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.50
0.35
0.08
0.03
47.08
Tall
Grass
0.21
0.15
0.03
0.01
19.94
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.26
0.18
0.04
0.01
24.92
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.00
3.88
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.50
0.21
0.26
0.04
Herbivores/
35
66
0.35
0.15
0.18
0.03
insectivores
1000
15
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.01
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
47.08
19.94
24.92
3.88
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Pineapple,
mean
residues
122
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
florida
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
1.2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
534.76
281.30
Tall
Grass
245.10
128.93
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
300.80
158.23
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
33.42
17.58
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
21
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.10
1.78
Tall
Grass
0.04
0.82
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.05
1.00
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.11
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.44
0.30
0.07
0.02
41.14
Tall
Grass
0.20
0.14
0.03
0.01
18.85
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.25
0.17
0.04
0.01
23.14
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
2.57
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.44
0.20
0.25
0.03
Herbivores/
35
66
0.30
0.14
0.17
0.02
insectivores
1000
15
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.00
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.00
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
41.14
18.85
23.14
2.57
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
FL,
max
residues
Sugarcane,
FL,
mean
residues
123
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
florida
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
1.20
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
189.39
99.63
Tall
Grass
80.21
42.19
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
100.27
52.74
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
15.60
8.20
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
0
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.03
0.63
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.27
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.02
0.33
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
0.05
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.15
0.11
0.02
0.01
14.57
Tall
Grass
0.07
0.05
0.01
0.00
6.17
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.08
0.06
0.01
0.00
7.71
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.20
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.15
0.07
0.08
0.01
Herbivores/
35
66
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.01
insectivores
1000
15
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
21
21
0.00
Grainivores
35
15
0.00
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
14.57
6.17
7.71
1.20
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
Sugarcane,
HI,
max
residues
124
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
HI
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
7.2,
2.4,
2.4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
1728.00
#
VALUE!
Tall
Grass
792.00
#
VALUE!
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
972.00
#
VALUE!
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
108.00
#
VALUE!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
#
VALUE!
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
#
VALUE!
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.31
5.76
Tall
Grass
0.14
2.64
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.17
3.24
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.36
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
1.41
0.98
0.22
0.07
132.92
Tall
Grass
0.65
0.45
0.10
0.03
60.92
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.79
0.55
0.13
0.04
74.77
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.00
8.31
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
1.41
0.65
0.79
0.09
Herbivores/
35
66
0.98
0.45
0.55
0.06
insectivores
1000
15
0.22
0.10
0.13
0.01
21
21
0.02
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
132.92
60.92
74.77
8.31
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
125
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
HI
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
7.2,
2.4,
2.4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
612.00
#
VALUE!
Tall
Grass
259.00
#
VALUE!
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
324.00
#
VALUE!
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
50.00
#
VALUE!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
#
VALUE!
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
#
VALUE!
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.11
2.04
Tall
Grass
0.05
0.86
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.06
1.08
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.17
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.50
0.35
0.08
0.03
47.08
Tall
Grass
0.21
0.15
0.03
0.01
19.92
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.26
0.18
0.04
0.01
24.92
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.00
3.85
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.50
0.21
0.26
0.04
Herbivores/
35
66
0.35
0.15
0.18
0.03
insectivores
1000
15
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.01
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
47.08
19.92
24.92
3.85
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
HI,
mean
residues
126
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
LA
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
2,2.4,2.4,2.4,2.4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
1211.00
#
VALUE!
Tall
Grass
555.00
#
VALUE!
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
681.00
#
VALUE!
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
76.00
#
VALUE!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
#
VALUE!
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
#
VALUE!
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.22
4.04
Tall
Grass
0.10
1.85
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.12
2.27
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.25
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.99
0.69
0.16
0.05
93.15
Tall
Grass
0.45
0.32
0.07
0.02
42.69
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.56
0.39
0.09
0.03
52.38
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.00
5.85
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.99
0.45
0.56
0.06
Herbivores/
35
66
0.69
0.32
0.39
0.04
insectivores
1000
15
0.16
0.07
0.09
0.01
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
93.15
42.69
52.38
5.85
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
LA,
max
residues
127
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
LA
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
2,2.4,2.4,2.4,2.4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
5
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
429.00
#
VALUE!
Tall
Grass
182.00
#
VALUE!
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
227.00
#
VALUE!
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
35.00
#
VALUE!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
#
VALUE!
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
#
VALUE!
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.08
1.43
Tall
Grass
0.03
0.61
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.04
0.76
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.12
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)
Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.35
0.24
0.06
0.02
33.00
Tall
Grass
0.15
0.10
0.02
0.01
14.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.19
0.13
0.03
0.01
17.46
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
2.69
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.35
0.15
0.19
0.03
Herbivores/
35
66
0.24
0.10
0.13
0.02
insectivores
1000
15
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.00
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.00
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
33.00
14.00
17.46
2.69
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
Sugarcane,
LA,
mean
residues
128
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
PR
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
8,4,4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
2075.00
#
VALUE!
Tall
Grass
951.00
#
VALUE!
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
1167.00
#
VALUE!
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
130.00
#
VALUE!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
#
VALUE!
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
#
VALUE!
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.37
6.92
Tall
Grass
0.17
3.17
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.21
3.89
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.43
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
1.70
1.18
0.27
0.09
159.62
Tall
Grass
0.78
0.54
0.12
0.04
73.15
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.95
0.66
0.15
0.05
89.77
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.11
0.07
0.02
0.01
10.00
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.01
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
1.70
0.78
0.95
0.11
Herbivores/
35
66
1.18
0.54
0.66
0.07
insectivores
1000
15
0.27
0.12
0.15
0.02
21
21
0.02
Grainivores
35
15
0.02
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
159.62
73.15
89.77
10.00
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
PR,
max
residues
129
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
PR
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
8,4,4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
735.00
#
VALUE!
Tall
Grass
311.00
#
VALUE!
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
389.00
#
VALUE!
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
61.00
#
VALUE!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
#
VALUE!
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
#
VALUE!
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.13
2.45
Tall
Grass
0.06
1.04
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.07
1.30
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.20
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
#
VALUE!
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.60
0.42
0.09
0.03
56.54
Tall
Grass
0.25
0.18
0.04
0.01
23.92
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.32
0.22
0.05
0.02
29.92
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.00
4.69
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.60
0.25
0.32
0.05
Herbivores/
35
66
0.42
0.18
0.22
0.03
insectivores
1000
15
0.09
0.04
0.05
0.01
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
56.54
23.92
29.92
4.69
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
PR,
mean
residues
130
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
texas
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
891.26
468.83
Tall
Grass
408.50
214.88
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
501.34
263.72
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
55.70
29.30
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
50
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.16
2.97
Tall
Grass
0.07
1.36
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.09
1.67
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.19
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.73
0.51
0.12
0.04
68.56
Tall
Grass
0.33
0.23
0.05
0.02
31.42
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.41
0.28
0.06
0.02
38.56
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.00
4.28
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.73
0.33
0.41
0.05
Herbivores/
35
66
0.51
0.23
0.28
0.03
insectivores
1000
15
0.12
0.05
0.06
0.01
21
21
0.01
Grainivores
35
15
0.01
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
68.56
31.42
38.56
4.28
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
TX,
max
residues
131
Chemical
Name:
Ametryn
Use
Sugarcane
Formulation
foliar
spray
Inputs
Application
Rate
2.00
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
30
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
3
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
315.66
166.04
Tall
Grass
133.69
70.32
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
167.11
87.91
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
26.00
13.67
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
5620
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
300
0
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
23.417
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
1.250
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
0.06
1.05
Tall
Grass
0.02
0.45
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
32.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.03
0.56
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
0.09
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d
1162
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
23240
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
13
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)
260
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
0.26
0.18
0.04
0.01
24.28
Tall
Grass
0.11
0.08
0.02
0.01
10.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.14
0.09
0.02
0.01
12.85
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
2.00
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)

Acute
Mammalian
RQs
Mammalian
Class
Body
Wgt
%
body
wgt
consumed
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
Fruit/
pods/
lg
insects
15
95
0.26
0.11
0.14
0.02
Herbivores/
35
66
0.18
0.08
0.09
0.01
insectivores
1000
15
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.00
21
21
0.00
Grainivores
35
15
0.00
1000
3
0.00
Chronic
Mammalian
RQs
24.28
10.28
12.85
2.00
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
Sugarcane,
TX,
mean
residues
132
TERRPLANT
Terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
(
wetland)
areas
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
from
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift.
Semi­
aquatic
areas
are
low­
lying
wet
areas
that
may
dry
up
at
times
throughout
the
year.

EFED's
runoff
scenario
is
(
1)
based
on
a
pesticide's
water
solubility
and
the
amount
ot
pesticide
present
on
the
soil
surface
and
its
top
one
inch,
(
2)
characterized
as
"
sheet
runoff"
(
one
treated
acre
to
an
adjacent
acre)
for
dry
areas,
(
3)
characterized
as
"
channel
runoff"
(
10
acres
to
a
distant
low­
lying
acre)
for
semi­
aquatic
or
wetland
areas,
and
(
4)
based
on
percent
runoff
values
of
0.01,
0.02,
and
0.05
for
water
solubilities
of
<
10,
10­
100,
and
<
100
ppm,
respectively.

EFED's
Spray
Drift
scenario
is
assumed
as
(
1)
1%
for
ground
application,
and
(
2)
5%
for
aerial,
airblast,
forced
air,
and
spray
chemigation
applications.
The
spray
drift
ratio
used
here
is
in
agreement
with
the
policy
procedures
at
the
time
the
worksheet
was
designed.
Currently,
1)
this
worksheet
is
designed
to
derive
the
plant
exposure
concentrations
from
a
single,
maximum
application
rate
only.
2)
For
pesticide
applications
with
incorporation
of
depth
of
less
than
1
inch,
the
total
loading
EECs
derived
for
the
incorporation
method
will
be
same
as
the
unincorporated
method.

To
calculate
RQ
values
for
Non­
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants:

Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
aquatic
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC25
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
To
calculate
RQ
values
for
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants:

Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:
133
Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Semiaquatic
Areas
Near
Treatment
Site:

Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Semiaquatic
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
To
calculate
EECs
for
terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
in
areas
adjacent
to
treatment
sites
Runoff
Value
=
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
when
the
solubility
of
the
chemical
is
<
10
ppm,
10­
100
ppm,
or
Incorporation
Depth:
Use
the
minimum
incorporation
depth
reported
on
the
label.
134
APPENDIX
F
 
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Acute
and
Subacute
Toxicity
to
Birds
The
acute
oral
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
19
week­
old
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
was
assessed
over
14
days
(
MRID
409958­
01).
The
14
day­
acute
oral
LD50
exceeded
the
highest
dose
tested
(>
2,250
mg
a.
i/
kg
bw;
Table
E1).
There
was
no
mortalities
in
the
control
group,
nor
in
the
three
lowest
test
concentrations
(
292,
486,
and
810
mg/
kg)
during
the
study.
A
30%
and
20%
mortality
rate
was
observed
in
the
1350
and
2250
mg/
kg
dosage
groups,
respectively.
Behavioral
abnormalities
were
noted
in
the
810,
1350,
and
2250
mg/
kg
groups
with
symptoms
including
lethargy,
depression,
ruffled
appearance,
wing
droop,
reduced
reaction
to
external
stimuli,
lower
limb
weakness,
and
loss
of
coordination.
No
physiological
or
behavioral
abnormalities
were
observed
in
the
control,
292
and
486
mg/
kg
groups
throughout
the
study.
According
to
the
US
EPA
classification,
ametryn
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
The
study
is
classified
as
scientifically
sound
and
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
71­
1
testing
requirements
for
avian
oral
studies
using
bobwhite
quail.

Table
E1.
Summary
of
avian
acute
toxicity
test
on
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
exposed
to
ametryn.

Species
Study
Type
%
active
ingredient
LD
50
mg/
kg
bw
MRID
No.

Author
Year
Toxicity
Category
Fulfills
Guideline
Requirement
Bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
acute
oral
99.0
>
2250
(
NOEC
=
486)
409958­
01
Grimes,
1988
Practically
non­
toxic
Core
Two
subacute
dietary
studies
using
the
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
the
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
and
the
mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
(
Table
E2).
Two
studies
were
submitted
for
review.
In
a
5­
day
mallard
study
(
MRID
409958­
02),
there
were
no
mortalities
in
any
group
during
the
course
of
the
study.
All
birds
in
the
control
groups
and
in
the
562
and
1000
ppm
groups,
were
normal
in
appearance
and
behavior
throughout
the
study.
Behavioral
abnormalities
were
noted
in
the
1780,
3160
and
5620
ppm
groups
with
symptoms
including
lethargy
and
ruffled
appearance.
When
compared
to
the
control
birds,
there
was
a
concentration­
related
reduction
in
body
weight
gain
in
the
562,
1000,
1780
and
3160
ppm
groups
and
a
loss
of
body
weight
in
the
5620
ppm
group
during
the
five
day
exposure
period.
A
reduction
in
food
consumption
was
noted
in
the
1000,
1780,
3160
and
5620
ppm
groups
during
the
same
period.
The
LC50
was
determined
to
be
>
5620
ppm
and
the
NOEC
was
<
562
ppm.
In
a
5­
day
study
with
quail
(
MRID
409958­
03)
the
LC50
exceeded
the
highest
concentration
(
5,620
ppm)
tested.
There
were
no
mortalities
in
any
group
during
the
study.
There
were
no
signs
of
toxicity
at
any
concentration
tested.
All
birds
in
all
treatment
and
control
groups
were
normal
in
appearance
and
behavior
throughout
the
study.
There
appeared
to
be
a
slight
reduction
in
body
weight
gain
in
the
3160
ppm
group
with
a
more
marked
reduction
in
the
5620
ppm
group
during
days
0
to
5;
food
consumption
was
not
affected.
The
NOEC
was
1780
ppm
135
based
on
this
reduction
in
body
weight
at
3160
ppm.
Based
on
the
results
of
these
studies,
ametryn
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds
on
a
subacute
dietary
exposure
basis.
Both
of
the
dietary
studies
are
classified
as
core
and
are
consistent
with
Guideline
§
71­
2
subacute
avian
dietary
testing
requirements.

Table
E2.
Summary
of
subacute
dietary
toxicity
studies
with
mallard
ducks
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
and
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
for
ametryn.

Species
Study
Type
%
active
ingredient
LC
50
mg/
L
MRID
No.

Author
Year
Toxicity
Category
Fulfills
Guideline
Requirement
Bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
acute
dietary
99.0
>
5620
(
NOEC
=
1780)
409958­
03
Grimes,
1988
Practically
nontoxic
Core
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
acute
dietary
99.0
>
5620
(
NOEC
<
562)
409958­
02
Grimes,
1988
Practically
nontoxic
Core
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Birds
Two
avian
reproduction
dietary
studies
were
submitted
for
review
(
Table
E3).
In
a
study
with
bobwhite
quail
(
MRID
415476­
01),
the
NOEC
was
determined
to
be
300
ppm
based
upon
possible
effects
on
adult
body
weight
and
various
reproductive
parameters
at
900
ppm.
There
were
no
treatment­
related
mortality,
overt
signs
of
toxicity
or
effects
upon
food
consumption
during
the
study.
This
avian
reproduction
study
is
scientifically
sound
and
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
71­
4
testing
requirements
for
an
avian
reproduction
study
using
bobwhite
quail;
the
study
is
classified
as
core.
In
a
study
with
mallard
ducks
(
MRID
415476­
02),
there
were
no
treatment­
related
mortality,
overt
signs
of
toxicity
or
effects
upon
adult
food
consumption.
The
NOEC
was
determined
to
be
300
ppm
based
upon
possible
effects
on
adult
body
weight
and
egg
production
at
900
ppm.
This
study
is
scientifically
sound
and
is
classified
as
core.

Table
E3.
Summary
of
avian
reproduction
study
with
mallard
ducks
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
and
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
for
ametryn.

Species
%
active
ingredient
NOEC
/
LOEC
mg/
kg
most
sensitive
endpoint
MRID
No.

Author
Year
Fulfills
Guideline
Requirement
Bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virginianus
99.0
300
/
900
adult
body
weight,
eggs
laid,
cracked
eggs,
offspring
survivors
415476­
01
Beavers,
1990
Core
Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
99.0
300
/
900
adult
body
weight,
egg
production
415476­
02
Beavers,
1990
Core
Acute
and
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Mammals
136
Wild
mammal
testing
is
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
depending
on
the
results
of
lower­
tier
laboratory
mammalian
studies,
intended
use
pattern
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics.
In
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
(
Table
E4,
MRID
40995814),
rats
exposed
to
ametryn
technical
developed
toxic
symptoms
that
included
piloerection,
decreased
activity,
lacrimation,
nasal
discharge,
epsitasis,
ptosis,
salivation,
polyuria,
dyspnea,
tremors,
dilated
pupils,
constricted
pupils
and
death.
The
acute
oral
LD50
for
males
was
1356
mg/
kg
and
1009
mg/
kg
for
females.
The
LD50
(
M
&
F)
=
1162
mg/
kg.
Ametryn
is
considered
slightly
toxic
to
mammals.
This
study
was
found
to
be
acceptable.

Two
chronic
mammal
studies
using
the
rat
were
available
from
HED
and
deemed
of
use
for
this
assessment.
In
a
carcinogenicity
study
(
MRID
406499­
06,
411842­
01
and
403840­
01),
rats
exposed
to
ametryn
technical
developed
decreased
body
weights
and
gain
effects
and
also,
histological
changes
in
the
testes,
kidney
and
pituitary
in
males
and
in
the
liver
and
pancreas
in
females.
HED
is
reviewing
the
possible
carcinogenicity
response
in
the
testes,
epididymides
and
thyroid
in
males
and
liver
and
mammary
glands
in
females.
In
a
2­
generation
study
(
MRID
403499­
05),
no
reproductive
effects
in
the
adults
were
noted
at
the
highest
dose
treated;
however,
decreased
pup
weights
and
weight
gain
were
observed
in
the
F2
generation.

Table
E4.
Acute
and
chronic
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
the
rat.

Species
%
a.
i.
Endpoint
(
mg/
kg)
MRID
Author,
year
Study
Classification
Rat
(
Acute)
96.7
LD
50
=
1162
409958­
14
(
acute)

Stillmeadow,
1988
acceptable
Rat
(
Chronic)
LOAEL
=
145
NOEL
=
21
NOAEL
=
13
406499­
06,
411842­
01,
403820­
01
(
carcinogenicity,
rat)

403499­
05
(
chronic,
rat)
acceptable
acceptable
Toxicity
to
Insects
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
was
required
for
ametryn
because
its
use
may
result
in
honey
bee
exposure.
The
contact
LD50
was
greater
than
the
highest
(>
100

g/
bee)
dose
tested
(
MRID
409958­
11,
Table
E5).
Mortalities
in
all
dosage
groups
and
controls
ranged
from
2
to
6%
and
did
not
appear
to
be
treatment
related.
No
sublethal
effects
were
noted
in
any
of
the
control
or
test
animals
throughout
the
duration
of
the
study.
The
study
is
scientifically
sound
and
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
141­
1
testing
requirements;
the
study
is
classified
as
core.
137
Table
E5.
Summary
of
acute
contact
and
oral
48­
hr
toxicity
tests
with
the
honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
for
ametryn.

Species
%
active
ingredient
LD50
µ
g/
bee
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Toxicity
Category
Fulfills
Guideline
Requirement
Honey
Bee
99.0
>
100
(
contact)
409958­
11
Hoxter,
1988
Practically
nontoxic
Core
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Plants
Terrestrial
plant
testing
(
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor)
is
required
for
pesticides
that
have
terrestrial
non­
residential
outdoor
use
patterns
and
that
may
move
off
the
application
site
through
volatilization
(
vapor
pressure
>
1.0
x
10­
5
mm
Hg
at
25o
C)
or
drift
(
aerial
or
irrigation)
and/
or
that
may
have
endangered
or
threatened
plant
species
associated
with
the
application
site.
In
many
cases,
the
registrants
elect
to
proceed
directly
to
Tier
II
testing.

For
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
testing,
the
following
plant
species
and
groups
should
be
tested:
(
1)
six
species
of
at
least
four
dicotyledonous
families,
one
species
of
which
is
soybean
(
Glycine
max)
and
the
second
is
a
root
crop,
and
(
2)
four
species
of
at
least
two
monocotyledonous
families,
one
of
which
is
corn
(
Zea
mays).

Results
for
the
vegetative
vigor
test
(
MRID
409958­
09)
are
shown
in
Table
E6.
Detrimental
effects
were
greater
than
50
%
for
many
of
the
concentrations
tested.
All
plant
species
treated
with
ametryn
at
concentrations
above
1.0
lb
ai/
A
showed
significantly
higher
21­
day
mean
phytotoxicity
ratings.
Treatment
of
all
plant
species
with
ametryn
at
rates
above
1.0
lb
ai/
A
resulted
in
significant
reductions
in
plant
height
at
21
days
after
treatment.
Treatment
with
concentrations
of
4.0
and
8.0
lb
ai/
A
resulted
in
total
plant
death
by
21
days
for
all
plant
species
except
soybean.
Soybean,
lettuce
and
cucumber
were
the
most
sensitive
with
a
plant
height
NOEC
of
0.013
lb
ai/
A.

No­
effect
concentrations
of
ametryn
on
dry
wight
ranged
from
<
0.006
lb
ai/
A
for
lettuce
and
cucumber
to
0.4
lb
ai/
A
for
carrot,
oat
and
ryegrass.
Treatment
of
lettuce
and
cucumber
at
the
0.006
lb
ai/
A
rate
resulted
in
a
statistically
significant
reduction
in
dry
weight
of
28
and
13
%,
respectively,
in
comparison
with
the
control
treatment.
When
considering
the
plant
dry
weight
data,
lettuce
and
cucumber
were
the
most
sensitive
species,
while
ryegrass
was
the
least
sensitive.
This
study
is
scientifically
sound,
classified
as
core
and
fulfills
guideline
requirements
for
the
Tier
II
vegetative
vigor
testing.

Table
E6.
Summary
of
nontarget
terrestrial
phytotoxicity
(
vegetative
vigor)
using
both
monocotyledon
and
dicotyledon
plant
species
exposed
to
ametryn.
a
The
lowest
values
in
each
category
are
italicized.
138
Species
EC25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC50
(
lb
ai/
A)
NOEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
MRID
Author,
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot
­
corn
0.222
dw
0.568
dw
0.2
dw
409958­
09
Canez,
1998
Core
Monocot
­
onion
0.105
dw
0.209
ph
0.05
dw
Monocot
­
ryegrass
0.338
dw
0.703
dw
0.4
dw
Monocot
­
oat
0.274
dw
0.571
dw
0.4
dw
Dicot
­
cabbage
0.207
dw
0.402
dw
0.2
dw
Dicot
­
carrot
0.373
ph
0.651
dw
0.2
pr,
ph
Dicot
­
cucumber
0.007
dw
0.015
dw
<
0.006
dw
Dicot
­
lettuce
0.006
dw
0.015
dw
<
0.006
dw
Dicot
­
tomato
0.021
dw
0.080
ph
0.025
dw
Dicot
­
soybean
0.009
dw
0.024
dw
0.006
dw
a
For
each
toxicity
endpoint,
the
parameter
in
which
these
concentrations
were
observed
are
listed.
dw
=
dry
weight,
ph
=
plant
height,
pr
=
phytotoxicity
rating
Results
of
the
seedling
emergence
test
(
MRID
409958­
08)
are
shown
in
Table
E7.
Treatment
with
ametryn
at
concentrations
greater
than
2.0
lb
ai/
A
resulted
in
a
significant
effect
on
plant
height
in
all
plant
species
tested.
Corn
was
the
least
sensitive,
while
lettuce
was
the
most
sensitive
species
for
this
parameter.
Treatment
at
concentrations
greater
than
1.0
lb
ai/
A
resulted
in
a
significant
effect
on
plant
dry
wight
in
all
plant
species
tested.
Again,
corn
was
the
least
sensitive,
while
lettuce
was
the
most
sensitive.
All
plant
species
tested
demonstrated
a
significant
effect
on
21­
day
phytotoxicity
ratings
following
treatment
at
8.0
lb
ai/
A.
Treatment
at
concentrations
of
0.5
to
8.0
lb
ai/
A
resulted
in
a
greater
than
90
%
seedling
emergence
level
for
all
plant
species
except
soybean
and
corn.
This
study
is
scientifically
sound,
classified
as
core
and
fulfills
guideline
requirements
for
the
Tier
II
seedling
emergence
testing.
139
Table
E7.
Summary
of
nontarget
terrestrial
phytotoxicity
(
seedling
emergence)
using
both
monocotyledon
and
dicotyledon
plant
species
exposed
to
ametryn.
a
The
lowest
values
in
each
category
are
italicized.

Species
EC25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC50
(
lb
ai/
A)
NOEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
MRID
Author,
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot
­
corn
2.81
dw
9.37
dw
1.0
dw
409958­
08
Canez,
1998
Core
Monocot
­
onion
0.169
pe
0.379
pe
0.1
pr,
ph
Monocot
­
ryegrass
0.176
ph
0.484
ph
0.05
ph
Monocot
­
oat
0.083
dw
0.335
dw
0.05
dw
Dicot
­
cabbage
0.301
dw
0.507
dw
0.1
dw
Dicot
­
carrot
0.471
dw
0.501
dw
0.5
pr,
ph
Dicot
­
cucumber
0.002
pe
0.016
pe
0.05
dw
Dicot
­
lettuce
0.027
dw
0.093
dw
0.013
ph,
dw
Dicot
­
tomato
0.271
dw
0.623
pe
0.1
dw,
pr
Dicot
­
soybean
0.397
dw
2.55
ph
0.5
dw,
ph,
pr
a
For
each
toxicity
endpoint,
the
parameter
in
which
these
concentrations
were
observed
are
listed.
dw
=
dry
weight,
ph
=
plant
height,
pr
=
phytotoxicity
rating,
and
pe
=
percentage
of
seedlings
emerged
Results
of
the
seed
germination
test
(
MRID
409958­
07)
is
shown
in
Table
E8.
Application
of
ametryn
at
the
rate
of
8.0
lb
ai/
A
had
no
effect
on
seed
germination
of
any
crop
except
corn
and
onion
and
no
effect
on
radicle
length
of
any
crop
except
corn
and
ryegrass.
Corn
had
a
no­
effect
level
of
4.0
lb
ai/
A
for
both
parameters
and
showed
detrimental
effects
of
49
%
for
radicle
length
and
13
%
for
percent
germination
at
the
maximum
rate
tested.
Onion
had
a
2.0
lb
ai/
A
no­
effect
level
for
percent
germination
and
showed
a
less
than
25%
detrimental
effect
at
the
two
highest
concentrations
tested,
4.0
and
8.0
lb
ai/
A.
This
study
is
140
scientifically
sound,
classified
as
core
and
fulfills
guideline
requirements
for
the
Tier
II
seed
germination
testing.

Table
E8.
Summary
of
nontarget
terrestrial
phytotoxicity
(
seed
germination)
using
both
monocotyledon
and
dicotyledon
plant
species
exposed
to
ametryn.
a
The
lowest
values
in
each
category
are
italicized.

Species
EC25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC50
(
lb
ai/
A)
NOEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
MRID
Author,
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot
­
corn
2.45
rl
23.0
rl
4.0
all
409958­
07
Canez,
1998
Core
Monocot
­
onion
0.707
rl
26.0
rl
2.0
pg
Monocot
­
ryegrass
1.99
rl
47.2
rl
4.0
rl
Monocot
­
oat
3.46
rl
40.9
rl

8.0
all
Dicot
­
cabbage
1.92
rl
2478
rl

8.0
all
Dicot
­
carrot
NDb
ND

8.0
all
Dicot
­
cucumber
ND
ND

8.0
all
Dicot
­
lettuce
1151
rl
1.1
X
106c
rl

8.0
all
Dicot
­
tomato
12728c
rl
2.25
X
1011
c
rl

8.0
all
Dicot
­
soybean
ND
ND

8.0
all
a
For
each
toxicity
endpoint,
the
parameter
in
which
these
concentrations
were
observed
are
listed.
Rl
=
radicle
length
measurements,
pg
=
percentage
of
seed
germinated,
all
=
all
parameters
measured
b
ND
=
not
determined
c
These
values
are
not
realistic.
Author's
probit
analysis
of
raw
data
is
not
valid
for
crops
that
show
no
significant
differences
among
treatments.
141
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Results
of
toxicity
tests
with
freshwater
fish
are
tabulated
in
Table
E9.
The
LC50
values
for
the
species
tested
range
from
range,
ametryn
is
classified
as
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
In
acute
toxicity
testing
with
rainbow
trout
(
MRID
428616­
02),
there
was
no
mortality
or
sublethal
effects
in
the
control
and
two
lowest
treatment
groups
(
0.50
and
0.84
mg
a.
i./
l).
In
the
1.4,
2.3
and
4.0
mg
a.
i./
l
concentrations,
there
was
a
5,
15,
and
40%
mortality,
respectively.
Sublethal
effects
in
the
2.3
and
4.0
mg
a.
i./
l
concentrations,
included
dark
coloration
and
lethargy.
This
study
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
72­
1
testing
requirements
and
is
classified
as
core.
In
a
study
with
the
Bluegill
sunfish,
the
96
h
LC50
was
determined
to
be
8.5
mg
a.
i./
l
and
the
NOEC
was
6.4
mg
a.
i./
l.
However,
due
to
undissolved
test
material
with
the
four
highest
test
concentrations
and
lack
of
filtration/
centrifugation
of
the
water
samples,
this
study
was
deemed
to
be
supplemental.
Another
study
conducted
using
the
Fathead
minnow
(
MRID
428616­
01)
determined
the
96
h
LC50
for
these
organisms
to
be
16
mg
a.
i./
l
and
the
NOEC
was
9
mg
a.
i./
l.
Mortality
and
sublethal
effects
(
lethargy
and
erratic
swimming)
were
only
noted
at
the
highest
test
concentration
(
18
mg
a.
i./
l).
This
study
is
scientifically
sound
and
meets
the
guideline
requirements
for
an
acute
toxicity
test
using
fathead
minnows.

Table
E9.
Summary
of
freshwater
fish
acute
toxicity
in
mg/
L
(
ppm)
for
technical
grade
ametryn.

Species
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Rainbow
Trout
(
Onchorynchus
mykiss)
98.0
3.6
(
NOEC
=
0.7)
Moderately
Toxic
428616­
02
Ward,
1993
core
Rainbow
Trout
(
Onchorynchus
mykiss)
96.7
5.1
(
NOEC
<
2.5)
Moderately
Toxic
409958­
05
Surprenant
1989
supplemental
Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
98.0
16
(
NOEC
=
9.0)
Slightly
Toxic
428616­
01
Ward,
1993
core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
96.7
8.5
(
NOEC
=
6.4)
Moderately
Toxic
409958­
04
Surprenant,
1989
supplemental
Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
142
Table
E10.
Summary
of
freshwater
fish
early
life
stage
toxicity
in
mg/
L
(
ppm)
under
flow­
through
conditions
for
technical
grade
ametryn.

Species
%
ai
NOAEC/
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
96.7
0.7
/
1.4
Growth
(
length
and
weight)
411897­
03,
423252­
03
Surprenant,
1989
core
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
A
freshwater
invertebrate
acute
toxicity
test
(
MRID
409958­
06)
was
submitted
using
the
preferred
test
species
Daphnia
magna
and
is
summarized
in
Table
E11.
The
48­
hour
LC50
was
28
mg/
L
and
the
NOEC
was
12
mg/
L.
Daphnids
exhibited
lethargy
in
the
two
highest
concentrations
tested.
Additionally,
100%
of
the
organisms
at
the
highest
concentration
tested
(
38
mg
a.
i/
l)
and
63%
of
the
organisms
at
the
24
mg
ai/
l
concentation
were
imobilized
after
48.
Ametryn
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates
on
an
acute
exposure
basis
(
Table
E11).
The
study
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
72­
2
testing
requirements
and
is
classified
as
core.

Table
E11.
Summary
of
freshwater
invertebrate
acute
toxicity
in
µ
g/
L
(
ppb)
for
technical
grade
ametryn.

Species/
Static
or
Flowthrough
%
ai
48­
hour
LC
50
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
96.7
28
(
NOEC
=
12)
Slightly
toxic
409958­
06
Surprenant,
1989
Core
Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
life­
cycle
test
using
the
TGAI
were
submitted
for
ametryn
(
MRID
411897­
02
and
423252­
02)
using
the
preferred
test
species
Daphnia
magna
and
is
summarized
in
Table
E12.
The
observed
NOAEC
was
0.24
ppm
and
the
LOAEC
was
0.32
ppm.
The
solvent
used
in
this
test
resulted
in
reduced
survival,
growth,
and
reproduction
in
the
solvent
control
daphnids
when
compared
to
those
of
the
dilution
water
control.
Survival
at
the
highest
test
concentration
(
1.4
mg
a.
i./
l)
was
significantly
reduced,
while
significantly
lower
reproduction
rates
were
observed
at
ametryn
concentrations
of

0.32
mg
a.
i./
l.
Daphnid
length
at
all
treatment
levels
was
significantly
reduced
when
compared
to
the
control
data.
However,
since
no
significant
differences
in
length
were
observed
between
the
solvent
control
and
that
of
any
treatment
level,
the
reduction
in
length
was
probably
due
to
the
solvent.
Therefore,
the
range
of
ametryn
concentrations
tested
did
not
affect
daphnid
length.
This
study
is
scientifically
sound
but
does
not
fulfill
the
guideline
requirements
for
a
freshwater
invertebrate
chronic
test.
143
Table
E12.
Summary
of
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
life­
cycle
toxicity
for
technical
grade
ametryn.

Species
%
ai
21­
day
NOAEC/
LOAEC
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
96.7
0.24
/
0.32
Reproduction
411897­
02,
423252­
02
McNamara,
1989
Supplemental
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Animals
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish,
Acute
An
estuarine/
marine
fish
acute
toxicity
test
(
MRID
411149­
02)
was
submitted
for
review
using
the
preferred
test
species
sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus).
This
study
determined
the
96­
hour
LC50
to
be
5.8
mg/
L
(
ppm)
(
Table
E13),
so
ametryn
is
categorized
as
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
The
NOEC
was
determined
to
be
2.8
mg
a.
i./
l.
Following
96
hours
of
exposure,
100%
and
40%
mortality
was
observed
in
the
6.9
and
5.7
mg
a.
i./
l
treatments,
respectively.
This
study
is
scientifically
sound
and
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
72­
3(
a)
testing
requirements.

Table
E13.
Summary
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
acute
toxicity
for
technical
grade
ametryn.

Species/
Static
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
mg/
L
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
96.7
5.8
(
NOEC
=
2.8)
Moderately
Toxic
411149­
02
Surprenant,
1989
Core
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Chronic
No
data
were
available
to
assess
the
chronic
toxicity
of
ametryn
to
estuarine/
marine
fish.

Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
As
shown
in
Table
E14,
the
96­
hour
mysid
shrimp
LC50
for
technical
grade
ametryn
is
2.3
mg/
L
(
MRID
411149­
01).
The
NOEC
through
96
hours
was
<
0.84
mg
a.
i./
l.
Thus,
this
chemical
is
categorized
as
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
crustaceans
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
This
study
is
scientifically
sound
and
fulfills
the
requirements
under
EPA
Guideline
§
72­
3.
This
chemical
is
also
moderately
toxic
to
molluscs
(
LC50
>
11
mg/
l;
MRID
411149­
01
and
423252­
01).
No
reduction
in
the
normal
development
of
144
larvae
occurred
at
any
mean
measured
concentration
of
ametryn
technical
tested.
The
studies
are
scientifically
sound
and
are
consistent
with
Guidelines
§
72­
3(
b)
and
§
72­
3(
c)
testing
requirements.

Table
E14.
Summary
of
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
acute
toxicity
for
ametryn.

Species
%
ai.
96­
hour
LC
50
mg/
L
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.

Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Mysid
shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
96.7
2.3
(
NOEC
<
0.84)
Moderately
toxic
411149­
01
Surprenant,
1989
Core
Quahog
clam
(
Mercenaria
mercenaria)
96.7
>
11
Moderately
Toxic
411149­
03,
423252­
01
Surprenant,
1989
Core
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrate,
Chronic
There
are
no
available
chronic
toxicity
data
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
The
guideline
72­
4(
b)
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
is
not
fulfilled.

Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
plant
testing
is
required
for
any
pesticide
that
has
outdoor
non­
residential
terrestrial
uses
that
may
move
off­
site
by
runoff
or
by
drift
from
aerial
applications
or
ground
spray.
Lemna
gibba
and
Selenastrum
capricornutum
should
be
tested
at
Tier
I.
One
study
was
submitted
to
review
the
toxicity
of
ametryn
technical
on
the
growth
and
reproduction
of
aquatic
plants
(
Table
E15).
In
a
7­
day
study
with
the
green
algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
(
MRID
409958­
10),
the
EC50
was
determined
to
be
3.67
µ
g/
l.
In
the
three
highest
concentrations
tested,
3.2,
5.0,
and
9.9
mg/
l,
there
was
a
26,
87,
and
99
percent
inhibition,
respectively.
Based
on
the
reduction
of
cell
counts,
the
NOEC
was
determined
to
be
1.14
µ
g/
l.
Ametryn
is
classified
as
very
highly
toxic
to
aquatic
plants.
This
study
is
classified
as
core
and
is
consistent
with
Guideline
§
123­
2
aquatic
plant
testing
requirements.

Table
E15
Summary
of
aquatic
plant
toxicity
for
ametryn.

Species
%
active
ingredient
EC
50
µ
g/
l
MRID
No.

Author
Year
Toxicity
Category
Fulfills
Guideline
Requirement
Green
algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
96.8
3.67
(
NOEC
=
1.14)
409958­
10
Hughes,
1989
very
highly
toxic
Core
APPENDIX
G
 
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
145
A
means
of
integrating
the
results
of
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
is
called
the
quotient
method.
For
this
method,
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
ecotoxicity
values,
both
acute
and
chronic.

RQ
=
EXPOSURE/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
OPP's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
criteria
used
by
OPP
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
The
criteria
indicate
that
a
pesticide
used
as
directed
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
nontarget
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
risk
presumption
categories:
(
1)
acute
high
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted
in
addition
to
restricted
use
classification
(
2)
acute
restricted
use
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
this
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
(
3)
acute
endangered
species
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
to
endangered
species
is
high,
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted,
and
(
4)
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high,
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
Currently,
EFED
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
plants,
acute
or
chronic
risks
to
nontarget
insects,
or
chronic
risk
from
granular/
bait
formulations
to
mammalian
or
avian
species.

The
ecotoxicity
test
values
(
i.
e.,
measurement
endpoints)
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
derived
from
the
results
of
required
studies.
Examples
of
ecotoxicity
values
derived
from
the
results
of
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:
(
1)
LC50
(
fish
and
birds)
(
2)
LD50
(
birds
and
mammals)
(
3)
EC50
(
aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
(
4)
EC25
(
terrestrial
plants).
Examples
of
toxicity
test
effect
levels
derived
from
the
results
of
long­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
chronic
effects
are:
(
1)
LOEC
(
birds,
fish,
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
(
2)
NOEC
(
birds,
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
(
3)
MATC
(
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates).
For
birds,
mammals,
and
all
aquatic
organisms,
the
NOEC
is
the
ecotoxicity
test
value
used
in
assessing
chronic
risk.
Other
values
may
be
used
when
justified.
Risk
presumptions,
along
with
the
corresponding
RQs
and
LOCs
are
summarized
in
Tables
G­
1
through
G­
3.

Table
G­
1.
Risk
presumptions
for
terrestrial
animals
(
birds
and
wild
mammals)

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
LC
50
or
LD
50/
ft2
or
LD
50/
day3
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC
50
or
LD
50/
ft2
or
LD
50/
day
(
or
LD
50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC
50
or
LD
50/
ft2
or
LD
50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
1
abbreviation
for
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg/
ft2
3
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
LD
50
*
wt.
of
bird
LD
50
*
wt.
of
bird
146
Table
G­
2.
Risk
presumptions
for
aquatic
animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
LC
50
or
EC
50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC
50
or
EC
50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC
50
or
EC
50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
1
EEC
=
(
ppm
or
ppb)
in
water
Table
G­
3.
Risk
presumptions
for
plants
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
EC
25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC
05
or
NOEC
1
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC2/
EC
50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC
05
or
NOEC
1
1
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
2
EEC
=
(
ppb/
ppm)
in
water
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
For
pesticides
applied
as
a
nongranular
product
(
e.
g.,
liquid,
dust),
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
on
food
items
following
product
application
are
compared
to
LC50
values
to
assess
risk.
The
predicted
peak
and
mean
residues
of
a
pesticide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
a
direct
single
application
at
1
lb
ai/
A
is
presented
in
Table
G­
4.

Table
G­
4.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
(
ppm)
following
a
single
applications
at
1
lb
ai/
A.

Application
Rate
Food
Items
EEC
(
ppm)

Predicted
Maximum
Residue1
EEC
(
ppm)

Mean1
1
lb
a.
i./
A
Short
grass
240
27
Tall
grass
110
10
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
135
11
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
15
1
1
Predicted
maximum
and
mean
residues
are
for
a
1
lb
ai/
a
application
rate
and
are
based
on
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).

Predicted
residues
(
EECs)
resulting
from
multiple
applications
are
calculated
in
various
ways.
Uncertainties
in
the
terrestrial
EECs
are
primarily
associated
with
a
lack
of
data
on
interception
and
subsequent
dissipation
from
foliar
surfaces.
When
scientifically
valid,
statistically
robust
data
are
not
147
available
EFED
relies
on
a
default
half­
life
value
of
35
days.
The
use
of
the
35
day
half­
life
is
based
on
the
highest
reported
value
(
36.9
days)
reported
by
Willis
and
McDowell
(
1987).

APPENDIX
H
 
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
LISTS
148
Corn
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Corn
cut
for
dry
fodder,
hogged
or
graze
(
40),
Corn
for
grain
or
seed
(
41),
Corn
for
silage
or
green
chop
(
42),
Corn,
pop
(
153),

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

Florida
(
61)

ASTER,
FLORIDA
GOLDEN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BEARGRASS,
BRITTON'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BIRDS­
IN­
A­
NEST,
WHITE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BLAZING
STAR,
SCRUB
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BONAMIA,
FLORIDA
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Convolvulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BUCKWHEAT,
SCRUB
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polygonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BUTTERWORT,
GODFREY'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lentibulariceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
149
CAMPION,
FRINGED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CARACARA,
AUDUBON'S
CRESTED
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Falconidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Scrophulariaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CLADONIA,
FLORIDA
PERFORATE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cladoniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

FRINGE
TREE,
PYGMY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Oleaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GOOSEBERRY,
MICCOSUKEE
(
FLORIDA)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Saxifragaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GOURD,
OKEECHOBEE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cucurbitaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAREBELLS,
AVON
PARK
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HYPERICUM,
HIGHLANDS
SCRUB
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Hypericaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JACQUEMONTIA,
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Convolvulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JAY,
FLORIDA
SCRUB
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Corvidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KITE,
EVERGLADE
SNAIL
Endangered
Critical
Bird
150
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LEAD­
PLANT,
CRENULATE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LUPINE,
SCRUB
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
Marine
MEADOWRUE,
COOLEY'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Ranunculaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MILKPEA,
SMALL'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MINT,
LONGSPURRED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MOUSE,
ANASTASIA
ISLAND
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MOUSE,
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MOUSE,
ST.
ANDREW
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MUSTARD,
CARTER'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Brassicaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PANTHER,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
151
PAWPAW,
BEAUTIFUL
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Annonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PAWPAW,
FOUR­
PETAL
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Annonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PAWPAW,
RUGEL'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Annonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PINKROOT,
GENTIAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Loganiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLUM,
SCRUB
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rosaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POLYGALA,
LEWTON'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polygalaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POLYGALA,
TINY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polygalaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

RHODODENDRON,
CHAPMAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Ericaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ROSEMARY,
SHORT­
LEAVED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SANDLACE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polygonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SEAGRASS,
JOHNSON'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Hydrocharitaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPARROW,
CAPE
SABLE
SEASIDE
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Emberizidae
Medium:
Diet:
152
Habitat:

SPARROW,
FLORIDA
GRASSHOPPER
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Emberizidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPURGE,
DELTOID
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPURGE,
GARBER'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPURGE,
TELEPHUS
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Ciconiidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TORREYA,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Taxaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VOLE,
FLORIDA
SALT
MARSH
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WAREA,
WIDE­
LEAF
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Brassicaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WHITLOW­
WORT,
PAPERY
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WINGS,
PIGEON
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WIREWEED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polygonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
153
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ZIZIPHUS,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rhamnaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Georgia
(
28)

AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Scrophulariaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BARBARA'S
BUTTONS,
MOHR'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CAMPION,
FRINGED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GRASS,
TENNESSEE
YELLOW­
EYED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Xyridaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
Marine
PINK,
SWAMP
Threatened
Critical
Plant
154
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sarraceniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PONDBERRY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lauraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

QUILLWORT,
BLACK­
SPORED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Isoetaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

QUILLWORT,
MAT­
FORMING
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Isoetaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

RATTLEWEED,
HAIRY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SKULLCAP,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPIRAEA,
VIRGINIA
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rosaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Ciconiidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Anacardiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TORREYA,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Taxaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
155
TRILLIUM,
PERSISTENT
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Parulidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WATER­
PLANTAIN,
KRAL'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Alismataceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Illinois
(
13)

ASTER,
DECURRENT
FALSE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BUSH­
CLOVER,
PRAIRIE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DAISY,
LAKESIDE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MILKWEED,
MEAD'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asclepiadaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ORCHID,
EASTERN
PRAIRIE
FRINGED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
156
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Laridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

North
Carolina
(
39)

AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Amaranthaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ARROWHEAD,
BUNCHED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Alismataceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AVENS,
SPREADING
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rosaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BITTERCRESS,
SMALL­
ANTHERED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Brassicaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BLAZING
STAR,
HELLER'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
157
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BLUET,
ROAN
MOUNTAIN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rubiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CAHOW
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Procellariidae
Medium:
Diet:
piscivore
Habitat:
Estuarine
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Scrophulariaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GOLDENROD,
BLUE
RIDGE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HARPERELLA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HEARTLEAF,
DWARF­
FLOWERED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Aristolochiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HEATHER,
MOUNTAIN
GOLDEN
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cistaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

IRISETTE,
WHITE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Iridaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
158
LICHEN,
ROCK
GNOME
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cladoniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Primulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
Marine
MEADOWRUE,
COOLEY'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Ranunculaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PINK,
SWAMP
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sarraceniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PITCHER­
PLANT,
MOUNTAIN
SWEET
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sarraceniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PONDBERRY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lauraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SEDGE,
GOLDEN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cyperaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPIRAEA,
VIRGINIA
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rosaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
159
Habitat:

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Ciconiidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Anacardiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TERN,
ROSEATE
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Laridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Ohio
(
7)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CLOVER,
RUNNING
BUFFALO
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DAISY,
LAKESIDE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MONKSHOOD,
NORTHERN
WILD
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Ranunculaceae
Medium:
Diet:
160
Habitat:

ORCHID,
EASTERN
PRAIRIE
FRINGED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

South
Carolina
(
25)

AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Amaranthaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Scrophulariaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ARROWHEAD,
BUNCHED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Alismataceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Scrophulariaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HARPERELLA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HEARTLEAF,
DWARF­
FLOWERED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Aristolochiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

IRISETTE,
WHITE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Iridaceae
Medium:
Diet:
161
Habitat:

LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Primulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
Marine
PINK,
SWAMP
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PITCHER­
PLANT,
MOUNTAIN
SWEET
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sarraceniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PONDBERRY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lauraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

QUILLWORT,
BLACK­
SPORED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Isoetaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Ciconiidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TRILLIUM,
PERSISTENT
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TRILLIUM,
RELICT
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
162
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Texas
(
33)

AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AYENIA,
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sterculiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BLADDERPOD,
ZAPATA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Brassicaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cactaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cactaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CACTUS,
STAR
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cactaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CACTUS,
TOBUSCH
FISHHOOK
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cactaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CRANE,
WHOOPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Gruidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CURLEW,
ESKIMO
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Scolopacidae
Medium:
Diet:
163
Habitat:

DAWN­
FLOWER,
TEXAS
PRAIRIE
(=
TEXAS
BITTERWEED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DOGWEED,
ASHY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

FALCON,
NORTHERN
APLOMADO
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Falconidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LADIES'­
TRESSES,
NAVASOTA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANIOC,
WALKER'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

OCELOT
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Pelicanidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHLOX,
TEXAS
TRAILING
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polemoniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
MOUNTAIN
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:
insectivore
Habitat:
Terrestrial
PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POPPY­
MALLOW,
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
164
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PRAIRIE­
CHICKEN,
ATTWATER'S
GREATER
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Phasianidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

RUSH­
PEA,
SLENDER
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SAND­
VERBENA,
LARGE­
FRUITED
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Nyctaginaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SNOWBELLS,
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Styracaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPIDERLING,
MATHIS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Nyctaginaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TERN,
INTERIOR
(
POPULATION)
LEAST
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Laridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VIREO,
BLACK­
CAPPED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Vireonidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WARBLER
(
WOOD),
GOLDEN­
CHEEKED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Emberizidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WILD­
RICE,
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Wisconsin
(
10)

BUSH­
CLOVER,
PRAIRIE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
165
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

IRIS,
DWARF
LAKE
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Iridaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOCOWEED,
FASSETT'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MONKSHOOD,
NORTHERN
WILD
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Ranunculaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ORCHID,
EASTERN
PRAIRIE
FRINGED
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

THISTLE,
PITCHER'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WARBLER
(
WOOD),
KIRTLAND'S
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Parulidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Pineapple
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Pineapples
harvested
(
148),
Pineapples
not
harvested
(
149)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

Hawaii
(
154)
166
ACHYRANTHES
MUTICA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Amaranthaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
DIPETALUM
VAR.
TOMENTOSUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
HAWAIIENSE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
BREVIFLORUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Solanaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
PELTATUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Solanaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AKEPA,
HAWAII
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AKIA
LOA,
KAUAI
(
HEMIGNATHUS
PROCERUS)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AKIA
POLA'AU
(
HEMIGNATHUS
MUNROI)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AKOKO
(
EUPHORBIA
HAELEELEANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ALANI
(
MELICOPE
HAUPUENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ALANI
(
MELICOPE
KNUDSENII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ALANI
(
MELICOPE
PALLIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ALANI
(
MELICOPE
QUADRANGULARIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:
167
Habitat:

ALANI
(
MELICOPE
ZAHLBRUCKNERI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ALSINIDENDRON
VISCOSUM
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
ANUNU
(
SICYOS
ALBA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cucurbitaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ASPLENIUM
FRAGILE
VAR.
INSULARE
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Aspleniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
HOSAKAE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
LAURIFOLIUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
LONGIFOLIUM)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AWIWI
(
CENTAURIUM
SEBAEOIDES)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Gentianaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AWIWI
(
HEDYOTIS
COOKIANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rubiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
HAWAIIAN
HOARY
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BLUEGRASS,
HAWAIIAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BLUEGRASS,
MANN'S
(
POA
MANNII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BONAMIA
MENZIESII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
168
Family:
Convolvulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CHAMAESYCE
HALEMANUI
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

COOT,
HAWAIIAN
(=
ALAE
KEO
KEO)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Rallidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CREEPER,
HAWAII
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CROW,
HAWAIIAN
('
ALALA)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Corvidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CYANEA
UNDULATA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DELISSEA
RHYTODISPERMA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DIELLIA
ERECTA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Aspleniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DIELLIA
PALLIDA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DUBAUTIA
LATIFOLIA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DUBAUTIA
PAUCIFLORULA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DUCK,
HAWAIIAN
(
KOLOA)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Anatidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

FERN,
PENDANT
KIHI
(
ADENOPHORUS
PERIENS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Grammitidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
169
GOOSE,
HAWAIIAN
(
NENE)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Anatidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GOUANIA
MEYENII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rhamnaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
ASARIFOLIA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
COPELANDII
SSP.
COPELANDII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
HAMATIFLORA
SSP.
CARLSONII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
PLATYPHYLLA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
RECTA)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
REMYI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
SHIPMANII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
STICTOPHYLLA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
GIFFARDII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Gesneriaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
LIMAHULIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Gesneriaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HALA
PEPE
(
PLEOMELE
HAWAIIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:
170
Habitat:

HAPLOSTACHYS
HAPLOSTACHYA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAU
KAUHIWI
(
HIBISCADELPHUS
WOODI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAU
KUAHIWI
(
HIBISCADELPHUS
DISTANS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAWK,
HAWAIIAN
(
IO)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HEAU
(
EXOCARPOS
LUTEOLUS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Santalaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HEDYOTIS
ST.­
JOHNII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rubiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HESPEROMANNIA
LYDGATEI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HIBISCUS,
CLAY'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HILO
ISCHAEMUM
(
ISCHAEMUM
BYRONE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HOLEI
(
OCHROSIA
KILAUEAENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apocynaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ILIAU
(
WILKESIA
HOBDYI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KAMAKAHALA
(
LABORDIA
LYDGATEI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Loganiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KAMAKAHALA
(
LABORDIA
TINIFOLIA
VAR.
WAHIAWAEN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
171
Family:
Loganiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KAUILA
(
COLUBRINA
OPPOSITIFOLIA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rhamnaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KAULU
(
PTERALYXIA
KAUAIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apocynaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KIO'ELE
(
HEDYOTIS
CORIACEA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rubiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KIPONAPONA
(
PHYLLOSTEGIA
RACEMOSA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
DRYNARIOIDES)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
KAUAIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KOKI'O
KE'OKE'O
(
HIBISCUS
WAIMEAE
SSP.
HANNER
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KOLEA
(
MYRSINE
LINEARIFOLIA)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Myrsinaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KO'OLOA'ULA
(
ABUTILON
MENZIESII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KUAWAWAENOHU
(
ALSINIDENDRON
LYCHNOIDES)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LAU'EHU
(
PANICUM
NIIHAUENSE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
HAWAIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Plantaginaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
172
LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
PRINCEPS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Plantaginaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LAULIHILIHI
(
SCHIEDEA
STELLARIOIDES)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LIPOCHAETA
VENOSA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOBELIA
NIIHAUENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
AFFINIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Arecaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
NAPALIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Arecaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
SCHATTAUERI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Arecaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
VISCOSA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Arecaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LYSIMACHIA
FILIFOLIA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Primulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MAHOE
(
ALECTRYON
MACROCOCCUS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sapindaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MAKOU
(
PEUCEDANUM
SANDWICENSE)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MA'O
HAU
HELE
(
HIBISCUS
BRACKENRIDGEI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MA'OLI'OLI
(
SCHIEDEA
APOKREMNOS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:
173
Habitat:

MAPELE
(
CYRTANDRA
CYANEOIDES)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Gesneriaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MARISCUS
FAURIEI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cyperaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MARISCUS
PENNATIFORMIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cyperaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MEHAMEHAME
(
FLUEGGEA
NEOWAWRAEA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MOORHEN,
HAWAIIAN
COMMON
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Rallidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MUNROIDENDRON
RACEMOSUM
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Araliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NANI
WAI'ALE'ALE
(
VIOLA
KAUAENSIS
VAR.
WAHIAW
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
FAURIEI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
MICRANTHA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
WAIMEAENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NERAUDIA
OVATA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Urticaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NERAUDIA
SERICEA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Urticaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NOHOANU
(
GERANIUM
MULTIFLORUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
174
Family:
Geraniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NUKU
PU'U
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
RIVULARIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
UNDULATA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
DREPANOMORPHA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
LINDSEYANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PELEANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PYRULARIA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHAI
(
SESBANIA
TOMENTOSA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OLULU
(
BRIGHAMIA
INSIGNIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
O'O,
KAUAI
(='
A'A)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Meliphagidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
O'U
(
HONEYCREEPER)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PALILA
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
175
PETREL,
HAWAIIAN
DARK­
RUMPED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Procellariidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
KNUDSENII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
VELUTINA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
WAIMEAE
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
WARSHAUERI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
WAWRANA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLATANTHERA
HOLOCHILA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Orchidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POA
SIPHONOGLOSSA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PO'E
(
PORTULACA
SCLEROCARPA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Portulacaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POPOLO
'
AIAKEAKUA
(
SOLANUM
SANDWICENSE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Solanaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POPOLO
KU
MAI
(
SOLANUM
INCOMPLETUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Solanaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PU'UKA'A
(
CYPERUS
TRACHYSANTHOS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cyperaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

REMYA
KAUAIENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:
176
Habitat:

REMYA
MONTGOMERYI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SCHIEDEA
HELLERI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SCHIEDEA
KAUAIENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SCHIEDEA
MEMBRANACEA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SCHIEDEA
NUTTALLII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SCHIEDEA
SPERGULINA
VAR.
LEIOPODA
(
NCN)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SCHIEDEA
SPERGULINA
VAR.
SPERGULINA
(
NCN)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SEAL,
HAWAIIAN
MONK
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Phocidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SHEARWATER,
NEWELL'S
TOWNSEND'S
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Procellariidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILENE
HAWAIIENSIS
(
NCN)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILENE
LANCEOLATA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILVERSWORD,
KA'U
(
ARGYROXIPHIUM
KAUENSE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILVERSWORD,
MAUNA
KEA
('
AHINAHINA)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
177
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPERMOLEPIS
HAWAIIENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
(
parsley)
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STENOGYNE
ANGUSTIFOLIA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STENOGYNE
CAMPANULATA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STILT,
HAWAIIAN
(=
AE'O)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Recurvirostridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TETRAMOLOPIUM
ARENARIUM
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

THRUSH,
LARGE
KAUAI
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Muscicapidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

THRUSH,
SMALL
KAUAI
(
PUAIOHI)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Muscicapidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

UHIUHI
(
CAESALPINIA
KAVAIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VETCH,
HAWAIIAN
(
VICIA
MENZIESII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VIGNA
O­
WAHUENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VIOLA
HELENAE
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WAHINE
NOHO
KULA
(
ISODENDRION
PYRIFOLIUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
178
WAWAE'IOLE
(
PHLEGMARIURUS
(=
HUPERZIA)
MANNII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lycopodiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

XYLOSMA
CRENATUM
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Flacourtiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Sugarcane
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Sugarcane
for
seed
(
184),
Sugarcane
for
sugar
(
185),
Sugarcane
not
harvested
(
186)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

Florida
(
35)

ASTER,
FLORIDA
GOLDEN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BANKCLIMBER,
PURPLE
Threatened
Critical
Clam
Family:
Unionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CARACARA,
AUDUBON'S
CRESTED
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Falconidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GOOSEBERRY,
MICCOSUKEE
(
FLORIDA)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Saxifragaceae
Medium:
Diet:
179
Habitat:

GOURD,
OKEECHOBEE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cucurbitaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JACQUEMONTIA,
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Convolvulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JAY,
FLORIDA
SCRUB
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Corvidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KITE,
EVERGLADE
SNAIL
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LEAD­
PLANT,
CRENULATE
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
Marine
MILKPEA,
SMALL'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MOCCASINSHELL,
GULF
Endangered
Critical
Clam
Family:
Unionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PANTHER,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PAWPAW,
FOUR­
PETAL
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Annonaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PIGTOE,
OVAL
Endangered
Critical
Clam
Family:
Unionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PINKROOT,
GENTIAN
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Loganiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
180
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POCKETBOOK,
SHINY­
RAYED
Endangered
Critical
Clam
Family:
Unionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POLYGALA,
TINY
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Polygalaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SALAMANDER,
FLATWOODS
Threatened
Critical
Amphibian
Family:
Ambystomatidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SAWFISH,
SMALLTOOTH
Endangered
Critical
Fish
Family:
Pristidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
Estuarine
SEAGRASS,
JOHNSON'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Hydrocharitaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SLABSHELL,
CHIPOLA
Threatened
Critical
Clam
Family:
Unionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPARROW,
CAPE
SABLE
SEASIDE
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Emberizidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPARROW,
FLORIDA
GRASSHOPPER
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Emberizidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPURGE,
DELTOID
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPURGE,
GARBER'S
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STORK,
WOOD
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Ciconiidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Critical
Fish
Family:
Acipenseridae
Medium:
Diet:
invertivore
Habitat:
Estuarine
181
TORREYA,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Taxaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Hawaii
(
75)

ACHYRANTHES
MUTICA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Amaranthaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
DIPETALUM
VAR.
TOMENTOSUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
HAWAIIENSE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
BREVIFLORUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Solanaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AKEPA,
HAWAII
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AKIA
POLA'AU
(
HEMIGNATHUS
MUNROI)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ALANI
(
MELICOPE
ZAHLBRUCKNERI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rutaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
ANUNU
(
SICYOS
ALBA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cucurbitaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

ASPLENIUM
FRAGILE
VAR.
INSULARE
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Aspleniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
HOSAKAE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
182
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
AWIWI
(
HEDYOTIS
COOKIANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rubiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BAT,
HAWAIIAN
HOARY
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

BONAMIA
MENZIESII
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Convolvulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

COOT,
HAWAIIAN
(=
ALAE
KEO
KEO)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Rallidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CREEPER,
HAWAII
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CROW,
HAWAIIAN
('
ALALA)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Corvidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DIELLIA
ERECTA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Aspleniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

DUCK,
HAWAIIAN
(
KOLOA)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Anatidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

FERN,
PENDANT
KIHI
(
ADENOPHORUS
PERIENS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Grammitidaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

GOOSE,
HAWAIIAN
(
NENE)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Anatidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
COPELANDII
SSP.
COPELANDII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
HAMATIFLORA
SSP.
CARLSONII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
183
HAHA
(
CYANEA
PLATYPHYLLA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
SHIPMANII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAHA
(
CYANEA
STICTOPHYLLA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
GIFFARDII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Gesneriaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HALA
PEPE
(
PLEOMELE
HAWAIIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Liliaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAPLOSTACHYS
HAPLOSTACHYA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HAWK,
HAWAIIAN
(
IO)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HILO
ISCHAEMUM
(
ISCHAEMUM
BYRONE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Poaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HOLEI
(
OCHROSIA
KILAUEAENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apocynaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KAUILA
(
COLUBRINA
OPPOSITIFOLIA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rhamnaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KIO'ELE
(
HEDYOTIS
CORIACEA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Rubiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KIPONAPONA
(
PHYLLOSTEGIA
RACEMOSA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
DRYNARIOIDES)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:
184
Habitat:

KO'OLOA'ULA
(
ABUTILON
MENZIESII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
HAWAIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Plantaginaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LIPOCHAETA
VENOSA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
AFFINIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Arecaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
SCHATTAUERI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Arecaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MA'O
HAU
HELE
(
HIBISCUS
BRACKENRIDGEI)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Malvaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MARISCUS
FAURIEI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cyperaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MARISCUS
PENNATIFORMIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Cyperaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MEHAMEHAME
(
FLUEGGEA
NEOWAWRAEA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NERAUDIA
OVATA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Urticaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NERAUDIA
SERICEA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Urticaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

NOHOANU
(
GERANIUM
MULTIFLORUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Geraniaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
UNDULATA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
185
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
DREPANOMORPHA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
LINDSEYANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PELEANA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PYRULARIA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Campanulaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
OHAI
(
SESBANIA
TOMENTOSA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

'
O'U
(
HONEYCREEPER)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PALILA
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Fringillidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PETREL,
HAWAIIAN
DARK­
RUMPED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Procellariidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
VELUTINA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PHYLLOSTEGIA
WARSHAUERI
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PO'E
(
PORTULACA
SCLEROCARPA)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Portulacaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

POPOLO
KU
MAI
(
SOLANUM
INCOMPLETUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Solanaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
186
SEAL,
HAWAIIAN
MONK
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Phocidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SHEARWATER,
NEWELL'S
TOWNSEND'S
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Procellariidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILENE
HAWAIIENSIS
(
NCN)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILENE
LANCEOLATA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Caryophyllaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILVERSWORD,
KA'U
(
ARGYROXIPHIUM
KAUENSE)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SILVERSWORD,
MAUNA
KEA
('
AHINAHINA)
Threatened
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

SPERMOLEPIS
HAWAIIENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Apiaceae
(
parsley)
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STENOGYNE
ANGUSTIFOLIA
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lamiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STILT,
HAWAIIAN
(=
AE'O)
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Recurvirostridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

TETRAMOLOPIUM
ARENARIUM
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

UHIUHI
(
CAESALPINIA
KAVAIENSIS)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VETCH,
HAWAIIAN
(
VICIA
MENZIESII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

VIGNA
O­
WAHUENSIS
(
NCN)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Fabaceae
Medium:
Diet:
187
Habitat:

WAHINE
NOHO
KULA
(
ISODENDRION
PYRIFOLIUM)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Violaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WAWAE'IOLE
(
PHLEGMARIURUS
(=
HUPERZIA)
MANNII)
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Lycopodiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Louisiana
(
9)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

HEELSPLITTER,
INFLATED
Threatened
Critical
Clam
Family:
Unionidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PEARLSHELL,
LOUISIANA
Threatened
Critical
Clam
Family:
Margaritiferidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Pelicanidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

STURGEON,
GULF
Threatened
Critical
Fish
Family:
Acipenseridae
Medium:
Diet:
invertivore
Habitat:
Estuarine
STURGEON,
PALLID
Endangered
Critical
Fish
Family:
Acipenseridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

WOODPECKER,
RED­
COCKADED
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Picidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

Texas
(
11)

AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
188
Family:
Asteraceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

AYENIA,
TEXAS
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Sterculiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

CURLEW,
ESKIMO
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Scolopacidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

EAGLE,
BALD
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Accipitridae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

FALCON,
NORTHERN
APLOMADO
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Falconidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

MANIOC,
WALKER'S
Endangered
Critical
Plant
Family:
Euphorbiaceae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

OCELOT
Endangered
Critical
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PELICAN,
BROWN
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Pelicanidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:

PLOVER,
MOUNTAIN
Threatened
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:
insectivore
Habitat:
Terrestrial
PLOVER,
PIPING
Endangered
Critical
Bird
Family:
Charadriidae
Medium:
Diet:

Habitat:
189
