### Ecological Risk Assessment for the Section 3 New Chemical

Registration of Ametoctradin (BAS 650 F)

CAS: 865318

- 97

- 4

U.S. EPA PC Code: 119210

DP Barcode: 392115

Team Members

Anita Ullagaddi, Biologist

Faruque K han, Senior Fate Scientist

Peer Reviewers

Michael Lowit, Ec ologist

Stephen Wente, Biologist

ERB1 Branch Chief

Nancy Andrews

Date of Approval

September 30 , 20112 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

1. 1 Proposed Use Patterns

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 4

1.2 Potential Risks to Non

- target Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

1.3 Conclusions: Exposure Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6

1.4 Conclusions: Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7

1.5 Data Gaps

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 7

1.6 Significant Uncertainties

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 7

2 Problem Formulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

2.1 Nature of Regulatory Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8

2.2 M ode of Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9

2.3 Overview of Proposed Pesticide Use

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9

2.4 Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 9

2.4.1 Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 9

2.4.2 Ecosystems Potent ially at Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 9

2.4.3 Ecological Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

2.5 Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10

2.5.1 Risk Hypotheses

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10

2.5.2 Conceptual Diagram

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10

2.6 Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14

2.6.1 Measures of Effect and Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 14

2.6.2 Data Gaps

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

3 Exposure Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 16

3.1 Use Character ization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 16

3.2 Exposure Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 16

3.2.1 Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

................................ ................................ .............. 16

3.2.2 Aquatic Exposure Estimates for Ametoctradin

................................ ................................ ......................... 22

3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposures

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 29

3.2.4 Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plant Exposures

................................ ................................ ........................ 31

4 Ecological Effects Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 32

4.1 Aquatic Effects Summa ry

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 32

4.2 Terrestrial Effects Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 37

4.2.1 Toxic Effects on Birds

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 37

4.2.2 Toxic Effects on Mammals

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 38

4.2.3 Toxic Effects on Invert ebrates

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 39

4.2.4 Toxic Effects on Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 403 5 Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 40

5.1 Risk Estimation: Integration of Exposure and Effects Data

................................ ................................ ..... 41

5.1.1 Non

- target Aquatic Fish, Invertebrates, and Plants

................................ ................................ ................. 41

5.1.2 Non

- target Terrestrial Animals

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 45

5.1.3 Terrestrial and Semi

- aquatic Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46

5.2 Risk Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47

5.2.1 Risks of Ametoctradin to Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ........................... 47

5.2.2 Risks of Ametoctradin to Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ...................... 49

5.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Concern

................................ ................................ ......................... 50

5.3.1 Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 50

5.3.2 Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk: Direct Effects

................................ ................................ ............. 51

5.3.3 Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the Endangered Species Levels of

Concern

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 52

5.3.4 Indirect Effects Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 52

6 Description of Assumptions and Limitations

................................ ................................ ................................ . 52

6.1 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure fo r all Taxa

................................ ............................... 52

6.2 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Terrestrial Species

................................ .............. 53

6.3 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Aquatic Species

................................ ................... 55

6.4 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Effects Assessment

................................ ................................ .... 55

7 Literature Cited

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 57

Appendix A. Environmental Fate Data

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 60

Appendix B. Aquatic Modeling

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 68

Appendix C. Example T

- REX Output

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 79

Appendix D. TerrPlant Output

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 80

Appendix E. RQ Methods and LOC Definitions

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 81

Appendix F. Toxicity Data fo r Terrestrial Invertebrates Other Than the Honey Bee

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

Appendix G. LOCATES Output

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 854 

### 1 Executive Summary

1.1 Proposed Use Patterns

BASF is seeking registration for ametoctradin

, also known as BAS 650 F or Initium

, which is a

fung icide that is a strong inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration in complex III (cytochrome bc1)

of Oomycetes fungi

. It is classified as a Group C8 fungicide by the Fungicide Resistance Action

Committee (FRAC) , and the exact binding site is not yet known. Ametoctradin has been

submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA or the Agency) for

registration under a global joint review agreement. Participating countries include Canada

(PMRA), Australia (APV MA), and New Zealand (EPA/ERMA).

Ametoctradin , formulated into the products BAS 650 00 F, Zampro, and Orvego, is proposed for

use on Brassica leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables,

grapes, hops, leafy vegetables, tu berous and corm vegetables, ornamentals, and golf courses.

BAS 650 00 F contains ametoctradin only (19.2% a.i.), while Zampro and Orvego contain

ametoctradin (26.9% a.i.) and dimethomorph (20.2% a.i.). Zampro and Orvego are referred to as

BAS 651 00 F thro ughout this assessment. Table 1.1 contains maximum proposed application

rates, which were assessed in this document

. It is important to note that for all crops (excluding

ornamentals and golf courses), only two sequential applications are allowed; a fungic ide with a

different mode of action should be used in between the second and third applications for

resistance management purposes. Because the label did not specify whether the use of a different

fungicide increases the interval between the second and thi rd applications, the Environmental

Fate and Effects Division ( EFED ) c onservatively assumed that the interval did not increase.

Table 1

. 1. Maximum Application Rates from the Proposed Ametoctradin Labels

Product Use Application Method Application Rate

(I nterval between

Applications) * Maximum

Application Rate/

Year

BAS 650 00 F

(ametoctradin only ;

19.2% )

Zampro ^

(ametoctradin ; 26.9% &

dimethomorph ; 20.2% ) Brassica leafy

vegetables Ground sprayer

Aerial equipment

Sprinkler /drip irrigation 3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(7 days) 0.822 lb a.i./acre

Bulb vegetables

Cucurbit

vegetables

Fruiting vegetables

Leafy vegetables

Tuberous and corm

vegetables Ground sprayer

Aerial equipment

Sprinkler /drip irrigation 3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(5 days) 0.822 lb a.i./a cre

Grapes Ground sprayer

Aerial equipment

Sprinkler /drip irrigation 4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(7 days) 1.096 lb a.i./acre

Hops Ground sprayer

Aerial equipment

Sprinkler /drip irrigation 3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10 days) 0.822 lb a.i./acre5 Table 1

. 1. Maximum Application Rates from the Proposed Ametoctradin Labels

Product Use Application Method Application Rate

(I nterval between

Applications) * Maximum

Application Rate/

Year

Orvego ^

(ametoctradin; 26.9% &

dimethomorph; 20.2%) Field

- and

container

- grown

woody and

herbaceous

ornamentals

Golf courses

Residential and

commercial

landscapes

Greenhouses Foliar spray

Soil surface spray or

drench

Chemigation 4 apps @ 0.27 4 lb a.i./acre **

(1 0 days) 1.096 lb a.i./acre **

* Only 2 sequential applications allowed. A fungicide with a different mode of action must be used between the second and third

applications. Due to the absence of label statements, EFED conservatively concludes that the applic ation interval between the

second and third application does not increase.

**The label states that the single application rate is 0.468 lb a.i. ; EFED assumed this was total a.i. for both ametoctradin and

dimethomorph based on information on the first page of the label.

^Zampro and Orvego are referred to as BAS 651 00 F throught this assessment.

1.2 Potential Risks to Non

- target Organisms

A screening

- level risk assessment suggests that ametoctradin presents potential risks to listed

non

- vascular aquatic plants and to organisms that depend on these plants for habitat and forage

as a result of some of the proposed uses ( bulb vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting

vegetables, tuberous and corm vegetables, and grapes )

. However, it shou ld be noted that there

are currently no non

- vascular aquatic plants identified as en dangered or threatened, but species

may be identified in the future.

Listed Species

Based on available screening level information, for some of the proposed uses of ameto ctradin

(bulb vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, tuberous and corm vegetables, and

grapes) , there is a potential for direct effects to listed non

- vascular aquatic plants

. In conducting

a screen for indirect effects, direct effect levels of concern ( LOCs ; see Appendix E ) for each

taxonomic group are used 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 c ycle. However, because non

- vascular aquatic plants may be directly affected

only at a level of concern for listed species

, indirect effects to other listed taxa should be

identified only if there is a one to one obligate relationship between the listed spe cies in another

tax a and a species of non

- vascular plant on which it dir ectly relies. Because no listed non

vascular aquatic plants have been identified and it is impossible to then predict the species that

may be indirectly affected, the indirect effects identified in this assessment are very conservative;

it is highly unlikely that all species in all taxa identified for indirect effects will actually be

affected. A summary of the risk conclusions and direct and indirect eff ects determinations is

presente d in Table 1. 2

.6 Table 1.2. Potential Listed S pecies Risks A ssociated with Direct or I ndirect E ffects

D ue to the Proposed A pplications of Ametoctradin

Listed Taxonomy Direct Effects Indirect Effects

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants

–

monocots No No

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants

– dicots No No

Terrestrial invertebrates No No

Birds (surrogate for terrestrial

- phase

amphibians and reptiles) No No

Mammals No No

Aquatic vascular plants No Yes*

Aquatic non

- vascular plants Yes+ Yes*

Freshwater f ish (surrogate for aquatic

phase amphibians) No Yes*

Freshwater Invertebrates No Yes*

Freshwater Benthic Invertebrates Acute

– No ^

Chronic

– No Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Benthic Invertebrates Acute

– No

Chronic

– No ^ Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute

– No

C hronic

– No^ Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Crustaceans Acute

– No

Chronic

– No^ Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Mollusks No Yes*

+No aquatic non

- vascular plants have been designated as endangered or threatened; however, the potential

for risk to these organisms exists.

* For indirect effects, all aquatic taxa have been identified due to the potential direct effects on listed non

vascular aquatic plants. However, any species identified for potential indirect effects would require an

obligate relationship with the directly a ffected listed non

- vascular aquatic plant. Because there are no listed

non

- vascular aquatic plants, the taxa identified for indirec t effects are very conservative assumption s.

^While data were not submitted, a weight of evidence approach was used to discou nt potential risks to these

taxa.

Incidents

No incidents have been reported, which is to be expected as ametoctradin is a new chemical.

1.3 Conclusions: Exposure Characterization

Ametoctradin is a non

- volatile (vapor pressure of 4.5 x 10

- 12 mm H g at 25°C) compound and

sparingly soluble (0.1 5 mg/L at 2 0 °C) in water. Its major routes of degradation are aerobic

biodegradation in terrestrial environment s and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation in aquatic

environment s

. The parent compound is expected to d egrade with a half

- life of less than 1 to 4

weeks in aerobic environments and anaerobic water bodies and a half

- life of several months in

anaerobic soils. The transformation of ametoctradin is governed by microbial decomposition in

soil and water , proceedi ng primarily via oxidative cleavage of the n

- octyl side chain, forming

major transformation products with successively shorter octyl side chains: M650F01, M650F02,

M650F03

, and M650F04; and CO 2

. Ametoctradin tends to adsorb strongly to soil and sediment

(K FOC = 1580

- 6620 L/ K g) and is expected to be slightly mobile to hardly mobile according to

FAO mobility classifications (FAO, 2000). Exposure of ametoctradin in the environment is7 expected to occur predominantly via spray drift and runoff of dissolved degra dates and parent

residues sorbed to suspended sediment.

1.4 Conclusions: Effects Characterization

The acute and chronic toxicity of ametoctradin was determined for a variety of aquatic algal,

invertebrate and fish species. Acute and/or chronic toxicity st udies were also conducted on

selected species with the end

- use products BAS 650 00 F (ametoctradin only; 19.2%) and BAS

651 00 F (ametoctradin; ~27 % & dimethomorph; ~20 %), as well as the transformation products

M650F01, M650F02, M650F03

, and M650F04. With the exception of the aquatic plant and

chronic freshwater fish and invertebrate studies where significant effects were observed, the

studies did not produce definitive endpoints ( i.e., EC 50 /LC 50 s were greater than the highest

concentration tested).

Seven teen studies were submitted that evaluated the effects of ametoctradin to terrestrial non

target organisms. In general, ametoctradin was practically non

- toxic to birds, mammals,

invertebrates, and plants, and chronic effects were not observed.

1.5 Data Gap s

No environmental f ate data gap s were identified

. However, a key requirement of taxonomic soil

classification based on Soil Taxonomy or World Reference Base for Soil Resources was not

provided for the soils used in various environmental fate studies and i s considered as a

deficiency.

Chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate and fish studies were identified as data gaps prior to

beginning this ecological risk assessment. However, BASF submitted a waiver request. Because

differential acute toxicity between med ia types was not evident in the acute mysid shrimp and

sheepshead minnow studies and the observed effects in the chronic freshwater studies did not

cause RQs to exceed LOCs, EFED concurs that the studies may be waived for the currently

proposed uses (DP 38 3243; September 30

, 2011). Chronic risks to estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates are unlikely, and the submission of additional data is unlikely to change the risk

conclusion.

A 10

- day estuarine/marine sediment toxicity study was submitted, along with a chronic

freshwater sediment toxicity study. Both studies tested a formulated product rather than the

technical grade active ingredient, as required by 40 CFR Part 158 data requirements. However,

additional studies utilizing the TGAI, as well as a 10

- day freshwater study and a chronic

estuarine/marine study, are unlikely to add value to the ecological risk assessment or change risk

conclusions (see Section 5.2.1 ).

1.6 Significant Uncertainties

A lthough no acute oral or contact toxicity was observed in t he honey bee studies, there is

uncertainty as to how fungicides interact with insecticides and whether fungicides may disrupt

the process of fermentation of pollen stores , which may have significant effects on honey bee

nutrition and health (Alarcon et al.

, 2009). W hile EFED does not have a quantitative method for8 assessing potential risk of this nature, additional studies evaluating the effects of ametoctradin on

honey bee health may be of value. Considering this and the toxicity data for the predatory was p

(see Section 5.2.2 ), an appropriate exposure reduction strategy may be to restrict applications of

ametoctradin during bloom.

Aquatic organisms were not tested up to 100 mg/L (see OCSPP 850.1000 guideline for details)

due to the low solubility of ameto ctradin (0.150 mg/L). Therefore, aquatic organisms were tested

at concentrations up to the functional solubility of the chemical in laboratory test media.

Attempts were made to create saturated solutions through the use of glass wool and saturator

columns. For aquatic plants, suspensions were centrifuged prior to test initiation. Test solutions

were visually confirmed to be clear and free of precipitate during the studies, and concentrations

were generally maintained throughout the studies, as evidenced by high recovery rates. However,

the uncertainty that the functional solubility of the chemical may increase in certain

environmental conditions ( e.g., tank mixture) remains and, if this is the case, could potentially

result in risk to aquatic organisms not p redicted in this assessment. The likelihood of the

assessment underestimating risks to aquatic organisms is low because RQs were not close to

LOCs and the high K f oc for ametoctradin suggests that it is not likely to remain dissolved in

water for a long per iod of time.



### 2 Problem Formulation

2.1 Nature of Regulatory Action

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the environmental fate and ecological risks for the

registration of the new chemical ametoctradin. U.S. EPA is required under the Federal

Insec ticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to ensure that ametoctradin does not have

the potential to cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment based on its proposed uses

(see Table 1.1 ) . Potential effects to listed species ( i.e ., species on the Federal list of endangered

and threatened wildlife and plants) are also considered under the Endangered Species Act in

order to ensure that the registration of ametoctradin is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of such listed species or adversely modify their habitat. To these ends, this assessment

follows U.S. EPA guidance on conducting ecological risk assessments (U.S. EPA, 1998) and the

Office of Pesticide Program’s policies for assessing risk to non

- target and listed organisms (U.S.

E PA, 2004).

Among the end products of the U.S. EPA pesticide registration process is a determination of

whether a product is eligible for registration and, if so, an enforceable description of how the

product may be used. A label represents the legal docu ment

, which stipulates how and where a

given pesticide may be used. End

- use labels describe the formulation type, acceptable methods

of application, where the product may be applied, and any restrictions on how applications may

be conducted. Thus, the use , or potential use, described by the pesticide’s labels is considered

“the action” being assessed.9 2.2 Mode of Action

A metoctradin belongs to the C8 class of fungicides (FRAC code 45 1

2.3 Overview of Proposed Pesticide Us e ) , but the binding site is

unknown. Ametoctradin is a strong inhibitor o f mitochondrial respiration in complex III

(cytochrome bc1) of Oomycetes fungi.

Am etoctradin has been proposed for use on vegetables, grapes, hops

, ornamentals, and golf

courses (see Table 1. 1 ) to control downy milde w, Phytophthora blight or crown rot, and late

blight

. The proposed use areas are found throughout the United States and can not be limited to a

geographic region. Because ametoctradin is a new chemical, usage data do not yet exist.

2.4 Receptors

2.4.1 Aqu atic and Terrestrial Effects

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (U.S. EPA, 1998 )

. Consistent

with the process described in the Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004), this risk assessment

uses a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of am etoctradin . T oxicological data generated

from surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups,

are used to extrapolate to potential effects on a variety of species (recepto rs) included under

these taxonomic groupings.

A cute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pest icide registrants along with any

available open literature are used to evaluate the potential direct effects of ametoctradin to the

aquatic and te rrestrial receptors identified in this section. This includes toxicity data on the

technical grade active ingredient, degradates, and when available, formulated prod ucts ( e.g.

, “Six

- Pack” studies). The open literature studies are identified through U.S. EP A ’s publicly

available ECOTOX database ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ ), which employs a literature search

engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terr estrial plants, and wildlife. The

evaluati on of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects of

am etoctradin on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemical and

from changes in structure and functional c haracteristics of the affec ted communities.

2.4 .2 Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; as a result, it may not be possible to identify

specific ecosystems during the development of a baseline risk assessment. However, in general

terms , terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include the treated field and areas

immediately adjacent to the treated field that may receive drift or runoff. Areas adjacent to the

treated field could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow fields or

grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats and other uncultivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include wa ter bodies adjacent to or downstream from the

treated field and might include impounded bodies such as pon ds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing

1 http://www.frac.info/frac/publication/anhang/FRA C%20Code%20List%202011

- final.pdf10 waterways such as streams or rivers. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat also includes

marine ecosystems, including estuaries.

2.4 .3 Ecological Effects

Each assessment endpoint requires one or more “measures of ecological effect,” which are

defined as changes in the attributes of an assessment endpoint itself or changes in a surrogate

entity or attribute in response to exposure to a pesticide. Ecological measurement endpoints for

this risk assessment would be ba sed on toxicity information for ametoctradin in the publicly

available ECOTOX database (if available) and a suite of registrant

- submitted toxicity studies

performed on a limited number of organisms in the following broad groupings:

1. Birds (mallard duck or bobwhite quail and a passerine species ), also used as a surrogate

for terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles

2. M ammals (laboratory rat)

3. Freshwater fish (rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish ), also used as a surroga te for aquatic

phase amphibians

4. Freshwater in vertebrates (daphnid)

5. Estuarine/ marine fish (sheepshead minnow)

6. Estuarine/marine invertebrates (Eastern oyster , mysid shrimp)

7. Terrestri al plants (monocots and dicots)

8. Aquatic plants (vascular and non

- vascular plants)

9. Terres trial invertebrates ( honey bee)

Within each of these very broad taxonomic groups, an acute and chronic endpoint is selected

from the availa ble test data, as the data allow.

2.5 Conceptual Model

A conceptual model provides a written description and visual representation of the predicte d

relationships between ametoctradin , potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects for the

assessment endpoint. A conceptual model consists of two major components: risk hypotheses

and a conceptual diagram (U.S. EPA, 1998).

2.5. 1 Risk Hypotheses

**•** Terrestrial and aquatic organisms are subject to adverse direct effects such as reduced

survival, growth, and fecundity or indirect effects such as habitat, food web dynamics,

perturbing forage or prey availability, and altering the extent and nature of n esting when

exposed to ametoctradin residues as a result of labeled use of the pesticide.

**•** T errestrial, semi

- aquatic, and aquatic plants are subject to adverse effects such as reductions

in vegetative vigor and seedling emergence (terrestrial) or biomass an d growth rate (aquatic)

when exposed to ametoctradin residues as a result of labeled use of the pesticide

.

2.5 .2 Conceptual Diagram

In order for a chemical to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in

biologically significant concentra tions. An exposure pathway is the means by which a11 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 mediu m, a point of exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure.

In addition, the potential mechanisms of transformation ( i.e. , which degradates may form in the

environment, in which media, and how much) must be known, especially for a ch emical whose

metabolites/degradates are of greater toxicological concern. The assessment of ecological

exposure pathways, therefore, includes an examination of the source and potential migration

pathways for constituents, and the determination of potential exposure routes ( e.g. , ingestion,

inhalation, and dermal absorption).

Figure 2 .1. Conceptual Model for Exposure and Effects of Ametoctradin to Aquatic

Organisms. Dotted Lines Indicate Exposure Pathways that Have a Low Lik elihood of

Contributing to Ecological Risk. ** Route of exposure includes only ingestion of fish and aquatic 

### Stressor

Source

Receptors

Attribute

Change Ametoctradin and its degradates applied to proposed use sites

Spray drift

Aquatic animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates

**Piscivorous mammals

and birds

Individual

organisms

Reduced survival

Reduced growth

Reduced reproduction Food chain

Reduction in algae and

vascular plants

Reduction in prey

Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity

Reduction in primary

productivity

Reduced cover

Community change

Modification of PCEs related to

habitat Surface water/

Sediment Runoff

Aquatic Animals

Invertebrates

Vertebrates 

### Exposure

Media

Uptake/gills

or integument

Ingestion Ingestion Atmospheric

transport

Wet/dry deposition Soil Leaching to

Groundwater

Uptake/gills

or integument

Aquatic Pla nts

Non

- vascular

Vascular Uptake/cell,

roots, leaves Riparian plants

terrestrial

exposure

pathways see

Figure 2.212 Figure 2 .2. Conceptual Model for Exposure and Effects of Ametoctradin to Terrestrial

Organisms. Dotted Lines Indicate Exposure Pathways that Have a Low Likelihood of

Contributing to Ecological Risk.

Stressor

Source

Attribute

Change Ametoctradin and its degradates applied to proposed use sites

Direct

application Spray drift

Terrestrial

vertebrates* Terrestrial

Inverts*

Individual

organisms

Reduced survival

Reduced growth Food chain

Reduction in prey and food

Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability H abitat integrity

Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover

Community change

Modification of PCEs related

to habitat Terrestrial plants

grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds

(trees, shrubs) Runoff

Terrestrial

vertebrates* Exposure Media

& Receptors Soil

Ingestion Ingestion Dermal uptake/Ingestion Atmospheric

transport

Root uptake/contact

Wet/dry deposition

In gestion Leaching to

Groundwater Irrigation

water

* See Figure 6.3 for drinking water and inhal ation exposure pathways for terrestrial vertebrates and

ingestion of residues in dew by terrestrial invertebrates

.13 Figure 2.3. Conceptual Model for Drinking Water and Inhalation Exposure Pathways for

Terrestrial Vertebrates and Ingestion of Residues in Dew by Terrestrial Invertebrates.

Dotted Lines Indicate Exposure Pa thways that Have a Low Likelihood of Contributing to

Ecological Risk.

Based on the labels submitted by the registrant, the source and mechanisms of release for

ametoctradin are aerial and/or ground application in the form of suspension concentrates

. The

conceptual model and subsequent analysis of exposure and effects are based on the parent

ametoctradin . Potential emission of volatil e compounds is not considered to be a viable release

mechanism for am etoc trad in

, because Henry’s Law constant ( 3.10 x 10

- 9 a tm•m 3 •mol

- 1 ) suggests

that volatilization is not expected to be a significant route of dissipation for this chemical

(indicated by dashed lines in the diagram). Concentrations of a metoctradin , sorbed to soil, in

surface waters may be relatively high when s ignificant runoff events occur after application

and/or spray drift to water bodies in close proximity to the treatment area occurs. Ametoctradin

is not likely to leach to ground water ; however, the degradates have the potential to reach ground

water. The conceptual model s shown in Figure s 2 .1

, 2.2 , and 2.3 generic ally depict the potential

source of ametoctradin , release mechanisms, abiotic receiving media, and biological receptor

types. Stressor

Source

Attribute

Change Ametoctradin and its degradates applied to proposed use sites

Direct

application Spray drift

Terrestrial

vertebrates Terrestrial

invertebrates

Indivi dual

organisms

Reduced survival

Reduced growth

Reduced reproduction Food chain

Reduction in prey and

food

Modification of PCEs

related to prey availability Habitat integrity

Reduction in primary productivity

Reduced cover

Community change

Modification of PCEs related

to habitat Runoff

Exposure Media Dew (formed on

terrestrial pla nts) Atmospheric

transport

Receptors Puddles (formed

on treated fields)

Ingestion Inhalation Air14 2.6 Analysis Plan

This assessment characterizes the environmental fate and effects of ametoctradin and determines

whether there is potential for risks to non

- target organisms based on the proposed use patterns.

Available environmental fate, ecotoxicity, and physicochemical property data were taken from

studies submitted to the Agency. The environmental fate and effect s studies underwent reviews

to determine their acceptability relative to published U.S. EPA guidelines.

The maximum proposed label application rates for the use of ametoctradin on crops,

ornamentals, and gol f courses were selected for modeling environmental concentrations for this

base

- level deterministic (risk quotient

- based) assessment. The most sensitive toxicity endpoints

from surrogate test species are used to estimate treatment

- related effects on survi val, growth, and

reproduction. Estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) used in terrestrial and aquatic

ecological risk assessments are based on the parent ametoctradin compound

. For terrestrial

organisms, the Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcom mittee ( ROCKS ) of the Health

Effects Division ( US EPA, 2011) determined that none of the degradates were of concern for

mammals; therefore, EFED did not assess potential risk for mammals or birds due to exposure to

the degradates. For aquatic organisms, su bmitted degradate data showed similar or less toxicity;

therefore, EFED did not assess potential risks for aquatic organisms due to exposure to the

degradates. For the aquatic assessment, EECs are initially produced by GENEEC. If LOC

exceedances occur when comparing EECs to th e toxicity values, PRZM/EXAMS would then be

used to refine exposure estimates. For the terrestrial assessment, EECs are produced by T

- REX

and TerrPlant. The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0) provides an upper

- bound estimate

of e xposure of birds and mammals to pesticides through drinking water alone. Due to the low

solubility of ametoctradin, it was not necessary to use SIP. The Screening Tool for Inhalation

Risk (STIR v.1.0) assesses the potential for risk to birds and mammals th rough inhalation

exposure. Due to the low volatility of ametoctradin, it was not necessary to use STIR.

The following sections characterize the use, environmental fate, and ecological effects of

ametoctradin and use the risk quotient approach ( ratio of EE C to toxicity value) to estimate the

potential for adverse effects on non

- target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. This risk quotient

based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood and/or magnitude of an

adverse effect. Such estimat es may be possible through a more refined, probabilistic assessment;

however, they are beyond the scope of this base

- level assessment.

In the event that endpoints from submitted ecotoxicity studies are non

- definitive, the Guidance

for Using Non

- Definitive Endpoints in Evaluating Risks to Listed and Non

- listed Animal

Species memo will be consulted (U

. S

. EPA, 2011).

2.6.1 Measures of Effect and Exposure

Table 2. 2 lists the measures of environmental exposure and ecological effects used to assess the

potenti al risks of ametoctradin to non

- target organisms (U.S. EPA, 2004).15 Table 2

. 2

. Measures of Environmental Exposure and Ecological Effects Used to Assess the

Potential Risks of Ametoctradin to Non

- target Organisms

Assessment Endpoint Measures of Effect Me asures of Exposure

Abundance ( i.e. , survival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and populations of birds Bobwhite quail or mallard duck and

passerine species acute oral LD 50 Bobwhite quail and mallard duck sub

- acute

dietary LC 50 Bobwhite quail and mallard duck chronic

reproduction NOAEC and LOAEC Maximum residues on food

items (foliar)

Abundance ( i.e. , survival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and populations of

mammals Laboratory rat acute oral LD 50 Laboratory rat 2

- generation NOAEC an d

LOAEC

Abundance ( i.e. , surv ival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and communities of

freshwater fish Rainbow trout and bluegill sunfish LC 50 Peak EEC

Rainbow trout and/or bluegill sunfish

NOAEC and LOAEC

60

- day average EEC

Abundance ( i.e. , survival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and communities of

freshwater invertebrates Daphnid E C 50 Peak EEC

Daphnid life cycle NOAEC and LOAEC

21

- day average EEC

Abundance ( i.e. , survival,

reproduction, and growth) of

individuals and comm unities of

estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates Sheepshead minnow acute LC 50 Eastern oyster EC 50 Mysid shrimp LC 50 Peak EEC

Sheepshead minnow NOAEC and LOAEC

Mysid shrimp NOAEC and LOAEC 60

- day average EEC

21

- day average EEC

Survival of beneficial insect

populations Honeybee acute contact LD 50 Not Applicable*

Maintenance and growth of

individuals and populations of

terrestrial plants from standing crop

or biomass Monocot EC 25 and NOAEC values for

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor

(survival and growth rate)

Dicot EC 25 and NOAEC values for seedling

emergence and vegetative vigor (survival and

growth rate) Estimates of runoff and spray

drift to non

- target areas

Maintenance and growth of

individuals and populations of aquatic

plants from sta nding crop or biomass Vascular plant ( i.e. , Lemna) EC 50 and

NOAEC values for growth rate and biomass

measurements

Non

- vascular plant ( i.e. , green algae) EC 50

and NOAEC values for growth rate and

biomass measurements Peak EEC

*EFED does not currently have a method for quantitatively assessing exposure and risk to non

- target terrestrial

invertebrates.

2.6.2 Data Gaps

No environmental fate data gaps were identified. However, a key requirement of taxonomic soil

classification based on Soil Taxonomy or Worl d Reference Base for Soil Resources was not16 provided for the soils used in various environmental fate studies and is considered as a

deficiency.

Chronic estuarine/marine invertebrate and fish studies were identified as data gaps prior to

beginning this ec ological risk assessment. However, BASF submitted a waiver request. Because

differential acute toxicity between media types was not evident in the acute mysid shrimp and

sheepshead minnow studies and the observed effects in the chronic freshwater studies d id not

cause RQs to exceed LOCs, EFED concurs that the studies may be waived for the currently

proposed uses (DP 383243; September 30

, 2011). Chronic risks to estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates are unlikely, and the submission of additional data is un likely to change the risk

conclusion.

A 10

- day estuarine/marine sediment toxicity study was submitted, along with a chronic

freshwater sediment toxicity study. Both studies tested a formulated product rather than the

technical grade active ingredient, as required by 40 CFR Part 158 data requirements. However,

additional studies utilizing the TGAI, as well as a 10

- day freshwater study and a chronic

estuarine/marine study, are unlikely to add value to the ecological risk assessment or change risk

conclusion s (see Section 5.2.1 ).



### 3 Exposure Analysis

3.1 Use Characterization

Ametoctradin, formulated into the products BAS 650 00 F, Zampro, and Orvego, is proposed for

use on vegetables, grapes, hops, ornamentals, and golf courses. BAS 650 00 F contains

ametoctr adin only (19.2% a.i.), while Zampro and Orvego contain ametoctradin (26.9% a.i.) and

dimethomorph (20.2% a.i.) 2

. Table 1.1 contains maximum proposed application rates, which

were assessed in this document. It is important to note that for all crops (exclu ding ornamentals

and golf courses), only two sequential applications are allowed; a fungicide with a different

mode of action should be used in between the second and third applications for resistance

management purposes. Because the label did not specify whether the use of a different fungicide

increases the interval between the second and third applications, EFED conservatively assumed

that the interval did not increase.

3.2 Exposure Assessment

3.2.1 Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Sub mitted environmental fate and transport data was jointly reviewed by all participating

countries. DERs were compiled in the form of a monograph (DP393440).

Ametoctradin is a non

- volatile (vapor pressure of 4.5 x 10

- 12 mm H g at 25°C) compound and

sparingly soluble (0.1 5 mg/L at 2 0 °C) in water. Its major routes of degradation are aerobic

biodegradation in terrestrial environment s and aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation in aquatic

environment s

. The parent compound is expected to degrade with a half

- life of l ess than 1 to 4

2 Zampro and Orvego are referred to as BAS 651 00F in the ecotoxicity section

.17 weeks in aerobic environments and anaerobic water bodies and a half

- life of several months in

anaerobic soils. The transformation of ametoctradin is governed by microbial decomposition in

soil and water , proceeding primarily via oxidative c leavage of the n

- octyl side chain, forming

major transformation products with successively shorter octyl side chains: M650F01, M650F02,

M650F03 and M650F04; and CO 2

. Table A

- 1 in Appendix A provides structures and physico

chemical properties of major and m inor degradates. With sufficient microbial exposure, the

pyrimidine

- carboxylic acid ring structure may be broken

, leading to mineralization to CO 2 and

formation of non

- extractable residues

. N on

- extractable residues made up a significant amount of

recovered radioactive material, with maximum levels ranging from 23.8 to 51.4% in various fate

studies. Ametoctradin tends to adsorb strongly to soil and sediment (K FOC = 1580

- 6620 L/k g)

and is expected to be slightly mobile to hardly mobile according to FAO mobili ty classifications

(FAO, 2000). Therefore, transport of ametoctradin in the environment is expected to occur

predominantly via spray drift and runoff of dissolved degradates and parent residues sorbed to

suspended sediment. Terrestrial field dissipation st udies confirmed that ametoctradin’s mobility

was limited to surface horizons at all sites.

Degradation/Dissipation in Aquatic and Terrestrial Environments

Table 3. 1 summarizes the registrant

- submitted environmental fate and transport properties of

ameto ctradin. The hydrolysis of ametoctradin was stable in buffered aqueous solutions at pH 4,

5, 7

, and 9 at 50°C. Under photolytic conditions at pH 7, degradation slowly occurred (DT 50 = 76.8 days), but no significant metabolites were found. However, low amou nts of oxidation

products (hydroxylation and keto

- formation at the octyl side

- chain) were detected. The photo

degradation of a major degradate, M650F03

, was also determined in sterile buffered water and

natural water. T he estimated environmental DT 50 range s between 11.6 and 35.6 d ays.

Table 3.1. Physical Chemical and Environmental Fate and Chemistry Properties of

Ametoctradin

Parameter Value Reference/Comments

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

PC code 119210

MRID 4770009 Cas No. 865318

- 97

- 4

Chem ical name [1,2,4]triazolo

- [1,5

- a]pyrimidin

- 7

- amine, 5

- ethyl

- 6

- octyl]

Structure

Molecular formula C 15 H 25 N 5

Molecular weight 275.4 g/mol

Relative Density 1.12 g/cm 3 MRID 4770009

Water solubility

(20°C)

Deionized water

pH 4 (Buffer) 0.14 mg/L

0.23 mg/L MRID 4770001218 Table 3.1. Physical Chemical and Environmental Fate and Chemistry Properties of

Ametoctradin

Parameter Value Reference/Comments

p H 7 (Buffer)

pH 9 (Buffer) 0.15 mg/L

0.20 mg/L

Vapor Pressure 1.58 x 10

- 12 mm Hg (20°C)

4.50 x 10

- 12 mm Hg (25°C) MRID 4770009

Henry’s law

constant 3.10 x 10

- 9 atm•m 3 •mol

- 1 (25°C) MRID 47700010

logK OW pH 4 (Buffer)

pH 7 (Buffer)

pH 9 (Buffer) 4.24

4.40

4.18 MRID 47700014

Persistence

Hydrolysis Stable (pH = 4,5,7,9 at 5 0 °C) MRID 47700015

Photolysis Matrix Kinetic

Model a DT 50 (days) DT 90 (days)

Water

@ pH 7.0 SF O b 76.8 255.2 MRID 47700016

Soil

Bruch West SFO Stable MRID 47700120

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism Idaho Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 12.3

9.64

11.4 40.9

192

139

MRID 47700118 Illinois Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 6.89

6.84

6.94 22.9

23.6

22.6

New Jersey Soil SFO

DFO P

IORE 7.07

6.89

7.1 23.5

25.7

23.1

Wisconsin Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 26.6

16.7

18.5 88.5

267

230

Bruch West Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 1.44

1.33

1.28 4.79

7.34

8.06 MRID 47700117

Lufa 5M Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 1.63

1.48

1.45 5.41

8.44

8.12

MRID 47700121

Lu fa 2.2 Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 1.92

1.81

1.77 6.38

7.59

8.3519 Table 3.1. Physical Chemical and Environmental Fate and Chemistry Properties of

Ametoctradin

Parameter Value Reference/Comments

Li 10 Soil SFO

DFOP

IORE 3.36

3.21

3.27 11.2

12.8

12.2

Anaerobic soil

metabolism Bruch West

Soil SFO

IORE 182

683 606

118000 MRID 47700119

47700145

Aerobic aquatic

metabolism Berghauser

Alt rhein

Water

Sediment

Total system SFO

DFOP

SFO 0.69

2.07

1.72 2.29

2.18

5.71

MRID 47700145 Ranschgraben

Water

Sediment

Total system SFO

DFOP

SFO 0.89

2.12

1.51 2.94

7.81

5.01

Anaerobic aquatic

metabolism White Lake

Water

Sediment

Total system IORE

IORE

SFO

DFOP

IORE 1.6

13.8

8.86

7.4

6.83 10.3

22.7

29.4

60.1

58.1 MRID 47700221

Mobility

Batch Equilibrium Soil K f [L/kg] 1/N K f oc [L/kg]

Schifferstadt

(loamy sand) 59.6 0.842 6620

MRID 47700133 LUFA 2.2

(loamy sand) 61.2 0.799 3560

Obihiro

(silty loam) 80.0 0.819 4850

New Jersey

(loam) 44.7 0.751 4060

1680

(loamy sand) 38.0 0.773 4320

LUFA 3A

(loam) 72.8 0.810 2250

Studernheim

(sandy loam) 23.9 0.718 1580

California

(sandy loam ) 14.2 0.677 4060

Laboratory

volatility NA Volatility not likely based on

low vapor pressure

Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field

dissipation Location Kinetic

Model DT 50 (d) DT 90 (d)

Ontario SFO 4.2 14.0

MRID 47700127 Illinois SFO 1.1 3.8

Florida SFO 5.0 16.5

California DFOS 1.6 19.5 MRID 47700106 Washington FOMC 0. 4 4.2

Bioaccumulation20 Table 3.1. Physical Chemical and Environmental Fate and Chemistry Properties of

Ametoctradin

Parameter Value Reference/Comments

Accumulation in

fish, BCF Edible tissues: 3.9

- 4.5X

Inedible tissues: 186

- 190X

Whole Fish: 148

- 149X MRID 47700165

a SFO = Single first

- order, DFOP = Double first

- order in parallel, DFOS = Double first

- order in Series,

FOMC = First Order multi compartment, IORE = I ntermediate

- order rate equation

b Bolded kinetic models are the best described dissipation/degradation patterns based on the model with the lowest

model error (%) and/or the least bias in residuals of regression data points.

In a erobic aquatic sediment systems, ametoctradin rapidly d issipated under dark condition s, and

M650F01, M650F02, M650F03, and M650F04 were the major metabolites. Dissipation times

( DT 50 v alues) in the total system were 1.5

– 1.7 days ( ametoctradin ), 3.1

– 4.9 days (M650F01),

17.1

– 33.5 days (M650F02)

, and 377

– 479 days (M650F03). In water, DT 50 values were 0.7

– 0.9 days ( ametoctradin ), 3.2

– 3.4 days (M650F01), 14

– 17.2 days (M650F02)

, and 226

– 328

days (M650F03). In the sediment, DT 50 values for ametoctradin were 1.9

– 2.2 days. In an

anaerobic aquatic sedim ent system, ametoctradin also readily degraded with DT 50 of total system

of 7.4 days

, and M650F01 and M650F03 were the major metabolites. Dissipation/d egradation of

M650F01, M650F02, M650F03, and M650F04 are provided in Table A

- 2 in Appendix A

. Figure A

- 1 in Appendix A shows the p roposed route of degradation of ametoctradin in

water/sediment systems.

Under aerobic conditions, ametoctradin degraded rapidly in four different US soils (1 sandy

loam, 2 loam, and 1 loamy sand), with DT 50 values ranging from 6.8 4 to 26.6 days and

corresponding DT 90 values ranging from 22.6 to 267 days . In four other European soils (2 sandy

loam and 2 loamy sand), the DT 50 values of ametoctradin ranged from 1.33 to 3.36 days and

corresponding DT 90 values ranging from 4.79 to 12.8 days

. Ametoctradin underwent an initial

rapid period of biotransformation over the first 0

- 6 days, followed by a slower degradation

period. Degradation rates were best described using double first

- order in parallel (DFOP) or

single first

- order (SFO) kineti cs models. Figure A

- 2 in Appendix A d e p i ct s the proposed

metabolic transformation pathway of ametoctradin in soil

.

Several metabolites were formed at levels greater than 10% via microbial processes. The

oxidation of the aliphatic side chain produced M650F 01, M650F02, M650F03, and M650F04.

These metabolites were observed at levels greater than 10% TAR in all soils, but declined over

time. In soil treated with [ 14 C]

- ametoctradin, 14 CO 2 was found at levels up to 65.7% TAR,

demonstrating further degradation o f the low molecular weight components. Non

- extractable

residues reached maximum levels of 51.4% TAR by the end of the 365

- day study. Under

anaerobic conditions, ametoctradin dissipated in soil with a DT 50 value of 683 days. This

dissipation during the anae robic phase is mainly due to the formation of bound residues since no

mineralization was observed and the formation of metabolites was negligible.

The degradation rates of the ametoctradin transformation products

, M650F03 and M650F04

,

were also determine d in four aerobic soils (three European and one U.S. soil) ranging from sand

to loam conditions (Table A

- 3 , Appendix A ) . M650F03 was slightly persistent to moderately

persistent under the conditions of the study, with DT 50 s ranging between 29 and 75 days a nd21 DT 90 between 96 and 249 days. The only major transformation product, M650F04, continued to

accumulate to the end of the study period (120 DAT), which is consistent with the parent studies.

Ametoctradin degrade s in soil with and without the presence of light. The rate of transformation

was slower under irradiation than in the dark control, indicating that irradiation does not enhance

transformation of ametoctradin in soil. A phototransformation half

- life could not be determined.

Phototransformation of am etoctradin is not considered a route of dissipation in the environment.

Two terrestrial field studies with a total of five sites were designed to evaluate the fate behavior

of ametoctradin and its degradates in soils supporting uses in row vegetables, or chards/vineyards,

and root vegetables in North America. Three field trials in ONT (Canada), IL, and FL were

initiated to support the row vegetable use. Two field trials were initiated in areas representative

of major orchard/vineyard and root vegetable (WA and CA) regions of NAFTA. The major route

of dissipation of ametoctradin in the bare soil was biotransformation. DT 50 values ranged from

0.4

– 5.0 days and corresponding DT 90 s ranged from 3.2

– 16.5 days. Three major

transformation products

, M650F01, M65 0F02

, and M650F03

, were similarly non

- persistent,

with DT 50 s ranging from 1.3

– 13.3 days, with corresponding DT 90 s of 4.5

– 144 days. M650F03

, however, was moderately persistent in California sandy loam with a DT 50 and DT 90 of 101 and

336 days, respective ly. Dissipation of the fourth major transformation product

, M650F04, was

more variable between trial sites. M650F04 was persistent in Ontario (estimated DT 50 > 365

days), moderately persistent in Illinois and California ( DT 50 = 177 and 113 days, respective ly),

and slightly persistent in Washington soils ( DT 50 = 36.1 days). M650F04 was not found in

significant quantities in the Florida study site.

Among all sites, the maximum levels of the transformation products relative to the initial

measured amount of the parent following the final application were: 14

- 29% for M650F01, 4

- 23% for M650F02, 38

- 171% for M650F03 (except FL), and 37

- 77% for M650F04 (except FL).

At the site in Florida, M650F03 and M650F04 were observed at lower amounts than other sites

(4

- 12% of the applied ametoctradin parent material); however, transformation pathways were

consistent with the other sites. Ametoctradin and the transformation products were not detected

below the 15.2

- 30.5 cm segment at any site (LOQ = 0.01 mg/kg). Soil moistu re conditions were

favorable for leaching during and/or shortly after the application period at most sites, indicating

that a metoctradin and its major transformation products have low inherent susceptibility for

leaching. Ametoctradin is not volatile, and therefore this route of dissipation was not evaluated

in the field.

Ametoctradin did not carryover to the following growing season at any of the trial sites. Of the

four transformation products monitored in the field, only M650F04 was present at the begi nning

of the following growing season in both Ontario and Illinois test plots (279

- 28 0 days after first

application) at 23

- 43% of the amount of applied parent material.

Mobility

Batch adsorption studies were performed for ametoctradin and four major s oil metabolites:

M650F01, M650F02, M650F03

, and M650F04. Desorption was characterized for M650F03 and

M650F04 only. The sorption of ametoctradin onto sterilized soil was investigated in a laboratory

sorption study with five European, and two North American soils. The measured K FOC values22 ranged from 1580 L/kg to 6620 L/kg, while the corresponding Freundlich exponents (1/n values)

ranged from 0.677 to 0.842. Ametoctradin adsorption was not linear with concentration, but

tended to have slightly higher adsorpt ion at lower concentrations. Ametoctradin is expected to be

slightly mobile to hardly mobile according to FAO mobility class ifications (FAO, 2000). Table

3. 1 provides the results of the sorption study. The estimated K Foc of degradates range from 8 to

193 L /Kg and would be categorized as highly mobile to moderately mobile ( Table A

- 4

, Appendix A ). Desorption constants were not evaluated for parent and degradates except for

M650F03 and M650F04. The desorption values of M650F03 and M650F04 suggest that these

me tabolites are readily desorbed from soils, indicating that adsorption of these compounds is

reversible.

Ametoctradin is a non

- volatile compound and sparingly soluble in water. Therefore, transport of

ametoctradin in the environment is expected to occur pr edominantly via spray drift and runoff of

dissolved degradates and parent residues sorbed to suspended sediment. Terrestrial field

dissipation studies confirmed that ametoctradin’s mobility was limited to surface horizons at all

sites. However, d epending o n soil, site and meteorological conditions ametoctradin may be

transported off

- site to water sources mainly via runoff and spray drift and to lesser extent by

leaching

.

Bioaccumulation

The reported values of bioconcentration factors at steady state (BC F SS ) were 4.5X, 190X

, and

149X for edible

, inedible

, and whole fish tissues, respectively, of the low dose ( 0.1 **μ** g/L ) group.

The corresponding BCF SS values for the high dose ( 1.0 **μ** g/L ) group were 3.9X, 186X

, and 148X.

Time to reach 90% depuration was less than 3 days

. The log Kow of 4.4 indicates that it has

potential to bioaccumulate; however, the regi strant reported a BCF value of ≤ 149X

, and rapid

depuration values suggest that ametoctradin is not a bioaccumulative compound

.

The K OW ( octanol

- water coeff icient based ) A quatic B io A ccumulation M odel (KABAM v.1.0 )

can be used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of ametoctradin residues in a freshwater

aquatic food web and subsequent risks these residues pose to terrestrial organisms via

consumption of conta minated aquatic prey ( i.e. , aquatic invertebrates and fish). However, it was

not necessary to use KABAM for this assessment to estimate/explore the potential for

bioaccu mulation because of the lack of observed toxicity for various aquatic and terrestrial t a xa

.

3.2.2 Aquatic Exposure Estimates for Ametoctradin

A Tier I screening

- level surface water exposure for aquatic risk assessment was conducted for

the Section 3 proposed new chemical registration. Modeled application rates represent the

maximum use pattern of the proposed label for use on vegetable, grapes, hops, and ornamentals.

The aquatic exposure estimates presented in this assessment were based on the use of models

, as

no surface an d groundwater monitoring data are available for ametoctradin w ithin the continental

United States . To simulate surface water exposure for the ecologi cal risk assessment, the Tier I

GENEEC ( GEN eric E stimated E nvironmental C oncentration , version 2.0 , May 1, 2001 ) model

w as used.23 GENEEC2 Model Inputs for Ametoctradin

GENEEC2 is a single

- event model, based on a single, large rainfall/runoff event occurring on a 10

- hectare field that removes a large quantity of pesticide at one time from the field to a pond that has a

20,000

- liter water volume and is 2

- meter deep. As s uch, it provides upper bound values on the

concentrations that might be found in surface water due to the use of a pesticide. The model also

incorporates spray drift, the amount of which is dependent primarily upon the droplet size of the

spray, release he ight

, and meteorological condition during pesticide application. GENEEC2 provides

a rapid screen to separate the low risk pesticides from those that need more refined assessments. OPP

assumes that if this model indicates no concerns when compared with the appropriate toxicity data,

then further analysis is not necessary as there would be no effect on the species. Inputs for

GENEEC2 are listed in Table 3.2

. These parameters were selected in accordance with EFED’s

input parameter guidance ( U .S. EPA, 2010b ). Single first order (SFO) half

- lives listed in Table

3.1 were used for exposure modeling. Additional information on th is model can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /ind ex.htm

.

Table 3.2. GENEEC (v ersion 2 .0) input parameter values for Ametoctradin (BAS 650 F)

Parameter Value Source Comments

Application Rate 0.274 lb a.i./acre BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego Maximum application rate was

based on information provided in

the submitted labels for vegetables,

grape, hops, and ornamentals and

flower bulbs

Number of Applications 3 to 4 BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego #s of application were based on

information provided in the

submitted labels for vegetables,

grape, hops, and ornam entals and

flower bulbs

Interval between

Applicatio ns 5 days (vegetable)

7 days (grape)

10 days (hops)

10 days (ornamentals and

flower bulbs) BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego Application intervals were based

on information provided in the

submitted labels for ve getables,

grape, hops, and ornamentals and

flower bulbs

Soil Partitioning

Coefficient (K f oc ) 3912.5 mL/g

oc MRID 47700133 Mean value

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism t 1/2 11.9 days MRID 47700117

MRID 47700118

MRID 47700121 90 th percentile upper confidence

bound o n the mean.

Wetted in? No

--- ---

Depth of Incorporation 0 in

--- Foliar application24 Table 3.2. GENEEC (v ersion 2 .0) input parameter values for Ametoctradin (BAS 650 F)

Parameter Value Source Comments

Method of Application Ground

Aerial BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego ---

Spray Drift Fraction Ground

Aerial 6.4

13.0 Model defaults

Solubility in Water 0.15 mg/L MRID 477 00012 pH = 7

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism t 1/2 1. 94 days MRID 47700145 Total System

90 th percentile upper confidence

bound on the mean

Hydrolysis t 1/2 0 days MRID 47700015 Stable to hydrolysis

Aquatic Photolysis t 1/2 76.8 days MRID 47700016

---

The aq uatic EECs for the various scenarios and application methods are listed in Table 3.3

. EECs were highest for aerial applications to grape s with peak, 21

- day and 60

- day values of 5.24

μg/L, 1. 36 μg/L, and 0.4 8 μg/L

, respectively. The modeling results of EE Cs for various

s cenario s are listed in Appendix B.

Table 3.3

. GENEEC Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) Resulting from

Applications of Ametoctradin for Proposed Uses

Model Use Method Application Rate

(interval between

applications) Peak

EEC

(μg/L) 21

- Day

EEC

(μg/L) 60

- Day

EEC

(μg/L)

Surface Water

(GENEEC2 ) Vegetables* Aerial 3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(5

- day interval) 5.18 1.36 0.48

Grapes Aerial

4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(7

- day interval) 5.24 1.36 0.48

Ground 5.00 1.28 0.46

Hop s Aerial 3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10

- day interval) 4.16 1.09 0.39

Ornamentals

&

Golf Courses Ground 4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10

- day interval) 4.26 1.09 0.39

*Although the Brassica leafy vegetables group requires a 7

- day interval, it was conserva tively included in the 5

- day interval group for all other vegetables because GENEEC does not distinguish between types of vegetables.

Maximum EECs in bold.25 PRZM/EXAMS Model Inputs for Ametoctradin

Since Tier I aquatic EECs exceed the toxicity value for listed non

- vascular aquatic plants , t he

Tier II model Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2 ) linked with EXposure Analysis

Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.4.6 ) via the model shell PRZM/EXAMS (PE v5.0, Nov. 15

, 2006 ) was run to estimate baseline

- level ex po sures for representative crop scenario s

. The PRZM

model simulates pesticide movement and transformation on and across the agricultural field

resulting from crop applications. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff,

erosion, and spray dri ft assuming a “standard” 1

- ha pond, 2

- m deep (20,000 m 3 ) with no outlet

that borders a 10

- ha treated field. Simulations are run for multiple (usually 30) years, and the

Agency estimates peak and running mean values that are expected once every ten years b ased on

the daily values generated during the simulation. The coupled PE model s and users manuals are

available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wa ter Models web

- page (U.S. EPA,

2011 ).

Exposure estimates generated using this “standard” pond are intended to represent a wide variety

of vulnerable water bodies that occur at the top of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa

lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man

- made and natural ponds, and intermittent and first

- order

streams. As a group, the re are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerable than

the standard surrogate pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of pesticide

- treated

drainage area to water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the

s tandard pond. These water bodies will be either smaller in size or have large drainage areas.

Smaller water bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in

the discharge, whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As w atershed size increases, it

becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a non

- major single crop

that is all treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak

concentrations higher than the standard pond, but they likely persist for only short periods of

time and are then carried and dissipated downstream. A summary of inputs used to estimate

ametoctradin concentrations in the aquatic systems for ecological risk assessment are listed in

Table 3.4

.

T able 3.4. PRZM/EXAM input parameter values for Ametoctradin (BAS 650 F)

Parameter Value Source Comments

Application Rate (lb

a.i./A) 0.274 lb a.i/A BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego Maximum application rate was

based on information provided in

the submitted l abels for vegetables,

grape, hops, and ornamentals and

flower bulbs

Number of Applications 3

- 4 BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego #s of application were based on

information provided in the

submitted labels for vegetables,

grape, hops, and ornamentals and

flower bulbs26 T able 3.4. PRZM/EXAM input parameter values for Ametoctradin (BAS 650 F)

Parameter Value Source Comments

Interval between

a pplications (days) 5 to 10 BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego Application intervals were based

on information provided in the

submitted labels for vegetables,

grape, hops, and ornamentals and

flower bulbs

Crops

PRZM/EXAMS

Scenarios and

application Dates Brassica L eafy Vegetable

FL Cabbage : Jan 8 Based on

PRZM/EXAMS

Scenarios Approximate 30 to 45 days before

harvest date

Bulb Vegetables

GA Onion : Jan 8

Cucurbit Vegetable

FL Cucumber : Jan 8

Fruiting Vegetables

F L Pepper: Nov 01

FL Tomato : Mar 15

PA Tomato : Sept 15

Leafy Vegetables

CA Lettuce : Mar 12

Tuberous and Corm

Vegetables

FL carrot : Dec 01

ID Potatoes : Aug 15

ME Potatoes : Nov 05

Grape

NY Grape: Sept 10

CA grape: A ug 27

Hops

OR Hops: Aug 01

Ornamentals

MI Nursery : Nov 15

FL Nursery Nov 30

Golf Courses

FL Turf : Nov 05

PA Turf : Oct 2127 T able 3.4. PRZM/EXAM input parameter values for Ametoctradin (BAS 650 F)

Parameter Value Source Comments

Residential

CA Residential : May 11

Soil Partitioning

Coefficient (K f o c ;

ml/g

oc ) 3912.5 MRID 477 00133 Mean value

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism t 1/2 (d) 11.9 MRID 47700117

MRID 47700118

MRID 47700121 90 th percentile upper confidence

bound on the mean.

Wetted in No

--- ---

Depth of Incorporation

(inches) 0

--- Foliar application

Method of Application G round Spray

Aerial Spray BAS 650 00F

Zampro

Orvego ---

Spray Drift Fraction Ground

Aerial 1.0%

5.0% Model defaults

Application Efficiency Ground Spray

Aerial Spray 0.99

0.95 Model defaults

Molecular Mass (g/mol) 275.4 MRID 4770009 Product Chemistry

Solubility in Water

(mg/L) 0.15 MRID 47700012 pH = 7

Vapor Pressure ( mm

Hg ) 4.50 x 10

- 12 (25°C) MRID 4770009 Product Chemistry

Henry’s law constant

( atm•m 3 •mol

- 1 ) 3.10 x 10

- 9 (25°C)

MRID 47700010 Product Chemistry

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabo lism t 1/2 (days) 1. 94 MRID 47700145 Total System

90 th percentile upper confidence

bound on the mean

Hydrolysis t 1/2 0 MRID 47700015 Stable to hydrolysis

Aquatic Photolysis t 1/2 (days) 76.8 MRID 47700016

---28 The refined water column EECs, as predicted by PRZM/EXAMS, are located in Table 3.5 , and

outputs are included in Appendix B

. Pore water and sediment EECs for the FL Tomato and NY

Grape scenario s are located in Table 3.6

.

Table 3.5

. PRZM/EXAMS Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) in Water

Column Resulting from Applications of Ametoctradin for the Proposed Uses

PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario Method Application Rate

(Interval between

Applications) Peak

EEC

(μg/L) 21

- Day

EEC

(μg/L) 60

- Day

EEC

(μg/L)

FL Cabbage Aerial 3 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(7 days) 1 .23 0.54 0.28

Ground 0.80 0.23 0.13

GA Onion Aerial

3 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(5 days) 1.76 0.82 0.39

Ground 0.95 0.37 0.18

FL Cucumber Aerial 2.43 0.70 0.28

Ground 1.87 0.38 0.16

FL Pepper Aerial 3.17 0.86 0.32

Ground 2.81 0.64 0.25

FL Tomato Aerial 3.17 0.62 0.30

Ground 3.28 0.49 0.23

PA Tomato Aerial 2.61 0.75 0.37

Ground 2.40 0.51 0.25

CA Lettuce Aerial 1.06 0.53 0.24

Ground 0.36 0.13 0.07

FL Carrot Aerial 1.40 0.46 0.18

Ground 0.82 0.20 0.08

ID Potato Aerial 1.06 0.43 0 .20

Ground 0.38 0.17 0.09

ME Potato Aerial 2.10 1.23 0.69

Ground 1.40 0.75 0.44

CA Grape Aerial

4 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(7 days) 0.82 0.27 0.12

Ground 0.16 0.05 0.0 3

NY Grape Aerial 3.11 1.20 0.68

Ground 3.02 1.02 0.54

OR Hops Aerial 3 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(10 days) 0.83 0.30 0.19

Ground 0.52 0.13 0.07

MI Nursery Ground 4 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(10 days) 0.40 0.13 0.07

FL Nursery Ground 0.69 0.13 0.07

FL Turf Ground 4 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(10 days) 0.46 0.31 0.13

PA Turf Ground 0.35 0.15 0.11

C A Residential Ground 0.22 0.11 0.07

Maximum EECs in bold.29 Table 3.6

. PRZM/EXAMS Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) in Pore

Water and Sediment Resulting from Applications of Ametoctradin for FL Tomato and

NY Grape Scenarios

PRZM/EXAMS

S cenario Method Matrix Peak

EEC

(μg/L) 21

- Day

EEC

(μg/L) 60

- Day

EEC

(μg/L)

FL Tomato Aerial

Pore Water 0.19 0.16 0.11

Ground 0.16 0.14 0.10

NY Grape Aerial 0.77 0.72 0.59

Ground 0.71 0.66 0.55

PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario Method Matrix Peak EEC

( μg/kg) 21

- Day EEC

(μg/kg) 60

- Day EEC

( μg/kg)

FL Tomato Aerial

Sediment * 29.74 25.04 17.22

Ground 25.04 21.91 15.65

NY Grape Aerial 120.51 112.68 92.34

Ground 111.12 103.29 86.08

Maximum EECs in bold.

*Assumes 4% organic carbon in sediment (Arnot et al., 2004).

3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Exposures

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals

emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide residues on vegetative matter and

insects. Birds are used as surrogates for terrestrial

- phase amphibians as well as reptiles. For

exposure to terrestrial organisms, pesticide residues on food items are estimated based on the

assumption that organisms are exposed to a single pesticide residue in a given exposure scenario.

The residue estimates from spray applications are based on a nomogram by Hoerger and Kenaga

(1972) as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994) that correlated residue levels, based on application

rate, on various terrestrial items immediately following application in the field. The “maximum”

residue concentration, an upper bound defined by Fletcher et al. (1994), for each food group was

derived from literature and tolerance data.

Dissipation of ametoctradin residues on food items following single and multiple applications is

predicted using a first

- order residue degradat ion half

- life with EFED's T

- REX v1.4.1 model. T

REX assumes a default foliar dissipation half

- life estimate of 35 days (Willis and McDowell,

1987). This half

- life is used in lieu of ame toctradin foliar dissipation data, which were not

submitted by the registrant. The maximum predicted residues on avian and mammalian food

items (dietary EECs) as a result of applications to non

- crop areas are provided in Table 3. 7 and

3. 8

.

The residues o r EECs on food items may be compared directly with sub

- acute dietary toxicity

data or converted to an ingested whole

- body dose (single oral dose). Single oral dose estimates

represent, for many pesticides, an exposure scenario where absorption of the pesti cide is

maximized over a single ingestion event. Sub

- acute dietary estimates provide for possible effects

of the dietary matrix and more extended time of gut exposure to pesticide absorption across the

gut. However, dietary exposure endpoints are limited i n their utility because the current food

ingestion estimates are uncertain and may not be directly comparable from laboratory conditions

to field conditions. The EEC is converted to an oral dose by multiplying the EEC by the30 percentage of body weight consu med as estimated through allometric relationships. These

consumption

- weighted EECs ( i.e.

, EEC equivalent dose) are determined for each food source

and body size for birds (20, 100, and 1000 g) and mammals (15, 35, and 1000 g). EEC

equivalent doses for bird s and mammals are given in Tables 3. 7 and 3. 8 , respectively. Example

output from T

- REX is included in Appendix C

.

Table 3. 7 . Avian Exposure Concentration Estimates for Ametoctradin

Feeding Category Dietary

- based

EECs (mg/kg

food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg /kg

- bw)

Small

(20 g) Medium

(100 g) Large

(1000 g)

Vegetables*

3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(5

- day interval)

Short grass 179.27 204.17 116.42 52.12

Tall grass 82.16 93.58 53.36 23.89

Broadleaf plants/small insects 100.84 114.84 65.49 29.32

Fruits/p ods/seeds/large insects 11.20 12.76 7.28 3.26

Granivores

- 2.84 1.62 0.72

Grapes

4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(7

- day interval)

Short grass 216.23 246.26 140.43 62.87

Tall grass 99.11 112.87 64.36 28.82

Broadleaf plants/small insects 121.63 138.52 78.99 35.37

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 13.51 15.39 8.78 3.93

Granivores

- 3.42 1.95 0.87

Hops

3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10

- day interval)

Short grass 163.96 186.73 106.48 47.67

Tall grass 75.15 85.59 48.80 21.85

Broadleaf plants/small insects 92.23 105.04 59.90 26.82

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 10.25 11.67 6.66 2.98

Granivores

- 2.59 1.48 0.66

Ornamentals & Golf Courses

4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10

- day interval)

Short grass 200.26 228.08 130.06 58.23

Tall grass 91.79 104.54 59.61 26.69

Broadleaf plants/small insects 112.65 128.29 73.16 32.75

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 12.52 14.25 8.13 3.64

Granivores

- 3.17 1.81 0.81

* Although the Brassica leafy vegetables group requires a 7

- day interval, it was conservatively included in the

5

- d ay interval group for all other vegetables.31 Table 3.8 . Mammalian Exposure Concentration Estimates for Ametoctradin

Feeding Category Dietary

- based

EECs (mg/kg

food item) Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg

- bw)

Small

(15 g) Medium

(35 g) Large

(1000 g)

Vege tables*

3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(5

- day interval)

Short grass 179.27 170.92 118.13 27.39

Tall grass 82.16 78.34 54.14 12.55

Broadleaf plants/small insects 100.84 96.14 66.45 15.41

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 11.20 10.68 7.38 1.71

Granivores

- 2.37 1.64 0.38

Grapes

4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(7

- day interval)

Short grass 216.23 206.16 142.48 33.04

Tall grass 99.11 94.49 65.30 15.14

Broadleaf plants/small insects 121.63 115.96 80.15 18.58

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 13.51 12.88 8.91 2.06

Granivores

- 2.86 1.98 0.46

Hops

3 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10

- day interval)

Short grass 163.96 156.32 108.04 25.05

Tall grass 75.15 71.65 49.52 11.48

Broadleaf plants/small insects 92.23 87.93 60.77 14.09

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 10.25 9.7 7 6.75 1.57

Granivores

- 2.17 1.50 0.35

Ornamentals & Golf Courses

4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

(10

- day interval)

Short grass 200.26 190.93 131.96 30.60

Tall grass 91.79 87.51 60.48 14.02

Broadleaf plants/small insects 112.65 107.40 74.23 17.21

Fruits /pods/seeds/large insects 12.52 11.93 8.25 1.91

Granivores

- 2.65 1.83 0.42

*Although the Brassica leafy vegetables group requires a 7

- day interval, it was conservatively included in the

5

- day interval group for all other vegetables.

3.2.4 Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plant Exposures

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants may be exposed to pesticides from runoff, spray drift, or

volatilization. Semi

- aquatic plants are those that inhabit low

- lying wet areas that may be dry at

certain times of the year. The runoff scenario in TerrPlant v1.2.2 is: (1) based on a pesticide's

water solubility and the amount of pesticide present on the soil surface and its top one

centimeter, (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 runoff values of 1, 2, and 5% for water solubility values of <10,

10

- 100, and >100 ppm, respectively. Spray drift is assumed as (1) 1% for ground application, (2)

5% for aerial, airblast, forced air, and spray chemigation applications, and (3) 0% for granular

applications. Currently, EFED derives plant exposure concentrations from a single maximum32 application rate only. Exposure through volatilization is not accounted for in this baseline

assessment; however, based on the low vapor pressure

, it is not expected to be a significant route

of exposure. EECs are presented in Table 3. 9

. Example of TerrPlant output is provided in

Append ix D

.

Table 3. 9

. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- aquatic Plants for Aerial and/or Ground

A pplication to Turf and Non

- crop Areas

Description All Uses

1 app @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre

Ground

(spray) Aerial

(spray)

Runoff to dry areas 0.00274 0.00274

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas 0.0274 0.0274

Spray drift 0.00274 0.0137

Total for dry areas 0.00548 0.01644

Total for semi

- aquatic areas 0.03014 0.0411



### 4 Ecological Effects Analysis

A search of the public ECOTOX database ( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox ) on August 25, 2011 did

not yield any aquatic or terrestrial open literature studies for ametoctradin

. This result is to be

expected as ametoctradin is a new chemical. Therefore, only studies submitted by the registrant

were evaluated to determine the effects of ametoctradin on non

- target organisms. The Ecological

Incident Information System (EIIS) was also searched on August 25, 2011 to provide a refined

characterization of the ecological effects. As expected, no incidents w ere found for ametoctradin

.

Submit ted ecological toxicity data were jointly reviewed by all participating countries. DERs

were compiled in the form of a monograph (DP393441).

4.1 Aquatic Effects Summary

The acute and chronic toxicity of ametoctradin was determined for a variety of algal, invertebrate

and fish species. Acute and/or chronic toxicity studies were also conducted on selected species

with the end

- use products BAS 650 00 F (ametoctradin only; 19.2%) and BAS 651 00 F

(ametoctradin; ~27 % & dimetho morph; ~20 %), as well as the transformation products M650F01,

M650F02, M650F03

, and M650F04. BAS 651 00 F is the BASF reference name for the premix

of ametoctradin and dimethomorph; the data set for BAS 651 00 F supports both the Orvego and

Zampro products

. A summary of all submitted aquatic toxicity studies is included in Table 4.1

.

Acute toxicity

The test concentrations for the acute toxicity tests with ametoctradin (technical grade active

ingredient) were all limited by the low solubility of the test substance. Studies were conducted by

super

- saturating test solutions (generally, a glass wool method was used) prior to exposure rather

than using co

- solvents ; therefore

, the highest concentration tested represent s the upper limit of

the functional so lubility of the test material. Test solutions were observed to be clear with no

precipitate formed; for the aquatic plant studies, suspensions were centrifuged prior to initiation.

Acute effect concentrations ( EC 50 values) were generally above the highest ac hievable test TGAI33 concentrations , with the exception of the freshwater diatom N . pelliculosa and the aquatic plant

L. gibba . The most sensitive species to acute ametoctradin exposure was N. pelliculosa with an

E C 50 (50% effec t on yield measurements) of 7 .8 μ g a.i./L. Therefore, with the exception of two

aquatic plant species, ametoctradin was not acutely toxic to aquatic organisms up to its

functional limit of solubility.

Acute toxicity studies with BAS 650 00 F (ametoctradin only) and BAS 6 51 00 F (ametoctradin

and dimethomorph) were conducted with green algae, Daphnia , rainbow trout and the marine

amphipod L. plumulosus . Results are summarized as mg EP/L and mg a.i./L (as ametoctradin ).

BAS 650 0 0 F was not acutely toxic to any species test ed, with EC 50 values greater than the

highest concentration tested. The increased solubility of ametoctradin in the formulated product

BAS 650 00 F (200 g ametoctradin /L) allowed for exposure to higher concentrations of the

active ingredient, but did not r esult in acute toxicity to aquatic organisms. However, BAS 651 00

F (300 g ametoctradin /L + 225 g dimethomorph/L) was acutely toxic to green algae and rainbow

trout within the range of concentrations tested. Rainbow trout was the more sensitive of the two

species tested, with an LC 50 of 23.2 mg EP/L, or 6.32 mg a.i./L expressed relative to

ametoctradin content. The increased sensitivity of aquatic species to BAS 651 00 F over BAS

650 00 F may be due to the presence of dimethomorph in the BAS 651 00 F formul ation. End

- use Products

The acute toxicity of M650F03 and M650F04 was determined for green algae, Daphnia

, and

rainbow trout. In addition, acute toxicity studies with M650F01 and M650F02 were conducted

with Daphnia . All studies were conducted at n ominal application rates up to 100 mg/L. The

transformation products were not acutely toxic within the range of concentrations tested, as

EC 50 / LC 50 values exceeded the highest test concentrations. Transformation Products

Chronic toxicity

The chronic toxicity of ametoctradi n (technical grade active ingredient) was determined in a 21

- day semi

- static test with Daphnia and a 33

- day early life

- stage test with fathead minnow.

Chronic exposure resulted in adverse effects on reproduction in Daphnia (NO A EC = 44 μ g

a.i./L) and reduce d survival in larval fathead minnows (NO A EC = 48 μ g a.i./L). TGAI

In a 28

- day static spiked sediment study with BAS 650 00 F, a significant reduction in

emergence rate was seen for the freshwater midge C. riparius . The NO A EC based on mean

meas ured concentrations of ametoctradin was 221.6 mg a.i./kg dw sediment or 0.242 mg a.i./L in

pore water

. End

- use Products

Chronic exposure of M650F03 to Daphnia resulted in significant reductions in parental growth

and survival and reduced fecundity . The NO A EC was 41.8 mg/L. Transformation Products34 Table 4.1. Toxic Effects in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Ametoctradin

Study Type &

Purity or Product Species Toxicity Value Toxicity

Classification + Study

Classification MRID #

Toxicity of the Technical Grade Active Ingredi ent

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

99.1% Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) LC 50 : > 64 .6 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 36 .6 μg a.i./L

(mortality and tottering) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 55

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

99.3% Common carp

( Cyprinus

carpio ) LC 50 : > 11 0 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 11 0 μg a.i./L

(no effects) Unknown Acceptable 477002

- 16

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

99.1% Bluegill sunfish

( Lepomis

macrochirus ) LC 50 : >129 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 129 μg a.i./L

(no effects) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 57

850.1075

Acute Freshw ater

Fish

99.3% Fathead minnow

( Pimephales

promelas ) LC 50 : >123 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 123 μg a.i./L

(no effects) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 58

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

99.3% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >155 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 155 μg a.i./L

(no effects) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 66

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

99.3% Green algae

( Pseudokirchner

iella

subcapitata ) EC 50 : >118 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 36 μg a.i./L

(growth rate and cell density) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 73

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

99.3% Blue

- green algae

( Anabaena flos

aquae ) EC 50 : >67.9 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 5.3 μg a.i./L

(growth rate, yield, and cell

density) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 77

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

99.3% Freshwater

diatom

( Navicula

pelliculosa ) EC 50 : 7.8 μg a.i./L *

(yield an d cell density)

NOAEC: 1.4 μg a.i./L *

(growth rate, yield, and cell

density) Very highly

toxic Acceptable 477001

- 78

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

99.3% Marine diatom

( Skeletonema

costatum ) EC 50 : >108.3 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 4.8 μg a.i./L

(growth rate, yield, an d cell

density) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 79

850.4400

Vascular Plant

99.3% Duckweed

( Lemna gibba ) EC 50 : 132 μg a.i./L *

(yield)

NOAEC: 13 μg a.i./L *

(dry weight) Highly toxic Acceptable 477001

- 80

850.1025

Estuarine/Marine

Mollusk

99.3% Eastern oyster

( Cra ssostrea

virginica ) EC 50 : >97 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 37 μg a.i./L

(reduction in shell deposition) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 61

850.1035

Acute

Estuarine/ Ma rine

Invertebrate

99.3% Mysid shrimp

( Americamysis

bahia ) E C 50 : >94 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 94 μg a.i./L

(no effec ts) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 6235 Table 4.1. Toxic Effects in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Ametoctradin

Study Type &

Purity or Product Species Toxicity Value Toxicity

Classification + Study

Classification MRID #

850.1075

Acute

Estuarine/Marine

Fish

99.3% Sheepshead

minnow

( Cyprinodon

variegates ) L C 50 : >110 μg a.i./L

NOAEC: 110 μg a.i./L

(no effects) Unknown Acceptable 477001

- 63

850.1400

Chronic ELS

Freshwater Fish

99.1% Fathead m innow

( Pimephales

promelas ) NOAEC: 48 μg a.i./L *

LOAEC: 124 μg a.i./L

(survival) Not applicable Acceptable 477001

- 64

850.1300

Chronic Freshwater

Invertebrate

99.3% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) NOAEC: 44 μg a.i./L *

LOAEC: 88 μg a.i./L

(reproduction and leng th)

EC 50 : 148 μg a.i./L

(reproduction) Not applicable Acceptable 477001

- 71

Toxicity of Metabolites

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

M650F03 ; 82.6% Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) L C 50 : >82.6 mg M650F03 /L

NOAEC: 82.6 mg M650F03 /L

(no effects) Unknown

(S lightly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Acceptable 477001

- 59

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

M650F04 ; 95.8% Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) L C 50 : >95.8 mg M650F04 /L

NOAEC: 95.8 mg M650F04 /L

(no effects) Unknown

(Slightly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Acceptable 477001

- 60

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

M650F01 ; 81.7% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >100 mg M650F01 /L

NOAEC: 100 mg M650F01 /L

(no effects) Practically non

toxic Acceptable 477001

- 67

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

M650F02 ; 75.8% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >75.8 mg M650F02 /L

NOAEC: 75.8 mg M650F02 /L

(no effects) Unknown

(Slightly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Acceptable 477002

- 23

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

M650F0 3; 82.6% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >82.6 mg M650F03 /L

NOAEC: 46.3 mg M650F03 /L

(immobility) Unknown

(Slightly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Acceptable 477001

- 68

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

M650F0 4; 95.8% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >95.8 mg M650F04 /L

NOAEC: 95.8 mg M650F0 4 /L

(no effects) Unknown

(Slightly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Acceptable 477001

- 69

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

M650F03 ; 82.6% Green algae

( Pseudokirchner

iella

subcapitata ) E C 50 : >82.6 mg M650F03 /L

NOAEC: 82.6 mg M650F03 /L

(no effects) Unknown

(Sligh tly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Acceptable 477001

- 75

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

M650F04; 95.8% Green algae

( Pseudokirchner

iella

subcapitata ) EC 50 : >95.8 mg M650F04 /L

NOAEC: <9.58 mg

M650F04 /L

(growth rate, yield, and cell

density) Unknown

(Slightly toxic to

Practically non

toxic) Supplemental 477001

- 7636 Table 4.1. Toxic Effects in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Ametoctradin

Study Type &

Purity or Product Species Toxicity Value Toxicity

Classification + Study

Classification MRID #

850.1300

Chronic Freshwater

Invertebrate

M650F03; 83.5% Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) NOAEC: 41.75 mg

M650F03/L

LOAEC: 83.5 mg M650F03/L

(parental growth and survival,

reduced fecundity)

E C 50 : 77.8 mg M6 50F03/L

(survival) Not applicable Acceptable 477001

- 72

Toxicity of End

- use Products ^

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

BAS 650 00 F Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) L C 50 : >103 mg EP/L

(>19 mg a.i./L)

NOAEC: 103 mg EP/L

(19 mg a.i./L)

(no effects) Not app licable Acceptable 477001

- 56

850.1075

Acute Freshwater

Fish

BAS 651 00 F Rainbow trout

( Oncorhynchus

mykiss ) L C 50 : 23.2 mg EP/L

( 6.32 mg a.i./L)

NOAEC: 22 mg EP/L

(5.98 mg a.i./L) Not applicable Acceptable 477003

- 16

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

BAS 650 00 F Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >105.2 mg EP/L

(>19.4 mg a.i./L)

NOAEC: 105.2 mg EP /L

(19.4 mg a.i./L)

(no effects) Not applicable Acceptable 477001

- 70

850.1010

Acute Freshwater

Invertebrate

BAS 651 00 F Water flea

( Daphnia

magna ) E C 50 : >77 .9 mg EP/L

(>21.2 mg a.i./L)

NOAEC: 77.9 mg EP /L

(21.2 mg a.i./L)

(no effects) Not applicable Acceptable 477003

- 17

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

BAS 650 00 F Green algae

( Pseudokirchner

iella

subcapitata ) EC 50 : >100 mg EP/L

(>18.4 mg a.i./L)

NOAEC: 50 mg EP /L

(9.2 mg a.i./L)

(yield and cell density) Not applicable Acceptable 477001

- 74

850.5400

Non

- vascular Plant

BAS 651 00 F Green algae

( Pseudokirchner

iella

subcapitata ) E C 50 : 72.6 mg EP/L

(19.8 mg a.i./L)

(yield)

NOAEC: 24.9 mg EP /L

(6.8 mg a.i./L)

(yield and cell density) Not applicable Acceptable 477003

- 15

850.1740

10

- day

Estuarine/Marine

Sediment Toxicity

BAS 650 00 F Leptocheirus

plumulosus E C 50 : >70 mg a.i./kg sediment

NOAEC: 5.2 mg a.i./kg

sediment

E C 50 : >0.500 mg a.i./L pore

water

NOAEC: 0.178 mg a. i./L pore

water

(survival) Not applicable Supplemental 477001

- 81

Non

- guideline

Chronic Sediment

Toxicity

BAS 650 00 F Freshwater

midge

( Chironomus

riparius ) NOAEC: 221.59 mg a.i./kg

dw sediment

NOAEC: 0.242 mg a.i./L pore

water Not applicable Supplementa l 477001

- 8237 Table 4.1. Toxic Effects in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Ametoctradin

Study Type &

Purity or Product Species Toxicity Value Toxicity

Classification + Study

Classification MRID #

*Denotes value used for RQ calculation.

+Toxicity classifications are unknown due to the low solubility of ametoctradin under test conditions; the chemical was not

tested up to levels that are meaningful for acute toxicity classifications ( i.e

., >1 00 mg/L = practically non

- toxic, >10 to 100

mg/L = slightly toxic, >1 to 10 mg/L = moderately toxic, 0.1 to 1 mg/L = highly toxic, <0.1 mg/L = very highly toxic).

^ BAS 650 00 F contains ametoctradin only ( 19.2%); BAS 651 00 F contains ametoctradin (~2 7%) and dimethomorph (~20%).

4.2 Terrestrial Effects Summary

Seventeen studies were submitted that evaluated the effects of ametoctradin to terrestrial non

target organisms. For the most part, ametoctradin was practically non

- toxic to birds, mammals,

inv ertebrates , and plants

.

4.2.1 Toxic Effects on Birds

Toxicity studies with ametoctradin were performed with bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ),

mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchus ), and zebra finch ( Taeniopygia guttata )

. An acute toxicity

study was also co nducted with the end

- use product (EP) BAS 651 00 F. An overview of avian

toxicity data is given in T a ble 4. 2

.

Acute and short

- term dietary toxicity

The acute effects of the active ingredient ametoctradin on birds was studied in single

- dose oral

(gavage) test s with b obwhite quail, m allard duck and zebra finch at nominal concentrations up to

2000 mg a.i./kg bw. No mortality, clinical signs of toxicity or treatment related effects were

observed during the study with any of the bird species (acute LD 50 and NO A EL were >2000 and

2000 mg a.i./kg bw, respectively). The EP BAS 651 00 F was similarly not acutely toxic to

bobwhite quail (oral LD 50 value >2000 mg/kg bw).

The short

- term dietary toxicity of ametoctradin was studied in 5

- day dietary exposure studies

wi th bobwhite quail and mallard duck at nominal concentrations up to 5000 mg a.i./kg diet. No

treatment

- related mortality was observed during the study with either bird species ( LC 50 >5000

mg a.i./kg diet). The NO A EC for bobwhite quail was 5000 mg a.i./kg di et based on mortality and

sublethal effects. Mallard ducks however, exhibited a statistically significant decrease in body

weight ( 15%) at the highest dose ( 5000 mg a.i./kg diet) compared to controls at the end of the 3

- day recovery period. This was consid ered to be treatment

- related, and the NO A EC was set to the

next lowest concen tration of 2000 mg a.i./kg diet.

Sub

- chronic and reproduction toxicity

The reproductive effects of ametoctradin on birds was studied in 21

- week dietary dose

- response

studies with bobwhite quail and mallard duck at concentrations up to 1400 mg a.i./kg diet. For

bobwhite quail

, t here were no significant treatment

- related effects on reproduction or any adult

parameter

. A statistically significant reduction in two reproductive paramet ers at the mid dose

was determined not to be dose

- related as no comparable effect was observed at the high dose.

Therefore , the NO AEC was 1400 mg a.i./kg diet . For mallard duck

, a higher than usual egg

production at the start of the egg

- laying period in th e control group led to an apparent statistically

significant reduction in some reproduction parameters ; however

, these were deemed not be38 treatment

- related. Within the test substance groups

, no dose

- related trend was observed, and

mean female fecundity for all test groups were within the data range of historical control groups

of 11 studies. As there were no treatment

- related effects on any reproductive parameter at all

dose levels and no adverse effects on the parental generation, the NO A EC was 1400 mg a.i ./kg

diet.

Table 4. 2 . Toxic Effects in Birds Due to Exposure to Ametoctradin

Study Type &

Purity or Product Species Toxicity Value

(Endpoints) Toxicity

Classification Study

Classification MRID #

Toxicity of Technical Grade Active Ingredient

850.2100

O ral Toxicity

99.3% Bobwhite Quail

(Colinus

virginianus ) LD 50 : >2000 mg a.i ./kg

- bw

NOAEL : 2000 mg a.i ./kg

- bw

(no effects) Practically

Non

- toxic Acceptable 477001

- 48

850.2100

Oral Toxicity

99.3% Mallard Duck

( Anas

platyrhynchos ) LD 50 : >2000 mg a.i ./kg

- bw

NO AEL: 2000 mg a. i ./kg

- bw

(no effects) Practically

Non

- toxic Acceptable 477001

- 49

850.2100

Oral Toxicity

99.3% Zebra Finch

( Taeniopygia

guttata ) LD 50 : >2000 mg a.i ./kg

- bw

NOAEL: 2000 mg a. i ./kg

- bw

(no effects) Practically

Non

- toxic Acceptable 477001

- 50

850 .2200

Dietary Toxicity

99.5% Bobwhite Quail

(Colinus

virginianus ) LC 50 : >5000 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

NOAEC: 500 0 mg a. i ./kg

- diet

(no effects) Practically

Non

- toxic Acceptable 477001

- 51

850.2200

Dietary Toxicity

99.5% Mallard Duck

( Anas

platyrhynchos ) LC 50 : >50 00 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

NOAEC: 2000 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

(decreased body weight ) Practically

Non

- toxic Acceptable 477001

- 52

850.2300

Chronic Toxicity

99.9% Bobwhite Quail

(Colinus

virginianus ) LC 50 : >1400 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

NOAEC: 1400 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

(no effects) N ot applicable Acceptable 477001

- 53

850.2300

Chronic Toxicity

99.3% Mallard Duck

( Anas

platyrhynchos ) LC 50 : >1400 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

NOAEC: 1400 mg a.i ./kg

- diet

(no effects) N ot applicable Acceptable 477001

- 54

Toxicity of End

- use Product ^

850.2100

Oral Toxici ty

BAS 651 00 F Bobwhite Quail

( Colinus

virginianus ) LD 50 : >2000 mg EP /kg

- bw

(>545 mg a.i./kg

- bw)

NOAEL: 2000 mg EP /kg

- bw

(545 mg a.i./kg

- bw)

(no effects) N ot applicable Acceptable 477003

- 14

^ BAS 650 00 F contains ametoc tradin only (19.2%) ; BAS 651 00 F contains ametoctradin (~27%) and dimethomorph

(~20%).

4.2.2 Toxic Effects on Mammals

The toxicity of ametoctradin was reviewed in Ametoctradin Vol. 3 Annex B.6. Ametoctradin

was not acutely toxic to rats, with an acute oral LD 50 value of >2000 mg a.i./kg bw (OECD

Annex IIA 5.2.1/01). Ametoctradin is not a reproductive toxicant in rats, as there was no

evidence of a treatment related effect on reproduction or development at the highest

concentration tested in submitted studies (NOAEL = 939 mg a.i./kg bw/da y; OECD Annex IIA

5.6/01).

Results of the two relevant mammalian toxicity studies are summarized in Table 4. 3

.39 4.2. 3 Toxic Effects on Invertebrates

The results from both the acute oral and contact honey bee toxicity tests are summarized in

Table 4. 4

. Based on the lack of effects observed in the acute contact and acute oral honey bee

studies, no additional honey bee studies (foliage residue or field) are needed at this time.

Table 4.4 . Toxic Effects in H oney Bee s ( Apis mellifera ) Due to Acute Exposure to Ametoctradin

Study Type & Purity

or Product Toxicity Value Toxicity

Classification Study

Classification MRID #

T oxicity of Technical Grade Active Ingredient

850.3020

99.3% Oral LD 50 > 111.5 μg a.i./bee

NOAEL = 111.5 μg a.i./bee

Contact LD 50 > 100 μg a.i./bee

NOAEL = 100 μg a.i./bee Practically Non

toxic Acceptable 477001

- 83

Toxicity of End

- use Product ^

850.3020

B AS 650 00 F Oral LD 50 > 568.9 μg EP/bee

(> 109.3 μg a.i./bee)

NOAEL = 568.9 μ g EP /bee

(109.3 μg a.i./bee)

Contact LD 50 > 520. 5 μ g EP /bee

(> 100 μg a.i./bee)

NOAEL = 520.5 μ g EP /bee

(100 μg a.i./bee) Practically Non

toxic Acceptable 477748

- 11

830.3020

BAS 651 00 F Oral LD 50 > 282.2 μg EP/bee

(> 67.6 μg a.i./bee)

NOAEL = 282.2 μ g EP /bee

(67.6 μg a.i./bee)

Contact LD 50 > 211.81 μ g EP /bee

(> 57.7 μg a.i./bee)

NOAEL = 211.81 μ g EP /bee

(57.7 μg a.i./bee) Practically Non

toxic Acceptable 477003

- 18

The Agency doe s not have a data requirement or a guideline for a n acute oral toxicity test. The oral studies would normally

be classified as supplemental; however, they were submitted in the same study as the acute contact toxicity test, which was

classified as acceptab le.

^ BAS 650 00 F contains ametoctradin only (19.2%) ; BAS 651 00 F contains ametoctradin (~27%) and dimethomorph

(~20%). Table 4.3 . Toxic Effects in Mammals Due to Exposure to Ametoctradin (TGAI)

Study Type Species Toxicity Value

(Endpoints) Toxicity

Classifica tion Study

Classification MRID #

870.1100

Mammalian Acute

Oral Laboratory rat LD 50 : >2000 mg a.i./kg bw EFED defers

to the

Registration

Division EFED defers

to the

Registration

Division 477000

- 42

870.3800

Mammalian Two

Generation

Reproduction Laboratory rat NOAEL = 939 mg a.i./kg bw

(no effects) EFED defers

to the Health

Effects

Division EFED defers

to the Health

Effects

Division 477000

- 66

Formal reviews of mammalian data were conducted by the Registration Division and the Health Effects Division.40 4.2.4 Toxic Effects on Plants

The toxicity of the EPs BAS 650 00 F (204.4 g/L ametoctradin ) and BAS 651 00 F ( 300 g/L

ametoctradin an d 225 g/L BAS 550 F [dimethomorph]) to non

- target plants was determined with

vegetative vigor and seedling emergence assays using standard crop species. Plants were

exposed to a single spray application at a rate of 2.8 L EP/ha (BAS 650 00 F) or 5.0 L EP/h a

(BAS 651 00 F). These rates are higher than the proposed maximum single application rates.

No significant adverse effects ( i.e., >25% effect) were observed in any plant species in either the

vegetative vigor or seedling emergence assays with either BAS 650 00 F or BAS 651 00 F.

The results of these two studies are summarized in Table 4. 5

.

Table 4.5. Non

- target Terrestrial Plant Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor Toxicity

Data for Ametoctradin

Organism Exposure Test Substance Endpoint Value * Re ference

Toxicity of End

- use Product ^

Sunflower ( Helianthus

annuus ), oilseed rape

( Brassica napus ), sugar

beet ( Beta vulgaris ),

soybean ( Glycine max ),

pea ( Pisum sativum ),

tomato ( Lycopersicon

esculentum ), onion

( Allium cepa ), oat

( Avena sativa ), barley

( Hordeum vulgare ), corn

( Zea mays ) Vegetative

vigor (21

days

observation) BAS 650 00 F EC 25 > 0.51 lb a.i./acre

NOAEC = 0 .51 lb a.i./acre

(no effects) MRID 477002

- 05

Acceptable

( Limit test at single

application rate )

Seedling

emergence

(21 days

observ ation) BAS 650 00 F EC 25 > 0.51 lb a.i./acre

NOAEC = 0

. 51 lb a.i./acre

(no effects) MRID 477002

- 06

Acceptable

( Limit test at single

application rate )

Oilseed rape ( Brassica

napus ), carrot ( Daucus

carota ), soybean

( Glycine max ), cabbage

( Brassica olerac ea ),

tomato ( Lycopersicon

esculentum ), lettuce

( Lactuca sativa ),

ryegrass ( Lolium

perenne ), wheat

( Triticum aestivum ),

onion ( Allium cepa ),

corn ( Zea mays ) Vegetative

vigor (21

days

observation) BAS 651 00 F EC 25 > 1.34 lb a.i./acre

NOAEC = 1 .3 4 lb a.i./ acre

(no effects) MRID 477003

- 28

Acceptable

( NOAEC at highest

test rate )

Seedling

emergence

(21 days

observation) BAS 651 00 F EC 25 > 1.34 lb a.i./ acre

NO AEC = 1.34 lb a.i./acre

(no effects) MRID 477003

- 29

Acceptable

( NOAEC at highest

test rate )

^ BA S 650 00 F contains ametoctradin only ( ~19.2%) ; BAS 651 00 F contains ametoctradin (~27%) and

dimethomorph (~20%).



### 5 Risk Characterization

Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and effects characterization to determine the

potential for e cological risks to non

- target organisms including aquatic life, wildlife, and plants

from the use of ametoctradin according to the proposed labels. The risk characterization provides

an estimation and description of the risk; articulates risk assessment as sumptions, limitations,41 and uncertainties; synthesizes an overall conclusion; and provides the risk managers with

information to make regulatory decisions.

5.1 Risk Estimation: Integration of Exposure and Effects Data

Results of the exposure and toxicity e ffects data are used to evaluate the potential for adverse

ecological effects on non

- target species. For the assessment of potential risks of ametoctradin

(technical grade active ingredient) , the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare exposure

and me asured acute or chronic toxicity values:

RQ = EEC / Toxicity Value

w here the EEC is the estimated environmental concentration generated by the exposure

scenarios. The RQs are compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are the

Agency’s interpretive policy and are used to analyze potential risk to non

- target organisms and

the need to consider regulatory action (see Appendix E ). These criteria are used to indicate when

a pesticide’s use as directed on the label has the potential to cause a dverse effects on non

- target

organisms.

5 .1.1 Non

- target Aquatic Fish , Invertebrates, and Plants

Tier I GENEEC p eak EECs were compared to definitive acute toxicity endpoints to derive acute

risk quotients. The 21

- day EECs were compared to chronic toxicity endpoints (NOAEC values)

to derive chronic risk quotients for invertebrates. The 60

- day EECs were compared to chronic

toxicity endpoints (NOAEC values) to derive chronic risk quotients for fish. When an LOC

exceedance occurred using the Tier I GENEEC EEC, the risk estimation was recalculated using

the more refined Tier II PRZM/EXAMS EEC. The following risk estimations apply to technical

grade active ingredient toxicity endpoints.

Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Fish

For the technical grade active ingre dient, a median lethal concentration w as n ot observed at the

highest concentration s tested ( 64 .6

– 129 μ g a.i./L ) , which were also the functional solubility

limits, for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish. The non

- definitive LC 50 s exceed the highest Tier

I peak EEC of 5.24 μg a.i./ L ( aerial application to grapes). Although mortality and sublethal

effects (tottering) were noted in the rainbow trout study (NOAEC = 36.6 μg a.i./L; MRID

477001

- 55 ) and the highest concentration tested was not 20 times greater t han the EEC (64.6 μg

a.i./L compared to 5.24 μg a.i./L), it would be impractical to repeat the test because

concentration s cannot exceed the functional solubility limit. Therefore, acute risk quotients were

not calculated, and RQs would not be expected to exceed LOCs for non

- listed species; the same

holds true for listed species, although there is some uncertainty regarding this due to the lack of a

20x factor

. The NOAEC observed in the early life sta ge freshwater fish study was 48 μg a.i./L

(based on survi val; MRID 47700 1

- 64). The Tier I 60

- day EEC for aerial application to grapes

was used to calculate the RQ. The chronic RQ for freshwater fish is calculated as follows:

RQ = 60

- day EEC/ NOAEC = 0.48 μg a.i./L / 48 μg a.i./L = 0. 0142 Therefore, the chronic RQ does not exceed the LOC (1.0)

. A chronic estuarine/marine fish study

was not submitted ; therefore, an RQ was not calculated

.

Freshwater and Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

For the technical grade active ingredient, neither a median lethal concentration nor sublethal

effects were observed at the hi ghest concentrations tested (94

– 155 μg a.i./L ), which were also

the functional solubility limits

, for freshwater and estuarine/marine inverteb rates. Therefore,

acute risk quotients were not calculated, and RQ s would not be expected to exceed LOCs for

non

- listed and listed species , as the highest Tier I peak EEC for grapes (aerial application) was

5.24 μg a.i./L

. The NOAEC observed in the life cycle fresh water invertebrate study was 44 μg

a.i./L based on reprod uction and le ngth. The Tier I 21

- day EEC for aerial application to grapes

was used to calculate the RQ. The chronic RQ for freshwater invertebrates is calculated as

follows:

RQ = 21

- day EEC/ NOAEC = 1.36 μg a.i./L / 44 μg a.i./L = 0.03

Therefore, the chro nic RQ do es not exceed the LOC (1.0) . A chronic estuarine/marine

in vertebrate study was not submitted ; therefore an RQ was not calculated

.

An EC 50 was not established in the Eastern oyster shell deposition toxic ity test; however, a

NOAEC of 37 μg a.i. /L was observed based on reduction in shell deposition

. The peak EEC for

aerial application to grapes was 5.24 μg a.i./L, which is not 20 times less than the highest

concentration tested (94 μg a.i./L ). However, the test was conducted at the functional solubi lity

limit; therefore, it would be impractical to repeat the test because concentrations cannot exceed

the functional solubility limit. Acute risk quotients were not calculated, and RQs would not be

expected to exceed LOCs for non

- listed species; the same holds true for listed species, although

there is some uncertainty regarding this due to the lack of a 20x factor. For the use that resulted

in the lowest peak EEC, the highest concentration tested was greater than 20 times the peak EEC

(hops; 4.16 μg /L ).

Aquatic Plants

The EC 50 for vascular aquatic plants was 132 μg a.i./L, and the NOAEC was 13 μg a.i./L. The

acute RQ for non

- listed vascular aquatic plants is calculated as follows:

RQ = Peak EEC/EC 50 = 5.24 μg a.i./L / 132 μg a.i./L = 0.04

The acute RQ does not exceed the LOC (1.0) for non

- listed species. For potential risks to listed

species, the NOAEC should be used as the toxicity value. The acute RQ for listed vascular plants

is calculated as follows:

RQ = Peak EEC/NOAEC = 5.24 μg a.i./L / 13 μg a. i./L = 0.40

The acute RQ does not exceed the LOC (1.0) for listed species.43 Of the four non

- vascular plant studies submitted, the freshwater diatom produced the lowest

EC 50 at 7.8 μg a.i./L, and the NOAEC was 1.4 μg a.i./L. The acute RQ for non

- listed non

vascular aquatic plants is calculated as follows:

RQ = Peak EEC/ EC 50 = 5.24 μg a.i./L / 7 .8 μg a.i./L = 0.67

Therefore, the acute RQ does not exceed the LOC (1.0) for non

- listed species. For potential risks

to listed species, the NOAEC should be used as the toxicity value. The acute RQ for listed non

vascular plants is calculated as follows:

RQ = Peak EEC/ NOAEC = 5.24 μg a.i./L / 1.4 μg a.i./L = 3.74

Therefore, the acute RQ exceeds the LOC (1.0), and the risk quoti ent must be refined using Ti er

II PRZM /EXAMS generated EEC s

. Refined acute RQs for listed non

- vascular aquatic plants are

located in Table 5. 1

.

Table 5.1

. Listed Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant RQs Based on Tier II PRZM/EXAMS

EECs for the Proposed Uses

PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario Method Application Rate

(Interval between

Applications) Peak

EEC

(μg/L) RQ

FL Cabbage Aerial 3 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(7 days) 1.23 0.88

Ground 0.80 0.57

GA Onion Aerial

3 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(5 days) 1.76 1.26 *

Ground 0.95 0.68

FL Cucumber Aerial 2.43 1.74 *

Ground 1.87 1.34 *

FL Pepper Aerial 3.17 2.26 *

Ground 2.81 2.01 *

FL Tomato Aerial 3.17 2.26 *

Ground 3.28 2.34 *

PA Tomato Aerial 2.61 1.86 *

Ground 2.40 1.71 *

CA Lettuce Aerial 1.06 0.76

Ground 0.36 0.26

FL Carrot Aerial 1.40 1.00 *

Ground 0.82 0 .59

ID Potato Aerial 1.06 0.76

Ground 0.38 0.27

ME Potato Aerial 2.10 1.50 *

Ground 1.40 1.00 *

CA Grape Aerial

4 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(7 days) 0.82 0.59

Ground 0.16 0.11

NY Grape Aerial 3.11 2.22*

Ground 3.02 2.16*

OR Hops Aerial 3 apps @ 0 .274 lb/A

(10 days) 0.83 0.59

Ground 0.52 0.3744 Table 5.1

. Listed Non

- vascular Aquatic Plant RQs Based on Tier II PRZM/EXAMS

EECs for the Proposed Uses

PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario Method Application Rate

(Interval between

Applications) Peak

EEC

(μg/L) RQ

MI Nursery Ground 4 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(10 days) 0.40 0.29

FL Nursery Ground 0.69 0.49

FL Turf Ground 4 apps @ 0.274 lb/A

(10 days) 0.46 0.33

PA Turf Ground 0.35 0.25

CA Residential Ground 0.22 0.16

RQ based on NOAEC of 1.4 μg a.i./L for freshwater diatom.

*Exceeds listed species LOC (1.0)

.

The refined acute RQ s still exceed the LOC (1.0) for listed species for the following

PRZM/EXAMS scenarios: FL Tomato (ground application)

, GA Onion (aerial), F L Cucumber

(ground and aerial), FL Pepper (ground and aerial), FL Tomato (ground and aerial), PA Tomato

(ground and aerial), FL Carrot (aerial), ME Potato (ground and aerial), and NY Grape (ground

and aerial).

RQs did not exceed LOCs for the following PR ZM/EXAMS scenarios: FL Cabbage (ground and

aerial ), GA Onion (ground), CA Lettuce (ground and aerial), FL Carrot (ground), ID Potato

(ground and aerial), CA Grape (ground and aerial), OR Hops (ground and aerial), MI Nursery

(ground), FL Nursery (ground), F L Turf (ground), PA Turf (ground), CA Residential (ground).

Benthic Invertebrates

Because ametoctradin tends to adsorb strongly to soil and sediment, sediment toxicity tests are

required under 40 CFR Part 158 for the technical grade active ingredient. H owever, studies were

submitted for formulated products. Useful information can still be gained from these tests, as

recovery rates in the spiked sediment were high, even though the solubility of the formulated

product was much greater than the technical gr ade active ingredient. For the 10

- day

estuarine/marine sediment toxicity test, median effects concentrations were not observed at the

highest concentration tested ; therefore, RQs were not calculated . A statistically significant

reduction in survival (81%) was observed at the middle test concentration (13 mg a.i./kg

sediment; 0.208 mg a.i./L pore water) ; at the highest test concentration (70 mg a.i./kg sediment;

0.500 mg a.i./L pore water) , survival was 78%. Therefore, the NOAEC based on survival was 5.2

mg a.i./kg sediment or 0.178 mg a.i./L pore water (MRID 477001

- 81). Although the EC 50 /LC 50 s

were non

- definitive and mortality was observed in the study

, the highest concentration tested was

580 times (based on sediment concentration) to 649 times (based on po re water concentration)

greater than the maximum EECs; therefore, RQs would not be expected to exceed LOCs.

For the chronic freshwater sediment toxicity study, t reatment

- related statistically significant

adverse effects on emergence rate were recorded at the two highest test concentrations and on

development rate at the highest test concentration only. The NO A EC for emergence rate 221.59

mg a.i./kg dry sediment or 0.242 mg a.i./L pore water. Chronic RQs are calculated as follows:

RQ = 21

- day Sediment EEC /NOAEC = 112.68 μg/kg / 1000 μg/mg / 221.59 mg/kg = <0.0145 RQ = 21

- day Pore Water EEC/NOAEC = 0.72 μg/L / 1000 μg/mg / 0.242 mg/L = <0.01

Neither of the RQs exceed the chronic LOC (1.0) for risks to benthic invertebrates.

5 .1.2 Non

- target Terrestrial Anim als

Birds

For the technical grade active ingredient, no mortality or effects were observed in the bobwhite

quail, mallard duck, and zebra finch acute oral toxicity test s (LD 50 > 2000 mg a.i./kg

- bw;

NOAEL = 2000 mg a.i./kg

- bw) and the bobwhite quail dietar y toxicity test (LC 50 > 5000 mg

a.i./kg

- diet; NOAEC = 5000 mg a.i./kg

- bw)

. In the mallard duck dietary toxicity study, no

mortalities were observed, but decreased body weight was observed at the highest concentration

tested (LC 50 > 5000 mg a.i./kg

- diet; NO AEC = 2000 mg a.i./kg

- diet )

. Acute risk quotients for

birds were not calculated because LD/LC 50 s we re greater than EECs

, and RQs would not be

expected to exceed LOCs for listed and non

- listed species, as the highest concentration tested

(5000 mg a.i./kg

- di et) in the dietary study that produced a sublethal effect was greater than 10

times the highest dietary EEC ( 216.23 mg/kg

- food item ).

No effects were observed in the submitted avian reproduction studies (LC 50 > 1400 mg a.i./kg

diet; NOAEC = 1400 mg a.i./kg

- diet for both bobwhite quail and mallard duck). Chronic dietary

RQs were calculated for the scenario that produced the highest dietary EECs (grapes

– 4

applications @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre, 7

- day interval; Table 3. 7 ) and are located in Table 5. 2 . None

of t he chronic RQs excee ded the LOC (1.0).

Table 5.2 Avian Chronic Dietary RQs as a Result of the Propose d

Application of Ametoctradin on Grapes

Food Item RQ

Short grass 0.15

Tall grass 0.07

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.09

Fruits/pods/seeds/large ins ects 0.01

Mammals

No morality or signs of sublethal effects were observed in the acute oral rat study su bmitted for

the technical grade active ingredient

. Therefore , acute risk quotients were not calculated

, and

RQs would not be expected to exceed LOCs

.

No effects were observed in the submitted two

- ge neration rat reproduction study; the NOAEL

was 939 mg a.i./kg

- bw

. Chronic RQs were calculated for the scenario that produced the highest

EECs (grapes

– 4 applications @ 0.274 lb a.i./acre, 7

- day interval; Table 3. 8 ) and are located in

Table 5.3 and 5. 4 . None of the chronic RQs ex ceeded the LOC (1.0).46 Table 5.3 Mammalian Chronic Dose

- based RQs as a Result of the Proposed Application of

Ametoctradin on Grapes

Food Item RQ

Small Mammal (15 g) Medium Ma mmal (35 g) Large Mammal (1000 g)

Short grass 0.10 0.09 0.05

Tall grass 0.05 0.04 0.02

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.06 0.05 0.03

Fruits/pods/large insects 0.01 0.01 <0.01

Seeds (granivore) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Table 5.4 Mammalian Chronic Dietary

- based RQs as a Result of the

Proposed Application of Ametoctradin on Grapes

Food Item RQ

Short grass 0.01

Tall grass 0.01

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.01

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects <0.01

Terrestrial Invertebrates

EFED does not currently q uantify risks to non

- listed terrestrial non

- target insects. Risk quotients

are not calculated for these organisms. The honey bee is used as a surrogate for all terrestrial

invertebrates. For the technical grade active ingredient, a metoctradin is classified as practically

non

- toxic based on the acute contact honey bee study (LD 50 >100 μg a.i./bee). Similarly, the

acute oral study resulted in a non

- definitive LD 50 (>111.5 μg a.i./bee).

5 .1.3 Terrestrial and Semi

- aquatic Plants

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic pl ants may be exposed to pesticides from runoff and spray drift.

Semi

- aquatic plants are those that inhabit low

- lying wet areas that may be dry at certain times of

the year. EECs for terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants are derived for areas adjacent to the

t reatment site. Acute RQs for terrestrial plants are derived by dividing the EEC by the EC 25 from

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor toxicity tests. Acute RQs for listed plant species are

calculated by dividing the EEC by the NOAEC (if not available, a n EC 05 is used) value from

toxicity tests.

Terrestrial plant EECs and toxicity endpoints are provided in Table s 3. 9 and 4. 5 , respectively

. Because no effects were noted in the studies using the end

- use product with ametoctradin only,

RQs were not calculat ed for non

- listed species. For listed species, the NOAEC of 0.51 lb a.i./acre

(note: this application rate is greater than the maximum single application rate), was used to

calculate RQs using TerrPlant v 1.2.2 ( Appendix D ) and RQs are summarized in Table 5

. 5

.

None of the RQs exceeded the LOC for listed species.47 Table 5.5 . Risk quotient (RQ) values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas

exposed to ametoctradin through runoff and/or spray drift

Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

All uses

– aerial

application (spray)

0.274 lb a.i./acre Monocot L isted <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot Listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

5 .2 Risk Description

A screening

- level (Level I) risk assessment, based on the prop osed uses of ametoctradin

, produced RQs that exceeded LOCs for l isted aquatic non

- vascular plants based on use of the

conservative Tier I GENEEC screening model , as well as the refined EECs produced by the Tier

II PRZM/EXAMS model. The risk description will detail whether or not risks to a given taxa are

likely based o n the results of risk estimation and additional lines of qualitative evidence.

5 .2.1 Risks of Ametoctradin to Aquatic Organisms

Fish

M ortality (10%) and sublethal effects (tottering, 20%) were reported at the highest concentration

tested in the acute rain bow trout study (NOAEC = 36.6 μg a.i./L; MRID 477001

- 55 ). Since the

functional solubility limit in this test was about half of the laboratory tested solubility, there are

inherent uncertainties as to whether effects would be seen in the environment if the functional

solubility were to increase , but these uncertainties are unlikely to be resolved by repeating the

study to develop a definitive LC 50 endpoint . However, given that three other species of

freshwater fish were tested and one species of estuarine/ma rine fish was tested and no effects

were seen in any of these s tudies at concentrations closer to the laboratory tested solubility limit,

acute risks to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish are unlikely

.

For chronic effects to freshwater fish (fathead mi nnow), 100% mortality was observed at the

highest concentration tested (NOAEC = 48 μg a.i./L; MRID 477001

- 64 ). However, the 60

- day

EEC was two orders of magnitude lower than the NOAEC, and the RQ did not exceed the LOC

. Data for chronic effects of ametoctr adin on estuarine/marine fish were not submitted , and the

acute

- to

- chronic ratio cannot be used to predict potential chronic risks to estuarine/marine fish

because the acute freshwater and estuarine/marine fish studies produced non

- definitive LC 50 s.

Howeve r, since there was no significant difference in acute effects on freshwater fish compared

to estuarine/marine fish, an estuarine/marine medium is not likely to increase the toxicity of

ametoctradin. I f ametoctradin’s chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine fi sh is within two order s of

magnitude of the toxicity of ametoctradin to freshwater fish, then RQs will not exceed the LOC.

Therefore, chronic risks to both freshwater and estuarine/marine fish are unlikely at the proposed

application rates.

Invertebrates

Acute risks to freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates are unlikely due to lack of mortality

or sublethal effects in either the daphnid or mysid shrimp studies. For acute effects to

estuarine/marine mollusks, there was a 36% reduction in shell grow th at the highest

concentration tested (NOAEC = 37 μg a.i./L; MRID 477001

- 61). An RQ was not calculated due48 to the lack of an EC 50

. Since the functional solubility limit (97 μg a.i./L ) in this test was lower

than the laboratory tested solubility limit (15 0 μg a.i./L) , there are inherent uncertainties as to

whether effects would be seen in the environment if the functional solubility were to increase,

but these uncertainties are unlikely to be resolved by repeating the study to obtain a definitive

EC 50

. Ther efore, acute risks to estuarine/marine mollusks are unlikely.

For chronic effects to freshwater invertebrates, reduced reproduction and length were observed at

the second lowest test concentration (NOAEC = 44 μg a.i./L; MRID 477001

- 71). However, the

21

- d ay EEC was more than an order of magnitude lower than the NOAEC, and the RQ did not

exceed the LOC

. Data for chronic effects of ametoctradin on estuarine/marine invertebrates were

not submitted, and the acute

- to

- chronic ratio cannot be used to predict pote ntial chronic risks to

estuarine/marine invertebrates because the acute freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate

studies produced non

- definitive EC 50 s ( i.e., no effects were observed). However, since there was

no significant difference in acute effects on freshwater invertebrates compared to

estuarine/marine invertebrates, an estuarine/marine medium is not likely to increase the toxicity

of ametoctradin. I f ametoctradin’s chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine invertebrates is within an

order of magnitude of the toxicity of ametoctradin to freshwater invertebrates, then RQs will not

exceed the LOC. Therefore, chronic risks to both freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates

are unlikely at the proposed application rates.

Plants

For vascular aquatic pl ants, the EC 50 was calculated to be 132 μg a.i./L, with significant

reductions in dry weight occurring at the second lowest concentration tested (NOAEC = 13 μg

a.i./L; MRID 477001

- 80). RQs did not exceed LOCs for listed and non

- listed species. Therefore,

a cute risks to non

- listed and listed vascular plants are unlikely at the proposed application rates.

For non

- vascular aquatic plants, the EC 50 for the freshwater diatom was calculated to be 7.8 μg

a.i./L , with significant reductions in growth rate, yield, and cell density occurring at the second

lowest concentration tested (NOAEC = 1.4 μg a.i./L; MRID 477 001

- 78). The highest refined

peak EEC (3.28 μg a.i./L, ground application to FL Tomato ; Table 3. 5 ) was greater than the

NOAEC, and t he RQ for listed aquat ic non

- vascular plants exceeded the LOC based on the Tier

I I PRZM/EXAMS EEC. T herefore, there is potential for acute risks to listed non

- vascular

aquatic plants for the following uses: bulb veget ables, cucurbit vegetables, fru iting vegetables

, tuberous and corm vegetables, and grapes. Risks to listed non

- vascular aquatic plants are

unlikely for the following uses: Brassica leafy vegetables, leafy vegetables, hops, nursery, turf,

and residential uses.

Benthic Invertebrates

While there were mortalities in the 10

- day estuarine/marine sediment toxicity test, the

EC 50 /LC 50 s were non

- definitive, and the highest concentration tested was several hundred times

greater than the EECs. Therefore, acute risks to estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates are

unlikely. Sim ilarly, chronic RQs for freshwater benthic invertebrates did not exceed LOCs, and

chronic risks to freshwater benthic invertebrates are unlikely

. It should be noted that reproductive

endpoints were not measured in the test, but the effects observed in the chronic daphnid study

occurred at much higher concentrations than predicted EECs. The chronic daphnid NOAEC (4449 μg a.i./L) is more than 60 times greater than the maximum 21

- day pore water EEC (0.72 μg

a.i./L).

There is some uncertainty associated with the use of a formulated product rather than the

technical grade active ingredient for both the 10

- day and the chronic studies . However, due to

the high recovery of ametoctradin in sediment, a study with the technical grade active ingredient

is unlikely to cha nge the risk call. Additionally, while 10

- day freshwater sediment toxicity study

and chronic estuarine/marine sediment toxicity studies are data gaps according to 40 CFR Part

158 data requirements, submission of these studies is unlikely to add value to th is risk

assessment because it is unlikely that EC 50 /LC 50 /NOAECs will exceed EECs since differential

toxicity between media types has not been observed in other taxa.

5 .2.2 Risks of Ametoctradin to Terrestrial Organisms

Birds and Mammals

There were no mor talities or sublethal effects in the acute oral bobwhite quail, mallard, or zebra

finch studies or the bobwhite quail subacute dietary toxicity test. However, reduced body weight

was observed at the highest concentration tested in the mallard duck subacute dietary toxicity test

(NOAEC = 2000 mg a.i./kg diet; MRID 477001

- 52). Because there were no mallard duck

mortalities reported and the highest concentration tested was greater than 10 times the EEC

(5000 mg a.i./kg diet compared to the highest dietary EEC

– 216.23 mg a.i./kg; Table 3.7 ), acute

risks to birds are unlikely due to use of ametoctradin at the proposed application rates.

No effects were observed in the chronic avian reproduction studies

, and RQs did not exceed

LOCs ( Table 5.1 ). Therefore, chron ic risks to birds are unlikely due to the use of ametoctradin at

the proposed application rates.

Similarly, for mammals, no mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in the acute or chronic

studies. Acute RQs were not calculated, and chronic dietary and dose

- based RQs did not exceed

the LOC (1.0) ( Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 ) . Therefore, acute and chronic risks to mammals are

unlikely due to the use of ametoctradin at the proposed application rates.

Terrestrial P lants

RQs were not calculated for non

- lis ted terrestrial plant species because there were no effects in

the submitted studies. None of the RQs for listed terrestrial plant species exceeded the LOC (1.0)

( Table 5.4 ). Therefore, risks to terrestrial plants are unlikely because ametoctradin exposure at

rates higher than the proposed maximum single application rate failed to elicit adverse effects in

any of the submitted terrestrial plant toxicity studies (0.51 lb a.i./acre tested rate compared to the

0.274 lb a.i./acre proposed rate).

Terrestrial In vertebrates

Acute contact and oral honey bee toxicity data did not yield definitive endpoints, and

ametoctradin was classified as practically non

- toxic to honey bees. Therefore, higher tier honey

bee studies are not necessary at this time. There is consid erable uncertainty in using the honey50 bee as a surrogate for all terrestrial invertebrates due to the drastic differences in life histories of

the honey bee, a social, colonial organism, and solitary organisms.

Several other studies were also submitted t hat evaluated the effects of formulated products on

parasitic wasps, predatory mites, and green lacewings in the laboratory and the field ( see

Appendix F ). Only the 48

- hour acute contact toxicity study with the parasitic wasp yielded a

definitive LR 50 (med ian lethal rate) for the ametoctradin

- only for mulation (BAS 650 00 F) of

0.21 lb a.i./acre (MRID 477748

- 16 )

.

A lthough no acute oral or contact toxicity was observed in the honey bee studies, there is

uncertainty as to how fungicides interact with insecti cides and whether fungicides may disrupt

the process of fermentation of pollen stores , which may have significant effects on honey bee

nutrition and health ( Alarcon et al., 2009)

. W hile EFED does not have a quantitative method for

assessing potential risk of this nature, additional studies evaluating the effects of ametoctradin on

honey bee health may be of value. Considering this and the toxicity data for the predatory wasp,

an appropriate exposure reduction strategy may be to restrict applications of amet octradin during

bloom.

5 .3 Threatened and Endangered Species Concern

To determine whether the proposed use sites for a pesticide are geographically associated with

known locations of listed species, a screening

- level search of the LOCATES (version 2.10.3)

database should be conducted. The database compares county

- level location data for listed

species with county

- level crop production data (as available in the 2002 agricultural census) to

identify any coarse overlaps of listed species with the proposed lab eled uses of ametoctradin

. Listed species are those that are currently on the Federal list of endangered and threatened

wildlife and plants. After refinement, the proposed use of ametoctradin on bulb vegetables,

cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, t uberous and corm vegetables, and grapes still produced

RQ s that exceed the LOC for listed non

- vascular aquatic plants

. LOCATES was run to identify

species that may be indirectly affected by the proposed uses of ametoctradin (see Appendix G ).

5 .3.1 Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected

directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the

action. At the initial screening

- level, the risk assessment considers broadly described taxonomic

groups and so conservatively assumes that listed species w ithin those broad groups are co

located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are

assumed to b e located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be

located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated site. The assessment also assumes that

listed species are located within an assumed area, which has the relatively highest potential

exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with distance from the

treatment area. This risk assessment presents the use of ametoctradin and establishes initial co

location of species with treatment areas.

If t he assumptions associated with the screening

- level action area result in RQs that are below

the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed

species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs51 below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect

effects upon listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group covered by the RQ as a

resource. However, in situations where the scr eening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the

listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists

and may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or

may extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a

resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of

these species, and the locations of use sites could be considered to determ ine the extent to which

screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These

subsequent refinement steps could consider how this information would impact the action area

for a particular listed organism and may poten tially include areas of exposure that are downwind

and downstream of the pesticide use site.

5 .3.2 Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk: Direct Effects

Based on available screening level information, for the proposed uses of ametoctradin

, there are

potenti al direct effects on listed non

- vascular aquatic plants

. A summary of the risk conclusions

and direct and indirect eff ects determinations is presented in Table 5

. 6

.

Table 5.6. Potential Listed S pecies Risks A ssociated with Direct or I ndirect E ffects

D ue to the Proposed A pplications of Ametoctradin

Listed Taxonomy Direct Effects Indirect Effects

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants

–

monocots No No

Terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants

– dicots No No

Terrestrial invertebrates No No

Birds (surrogate for t errestrial

- phase

amphibians and reptiles) No No

Mammals No No

Aquatic vascular plants No Yes*

Aquatic non

- vascular plants Yes+ Yes*

Freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic

phase amphibians) No Yes*

Freshwater Invertebrates No Yes*

Freshwater Benthic I nvertebrates Acute

– No ^

Chronic

– No Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Benthic Invertebrates Acute

– No

Chronic

– No ^ Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Fish Acute

– No

Chronic

– No^ Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Crustaceans Acute

– No

Chronic

– No^ Yes*

Estuarine/Marine Mollusks No Yes*

+No aquatic non

- vascular plants have been designated as endangered or threatened; however, the potential

for risk to these organisms exists.

*For indirect effects, all aquatic taxa have been identified due to the potential direct effects on listed no n

vascular aquatic plants. However, any species identified for potential indirect effects would require an

obligate relationship with the directly affected listed non

- vascular aquatic plant. Because there are no listed

non

- vascular aquatic plants, the taxa identified for indirec t effects are very conservative assumption s.

^While data were not submitted, a weight of evidence approach was used to discount potential risks to these

taxa.52 5.3.3 Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the

Endangered Species Levels of Concern

The Individual Effect Chance Model (Version 1.1), developed by the Environmental Fate and

Effects Division, is used by the Agency to calculate the chance or probability of an individual

mortality (effect) correspon ding to the listed species’ acute LOCs and calculated RQs. The

model, which is an Excel spreadsheet tool, allows for calculations by entering the mean slope

estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter for the

spreadshee t. The generated information serves as a guide to establish the need for and the extent

of additional analysis that may be performed as well as evaluations of the geographical and

temporal nature of the exposure to make an effect determination.

Because screening

- level acute LOC s were calculated and exceeded for only non

- vascular aquatic

plants in this assessment, probit analysis was not conducted. The endpoints of aquatic plant

studies include growth rate, yield, and cell density rather than single morta lity events.

5 .3.4 Indirect Effects Analysis

The Agency acknowledges that pesticides have the potential to exert indirect effects upon the

listed organisms by, for example, perturbing forage or prey availability, altering the extent of

nesting habitat, et c. In conducting a screen for indirect effects, direct effect LOCs for each

taxonomic group are used to make inferences concerning the potential for indirect effects upon

listed species that rely upon non

- endangered organisms in these taxonomic groups as r esources

critical to their life cycle.

Based on direct effects to listed non

- vascular aquatic plants, indirect effects to all aquatic taxa

are identified (vascular plants, non

- vascular plants, freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic

- phase

amphibians), fres hwater invertebrates, freshwater benthic invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish,

estuarine/marine crustaceans, and estuarine/marine mollusks). A list of species that may be

indirectly affected is included in Appendix G

. However, any indirect effects would re quire an

obligate relationship with the directly affected listed non

- vascular aquatic plant. Because there

are no listed non

- vascular aquatic plants, the indirect effects identified are very conservative

assumptions.



### 6 Description of Assumptions and Limita tions

6.1 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for all Taxa

There are a number of areas of uncertainty in the aquatic and terrestrial risk assessments. The

toxicity ass essment for terrestrial and aquatic animals is limited by the number of species tested

in the available toxicity studies. Use of toxicity data on representative species does not provide

information on the potential variability in susceptibility to acute a nd chronic exposures.

Additionally, the Agency does not currently study the effects of pesticides on representative

fungi species. Fungi are important to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, functioning as both

decomposers in the food web and as biocontrol agents (entomopathogenic fungi, such as

Beauveria bassiana ). The lack of risk assessment for beneficial fungi is a key uncertainty in this

ecological risk assessment.53 This screening

- level risk assessment relies on labeled statements of the maximum rate of

ametoctradin application, the maximum number of applications, and the shortest interval

between applications. Together, these assumptions constitute a maximum use scenario. The

frequency at which actual uses ap proach these maximums is depende nt on pest pressure,

resistance to the fungicide , timing of applications, and market forces.

6.2 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Terrestrial Species

Variation in habitat and dietary requirements

For screening terrestrial risk assessments, a generic bird or mammal is assumed to occupy either

the treated field or adjacent areas receiving pesticide at a rate commensurate with th e treatment

rate on the field. The hab itat and feeding requirements of the modeled species and the wildlife

species may be different. It is assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the

treated area being modeled. This assumption leads to a maximum level of exposure in the risk

assessment.

The acute studies have a fixed exposure period, not allowing for the differences in response of

individuals to different durations of exposure. Further, for the acute oral study

, ametoctradin is

administered in a single dose which does not mimic wild birds' exposure through multiple

feedings. Also, it does not account for the effect of different environmental matrices on the

absorption rate of the chemical into the animal. Because exposure occurs over several days, both

the accumulated dose and elimination of the chemical from the body for the duration of the

exposure determine the exact exposure to wildlife; however

, they are not taken into account in

the screening assessment. There was also no assumption of an effect of repeated doses that

change the tolerance of an individual to successive doses.

Variation in diet composition

The risk assessment and calculated RQs assume 100% of the diet is relegated to single food

types foraged only from treated fields. The assumption of 100% diet fro m a single food type

may be realistic for acute exposures, but diets are likely to be more variable over longer periods

of time. This assumption is likely to be conservative and will tend to overestimate potential risks

for chronic exposure, especially for larger organisms that have larger home ranges. These large

animals ( e.g ., deer and geese) will tend to forage from a variety of areas and move on and off of

treated fields. Small animals ( e.g ., mice, voles, and small birds) may have home ranges smaller

th an the size of a treated field and will have little or no opportunity to obtain foodstuffs that have

not been treated with ametoctradin . Even if their home range does cover area outside the treated

fiel d, ametoctradin may have run off to areas adjacent to the treated field.

Exposure routes other than dietary

Only dietary and incidental ingestion of contaminated soils exposure s are included in the

exposure assessment. Other exposure routes are possible for animals in treated areas. These

routes include i ngestion of contaminated drinking water, dermal contact, inhalation, and

preening. Because ametoctradin does not volatilize appreciably, inhalation does not appear to be

a significant contributor to the overall exposure

. Given ametoctradin ’s low solubility in water, it54 is not likely that ametoctradin will be found in water above the functional solubility limit, but it

is likely that ametoctradin will sorb to soil and/or sediment and move off

- site dominantly sorbed

to soil and/or sediment . If toxicity is exp ected through any of these other routes of exposure, then

the risks of a toxic response to ametoctradin may be underestimated in this risk assessment.

Dietary Intake

- The Differences between Laboratory and Field Conditions

There are several aspects of the dietary test that introduce uncertainty into calculation of the LC 50 value (Mineau, et al ., 1994; ECOFRAM, 1999). The endpoint of this test is reported as the

concentration mixed with food that produces a response rather than as the dose ingested.

Al though food consumption sometimes allows for the estimate of a dose, calculations of the

mg/kg/day are confounded by undocumented spillage of feed and how consumption is measured

over the duration of the test. Usually, if measured at all, food consumption is estimated once at

the end of the five

- day exposure period. Further, group housing of birds undergoing testing only

allows for a measure of the average consumption per day for a group; consumption estimates can

be further confounded if birds die within a treatment group. The exponential growth of young

birds also complicates the estimate of the dose; controls often nearly double in size over the

duration of the test. Since weights are only taken at the initiation of the exposure period and at

the end, the dose per body weight (mg/kg) is difficult to estimate with any precision. The

interpretation of this test is also confounded because the response of birds is not only a function

of the intrinsic toxicity of the pesticide, but also the willingness of the birds to consume treated

food.

Further, the acute and chronic characterization of risk rely on comparisons of wildlife dietary

residues with LC 50 or NOAEC values expressed in concentrations of pesticides in laboratory

feed. These comparisons assume th at ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates

commensurate with those in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts

dry

- weight estimates of food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh

- weight wildlife food

intake est imates, it does not allow for gross energy and assimilative efficiency differences

between wildlife food items and laboratory feed. On gross energy content alone, direct

comparison of a laboratory dietary concentration

- based effects threshold to a fresh

- w eight

pesticide residue estimate would result in an underestimation of field exposure by food

consumption by a factor of 1.25

- 2.5 for most food items. Only for seeds would the direct

comparison of dietary threshold to residue estimate lead to an overest imate of exposure.

Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets suggest that current

screening assessment methods do not account for a potentially important aspect of food

requirements. Depending upon species and dietary matri x, bird assimilation of wild diet energy

ranges from 23

- 80%, and mammal's assimilation ranges from 41

- 85% (U.S. EPA , 1993). If it

is assumed that laboratory chow is formulated to maximize assimilative efficiency ( e.g., a value

of 85%), a potential for underestimation of exposure may exist by assuming that consumption of

food in the wild is comparable with consumption during laboratory testing. In the screening

process, exposure may be underestimated because metabolic rates are not related to food

cons umption.

Finally, the screening procedure does not account for situations where the feeding rate may be

above or below requirements to meet free living metabolic requirements. Gorging behavior is a55 possibility under some specific wildlife scenarios ( e.g.

, bird migration) where the food intake

rate may be greatly increased. Kirkwood (1983) has suggested that an upper

- bound limit to this

behavior might be the typical intake rate multiplied by a factor of 5. In contrast is the potential

for avoidance, opera tionally defined as animals responding to the presence of noxious chemicals

in their food by reducing consumption of treated dietary elements. This response is seen in

nature where herbivores avoid plant secondary compounds.

In the absence of additional information, the acute oral LD 50 test provides the best estimate of

acute effects for chemicals where exposure can be considered to occur over relatively short

feeding periods, such as the diurnal feeding peaks common to avian species (ECOFRAM, 1999).

Inc idental Pesticide Releases Associated with Use

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

ametoctradin application at the rates specified on the label. In reality, there is the potential for

uneven applic ation of ametoctradin through such plausible incidents as changes in calibration of

application equipment, spillage, and localized releases at specific areas of the treated field that

are associated with specifics of the type of application equipment used ( e.g., increased

application at turnabouts when using older application equipment).

6.3 Assumptions and Limitations Related to Exposure for Aquatic Species

The fate and transport database for ametoctradin was sufficient to conduct aquatic modeling for

expo sure assessment of aquatic species. The GENEEC model was used to produce conservative

estimated exposure concentrations. The aquatic listed non

- vascular plant RQ exceeded the LOC;

therefore, EECs were refined using the PRZM/EXAMS model. Because ametoctradi n is a new

chemical, no monitoring data were available to compare to the model estimates.

Aquatic organisms were not tested up to 100 mg/L ( see OCSPP 850.1000 guideline for details )

due to the low solubility of ametoctradin (0.15 0 mg/L). Therefore, aquati c organisms were tested

at concentrations up to the functional solubility of the chemical in laboratory test media.

Attempts were made to create saturated solutions through the use of glass wool and saturator

columns. For aquatic plants, suspensions were c entrifuged prior to test initiation. Test solutions

were visually confirmed to be clear and free of precipitate during the studies

, and concentrations

were generally maintained throughout the studies, as evidenced by high recovery rates. However,

the uncer tainty that the functional solubility of the chemical may increase in certain

environmental conditions ( e.g

., tank mixture) remains and, if this is the case, could potentially

result in risk to aquatic organisms not predicted in this assessment. The likeli hood of the

assessment underestimating risks to aquatic organisms is low because RQs were not close to

LOCs and the high K f oc for ametoctradin suggests that it is not likely to remain dissolved in

water for a long period of time.

6

. 4 Assumptions and Limita tions Related to Effects Assessment

Age class and sensitivity of effects thresholds

It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant impact on the observed

sensitivity to a toxicant. The screening risk assessment acute toxicity da ta for fish are collected56 on juvenile fish between 0.1 and 5 grams. Aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed on

recommended immature age classes ( e.g., first instar for daphnids, second instar for amphipods,

stoneflies and mayflies, and third insta r for midges). Similarly, acute dietary testing with birds is

also performed on juveniles, with mallard s being 5

- 10 days old and quail being 10

- 14 days old.

Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity of older age classes for pesticide active

ingredie nts, such as ametoctradin , that act directly (without metabolic transformation) because

younger age classes may not have the enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying

xenobiotics. The screening risk assessment has no current provisions for a generally applied

method that accounts for this uncertainty. In so far as the available toxicity data may provide

ranges of sensitivity information with respect to age class, the risk assessment uses the most

sensitive life

- stage information as the conservative sc reening endpoint.

Use of the Most Sensitive Species Tested

Although the screening

- level risk assessment relies on a selected toxicity endpoint from the most

sensitive species tested, it does not necessarily mean that the selected toxicity endpoint reflec t s

sensitivity of the most sensitive species existing in a given environment. The relative position of

the most sensitive species tested in the distribution of all possible species is a function of the

overall variability among species to a particular chem ical. In the case of listed species, there is

uncertainty regarding the relationship of the listed species' sensitivity and the most sensitive

species tested.

The Agency is not limited to a base set of surrogate toxicity information in establishing risk

assessment conclusions. The Agency also considers toxicity data on non

- standard test species

when available.57 

### 7 Literature Cited

Alarcon Jr, R.N., Hoffman, G.D., Wardell, G. 2009. Fungicides Can Reduce Pollin ation

Potential. Western Farm Press. Vol 31(7) pp. 17 & 21.

Arnot, J.A. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2004. A food web bioaccumulation model for organic chemicals

in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v23 (10), 2343

- 2355.

Beyer, W. N., E. E. Connor and S. Gerould. 1994. Estimates of Soil Ingestion by Wildlife.

Journal of Wildlife Management. 58(2):375

- 382.

Bhatti, M.A., K. Al

- Khatib, A.S. Felsot, R. Parker and S. Kadir. 1995. Effects of Simulated

Chlorsulfuron Drift on Fruit Yield and Q uality of Sweet Cherries ( Prunus Avium L. ).

Environ. Tox. Chem. Vol 14 No. 3, pp. 537

- 544.

Briggs GG, Bromilow RH, Evans AA (1982) Relationships between lipophilicity and root uptake

and translocation of non

- ionised chemicals by barley. Pestic Sci 13: 495

- 504.

ECOFRAM. 1999. ECOFRAM Terrestrial Draft Report. Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk

Assessment Methods. U

. S

. EPA, Washington D.C.

Fahl GM, Kreft L, Altenburger R, Faust M, Boedeker W, Grimme LH (1995) pH

- dependent

sorption, bioconcentration and algal toxicity of sulfonurea herbicides. Aquat Toxicol 31:

175

- 187.

FAO 2000. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO PESTICIDE

DISPOSAL SERIES 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix

2. Parameters of pesticide s that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO

Information Division: Rome, 2000.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm

Fletcher, J.S. 1991. Horse Heaven Hills/Ba dger Canyon, A case Study of Alleged Pesticide Drift

Damage. Presentation at the 84 th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British

Columbia 91

- 150.7

Fletcher J.S., T. G. Pfleeger and H.C. Ratsch 1993. Potential Environmental Risks Associated

with the New Sulfonylurea Herbicides. Environ. Sci. Technol. Vol 27, No 10, pp. 2250

-

2252.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellesson, and T. G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the

EPA food

- chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesti cide residues on

plants. Environ Toxicol Chem 13(9):1383

– 1391.

Fletcher J.S., T. G. Pfleeger and H.C. Ratsch 1995. Chlors ulfuron Influence on Garden Pea

Reproduction. Physiologia Plantarum 94: pp 261

- 267.58 Fletcher J.S., T. G. Pfleeger, H.C. Ratsch and R. Hayes 1996. Potential Impacts of Low Levels

of Chlorsulfuron and Other Herbicides on Growth and Yields of Non

- target Plants.

Environ, Tox. and Chem. Vol. 15, No. 7. pp 1189

- 1196.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO PESTICID E DISPOSAL

SERIES 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2.

Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO

Information Division: Rome, 2000.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm

Gusey W.F., Z.D. Maturgo. 1973. Wildlife Utilization of Croplands. Environmental

Conservation Department. Shell Oil Company, Houston, TX.

Hoerger, F. and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide res idues on plants: correlation of representative

data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F.

Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology,

Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, W est Germany, pp. 9

– 28.

HSDB, 2002 [Hazardous Substances Data Bank]. National Library of Medicine. Last update: 6

-

8

- 2002. Access date: 6

- 5

- 2003. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgibin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB.

Kirkwood, J. 1983. A limit to metabolizable energy intake in mammals and birds. Comp.

Biochem. Physiol. 75A:1

- 3.

Martin, C. M., H. S. Zim & A. C. Nelson, 1951. American Wildlife and Plants

- A Guide to

Wildlife Food Habits, Dover Publ. Inc., New York.

Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins, eds. 1984. An Introduct ion to the Aquatic Insects of North

America 2nd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Idaho. 722 pp.

Mineau, P., B. Jobin and A. Baril. 1994. A critique of the avian 5

- day dietary test (LC50) as the

basis of avian risk assessment. Technical Rep ort No. 215, Headquarters, Canadian

Wildlife Service, Hull, Quebec. p. 23.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

.

Schwarzenbach, R.P., Gschwend, P. M., and Imboden, D.M., 1993. Environmental Organic

Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.

Syracuse Research Corporation. 2006. Surface Water Scenario D evelopment for the Pesticide

Root Zone Model (PRZM) for Modeling Pesticide Exposure in Outdoor Nurseries:

Supplement to Metadata. GSA Contract No. GS

- 00F

- 0019L, Report No. SRC TR

- 06

- 081, North Syracuse, NY.

Tomlin CDS (ed) (2000) The Pesticide Manual, 12 th Edition. British Crop Protection Council,59 UK.

Uesugi Y, Ueji M, Koshioka M (ed) (1997) Pesticide Data Book, 3 rd Edition. Soft Science

Publications, Tokyo, Japan.

Urban D.J. and N.J. Cook. 1986. Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedur e

Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA 540/9

- 85

- 001. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC.

USDA Crop Profiles. http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofil es/CP_form.cfm

U

. S

. EPA

. 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. Volume I of II. EPA/600/R

- 93/187a.

Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C. 20460. EPA/600/R

- 93/187a.

U

. S

. EPA

. 1998. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk As sessment Forum.

EPA/630/R

- 95/002F, April 1998.

U

. S

. EPA

. 2002. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate

and Transport of Pesticides Input Parameter Guidance. Version II February 28, 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Ag ency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Fate and Effects Division.

U

. S

. EPA

. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide

Programs. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. Office of Pesti cide

Programs. Washington, D.C. January 23, 2004.

U.S.EPA. 2011. Ametoctradin (BAS650): Report of the Residues of Concern Knowledgebase

Sub

- committee (ROCKS), DP Code: D386857.

Wolfe, N.L., M.E

- S. Metwally and A.E. Moftah. 1989. Hydrolytic Transforma tions of Organic

Chemicals in the Environment. In: Reactions and Movement of Organic Chemicals in

Soils. B.L. Sawhney and K. Brown, (Eds), Soil Science of America and American

Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. P.229

- 242.

Wolfe, N.L. 1990. Abiotic Tran sformations of Toxic Organic Chemicals in the Liquid Phase and

Sediments. In: Toxic Organic Chemicals in Porous Media. Z. Gerstl, Y. Chen, U.

Mingelgrin and B. Yaron. (Eds.). Springer

- Verlag, New York. p.136

- 147.60 

### Appendix A. Environmental Fate Data

Table A

- 1. Summary of transformation products identified in soil and water studies 1

Compound

code Chemical name

(IUPAC) Molecular

weight Structure Physico

- chemical properties

Major transformation products (> 10 %)

M650F01 4

- (7

- amino

- 5

- ethyl[1,2,4]tria zolo[1,5

- a]pyrimidin

- 6

- yl)butanoic

acid 249.3 Water solubility (pure water

at 20°C): 3.8 (± 0.1) g/L

pH of saturated solution with

hydro

- chloride: 2.5

Log K

ow : 0.69 at acidic

conditions

pKa: 4.3 when titrated with

0.002 M NaOH

M650F02 3

- (7

- amino

- 5

-

et hyl[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5

- a]pyrimidin

- 6

- yl)propanoic

acid 235.3 Water solubility (pure water

at 20°C): 79 (± 2) g/L

pH of saturated solution with

hydro

- chloride: 0.5

Log K

ow : 0.33 at acidic

conditions and 1.0 at neutral

conditions

pKa: 4.0 when titrated with

0.01 M NaOH

M650F03 (7

- amino

- 5

- ethyl[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5

- a]pyrimidin

- 6

- yl)acetic

acid 221.2 Water solubility (pure water

at 20°C): 2.9 (± 0.2) g/L

pH of saturated solution with

hydro

- chloride: 2.0

Log K

ow : 0.16 at acidic

conditions

pKa: 3.8 when titrated with

0.002 M NaOH61 Table A

- 1. Summary of transformation products identified in soil and water studies 1

Compound

code Chemical name

(IUPAC) Molecular

weight Structure Physico

- chemical properties

M650F04 7

- amino

- 5

- ethyl[1,2,4]triazolo[1,5

- a]pyrimidine

- 6

- carboxylic acid 207.2 Water solubility (pure water

at 20°C): 0.35 (± 0.01) g/L

pH of saturated solution: 3.5

Log K

ow : 0.87 at acidic

conditions

pKa: 4.0 when titra ted with

0.002 M NaOH

Minor transformation products (< 10 %)

M650F05* 263

N N N

N N H 2

O H O

M650F06* 277

O H

O

N N N

N N H 2

M650F09* 305

N N N

N N H 2

O H

O

M650F18* 305

N N N

N N H 2

O H O

M650F28** 205

M650F31 249

M650F32** 193

M650F33 191

M650F39** 17762 Table A

- 1. Summary of transformation products identified in soil and water studies 1

Compound

code Chemical name

(IUPAC) Molecular

weight Structure Physico

- chemical properties

M650F48** 221

M650F51

(isomer of

M650F39)** 177

N N N

N N H 2

1 Review of Environmental Fate Studies for Soil and Water for New Chemica l Registration of Ametoctradin (DP

392115

Table A

- 2

. Summary of Biotransformation R ates for Ametoctradin and Its Major T ransformation

Products in Laboratory Aerobic and Anaerobic Aquatic System S tudies

Compound Compartment Water/ sediment

system Kinet ics

model a DT 50 (d) DT 90 (d) Study:

MRID #

Aerobic water/sediment system (dark trials only)

Ametoctradin water Berghäuser

Altrhein SFO 0.69 2.29

47700145 Ranschgraben SFO 0.89 2.94

sediment Berghäuser

Altrhein DFOP 2.07 21.8

Ranschgraben DFOP 2.12 7.81

total system Berghäuser

Altrhein SFO 1.72 5.71

Ranschgraben SFO 1.51 5.01

M650F01 water Berghäuser

Altrhein IORE 2.55 20.3

Ranschgraben SFO 3.15 10.4

sediment Berghäuser

Altrhein /

Ranschgraben Insufficient data points

total sy stem Berghäuser

Altrhein IORE 3.09 39.8

Ranschgraben SFO 3.1 10.3

M650F02 water Berghäuser

Altrhein SFO 14 46.4

Ranschgraben IORE 16.3 89.2

sediment Berghäuser

Altrhein IORE 19.3 138

Ranschgraben Insufficient data points

total system Be rghäuser

Altrhein SFO 17.1 56.7

Ranschgraben SFO 33.5 111

M650F03 water Berghäuser

Altrhein SFO 226 74963 Table A

- 2

. Summary of Biotransformation R ates for Ametoctradin and Its Major T ransformation

Products in Laboratory Aerobic and Anaerobic Aquatic System S tudies

Compound Compartment Water/ sediment

system Kinet ics

model a DT 50 (d) DT 90 (d) Study:

MRID #

Ranschgraben SFO 344 1140

sediment Berghäuser

Altrhein Insufficient data points

Ranschgraben SFO 208 692

total system Berghäuser

Alt rhein SFO 377 1250

Ranschgraben SFO 479 1590

M650F04 water Berghäuser

Altrhein /

Ranschgraben Insufficient data points sediment

total system

Anaerobic water/sediment system

Ametoctradin water

White Lake, SD IORE 1.6 10.3

47700221 sed iment IORE 13.8 227

total system DFOP 7.4 60.1

M650F01 water (total system b ) SFO 8.02 26.6

M650F03 water

n.d. c sediment

total system

a SFO = single first

- order, DFOP = double first

- order in parallel, IORE = intermediate

- order rate e quation

. The choice of

which model to use to best describe the dissipation pattern is based on the model with the lowest model error (%)

and/or the least bias in residuals of regression data points.

b M650F01 was detected only in the water layer, therefor e, the total system is the same as the water layer.

c Dissipation rates (DT 50 and DT 90 values) were not determined due to insufficient degradation in each of

the environmental compartments.64 Figure A

- 1 . Proposed Route of Degradation of Ametoctradin in Water/Sediment Systems65 Table A

- 3

. Summary of Degradation Rates of Ametoctradin and Associated

T ransformation Products Obtained in Laboratory Soil S tudies

Test Material Soil type

(USDA) Study duration

[days] Temp.

[°C] Kinetics model a DT 50

[days] DT 90

[days] **χ** 2

Error b

(%) Study:

MRID #

Aerobic Soil

Ametoctradin Bruch West

(sandy loam) 360 20 DFOP

1.3 7.3 4.4 477001 17

LUFA 5M

(sandy loam) 120 20 DFOP

1.5 8.4 6.2

47700121

LUFA 2.2

(loamy sand) 120 20 DFOP

1.8 7.6 7.0

Li 10

(loamy sand) 120 2 0 DFOP

3.2 12.8 6.4

Li 10

(loamy sand) 120 10 DFOP

6.4 24.9 6.3

Idaho

(sandy loam) 365 25 DFOP 9.6 192 16

47700118 Illinois

(loam) 365 25 SFO 6.9 22.9 13

New Jersey

(loam) 365 25 SFO 7.1 23.5 11

Wisconsin

(loamy sand) 365 25 DFOP 16.7 267 1 2

M650F03 LUFA 3A

(loam) 120 20 SFO 75.1 249 6.4

IIA 7.2.3/01

2008/1010539 LUFA 2.2

(loamy sand) 120 20 SFO 43.5 144 8.4

LUFA 2.3

(sandy loam) 120 20 SFO 28.8 95.7 4.1

Wisconsin

(sand) 120 20 SFO 35.0 116 5.8

M650F04 LUFA 3A

(loam) 120 20 DFOP 28.0 139 5.9

IIA 7.2.3/02

2007/1057457 LUFA 2.3

(sandy loam) 120 20 SFO 106 351 4.8

Birkenheide

(loamy sand) 120 20 DFOP 289 1020 1.2

Wisconsin

(loamy sand) 120 20 SFO 132 439 2.5

Anaerobic Soil66 Table A

- 3

. Summary of Degradation Rates of Ametoctradin and Associated

T ransformation Products Obtained in Laboratory Soil S tudies

Test Material Soil type

(USDA) Study duration

[days] Temp.

[°C] Kinetics model a DT 50

[days] DT 90

[days] **χ** 2

Error b

(%) Study:

MRID #

Ametoctradin Bruch West

(sandy loam) 118 20 SFO 18 2 606 2.2 47700119

47700145

a SFO = single first

- order, DFOP = double first

- order in parallel, IORE = intermediate

- order rate equation

b The choice of which model to use to best describe the dissipation pattern is based on the model with the lowest

model error (%) and/or the least bias in residuals of regression data points.

Figure A

- 2. Proposed M etabolic Transformation P athway of Ametoctradin in Soil67 Table A

- 4

. Summary of a dsorption of major metabolites of BAS650F

Soil Source and P roperties Freundlich isotherm adsorption K F OC (mL/g)

Soil Soil Type

(USDA) pH

(CaCl 2 ) Organic

Carbon

(%) BAS650F01 BAS650F02 BAS650F03 BAS650F04

Münster Sandy loam 5.0 1.44 NA NA 62.6 47.0

LUFA 2.2,

F2.24306 Loamy Sand 5.7 1.72 62.3 33.6 50.6 40.0

New Jersey Loam 6.2 1.10 162.0 89.0 58.5 43.6

1680 Loamy Sand 5.9 0.88 67.5 33.4 15.3 11.4

LUFA 3A,

F3A4206 Loam 7.2 3.23 28.0 16.0 10.7 8.1

Studernheim Sandy Loam 7.6 1.51 21.8 14.0 11.8 7.7

California Sandy Loam 8.0 0. 35 7 8 .4 36.0 30.9 17.1

Schiffersta dt 1 Loamy Sand 4.9 0.90 193.0 31.0 NA NA

Schifferstadt 1 Sand 4.1 0.76 NA NA 47.0 118.0

LUFA 2.1 Sand 5.2 0.52 NA NA 25.0 11.0

Große Erde Loamy sand 6.8 0.92 NA NA 11.0 9.0

LUFA 2.3 Sandy loam 7.2 1.0 NA NA 33.0 23.0

La Gironda Silty clay

loam 7.5 3.84 NA NA 13.0 8.0

NA

- Not applicable

1 Even though these soils have same name but they have slightly dissimilar soil properties68 

### Appendix B. Aquatic Modeling

GENEEC Output



### Aerial Application

RUN No. 1 FOR BAS650F ON **Vegetables** * INPUT VALUES *

--------------------------------------------------------------------

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP

ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPB ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

----- ---------------------------------------------------------------

.274( .632) 3 5 3912.5 140.0 AERL_B( 13.0) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

----------------------------------------------------------------- ---

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

11.90 2 N/A 76.80

- 9523.20 1.94 1.94

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

--------------------------------------------------------------------

5.18 4.02 1.36 .48 .32

RUN No. 2 FOR BAS650F ON **Grape** * INPUT VALUES *

--------------------------------------------------------------------

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP

ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPB ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

---------------- ----------------------------------------------------

.274( .658) 4 7 3912.5 140.0 AERL_B( 13.0) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

META BOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

11.90 2 N/A 76.80

- 952 3.20 1.94 1.94

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

--------------------------------------------------------------------

5.24 4.05 1.36 .48 .32

RUN No. 3 FOR BAS650F ON **Hops** * INPUT VALUES *69 --------------------------------------------------------------------

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP

ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPB ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

--------------------------- -----------------------------------------

.274( .513) 3 10 3912.5 140.0 AERL_B( 13.0) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

11.90 2 N/A 76.80

- 9523.20 1. 94 1.94

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

--------------------------------------------------------------------

4.16 3.22 1.09 .39 .26



### Ground Application

RUN No. 4 FOR BAS650F ON **Ornamental** * INPUT VALUES *

--------------------------------------------------------------------

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP

ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPB ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

----------------- ---------------------------------------------------

.274( .560) 4 10 3912.5 140.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .0

FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

METAB OLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

11.90 2 N/A 76.80

- 9523 .20 1.94 1.94

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY

GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

--------------------------------------------------------------------

4.26 3.26 1.09 .39 .26

RUN No. 5 FOR BAS650F ON Grape (Ground) * I NPUT

VALUES *

--------------------------------------------------------------------

RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO

- SPRAY INCORP

ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

----------------------- ---------------------------------------------

.274( .658) 4 7 3912.5 140.0 GRHIFI( 6.6) .0 .070 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED

(FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (POND) (POND

- EFF) (POND) (POND)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

11.90 2 N/A 76.80

- 9523.20 1.94 1.94

GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY

GEEC AVG GE EC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

--------------------------------------------------------------------

5.00 3.82 1.28 .46 .30

PRZM/EXAMS Example Output

stored as NY Grape _A.out

Chemical:

B AS650F

PRZM

environ

ment:

NYGra

pesSTD

.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at

13:59:44

EXAM

S

environ

ment:

pond29

8.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile:

w14860

.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:12

Water segment conc entrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.29 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.01

1962 0.39 0.27 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.02

1963 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.01

1964 0.78 0.43 0.18 0.12 0.08 0.02

1965 1.45 0.85 0.30 0.16 0.11 0 .03

1966 0.32 0.21 0.13 0.07 0.05 0.02

1967 1.64 0.95 0.32 0.17 0.12 0.03

1968 0.29 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.0171 1969 0.39 0.24 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.01

1970 1.06 0.62 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.03

1971 0.47 0.28 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.02

1972 1.16 0.85 0.46 0.23 0.1 6 0.04

1973 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.01

1974 1.50 0.91 0.38 0.17 0.12 0.03

1975 0.65 0.36 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.02

1976 1.03 0.62 0.27 0.13 0.09 0.03

1977 1.76 0.99 0.34 0.17 0.13 0.03

1978 0.84 0.47 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.02

1979 0.55 0.32 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.02

1980 1.67 0.95 0.32 0.17 0.12 0.03

1981 0.70 0.41 0.19 0.10 0.08 0.02

1982 0.55 0.35 0.20 0.11 0.07 0.02

1983 0.83 0.58 0.23 0.14 0.10 0.03

1984 0.57 0.33 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.02

1985 0.98 0.55 0.25 0.13 0.09 0.02

1986 0.28 0.16 0.12 0. 06 0.04 0.01

1987 0.52 0.28 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.02

1988 0.39 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.01

1989 0.52 0.37 0.19 0.09 0.06 0.02

1990 0.30 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.01

Sorted results

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

0.03 1.76 0.99 0.46 0.23 0.16 0.04

0.06 1.67 0.95 0.38 0.17 0.13 0.03

0.10 1.64 0.95 0.34 0.17 0.12 0.03

0.13 1.50 0.91 0.32 0.17 0.12 0.03

0.16 1.45 0.85 0.32 0.17 0.12 0.03

0.19 1.16 0.85 0.30 0.16 0.11 0.03

0.23 1.06 0.62 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.03

0.26 1.03 0. 62 0.27 0.14 0.10 0.03

0.29 0.98 0.58 0.25 0.13 0.09 0.03

0.32 0.84 0.55 0.23 0.13 0.09 0.02

0.35 0.83 0.47 0.20 0.12 0.08 0.02

0.39 0.78 0.43 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.02

0.42 0.70 0.41 0.19 0.11 0.08 0.02

0.45 0.65 0.37 0.19 0.10 0.08 0.02

0.48 0.57 0.36 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.02

0.52 0.55 0.35 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.02

0.55 0.55 0.33 0.17 0.10 0.07 0.02

0.58 0.52 0.32 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.02

0.61 0.52 0.28 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.02

0.65 0.47 0.28 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.0272 0.68 0.39 0.27 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.02

0.71 0 .39 0.24 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.02

0.74 0.39 0.21 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.01

0.77 0.32 0.21 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.01

0.81 0.30 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.01

0.84 0.29 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.05 0.01

0.87 0.29 0.17 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.01

0.90 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.01

0.9 4 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.01

0.97 0.28 0.16 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.01

0.10 1.62 0.94 0.33 0.17 0.12 0.03

Averag

e of

yearly

average

s: 0.02

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Out put File: NY Grape _A

Metfile: w14860.dvf

PRZM

scenario

: NYGrapesSTD.txt

EXAM

S

environ

ment

file: pond298.exv

Chemic

al

Name: BAS65

0F

Descrip

tion Variabl

e Name Value Units Comments

Molecul

ar

weight mwt 275.4 g/mol

Henry 's

Law

Const. henry 3.10E

09 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor

Pressur

e vapr 4.50E

12 torr

Solubili sol 0.15 mg/L73 ty

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 3912.5 mg/L

Photoly

sis half

life kdp 76.8 days Half

life

Aerobic

Aquatic

Metabol

ism kbacw 1.94 days Halfife

Anaero

bic

Aquatic

Metabol

ism kbacs 26.6 days Halfife

Aerobic

Soil

Metabol

ism asm 11.9 days Halfife

Hydroly

sis: pH 7 0 days Half

life

Method

: CAM 2 integer See PRZM

manual

Incorpo

ration

Depth: DEPI cm

Applica

tion

Rate: TAPP 0.1 kg/h a

Applica

tion

Efficien

cy: APPEF

F 0.95 fraction

Spray

Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Applica

tion

Date Date 15

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval

1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app.

rate 1 apprate kg/ha

Interval

2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app.

rate 2 apprate kg/ha

Interval interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.74 3

app.

rate 3 apprate kg/ha

Record

17: FILTR

A

IPSCN

D 1

UPTKF

Record

18: PLVKR

T

PLDKR

T

FEXTR

C 0.5

Flag for

Index

Res.

Run IR EPA

Pond

Flag for

runoff

calc. RUNO

FF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



### Pore Water

stored as NY Grape

_Aben.out

Chemical:

BAS650F

PRZM

environ

ment:

NYGra

pesSTD

.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at

13:59:44

EXAM

S

environ

ment:

pond29

8.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:08

Metfile:

w14860

.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:12

Ben thic segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01

1962 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.0275 1963 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01

1964 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.03

1965 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.16 0.12 0.04

1966 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.01

1967 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.18 0.14 0.04

1968 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01

1969 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.01

1970 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.12 0.04

1971 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.02

1972 0.35 0 .34 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.05

1973 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

1974 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.14 0.04

1975 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.02

1976 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.03

1977 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.04

1978 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.03

1979 0.1 4 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.02

1980 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.04

1981 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.02

1982 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.02

1983 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.03

1984 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.02

1985 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.09 0.03

1986 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01

1987 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.02

1988 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01

1989 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.02

1990 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01

Sorted results

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

0.03 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.23 0.18 0.05

0.06 0.33 0.32 0.28 0.18 0.14 0.04

0.10 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.04

0.13 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.04

0.16 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.14 0.04

0.19 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.16 0.12 0.04

0.23 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.12 0. 04

0.26 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.03

0.29 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.03

0.32 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.03

0.35 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.03

0.39 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.03

0.42 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.02

0.45 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.0276 0.48 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.02

0.52 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.02

0.55 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.02

0.58 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.02

0.61 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.02

0.65 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.02

0.68 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.06 0 .05 0.02

0.71 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01

0.74 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.01

0.77 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01

0.81 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01

0.84 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.01

0.87 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01

0.90 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.0 3 0.02 0.01

0.94 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01

0.97 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

0.10 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.18 0.14 0.04

Averag

e of

yearly

average

s: 0.02

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for th is run:

Output File: NY Grape _A

Metfile: w14860.dvf

PRZM

scenario

: NYGrapesSTD.txt

EXAM

S

environ

ment

file: pond298.exv

Chemic

al

Name: BAS65

0F

Descrip

tion Variabl

e Name Value Units Comments

Molecul

ar

weight mwt 275.4 g/mol

Henry's henry 3.10E

- atm

- m^3/mol77 Law

Const. 09

Vapor

Pressur

e vapr 4.50E

12 torr

Solubili

ty sol 0.15 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 3912.5 mg/L

Photoly

sis half

life kdp 76.8 days Half

life

Aerobic

Aquatic

Metabol

ism kbacw 1 .94 days Halfife

Anaero

bic

Aquatic

Metabol

ism kbacs 26.6 days Halfife

Aerobic

Soil

Metabol

ism asm 11.9 days Halfife

Hydroly

sis: pH 7 0 days Half

life

Method

: CAM 2 integer See PRZM

manual

Incorpo

ration

Depth: DEPI cm

Applica

tion

Ra te: TAPP 0.1 kg/ha

Applica

tion

Efficien

cy: APPEF

F 0.95 fraction

Spray

Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Applica

tion

Date Date 15

- 06 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval

1 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. apprate kg/ha78 rate 1

Interval

2 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app.

rate 2 apprate kg/ha

Interval

3 interval 7 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app.

rate 3 apprate kg/ha

Record

17: FILTR

A

IPSCN

D 1

UPTKF

Record

18: PLVKR

T

PLDKR

T

FEXTR

C 0.5

Flag for

Index

Res.

Run IR EPA

Pond

Flag for

runoff

calc. RUNO

FF none none, monthly or total(average of entire run)79 

### App endi x C

. Example T

- REX Output

Ornamentals & Golf Courses : 4 apps @ 0.274 lb a.i./ acre (10

- day interval)



## Dietary

- based EECs

(ppm) Kenaga

Values

Short Grass 200.26

Tall Grass 91.79

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 112.65

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 1 2.52

Avian



## Dose

- based EECs

(mg/kg

- bw) Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams)

small mid large Granivores(grams)

20 100 1000 20 100 1000

Short Grass 228.08 130.06 58.23

Tall Grass 104.54 59.61 26.69

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 128. 29 73.16 32.75

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 14.25 8.13 3.64 3.17 1.81 0.81

Mammalian



## Dose

- Based EECs

(mg/kg

- bw) Mammalian Classes and Body weight

Herbivores/ insectivores

(grams) Granivores(grams)

15 35 1000 15 35 1000

Short Grass 190.93 13 1.96 30.60

Tall Grass 87.51 60.48 14.02

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 107.40 74.23 17.21

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 11.93 8.25 1.91 2.65 1.83 0.4280 

### Appendix D . TerrPlant Output

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2

Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4).

Input and output guidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

Table 1. Chemical Identity.

Chemical Name ametoctradin

PC code 119201

Use all

Application Method aerial

Application Form Spray

Solubility in Water

(ppm) 0.15

Table 2. Input parameters used to derive EECs.

Input Parameter Symbol Value Units

Application Rate A 0.274 y

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.05 none

Table 3. EECs for ametoctradin. Units in y.

Description Equation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (A/I)*R 0.00274

Runoff to semi

- aquatic areas (A/I)*R*10 0.0274

Spray drift A*D 0.0137

Total for dry areas ((A/I)*R)+(A*D) 0.01644

Total for semi

- aquatic areas ((A/I)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.0411

Table 4. Plant survival and growth data used for RQ derivation. Units are in y.

Seedling Emergence Vegetative Vigor

Plant type EC 25 NOAEC EC 25 NOAEC

Monocot x 0.51 x 0.51

Dicot x 0.51 x 0.51

Table 5. RQ values for plants in dry and semi

- aquatic areas exposed to ametoctradin through runoff

and/or spray drift.*

Plant Type Listed Status Dry Semi

- Aquatic Spray Drift

Monocot non

- listed #VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0!

Monocot l isted <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot non

- listed #VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0!

Dicot listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

*If RQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.81 

### Appendix E . RQ Methods and LOC Definitions

The R isk Quotient Method is the means by which the Environmental Fate and Effects Division

(EFED) integrates the results of exposure and ecotoxicity data. In this method, both acute and

chronic risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure estimates by the most sensitive

ecotoxicity values derived from the studies. Calculated RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of

concern (LOCs). The LOCs are the criteria used by OPP to indicate potential risk to non

- target

organisms and the need to consider regulat ory action. EFED has defined LOCs for acute risk,

potential restricted use, and for listed species. Risk presumptions, along with the corresponding

RQs and LOCs are summarized in the table below.

Table E

- 1. Levels of Concern for Assessed Taxa

Risk Presum ption RQ LOC

Birds

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50

mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Mammals

Acut e Risk EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day (or LD 50 < 50

mg/kg) 0.2

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 or LD 50 /sqft or LD 50 /day 0.1

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Aquatic Animals

Acute Risk EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.5

Acute Restricted Use EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.1

Acute Listed Species EEC/LC 50 or EC 50 0.05

Chronic Risk EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 25 1

Acute Listed Species EEC/EC 05 or NOAEC 1

Aquatic Plants

Acute Risk EEC/EC 50 1

Acute Listed Species EEC/EC 05 or NOAEC 182 

### Appendix F. Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Other Than the

Honey Bee

See E cotox icity monograph (DP 393441) for complete discussion of data.

The acute and chronic toxicity of the en d

- use products (EP) BAS 650 00 F and BAS 651 00 F

was determined for a variety of terrestrial arthropod species. Toxicity endpoints were expressed

according to the amount of EP applied ( L EP/ha ) as well as the amount of active ingredient ( g

a.i./ha

, as BAS 650 F) present in the formulation. An overview of the accepted toxicity data for

all test substances is given in Table F

- 1

.

Acute toxicity

End

- use Products

Acute laboratory toxicity studies with BAS 650 00 F and BAS 651 00 F were conducted with the

para sitic wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi , the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyr i , and the green

lacewing Chrysoperlea carnea . Arthropods were exposed to dried residues on glass plates. BAS

651 00 F was not acutely toxic to all species tested, with LR 50 values greate r than the highest

concentration tested ( i.e., >3.2 L EP/ha, or 970 g a.i. /ha). BAS 650 00 F, was not acutely toxic to

T. pyr i or C

. c arnea within the range of concentrations tested, however A. rhopalosiphi exhibited

a strong dose

- response, with an LR 50 of 1.22 L EP/ha (234 g a.i. /ha or 0.209 lb a.i./acre ).

Extended laboratory toxicity studies with BAS 650 00 F and BAS 651 00 F were conducted with

A. rhopalosiphi exposed to dried residues on barley seedlings. Neither end

- use product caused

significant mor tality to A. rhopalosiphi . A significant reduction in reproduction (up to 37%

reduction in number of mummies produced per female) was observed after exposure to BAS 650

00 F (NOEC = 2.4 L EP/ha or 490 g a.i./ha). The LR 50 and ER 50 were greater than the hig hest

tested concentrations for BAS 650 00 F (9.6 L EP/ha or 1962 g BAS 650 F/ha) and BAS 651 00

F (2.4 L EP/ha or 717 g BAS 650 F/ha).

Chronic toxicity

End

- use Products

Field studies in Germany and France were performed with BAS 650 00 F to assess effect s on

predatory mites in vineyards. Four applications of 2.4 L EP/ha were made at 10

– 15 day

intervals. Nearly all mites identified at all six trial sites were T. pyri . Relative to untreated control

areas, no adverse effects on predatory mite populations w ere observed in five of the six

vineyards studied in Southern Germany and France after 4 applications (April

– July) of 2.4 L/ha

BAS 650 00 F (equivalent to 491 g a.i./ha) in 400

– 800 L water/ha. In one vineyard in Southern

France, slight and transient ef fects were seen, with a significant reduction in mite populations

(24.2% reduction) nine days after the first application only; no significant differences between

treated and control popula tion levels occurred thereafter

.

Table F

- 1. Summary of toxicity o f the end

- use products BAS 650 00 F and BAS 651

00 F to non

- target beneficial arthropods.

Organism Exposure Test Substance Endpoint Value Reference /

Comments

Parasitic arthropod Acute contact 48

-

hour BAS 650 00 F LR 50 1.22 L EP/ha

or =234 g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.1/05

Endpoint based on83 Table F

- 1. Summary of toxicity o f the end

- use products BAS 650 00 F and BAS 651

00 F to non

- target beneficial arthropods.

Organism Exposure Test Substance Endpoint Value Reference /

Comments

Parasitic wasp

( Aphidius

rhopalosiphi ) (laboratory

- treated

glass plates) mortality

BAS 651 00 F LR 50 >3.2 L EP/ha

(PMRA, APVMA,

USEPA,

NZERMA) IIIA, 10.5.1/01

LR 50 >970 g BAS

650 F/ha

(PMRA, USEPA,

NZERMA)

48

- hou r exposure,

11

- day observation

(dry residues on

barley seedlings) BAS 650 00 F LR 50 >9.6 L EP/ha

or >1962 g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.2/02

BAS 651 00 F LR 50 >2.4 L EP/ha

(PMRA, APVMA,

USEPA,

NZERMA) IIIA, 10.5.2/01

LR 50 >717 g BAS

650 F/ha

(PMRA, USEPA,

NZERMA)

Predatory

arthropod

Predaceous mite

( Typhlodromus

pyri ) Acute contact 7

- day (laboratory

treated glass

plates) BAS 650 00 F LR 50 >9.6 L EP/ha

or >1843 g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.1/04

BAS 651 00 F LR 50 >3.2 L EP/ha

(PMRA, APVMA,

USEPA,

NZERMA) IIIA , 10.5.1/02

LR 50 >970 g BAS

650 F/ha

(PMRA, USEPA,

NZERMA)

Field study

(Germany): 4

applications, 68

- day period, May

June BAS 650 00 F No adverse effects

at 4 applications of

2.4 L EP/ha or 491

g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.3/01

Field study

(France): 4

app lications, 63

- day period, April

June BAS 650 00 F Slight/transient

effects at 4

applications of

2.28 L EP/ha or

468 g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.3/02

Slight/transient

effects on

populations

Field study

(France): 4

applications, 66

- day period, May

June BAS 650 00 F No adverse effects

at 4 applications of

2.4 L EP/ha or 491

g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.3/03

Field study

(Germany): 4

applications, 62

- day period, June

July BAS 650 00 F No adverse effects

at 4 applications of

2.4 L EP/ha or 491

g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.3/04

Fi eld study

(France): 4 BAS 650 00 F No adverse effects

at 4 applications of IIIA, 10.5.3/0584 Table F

- 1. Summary of toxicity o f the end

- use products BAS 650 00 F and BAS 651

00 F to non

- target beneficial arthropods.

Organism Exposure Test Substance Endpoint Value Reference /

Comments

applications, 61

- day period, June

July 2.4 L EP/ha or 491

g a.i./ha

Field study

(France): 4

applications, 60

- day period, June

July BAS 650 00 F No adverse effects

at 4 applications of

2.4 L EP/ha or 491

g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.3/06

Green lacewing

( Chrysoperlea

carnea ) Contact, up to 15

day observation

(laboratory

- treated

glass plates) BAS 650 00 F LR 50 >3.6 L EP/ha

or >735.8 g a.i./ha IIIA, 10.5.1/06

Acute contact 7

- day BAS 651 00 F LR 50 >3.2 L EP/ha

(PMRA, APVMA,

USEPA,

NZERMA) IIIA, 10.5.1/03

LR 50 >956 g BAS

650 F/ha

(PMRA, USEPA,

NZERMA)85 

### Appendix G. LOCATES Output

Includes the following crop groups: bulb vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables,

tuberous and corm vegetables, and grapes



## Species Listing by State with Use Criteria

No species were excluded

Minimum of 1 Acre.

Freshwater, Brackish, Saltwater, Vernal pool, Coastal, Floodplain, Seas. wetland, Perm. w etland

Generic taxon {Amphibian, Arachnid, Bird, Bivalve, Conf/cycds, Coral, Crustacean, Dicot, Ferns, Fish,

Gastropod, Insect, Lichen, Mammal, Monocot, Reptile}

garlic, onions

- dry, onions

- green, bittermelons, cantaloupes, cucumbers and pickles, honeyd ew

melons, muskmelons and pepinos, other vegetables and melons harvested, pumpkins, squash

- all,

squash

- summer, squash

- winter, watermelons, eggplant, okra, peppers harvested, peppers other

than bell (including chile), peppers

- bell (excluding pimientos ), tomatoes in the open, vegetables

other, artichokes

- excluding jerusalem, beets, carrots, cassava, celery, chicory, daikon, dasheens,

gado, ginger root, ginseng, horseradish, other root crops, potatoes, radishes, sugarbeets for seed,

sugarbeets for sugar, sweet potatoes, taniers, taro, turnips, yam (lesser), yams, grapes

**Alabama** ( 74) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Frosted Flatwoods (Ambystoma cingulatum) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater, Vernal

pool

Salamander, Red Hills (Phaeognath us hubrichti) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Bankclimber, Purple (Elliptoideus sloatianus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Combshell, Southern (=Penitent (Epioblasma penita) E Freshwater Bivalve

mussel)

Combshell, Upland (Epioblasma metastriata) E Freshwa ter Bivalve

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Kidneyshell, Triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Orange

- nacre (Lampsilis perovalis) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Fres hwater Bivalve

Mussel, Acornshell Southern (Epioblasma othcaloogensis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Cumbe rland Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Dark Pigtoe (Pleurobema furvum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fine

- lined Pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fine

- rayed Pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) E Freshwater B ivalve

Mussel, Flat Pigtoe (=Marshall's (Pleurobema marshalli) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel)

Mussel, Gulf Moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge (Pleurobema taitianum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Tait's Mus sel)

Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated (Potamilus inflatus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Oval Pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) E Freshwater Bivalve86 Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick (Obovaria r etusa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearly)

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe (Fusconaia cor) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny

- rayed Pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Cl ubshell (Pleurobema decisum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Alabama Lamp (Lampsilis virescens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking (Hemistena lata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pe arlymussel, Cumberland (Quadrula intermedia) E Freshwater Bivalve

Monkeyface

Pearlymussel, Orange

- footed (Plethobasus cooperianus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Pale Lilliput (Toxolasma cylindrellus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Turgid

- blos som (Epioblasma turgidula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes) E Freshwater Bivalve

Shrimp, Alabama Cave (Palaemonias alabamae) E Freshwater

Crustacean

Amphia nthus, Little (Amphianthus pusillus) T Freshwater Dicot

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Pitcher

- plant, Alabama Canebrake (Sarracenia rubra alabamensis) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Pitcher

- plant, Green (Sarracenia oreophila) E Te rrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Quillwort, Louisiana (Isoetes louisianensis) E Terrestrial, Ferns

Freshwater

Cavefish, Alabama (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Spotfin (Erimonax monachus) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Boulder (Etheostoma wapiti) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Goldline (Percina aurolineata) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Slackwater (Etheostoma boschungi) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Snail (Percina tanasi) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Vermilion (Etheostoma chermocki) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Watercress (Etheostoma nuchale) E Freshwater Fish

Sculpin, Pygmy (Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus)) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Blue (Cyprinella caerulea) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Cahaba (Notropis cahabae) E Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Palezone (Notropis a lbizonatus) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Alabama (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) T Freshwater, Fish

Campeloma, Slender (Campeloma decampi) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Elimia, Lacy (Elimia crenatella) T Freshwater

Gastropod

Pebblesnail, Flat (Lepyrium showalteri) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Riversnail, Anthony's (Athearnia anthonyi) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Rocksnail, Painted (Leptoxis taeniata) T Freshwater

Gastropod

Rocksnail, Plicate (Leptoxis plicata) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Rocksnail, Round (Leptoxis ampla) T Freshwater

Gastropod

Snail, Armored (Pyrgulopsis (=Marstonia) pachyta) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Snail, Lioplax Cylindrical (Lioplax cyclostomaformis) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) E Terrestrial, Perm. Insect87 wetland

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) E Terrestrial, Insect

Freshwater

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Mouse, Alabama Beach (Peromys cus polionotus ammobates) E Terrestrial, Coastal

Mammal

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) E Coastal

Mammal

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

Water

- plantain , Kral's (Sagittaria secundifolia) T Freshwater

Monocot

Turtle, Alabama Red

- bellied (Pseudemys alabamensis) E Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

Turtle, Flattened Musk (Sternotherus depressus) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Alaska** ( 4) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Albatross, Short

- tailed (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) E Terrestrial, Saltwater Bird

Eider, Steller's (Polysticta stelleri) T Terrestrial, Saltwater Bird

Otter, Northern Sea (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) T Saltwater

Mammal Seal, spotted (Ph oca largha) T Saltwater

Mammal

**Arizona** ( 23) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard (Rana chiricahuensis) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Salamander, Sonora Tiger (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater, Ve rnal

pool

Umbel, Huachuca Water (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Catfish, Yaqui (Ictalurus pricei) T Freshwater Fish

Chub, Bonytail (Gila elegans) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Gila (Gila intermedia) E Freshwater Fi sh

Chub, Humpback (Gila cypha) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Sonora (Gila ditaenia) T Freshwater Fish

Chub, Virgin River (Gila seminuda (=robusta)) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Yaqui (Gila purpurea) E Freshwater Fish

Minnow, Loach (Tiaroga cobitis) T Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Desert (Cyprinodon macularius) E Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Beautiful (Cyprinella formosa) T Freshwater Fish

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) T Freshwater Fish

Spinedace, Little Colorado (Lepidomeda vittata) T Freshwater Fish

Squawfish, Colorado (P tychocheilus lucius) E Freshwater Fish

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

Topminnow, Gila (Yaqui) (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) E Freshwater Fish

Trout , Apache (Oncorhynchus apache) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Gila (Oncorhynchus gilae) E Freshwater Fish

Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) E Freshwater Fish

Ambersnail, Kanab (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) E Terrestrial,

Gastropod

Freshwater88 **Arkansas** ( 1 6) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Fatmucket, Arkansas (Lampsilis powelli) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Speckled Pocketbook (Lamp silis streckeri) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Curtis' (Epioblasma florentina curtisii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearl ymussel, Turgid

- blossom (Epioblasma turgidula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Rock

- pocketbook, Ouachita (Arkansia wheeleri) E Freshwater Bivalve

(=Wheeler's pm)

Crayfish, Cave (Cambarus (Cambarus aculabrum) E Freshwater

Crustacean

aculabrum)

Harperella (Ptili mnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Cavefish, Ozark (Amblyopsis rosae) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Leopard (Percina pantherina) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River (Notropis girardi) T Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwat er Fish

Trout, Bull (Salvelinus confluentus) T Freshwater Fish

**California** ( 87) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Frog, California Red

- legged (Rana aurora draytonii) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Frog, Mountain Yellow

- legged (Rana muscosa) E Terrestria l,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Salamander, California Tiger (Ambystoma californiense) E Terrestrial, Vernal

Amphibian

pool

Salamander, Desert Slender (Batrachoseps aridus) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Salamander, Santa Cruz Long

- toed (Ambystoma ma crodactylum croceum) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater, Vernal

pool

Toad, Arroyo Southwestern (Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Albatross, Short

- tailed (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) E Terrestrial, Saltwa ter Bird

Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus) T Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater,

Crayfish, Shasta (Pacifastacus fortis) E Freshwater

Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Fairy (Branchinecta conservatio) E Vernal pool

Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Lo nghorn (Branchinecta longiantenna) E Vernal pool

Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Riverside (Streptocephalus woottoni) E Vernal pool

Crustacean Fairy Shrimp, San Diego (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) E Vernal pool

Crustacean

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool (Branchinect a lynchi) T Vernal pool

Crustacean

Shrimp, California Freshwater (Syncaris pacifica) E Freshwater

Crustacean

Tadpole Shrimp, Vernal Pool (Lepidurus packardi) E Vernal pool

Crustacean

Allocarya, Calistoga (Plagiobothrys strictus) E Vernal pool Dicot89 Bir d's

- beak, salt marsh (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus) E Saltwater Dicot

Bird's

- beak, Soft (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) E Brackish, Saltwater Dicot

Checker

- mallow, Kenwood Marsh (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida) E Terrestrial Dicot

Clover, Flesh y Owl's (Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta) T Vernal pool Dicot

Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley (Atriplex coronata var. notatior) E Terrestrial Dicot

Daisy, Parish's (Erigeron parishii) T Freshwater Dicot

Grass, Hairy Orcutt (Orcuttia pilosa) E Verna l pool Dicot

Grass, Sacramento Orcutt (Orcuttia viscida) E Vernal pool Dicot

Grass, Slender Orcutt (Orcuttia tenuis) T Vernal pool Dicot

Howellia, Water (Howellia aquatilis) T Freshwater Dicot

Layia, Beach (Layia carnosa) E Terrestrial, Coastal Dicot

Lupine, Clover (Lupinus tidestromii) E Coastal Dicot

Lupine, Nipomo Mesa (Lupinus nipomensis) E Coastal Dicot

Meadowfoam, Butte County (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica) E Vernal pool Dicot

Meadowfoam, Sebastopol (Limnanthes vinculans) E Terrestrial

, Dicot

Freshwater

Milk

- vetch, Ventura Marsh (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. E Terrestrial, Dicot

lanosissimus) Freshwater

Navarretia, Few

- flowered (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Pauciflora) E Terrestrial, Vernal Dicot

pool

Navarretia, Many

- flowere d (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha) E Terrestrial, Vernal Dicot

pool

Navarretia, Spreading (Navarretia fossalis) T Vernal pool Dicot

Sandwort, Marsh (Arenaria paludicola) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Spurge, Hoover's (Chamaesyce hooveri) T Vernal pool Dicot

Stickyseed, Baker's (Blennosperma bakeri) E Vernal pool Dicot

Stonecrop, Lake County (Parvisedum leiocarpum) E Vernal pool Dicot

Thistle, Chorro creek Bog (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Thistle, La Graciosa (Cirsium loncholepis) E Freshwater, Dicot

Brackish, Coastal

Thistle, Suisun (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum) E Terrestrial, Brackish Dicot

Tuctoria, Green's (Tuctoria greenei) E Vernal pool Dicot

Watercress, Gambel's (Rorippa gambel lii) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater, Brackish

Chub, Bonytail (Gila elegans) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Mohave Tui (Gila bicolor mohavensis) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Owens Tui (Gila bicolor snyderi) E Freshwater Fish

Goby, Tidewater (Eucyclogobius newber ryi) E Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Desert (Cyprinodon macularius) E Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Owens (Cyprinodon radiosus) E Freshwater Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) E/T Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Salmon, Coho (Oncorhy nchus (=Salmo) kisutch) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Smelt, Delta (Hypomesus transpacificus) T Freshwater, Brackish Fish

Squawfish, Colorado (Ptychocheilus lucius) E Freshwater Fish

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) E Freshwater, Fis h

Brackish, Saltwater

Stickleback, Unarmored (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni) E Freshwater Fish

Threespine

Sturgeon, North American green (Acipenser medirostris) T Freshwater, Fish

Sucker, Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker , Modoc (Catostomus microps) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Santa Ana (Catostomus santaanae) T Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) E Freshwater Fish90 Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat (O ncorhynchus clarki henshawi) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Little Kern Golden (Oncorhynchus aguabonita whitei) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Paiute Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris) T Freshwater Fish

Abalone, White (Haliotis sorenseni) E Saltwater

Gastrop od

Beetle, Delta Green Ground (Elaphrus viridis) T Terrestrial, Vernal Insect

pool

Mountain Beaver, Point Arena (Aplodontia rufa nigra) E Terrestrial,

Mammal

Freshwater

Otter, Southern Sea (Enhydra lutris nereis) T Saltwater

Mammal Seal, Guadalupe Fur (Arctocephalus townsendi) T Saltwater, Coastal

Mammal

Sea

- lion, Steller (Eumetopias jubatus) E/T Saltwater, Coastal

Mammal

Whale, Finback (Balaenoptera physalus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Whale, Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) E Saltwater

Mammal

Whale, North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis)) E Saltwater

Mammal

Whale, Sei (Balaenoptera borealis) E Saltwater

Mammal Whale, Sperm (Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus)) E Saltwater

Mammal Alopecurus, Sonoma (Alopecurus aequalis var. sonome nsis) E Terrestrial

Monocot

Bluegrass, Napa (Poa napensis) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Grass, California Orcutt (Orcuttia californica) E Terrestrial, Vernal

Monocot

pool

Grass, Colusa (Neostapfia colusana) T Vernal pool

Monocot

Grass, San Joa quin Valley Orcutt (Orcuttia inaequalis) T Vernal pool

Monocot

Grass, Solano (Tuctoria mucronata) E Terrestrial, Vernal

Monocot

pool

Lily, Pitkin Marsh (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense) E Freshwater

Monocot Sedge, White (Carex albida) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Snake, Giant Garter (Thamnophis gigas) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

Snake, San Francisco Garter (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) E Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Colorado** ( 8) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping ( Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Mustard, Penland Alpine Fen (Eutrema penlandii) T Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Chub, Bonytail (Gila elegans) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Humpback (Gila cypha) E Freshwater Fish

Squawfish, Colorado (Ptycho cheilus lucius) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

Trout, Greenback Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) T Freshwater Fish91 **Connecticut** ( 3) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Beetle, Puritan Tiger (Cicindela puritana) T Terrestrial, Coastal Insect

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Delaware** ( 2) species: E/T Me dium Taxon

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T Coastal Dicot

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Florida** ( 28) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Frosted Flatwoods (Ambystoma cingulatum) T Terrestrial,

Amphi bian

Freshwater, Vernal

pool

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Bankclimber, Purple (Elliptoideus sloatianus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fat Threeridge (Amblema neislerii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Gulf Moccasinsh ell (Medionidus penicillatus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ochlockonee (Medionidus simpsonianus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Moccasinshell

Mussel, Oval Pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny

- rayed Pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Slabshell, Chipola (Elliptio chipolaensis) T Freshwater Bivalve

Shrimp, Squirrel Chimney Cave (Palaemonetes cummingi) T Freshwater,

Crustacean

Subterraneous

Butterwort, Godfrey's (Pinguicula ionantha) T Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshw ater

Jacquemontia, Beach (Jacquemontia reclinata) E Terrestrial, Coastal Dicot

Darter, Okaloosa (Etheostoma okaloosae) E Freshwater Fish

Sawfish, Smalltooth (Pristis pectinata) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinch us desotoi) T Freshwater, Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Mouse, Anastasia Island Beach (Peromyscus polionotus phasma) E Terrestrial, Coastal

Mammal

Mou se, Choctawhatchee Beach (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys) E Terrestrial, Coastal

Mammal

Mouse, Perdido Key Beach (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) E Coastal

Mammal

Mouse, Southeastern Beach (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) T Terrestrial, Coastal

Mammal

Mouse, St. Andrew Beach (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) E Terrestrial, Coastal

Mammal

Vole, Florida Salt Marsh (Microtus pennsylvanicus dukecampbelli) E Terrestrial, Brackish

Mammal

Beauty, Harper's (Harperocallis flava) E Terrestrial,

Mon ocot

Freshwater

Seagrass, Johnson's (Halophila johnsonii) T Saltwater, Coastal

Monocot

Alligator, American (Alligator mississippiensis) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater, Brackish

Crocodile, American (Crocodylus acutus) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Fresh water

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh (Nerodia clarkii taeniata) T Terrestrial, Brackish, Reptile92 Saltwater

**Georgia** ( 37) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Frosted Flatwoods (Ambystoma cingulatum) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater, Vernal

pool

B ankclimber, Purple (Elliptoideus sloatianus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Combshell, Upland (Epioblasma metastriata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Kidneyshell, Triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Acornshell Southern (Epioblasma othcaloogensi s) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fat Threeridge (Amblema neislerii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fine

- line d Pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Gulf Moccasinshell (Medionidus penicillatus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ochlockonee (Medionidus simpsonianus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Moccasinshell

Mussel, Oval Pigtoe (Pleurobema pyriforme) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny

- rayed Pocketbook (Lampsilis subangulata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amphianthus, Little (Amphianthus pusillus) T Freshwater Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's (Oxypolis canbyi) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Pitcher

- plant, Gr een (Sarracenia oreophila) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Quillwort, Black

- spored (Isoetes melanospora) E Vernal pool Ferns

Quillwort, Mat

- forming (Isoetes tegetiformans) E Vernal pool Ferns

Darter, Amber (Percina antesella) E Freshwater Fish

Darter , Cherokee (Etheostoma scotti) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Etowah (Etheostoma etowahae) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Goldline (Percina aurolineata) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Snail (Percina tanasi) T Freshwater Fish

Logperch, Conasauga (Percina jenkinsi) E F reshwater Fish

Shiner, Blue (Cyprinella caerulea) T Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Snail, Lioplax Cylindrical (Lioplax cyclostomaformis) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Whale, Humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) E Saltwater

Mammal

Whale, North Atlantic right (Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis)) E Saltwater

Mammal Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) T Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Water

- plantain, Kra l's (Sagittaria secundifolia) T Freshwater

Monocot

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Guam** ( 4) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Sea turtle, green (Chelonia mydas) E/T Saltwater Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys i mbricata) E Saltwater, Coastal Reptile

Sea turtle, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) E Saltwater, Coastal Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) T Saltwater, Coastal Reptile93 **Hawaii** ( 7) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Duck, Hawaiian (Koloa) (Anas wyvilliana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Goose, Hawaiian (Nene) (Branta (=Nesochen) sandvicensis) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Shearwater, Newell's Townsend's (Puffinus auricularis newelli) T Terrestrial, Saltwater Bird

Amphipod, Kauai Cave (Sp elaeorchestia koloana) E Freshwater,

Crustacean

Subterraneous

'Ihi'Ihi (Marsilea villosa) (Marsilea villosa) E Terrestrial, Vernal Ferns

pool

Snail, Newcomb's (Erinna newcombi) T Freshwater

Gastropod

Seal, Hawaiian Monk (Monachus schauinslandi) E Sa ltwater, Coastal

Mammal

**Idaho** ( 10) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Howellia, Water (Howellia aquatilis) T Freshwater Dicot

Peppergrass, Slick Spot (Lepidium papilliferum) T Terrestrial, Dicot

Salmon, Chinook (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) E/T Freshwat er, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Salmon, Sockeye (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Sturgeon, White (Acipenser transmontanus) E Freshwate r, Fish

Trout, Bull (Salvelinus confluentus) T Freshwater Fish

Limpet, Banbury Springs (Lanx sp.) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Snail, Bliss Rapids (Taylorconcha serpenticola) T Freshwater

Gastropod

Springsnail, Bruneau Hot (Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis) E Fresh water

Gastropod

**Illinois** ( 11) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, F at Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (Lampsilis higginsii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange

- footed (Plethobasus cooperianus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amphipod, Illinois Cave (Gammarus acherondytes) E Fresh water,

Crustacean

Subterraneous

Aster, Decurrent False (Boltonia decurrens) T Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Daisy, Lakeside (Hymenoxys herbacea) T Freshwater Dicot

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) E Terrestrial, Insect

Freshwater

**Indiana** ( 9) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clav a) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) E Terrestrial, Perm. Insect94 Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Iowa** ( 4) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (Lampsilis higginsii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

**Kansas** ( 5) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Madtom, Neosho (Noturus placidus) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River (Notropis girardi) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

**Kentucky** ( 27) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lamp silis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Oys ter (Epioblasma capsaeformis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick (Obovaria retusa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearly)

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E Freshwater Biv alve

Pearlymussel, Appalachian (Quadrula sparsa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Monkeyface

Pearlymussel, Cracking (Hemistena lata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean (Villosa trabalis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Dromedary (Dromus dromas ) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little

- wing (Pegias fabula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange

- footed (Plethobasus cooperianus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Purple Ca t's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled

- (Epioblasma torulosa torulosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Yellow

- blossom (Epiobl asma florentina florentina) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Tan (Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. E Freshwater Bivalve

Shrimp, Kentucky Cave (Palaemonias ganteri) E Freshwate r

Crustacean

Dace, Blackside (Phoxinus cumberlandensis) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Relict (Etheostoma chienense) E Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Palezone (Notropis albizonatus) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

**Louis iana**  ( 8) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated (Potamilus inflatus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlshell, Louisiana (Margaritifera hembeli) T Freshwater Bivalve

Quillwor t, Louisiana (Isoetes louisianensis) E Terrestrial, Ferns

Freshwater

Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) T Freshwater, Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mamm al95 Turtle, Ringed Map (Graptemys oculifera) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Maine** ( 2) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salmon, Atlantic (Salmo salar) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fis h

**Maryland** ( 10) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T Coastal Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's (Oxypolis canbyi) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Harperella (Ptili mnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Joint

- vetch, Sensitive (Aeschynomene virginica) T Terrestrial, Brackish Dicot

Darter, Maryland (Etheostoma sellare) E Freshwater Fish

Beetle, Puritan Tiger (Cicindela puritana) T Terrestrial, Coastal Insect

Bulrush, No rtheastern (=Barbed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) T Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Massachusetts** ( 5) spec ies: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Beetle, Puritan Tiger (Cicindela puritana) T Terrestrial, Coastal Insect

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Bar bed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Michigan** ( 8) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffles hell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Daisy, Lakeside (Hymenoxys herbacea) T Freshwater Dicot

Monkey

- flower, Michigan (Mimulus glabratus var. michiganensis) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Beetle, Hungerford's Crawling (B rychius hungerfordi) E Freshwater Insect

Water

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) E Terrestrial, Perm. Insect

wetland

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) E Terrestrial, Insect

Freshwater

Snake, Northern Coppe rbelly Water (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Minnesota** ( 3) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (Lampsilis higginsii) E Freshwater Biv alve

Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) E Freshwater Fish

**Mississippi** ( 20) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Frog, Dusky Gopher (Mississippi (Rana capito sevosa) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian DPS) Freshwater

Crane, Mississippi Sandhill (Grus canadensis pulla) E Terrestrial, Bird96 Freshwater

Combshell, Southern (=Penitent (Epioblasma penita) E Freshwater Bivalve

mussel)

Mucket, Orange

- nacre (Lampsilis perovalis) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) T Freshwate r Bivalve

Mussel, Black (=Curtus' Mussel) (Pleurobema curtum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Clubshell

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Heavy Pigtoe (=Judge (Pleurobema taitianum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Tait's Mus sel)

Mussel, Heelsplitter Inflated (Potamilus inflatus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook (Potamilu s capax) E Freshwater Bivalve

Quillwort, Louisiana (Isoetes louisianensis) E Terrestrial, Ferns

Freshwater

Darter, Bayou (Etheostoma rubrum) T Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Gulf (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) T Freshwater, Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphir hynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Turtle, Alabama Red

- bellied (Pseudemys alabamensis) E Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

Turtle, Ringed Map (Graptemys oculifera) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Fresh water

Turtle, Yellow

- blotched Map (Graptemys flavimaculata) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Missouri** ( 15) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) E Fresh water Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Curtis' (Epioblasma florentina curtisii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Fat Pocketbook (Potamilus capax) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (L ampsilis higginsii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Aster, Decurrent False (Boltonia decurrens) T Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Sneezeweed, Virginia (Helenium virginicum) T Vernal pool Dicot

Cavefish, Ozark (Amblyopsis rosae) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Niangua ( Etheostoma nianguae) T Freshwater Fish

Madtom, Neosho (Noturus placidus) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Cavesnail, Tumbling Creek (Antrobia culve ri) E Freshwater,

Gastropod

Subterraneous

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) E Terrestrial, Insect

Freshwater

**Montana** ( 4) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Howellia, Water (Ho wellia aquatilis) T Freshwater Dicot

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Trout, Bull (Salvelinus confluentus) T Freshwater Fish

**Nebraska** ( 3) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwa ter97 Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

**Nevada** ( 23) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Poolfish, Pahrump (= Pahrump (Empetrichthys latos) E Freshwater Dicot

Killifish)

Chub, Humpback (Gila cypha) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Pahranagat Roundtail (Gila robusta jordani) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Virgin River (Gila seminuda (=robusta)) E Freshwater Fish

Cui

- ui (Chasmistes cujus) E Freshwater Fish

Dace, Ash Meadows Speckled (Rhinich thys osculus nevadensis) E Freshwater Fish

Dace, Clover Valley Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus oligoporus) E Freshwater Fish

Dace, Desert (Eremichthys acros) T Freshwater Fish

Dace, Independence Valley (Rhinichthys osculus lethoporus) E Freshwater Fish

Speckled

Dace, Moapa (Moapa coriacea) E Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa (Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes) E Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Devils Hole (Cyprinodon diabolis) E Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Warm Springs (Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoral is) E Freshwater Fish

Spinedace, Big Spring (Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis) T Freshwater Fish

Spinedace, White River (Lepidomeda albivallis) E Freshwater Fish

Springfish, Hiko White River (Crenichthys baileyi grandis) E Freshwater Fish

Springfish, R ailroad Valley (Crenichthys nevadae) T Freshwater Fish

Springfish, White River (Crenichthys baileyi baileyi) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Warner (Catostomus warnerensis) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Bull (Salvelinus confluentus) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) T Freshwater Fish

Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) E Freshwater Fish

**New Hampshire** ( 2) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

**New Jersey** ( 5) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T Coastal Dicot

Joint

- vetch, Sensitive (Aeschynomene virginica) T Terrestrial, Brackish Dicot

Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) T Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Fr eshwater

**New Mexico** ( 20) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Frog, Chiricahua Leopard (Rana chiricahuensis) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Amphipod, Noel's (Gammarus desperatus) E Freshwater

Crustacean

Isopod, Socorro (Thermosphaeroma thermophilus) E Fre shwater

Crustacean

Sunflower, Pecos (Helianthus paradoxus) T Terrestrial, Perm. Dicot

wetland

Chub, Chihuahua (Gila nigrescens) T Freshwater Fish

Chub, Gila (Gila intermedia) E Freshwater Fish

Gambusia, Pecos (Gambusia nobilis) E Freshwater Fish

Min now, Loach (Tiaroga cobitis) T Freshwater Fish98 Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery (Hybognathus amarus) E Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River (Notropis girardi) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Beautiful (Cyprinella formosa) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Pecos Bluntnos e (Notropis simus pecosensis) T Freshwater Fish

Spikedace (Meda fulgida) T Freshwater Fish

Squawfish, Colorado (Ptychocheilus lucius) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

Topminnow, Gila (Yaqui) (Poeciliopsis occide ntalis) E Freshwater Fish

Trout, Gila (Oncorhynchus gilae) E Freshwater Fish

Snail, Pecos Assiminea (Assiminea pecos) E Freshwater

Gastropod Springsnail, Alamosa (Tryonia alamosae) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Springsnail, Roswell (Pyrgulopsis roswellensis) E Freshwater

Gastropod

**New York** ( 6) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T Coastal Dicot

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Snail, Chittenango Ovate Amber (Succinea chittenangoensis) T Terrestrial,

Gastropod

Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**North Carolina** ( 24) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Elktoe, Appalachian (Alasmidonta raveneliana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Heelsplitter Carolina (Lasmigona decorata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean (Villosa trabalis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little

- wing (Pegias fabula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Tan (Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. E Freshwater Bivalve

Spinymussel, James River (Pleurobema collina) E Freshwater Bivalve

Spinymu ssel, Tar River (Elliptio steinstansana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T Coastal Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's (Oxypolis canbyi) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Joint

- vetch, Sensitive (Aeschynomene virginica) T Terrestrial, Brackish Dicot

Pitcher

- plant, Green (Sarracenia oreophila) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Pitcher

- plant, Mountain Sweet (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jonesii) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Chub, Spotfin (Erimonax monachus) T Freshwater Fish

Logperch, Roanoke (Percina rex) E Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Cape Fear (Notropis mekistocholas) E Freshwater Fish

Silverside, Waccamaw (Menidia extensa) T Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Arrowhead, Bunched (Sagittaria fasciculata) E Freshwater

Monocot Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) T Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Alligator, American (Alligator mississip piensis) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater, Brackish

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile99 Freshwater

**North Dakota** ( 2) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

**Ohio** ( 11) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bi valve

Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Da isy, Lakeside (Hymenoxys herbacea) T Freshwater Dicot

Madtom, Scioto (Noturus trautmani) E Freshwater Fish

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) E Terrestrial, Perm. Insect

wetland

Snake, Lake Erie Water (Nerodia sipedon insula rum) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

Snake, Northern Copperbelly Water (Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Oklahoma** ( 9) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Mu ssel, Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Rock

- pocketbook, Ouachita (Arkansia wheeleri) E Freshwater Bivalve

(=Wheeler's pm)

Cavefish, Ozark (Amblyopsis rosae) T Freshwat er Fish

Darter, Leopard (Percina pantherina) T Freshwater Fish

Madtom, Neosho (Noturus placidus) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River (Notropis girardi) T Freshwater Fish

Alligator, American (Alligator mississippiensis) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Fre shwater, Brackish

**Oregon** ( 22) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Albatross, Short

- tailed (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) E Terrestrial, Saltwater Bird

Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus) T Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater,

Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool (Branchinecta lynchi) T Vernal pool

Crustacean

Howellia, Water (Howellia aquatilis) T Freshwater Dicot

Lomatium, Bradshaw's (Lomatium bradshawii) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Lomatium, Cook's (Lomatium cookii) E Vernal pool Dicot

Meadowfoam, Large

- flowered (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Grandiflora) E Vernal pool Dicot

Woolly

Popcornflower, Rough (Plagiobothrys hirtus) E Vernal pool Dicot

Chub, Hutton Tui (Gila bicolor ssp.) T Freshwater Fish

Chub, Oregon (Oregonichthys crameri) E Freshwater Fish

Dace, Foskett Speckled (Rhinichthys osculus ssp.) T Freshwater Fish

Salmon, Chinook (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) E/T Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Salmon, Chum (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta) T Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Salmon, Coho (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Salmon, Sockeye (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka) E Freshwater, Fish100 Brackish, Saltwater

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Sucke r, Lost River (Deltistes luxatus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Modoc (Catostomus microps) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Shortnose (Chasmistes brevirostris) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Warner (Catostomus warnerensis) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Bull (Salvelinus con fluentus) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) T Freshwater Fish

**Pennsylvania** ( 5) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E F reshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Puerto Rico** ( 8) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Coqui, Golden (Eleutherodactylus jasperi) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Guajon (Eleutherodactylus cooki) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Toad, Puerto Rican Crested (Peltophryne lemur ) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal Sea turtle, green (Chelonia mydas) E/T Saltwater Reptile

Sea turtle, hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) E Saltwater, Coastal Reptile

Sea turtle, leathe rback (Dermochelys coriacea) E Saltwater, Coastal Reptile

Sea turtle, loggerhead (Caretta caretta) T Saltwater, Coastal Reptile

**Rhode Island** ( 1) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

**South Carolina** ( 13) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Frosted Flatwoods (Ambystoma cingulatum) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater, Vernal

pool

Mussel, Heelsplitter Carolina (Lasmigona decorata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T C oastal Dicot

Amphianthus, Little (Amphianthus pusillus) T Freshwater Dicot

Dropwort, Canby's (Oxypolis canbyi) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Pitcher

- plant, Mountain Sweet (Sarracenia rubra ssp. jon esii) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Quillwort, Black

- spored (Isoetes melanospora) E Vernal pool Ferns

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Arrowhead, Bunched ( Sagittaria fasciculata) E Freshwater

Monocot Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) T Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater101 Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**South Dakota** ( 5) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus ame ricana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Mussel, Scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (Lampsilis higginsii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Shiner, Topeka (Notropis topeka (=tristis)) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (S caphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

**Tennessee** ( 58) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Combshell, Upland (Epioblasma metastriata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Elktoe, Appalachian (Alasmidonta raveneliana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwa ter Bivalve

Kidneyshell, Triangular (Ptychobranchus greenii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Alabama Moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Clubshell (Pleuro bema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Coosa Moccasinshell (Medionidus parvulus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Elktoe (Alasmidonta atropurpurea) E Freshwater Bivalve

M ussel, Cumberland Pigtoe (Pleurobema gibberum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fine

- lined Pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis) T Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fine

- rayed Pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ovate Clubshell (Pleurobema perovatum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Oyster (Epioblasma capsaeformis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Ring Pink (=Golf Stick (Obovaria retusa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearly)

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe (Fusc onaia cor) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Southern Pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Alabama Lamp (Lampsilis virescens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Appalachian (Quadrula sparsa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Monkeyface

Pea rlymussel, Birdwing (Conradilla caelata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking (Hemistena lata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean (Villosa trabalis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland (Quadrula intermedia) E Freshwater Bivalve

Monkeyface

Pearlymussel, Dromedary (Dromus dromas) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Green

- blossom (Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little

- wing (Pegias fabula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Orange

- fo oted (Plethobasus cooperianus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Pale Lilliput (Toxolasma cylindrellus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Purple Cat's Paw (Epioblasma obliquata obliquata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled

- (Epioblasma torul osa torulosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Turgid

- blossom (Epioblasma turgidula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, White Wartyback (Plethobasus cicatricosus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Yellow

- blossom (Epioblasma florentina florentina) E F reshwater Bivalve

Purple Bean (Villosa perpurpurea) E Freshwater Bivalve

Rabbitsfoot, Rough (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Tan (Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. E Freshwater Bivalve

Crayfish, Nashville (Orconecte s shoupi) E Freshwater

Crustacean

Bladderpod, Spring Creek (Lesquerella perforata) E Floodplain Dicot

Pitcher

- plant, Green (Sarracenia oreophila) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater102 Chub, Slender (Erimystax cahni) T Freshwater Fish

Chub, Spotfin (Erimona x monachus) T Freshwater Fish

Dace, Blackside (Phoxinus cumberlandensis) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Amber (Percina antesella) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Bluemask (=jewel) (Etheostoma sp.) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Boulder (Etheostoma wapiti) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Duskytail (Etheostoma percnurum) E Freshwater Fish

Darter, Slackwater (Etheostoma boschungi) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Snail (Percina tanasi) T Freshwater Fish

Logperch, Conasauga (Percina jenkinsi) E Freshwater Fish

Madtom, Pygmy (Notur us stanauli) E Freshwater Fish

Madtom, Smoky (Noturus baileyi) E Freshwater Fish

Madtom, Yellowfin (Noturus flavipinnis) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Blue (Cyprinella caerulea) T Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Palezone (Notropis albizonatus) E Freshwater Fish

S turgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Riversnail, Anthony's (Athearnia anthonyi) E Freshwater

Gastropod

**Texas** ( 22) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Barton Springs (Eurycea sosorum) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Salamand er, San Marcos (Eurycea nana) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Salamander, Texas Blind (Typhlomolge rathbuni) E Freshwater,

Amphibian

Subterraneous

Toad, Houston (Bufo houstonensis) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Crane, Mississippi Sandhil l (Grus canadensis pulla) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Amphipod, Peck's Cave (Stygobromus (=Stygonectes) pecki) E Freshwater,

Crustacean

Subterraneous

Sunflower, Pecos (Helianthus p aradoxus) T Terrestrial, Perm. Dicot

wetland

Darter, Fountain (Etheostoma fonticola) E Freshwater Fish

Gambusia, Big Bend (Gambusia gaigei) E Freshwater Fish

Gambusia, Pecos (Gambusia nobilis) E Freshwater Fish

Gambusia, San Marcos (Gambusia georgei) E Freshwater Fish

Minnow, Devils River (Dionda diaboli) T Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Comanche Springs (Cyprinodon elegans) E Freshwater Fish

Pupfish, Leon Springs (Cyprinodon bovinus) E Freshwater Fish

Shiner, Arkansas River (Notropis girardi) T Freshwa ter Fish

Snail, Pecos Assiminea (Assiminea pecos) E Freshwater

Gastropod

Beetle, Comal Springs Dryopid (Stygoparnus comalensis) E Freshwater, Insect

Subterraneous

Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle (Heterelmis comalensis) E Freshwater, Insect

Subterraneou s

Manatee, West Indian (Trichechus manatus) E Saltwater

Mammal

Wild

- rice, Texas (Zizania texana) E Freshwater

Monocot

Snake, Concho Water (Nerodia paucimaculata) T Terrestrial, Reptile103 Freshwater

**Utah** ( 10) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Daisy, Maguire ( Erigeron maguirei) T Freshwater Dicot

Chub, Bonytail (Gila elegans) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Humpback (Gila cypha) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Virgin River (Gila seminuda (=robusta)) E Freshwater Fish

Squawfish, Colorado (Ptychocheilus lucius) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, June (Chasmistes liorus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) T Freshwater Fish

Woundfin (Plagopterus argentissimus) E Freshwater Fish

Ambersnai l, Kanab (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) E Terrestrial,

Gastropod

Freshwater

**Vermont** ( 2) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

**Virginia** ( 40) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Shenandoah (Plethodon shenandoah) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupt a) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Cumberland Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Dwarf Wedge (Alasmidonta heterodon) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Fine

- rayed Pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Oyster (Epiobl asma capsaeformis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Shiny Pigtoe (Fusconaia cor) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Appalachian (Quadrula sparsa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Monkeyface

Pearlymussel, Birdwing (Conradilla caelata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cracking (Hemistena lata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland Bean (Villosa trabalis) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Cumberland (Quadrula intermedia) E Freshwater Bivalve

M onkeyface

Pearlymussel, Dromedary (Dromus dromas) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Green

- blossom (Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Little

- wing (Pegias fabula) E Freshwater Bivalve

Purple Bean (Villosa perpurpurea) E Freshwater Bivalve

Rabbitsfoot, Rough (Quadrula cylindrica strigillata) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Tan (Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. E Freshwater Bivalve

Spinymussel, James River (Pleurobema collina) E Freshwater Bivalve

Isopod, Lee Cou nty Cave (Lirceus usdagalun) E Freshwater

Crustacean

Isopod, Madison Cave (Antrolana lira) T Freshwater

Crustacean

Amaranth, Seabeach (Amaranthus pumilus) T Coastal Dicot

Birch, Virginia Round

- leaf (Betula uber) T Floodplain Dicot

Harperella (Ptilimniu m nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Joint

- vetch, Sensitive (Aeschynomene virginica) T Terrestrial, Brackish Dicot

Sneezeweed, Virginia (Helenium virginicum) T Vernal pool Dicot

Chub, Slender (Erimystax cahni) T Freshwater Fish

Chub, Spotfin (Erimonax monachu s) T Freshwater Fish104 Dace, Blackside (Phoxinus cumberlandensis) T Freshwater Fish

Darter, Duskytail (Etheostoma percnurum) E Freshwater Fish

Logperch, Conasauga (Percina jenkinsi) E Freshwater Fish

Logperch, Roanoke (Percina rex) E Freshwater Fish

Mad tom, Yellowfin (Noturus flavipinnis) T Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) E Freshwater, Fish

Butterfly, Mitchell's Satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) E Terrestrial, Perm. Insect

wetland

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed ( Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

Pink, Swamp (Helonias bullata) T Terrestrial,

Monocot

Freshwater

Turtle, Bog (Clemmys muhlenbergii) T Terrestrial, Reptile

Freshwater

**Washington** ( 10) species: E/T Medium Taxon

A lbatross, Short

- tailed (Phoebastria (=Diomedea) albatrus) E Terrestrial, Saltwater Bird

Murrelet, Marbled (Brachyramphus marmoratus) T Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater,

Howellia, Water (Howellia aquatilis) T Freshwater Dicot

Lomatium, Bradshaw's (Lomatiu m bradshawii) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Sandwort, Marsh (Arenaria paludicola) E Terrestrial, Dicot

Freshwater

Salmon, Chinook (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha) E/T Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Salmon, Sockeye (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss) E Freshwater, Fish

Brackish, Saltwater

Trout, Apache (Oncorhynchus apache) T Freshwater Fish

Trout, Bull (Salvelinus confluentus) T Freshwater Fish

**West Virgini a**  ( 10) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Salamander, Cheat Mountain (Plethodon nettingi) T Terrestrial,

Amphibian

Freshwater

Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mucket, Pink (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) E Freshwater Bivalve

Mussel, Clu bshell (Pleurobema clava) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Tubercled

- (Epioblasma torulosa torulosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Riffleshell, Northern (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) E Freshwater Bivalve

Spinymussel, James River (Pleurobema collina) E Freshwa ter Bivalve

Isopod, Madison Cave (Antrolana lira) T Freshwater

Crustacean

Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) E Freshwater Dicot

Bulrush, Northeastern (=Barbed (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) E Terrestrial,

Monocot

Bristle) Freshwater

**Wisconsin** ( 3) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Mussel, Winged Mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa) E Freshwater Bivalve

Pearlymussel, Higgins' Eye (Lampsilis higginsii) E Freshwater Bivalve

Dragonfly, Hine's Emerald (Somatochlora hineana) E Terrestrial, Insect

Freshwater

**Wyoming** ( 7) spe cies: E/T Medium Taxon

Toad, Wyoming (Bufo baxteri (=hemiophrys)) E Terrestrial,

Amphibian105 Freshwater

**Wyoming** ( 7) species: E/T Medium Taxon

Crane, Whooping (Grus americana) E Terrestrial, Bird

Freshwater

Chub, Bonytail (Gila elegans) E Freshwater Fish

Chub, Humpback (Gila cypha) E Freshwater Fish

Squawfish, Colorado (Ptychocheilus lucius) E Freshwater Fish

Sturgeon, Pallid (Scaphirhynchus albus) E Freshwater Fish

Sucker, Razorback (Xyrauchen texanus) E Freshwater Fish

No species were selec ted for exclusion.

Dispersed species included in report.

Aquatic Marine Species



### Fish (Actinopterygii)

Common name Scientific name Family Order

Salmon, Atlantic Salmo salar Salmonidae Salmoniformes

Salmon, Chinook Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) tshawytscha Sal monidae Salmoniformes

Salmon, Chum Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) keta Salmonidae Salmoniformes

Salmon, Coho Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) kisutch Salmonidae Salmoniformes

Salmon, Sockeye Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) nerka Salmonidae Salmoniformes

Sawfish, Smalltooth Pristis pectinata Pristidae Pristiformes

Steelhead Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) mykiss Salmonidae Salmoniformes

Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Acipenseridae Acipenseriformes

Sturgeon, North American green Acipenser medirostris Acipenseridae Acipenseriform es

Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum Acipenseridae Acipenseriformes

Sturgeon, White Acipenser transmontanus Acipenseridae Acipenseriformes



### Gastropod (Gastropoda)

Common name Scientific name Family Order

Abalone, White Haliotis sorenseni Halio tidae Vetigastropoda



### Mammal (Mammalia)

Common name Scientific name Family Order

Bear, polar Ursus maritimus Ursidae Carnivora

Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus Trichechidae Sirenia

Otter, Northern Sea Enhydra lutris kenyoni Mustelidae Carnivora

Otter, Southern Sea Enhydra lutris nereis Mustelidae Carnivora

Seal, Guadalupe Fur Arctocephalus townsendi Phocidae Carnivora

Seal, Hawaiian Monk Monachus schauinslandi Phocidae Carnivora

Seal, spotted Phoca largha Phocidae Carnivora

Sea

- lion, Steller Eumetopias jubatus Otariidae Carnivora

Whale, Blue Balaenoptera musculus Balaenopteridae Cetacea

Whale, Bowhead Balaena mysticetus Balaenidae Cetacea

Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus Balaenopteridae Cetacea

Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae B alaenopteridae Cetacea

Whale, North Atlantic right Eubalaena glacialis (incl. australis) Balaenidae Cetacea

Whale, North Pacific right Eubalaena japonica Balaenidae Cetacea

Whale, Sei Balaenoptera borealis Balaenopteridae Cetacea

Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon (=macrocephalus) Physeteridae Cetacea



### Monocot (Liliopsida)106 Common name Scientific name Family Order

Seagrass, Johnson's Halophila johnsonii Hydrocharitaceae Alismatales



### Reptile (Reptilia)

Common name Scientific name Family Order

Sea turtle, green Chelonia mydas Cheloniidae Testudines

Sea turtle, hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata Cheloniidae Testudines

Sea turtle, Kemp's ridley Lepidochelys kempii Cheloniidae Testudines

Sea turtle, leatherback Dermochelys coriacea Dermochelyidae Testudines

Sea turtle, loggerhead Caretta caretta Cheloniidae Testudines

Sea turtle, olive ridley Lepidochelys olivacea Cheloniidae Testudines

Snake, Atlantic Salt Marsh Nerodia clarkii taeniata Colubridae Squamata