Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0162-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-03-07T05:00Z

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
PC
Code:
103001
DP
Barcodes:
D303453
MEMORANDUM
March
1,
2005
Subject:
EFED
risk
assessment
for
the
Napropamide
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
To:
Susan
Lewis,
Branch
Chief,/
Demson
Fuller,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Reregistration
Branch
I
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508C)

From:
James
Breithaupt,
Agronomist
Fred
Jenkins,
Fisheries
Biologist
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Through:
Tom
Bailey,
Ph.
D,
Chief,
ERB
II,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

In
response
to
the
"
error­
only"
comments
submitted
by
the
Napropamide
registrant
for
the
EFED
Napropamide
draft
screening
level
ecological
risk
assessment,
please
see
attached
EFED's
response
to
the
comments.
Also
attached
is
the
revised
risk
assessment
based
on
these
comments.

The
issues
regarding
the
registrant's
comments
involved
the
formulation
and
usage
information,
physical
and
chemical
properties
of
napropamide,
incorrect
references
to
studies
cited
and
to
tables,
and
data
that
has
not
been
submitted.
Some
of
these
comments
were
"
substantive,"
meaning
that
EFED
acknowledges
the
relevance
of
them
but
will
not
address
them
until
the
response
to
public
comment
period.
Also,
some
comments
were
"
error­
only"
and
were
incorporated
in
the
ecological
risk
assessment.

In
regards
to
the
formulations
and
use
information
comments
submitted
by
the
registrant,
the
registrant
correctly
noted
that
certain
formulations
(
50
WP,
2­
E,
and
5­
G)
are
not
being
supported
at
this
time.
EFED
deleted
from
the
risk
assessment
references
to
these.
The
remainder
of
the
formulation
and
use
comments
were
substantive
and
may
be
addressed
after
public
comments
have
been
received.

The
use
of
specific
chemical,
physical,
and
environmental
fate
properties
in
computer
modeling
of
environmental
and
drinking
water
exposure
was
also
addressed
by
the
registrant.
EFED
made
changes
in
the
document
but
did
not
rerun
the
modeling
at
this
time.
Substantive
comments
about
modeling
based
on
these
correct
properties
may
be
addressed
after
public
comment
has
been
ii
received.

Incorrect
tables
referenced
and
studies
cited
were
accurately
identified
by
the
registrant
and
modified
in
the
current
document.
This
"
error­
only"
comment
has
been
addressed.

EFED
identified
an
uncertainty
regarding
the
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
based
on
the
large
difference
in
half­
lives
between
laboratory
and
field
studies.
The
registrant
states
they
will
submit
additional
information
to
explain
this
discrepancy.
This
is
a
substantive
comment
that
may
be
addressed
at
a
later
date..

Ecological
effects
data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
The
registrant
intends
to
submit
these
studies
in
response
to
the
Draft
RED.
This
is
a
substantive
comment
and
EFED
will
evaluate
the
studies
once
they
are
submitted.
1
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
SCIENCE
CHAPTER
For
NAPROPAMIDE
(
CAS#:
15299­
99­
7)
Diethyl­
2­(
1­
naphthyloxy)
propanamide
USEPA
PC
Code:
103001
Re­
registration
Existing
Uses:
Nuts
(
almond,
pistachio,
pecan,
filbert,
walnut)
Berries/
small
fruit
(
blackberry,
boysenberry,
loganberry,
raspberry,
blueberry,
strawberry,
cranberry,
currant,
grape)
Brassica
and
leafy
vegetables
(
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
asparagus)
Citrus
(
grapefruit,
lemon,
nectarine,
orange,
tangerine,
tangelo)
Stone
fruit
(
apricot,
cherry,
peach,
plum,
prune)
Pome
fruit
(
apple,
pear)
Fruiting
vegetables
(
eggplant,
pepper,
tomato)
Tropical
fruit
(
fig,
kiwi
fruit,
persimmon,
avocado,
pomegranate)
Additional
crops
(
artichoke,
rhubarb,
tobacco,
sweet
potato)
Oil
seed
crops
(
mint,
olive)
Trees/
ornamentals
(
conifer,
shade
tree,
ornamental
tree,
ground
cover,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs,
vines,
lawns,
turf,
potting
soil)

End
Use
Products:
Devrinol
®
50­
DF,
2­
G,
10­
G,
4­
F
ERB
II
Team:
James
Breithaupt,
Agronomist
Fred
Jenkins,
Fisheries
Biologist
Michelle
Rau
Embry,
Ph.
D.,
Ecotoxicologist
Donna
Randall,
Senior
Aquatic
Biologist
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Secondary
Review:
Dana
Spatz,
Risk
Assessment
Process
Leader
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Branch
Chief
Approval:
Tom
Bailey,
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)
2
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Non­
endangered
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Listed
and
Endangered
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
C.
Major
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
1.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
B.
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
2.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
for
Nonlisted
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
3.
Listed
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
C.
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
1.
Flowable
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Ground
Spray
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
b.
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
2.
Granular
Applications
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
b.
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
D.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Information
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
E.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
1.
Specific
Considerations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
2.
Planned
Analyses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
a.
Initial
Considerations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
b.
Exposure
in
Terrestrial
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
c.
Exposure
in
Aquatic
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
III.
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
A.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
2.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
3.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
a.
Granular
Applications
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
b.
Spray
Applications
and
Residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
4.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
B.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
1.
Evaluation
of
Aquatic
and
Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
2.
Use
of
Probit
Slope
Response
Relationship
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
3
3.
Incident
Data
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
1.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
57
2.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
C.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
1.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
2.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
3.
Critical
Habitats
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
4.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
D.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
.
.
.
.
.
63
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
b.
Routes
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
c.
Residue
Levels
Selection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
63
d.
Dietary
Intake
­
Difference
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
.
.
64
e.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
for
Non­
Target
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
f.
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Aquatic
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
a.
Uncertainties
in
PRZM­
EXAMS
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
b.
Uncertainties
in
the
Cranberry
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
a.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
b.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
c.
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
4
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Napropamide,
also
known
by
the
trade
name
Devrinol
®
,
is
a
systemic,
preemergent,
surfaceapplied
substituted
amide
herbicide
used
to
control
annual
grassy
and
broadleaf
weeds
on
a
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Napropamide
is
sold
in
flowable
(
emulsifiable
liquid,
flowable
concentrate,
dry
flowable),
and
granular
formulations.
This
compound
must
be
watered
in
to
be
effective.

Ground
spray
(
including
some
forms
of
chemigation)
of
napropamide
will
result
in
spray
drift
onto
plants,
soil,
and
water
adjacent
to
a
treated
field.
Based
on
fate
properties,
as
demonstrated
in
laboratory
studies,
and
application
methods
(
i.
e.,
soil
incorporation),
it
is
expected
that
napropamide
applied
either
as
a
flowable
or
granular
formulation
will
be
persistent
in
the
terrestrial
environment
resulting
in
the
potential
for
napropamide
to
reach
the
aquatic
environment
by
runoff.
Additionally,
because
laboratory
dissipation
studies
demonstrate
a
halflife
of
approximately
446
days
there
is
a
potential
for
napropamide
to
accumulate
in
the
soil
with
repeated
applications.
However,
field
dissipation
studies,
where
napropamide
was
soil
incorporated)
indicate
much
faster
dissipation
rates
on
the
order
of
17
to
24
days.
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
is
evident.
Although
napropamide
can
photodegrade
in
water,
this
route
of
dissipation
is
expected
to
be
impeded
when
soil
incorporation
occurs
at
time
of
application.
In
addition,
any
napropamide
that
reaches
surface
water
will
tend
to
partition
to
suspended
soils
and
sediment,
thereby
reducing
the
amount
available
to
undergo
photolysis.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
be
a
bioaccumulative
compound
of
concern
based
on
submitted
data.
The
major
terminal
degradate
in
terrestrial
environments
is
carbon
dioxide,
but
photodegradation
in
aquatic
systems
creates
isomers
of
the
parent
compound.

A
screening­
level
assessment
of
risks
to
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
from
labeled
uses
of
napropamide
was
performed
on
geographical
areas
where
the
highest
use
rates
and
expected
exposures
are
likely
to
occur.
Because
the
label
does
not
specifically
require
soil
incorporation
at
the
time
of
application,
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
the
aquatic
environment
and
for
terrestrial
and
wetland/
riparian
plants
were
determined
assuming
both
soil
incorporation
and
no
soil
incorporation
at
the
time
of
application.

C.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Non­
endangered
Organisms
For
most
crops
the
maximum
label
rate
is
either
two
applications
of
4
pounds
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
(
lbs
ai/
A),
one
application
of
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
one
application
of
2
lbs.
ai/
A.
Risks
to
nontarget
plants
and
mammals
were
determined
for
these
rates
in
addition
to
risks
to
the
aquatic
environment
from
a
15
lb
ai/
A
application
for
cranberries.
Risks
to
terrestrial
and
wetland/
riparian
plants
were
determined
from
a
rate
1
lb
ai/
A,
which
represents
the
lowest
average
rate
for
a
row
crop
such
as
tobacco.
These
estimates
of
risk
included
both
the
parent
compound
and
the
isomers
that
were
formed
by
photodegradation
in
water.
5
Aquatic
organism
risks
No
acute
risk
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
were
exceeded
for
freshwater
or
marine/
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Chronic
risks
to
aquatic
organisms
could
not
be
evaluated
because
there
were
no
chronic
data
submitted.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2>
51
days).

No
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
aquatic
plants
based
on
a
single
green
algae
toxicity
study.
However,
data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

Avian
Risks
No
acute
or
chronic
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
birds.

Mammalian
Risks
No
acute
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
mammals.
Chronic
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
mammals
on
all
food
types
(
i.
e.,
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
large
insects)
at
all
modeled
application
rates.

Terrestrial
and
Wetland/
Riparian
Plants
For
spray
chemigation,
terrestrial
and
wetland/
riparian
plant
(
monocot
and
dicot)
LOCs
for
seedling
emergence
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
treated
field
were
exceeded
at
all
application
rates
evaluated
(
6,
4,
2,
1
lb
ai/
A)

B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Listed
and
Endangered
Organisms
A
screening
level
risk
assessment
was
performed
to
determine,
if
any
of
the
Agency's
threatened
and
endangered
(
i.
e.,
"
listed")
species
LOC
criteria
were
exceeded
for
either
direct
or
indirect
effects
indicating
the
need
for
further
biological
assessment
to
be
undertaken.
The
following
lists
the
results
for
potential
direct
effects.
The
Endangered
Species
section
discusses
these
direct
effects
in
addition
to
the
indirect
effects
listed
species
LOC
screening,
a
preliminary
cooccurrence
analysis,
and
a
discussion
of
what
further
biological
assessment
needs
to
be
undertaken
to
address
listed
species
concerns.
6
Aquatic
Listed
Species
There
were
no
exceedances
of
listed
acute
LOC
criteria
for
freshwater
or
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
crustaceans,
which
is
assumed
to
represent
all
aquatic
invertebrates
except
mollusks.
No
direct
mortality
effects
from
napropamide
are
expected
to
these
species.

For
soil
incorporation
to
2
inches
at
time
of
application,
there
were
no
exceedances
due
to
runoff
and
spray
drift
of
the
listed
species
acute
LOC
for
mollusks
for
any
of
the
labeled
uses
evaluated.
For
no
soil
incorporation
at
the
time
of
application,
there
were
no
exceedances
due
to
runoff
and
spray
drift
of
the
listed
mollusk
acute
LOC
for
all
crops
and
labeled
uses
except
for
scenarios
representing
use
in
the
southeastern
United
States
at
typical
maximum
label
rates.
Florida
citrus
at
an
application
rate
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
a
7
day
interval
between
applications
had
an
RQ
=
0.053,
listed
species
LOC
=
0.05.
The
endangered
species
LOC
was
also
exceeded
for
mollusks
exposed
to
runoff
following
application
to
Georgia
pecans
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
a
7
day
interval
between
applications
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.088
and
0.073,
respectively).
The
Agency
recognizes
that
there
are
no
Federally­
listed
estuarine/
marine
mollusks
but
there
are
listed
freshwater
mollusks
in
southeastern
states
that
overlap
napropamide
use.

Chronic
risks
could
not
be
evaluated
because
there
were
no
chronic
data.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2>
51
days)

Avian
Listed
Species
No
acute
RQs
were
calculated
for
birds
exposed
to
napropamide
via
spray
or
granular
application
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC50
and
LD50
were
greater
than
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
7200
ppm;
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
oral
test
was
4640
mg/
kg
).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
birds.
Therefore
the
maximum
avian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
1796
ppb)
(
See
ELL­
FATE
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
birds.

No
chronic
RQ
values
were
calculated
for
birds
because
Chronic
RQ
values
for
birds
were
not
calculated
because
decreased
body
weights
measured
in
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
were
deemed
unrelated
to
napropamide
exposure
(
See
Appendix
E,
Table
2).
No
direct
effects
from
napropamide
are
expected
to
any
listed
bird
species.
7
Mammalian
Listed
Species
In
mammalian
laboratory
studies,
the
highest
residues
expected
on
food
items
in
the
field
are
not
expected
to
pose
an
significant
acute
risk
to
mammals(
i.
e.,
acute
listed
species
LOCs
are
not
exceeded).
No
acute
direct
effects
from
napropamide
are
expected
to
listed
mammalian
species.

Chronic
LOCs,
based
on
reduced
parental
and
offspring
body
weight
were
exceeded
for
mammals
on
all
food
types
(
i.
e.,
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
large
insects)
for
all
the
modeled
use
rates.

Terrestrial
and
Wetland/
Riparian
Listed
Plants
For
spray
chemigation,
listed
terrestrial
and
wetland/
riparian
plant
(
monocot
and
dicot)
LOCs
for
seedling
emergence
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
treated
field
were
exceeded
at
all
application
rates
evaluated
(
6,
4,
2,
1
lb
ai/
A).

C.
Major
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
°
Data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

°
Intervals
between
applications
were
not
established
on
labels.
The
assumption
of
a
7
day
interval
used
for
modeling
surface
water
concentrations
and
foliar
dissipation
may
be
too
short
of
a
time
period
resulting
in
an
overestimate
of
residues
in
water
and
on
food
items.

°
The
extent
of
photodegradation
in
surface
water
is
uncertain.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
In
contrast,
surface
water
in
the
natural
environment
usually
contains
suspended
solids,
significantly
reducing
sunlight
penetration
and
subsequent
napropamide
degradation.
Therefore,
EECs
in
surface
water
may
be
underestimated.

°
Currently,
EFED
cannot
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
organisms
because
chronic
toxicity
data
was
not
submitted
to
the
Agency.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
halflives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2>
51
days).

°
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
8
O
N
O
Napropamide
structure
(
molecular
formula
C17H21NO2)
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

°
No
foliar
dissipation
studies
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Therefore,
EFED
must
use
the
default
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
to
determine
foliar
residues.

II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
Napropamide,
also
known
by
the
trade
name
Devrinol
®
,
is
a
preemergent,
surface­
applied
substituted
amide
herbicide
(
Figure
1)
used
to
control
annual
grassy
and
broadleaf
weeds
on
a
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Napropamide
is
sold
in
flowable
(
emulsifiable
liquid
(
Devrinol
®
2­
EC),
flowable
concentrate
(
Devrinol
®
F),
dry
flowable
(
Devrinol
®
50­
DF)),
and
granular
(
Devrinol
®
G)
formulations.
Commercial
products
are
available
in
several
different
napropamide
active
ingredient
concentrations,
ranging
from
2
to
50
percent.

1.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
Napropamide
acts
as
a
preemergent,
systemic
herbicide
and
is
mobile
in
plant
tissues.
Napropamide
is
a
substituted
amide
herbicides
and
this
class
of
herbicides
have
no
consistent
pattern
in
their
mechanisms
of
action.
For
napropamide,
it
is
absorbed
by
developing
weed
plant
roots,
inhibiting
their
development
and
growth.
Additionally,
napropamide
may
inhibit
shoot
growth,
by
blocking
the
progression
of
dividing
cells
through
the
cell
cycle
into
mitosis.
Napropamide
can
be
applied
either
in
the
spring
for
control
of
summer
annuals
or
in
the
fall
for
winter
annuals.
9
2.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Non­
granular
forms
of
napropamide
are
applied
via
several
methods,
including
broadcast
spray,
band
treatment,
directed
spray,
strip
treatment,
soil
broadcast,
and
chemigation.
For
napropamide
to
be
effective
in
controlling
target
weeds,
soil
incorporation
to
a
depth
of
2
to
4
inches
by
mechanical
tillage
(
e.
g.,
hand
cultivator),
irrigation,
or
rainfall
must
follow
napropamide
application
within
a
few
days
for
it
to
be
present
at
the
developing
root
depth.
Watering­
in
or
chemigation
may
be
the
only
choices
for
soil
incorporation
of
napropamide
in
orchard
and
vineyard
crops,
cranberries
and
other
permanent
berry
bush
crops,
shade
and
ornamental
trees,
shrubs,
ground
cover,
and
turf
because
root
damage
to
these
crops
could
occur
from
mechanical
tillage.
However,
vegetable
crops
may
allow
for
tillage,
irrigation,
chemigation,
or
rainfall
incorporation
methods
into
soil.

Approximately
448,000
pounds
of
napropamide
were
applied
in
1997
according
to
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agriculture,
and
the
majority
was
applied
to
tomatoes
(
23.5%),
tobacco
(
20.7%),
cranberries
(
11.8%),
hot
peppers
(
10.2%),
and
strawberries
(
8.9%).
Together,
these
crops
account
for
75%
of
napropamide
applied
to
food
crops
nationwide.
Additionally,
nonfood
crop
uses
of
napropamide
include
turf,
trees,
and
ornamentals.
According
to
the
National
Agriculture
Statistics
Service
(
NASS),
napropamide
is
used
at
the
highest
rates
in
North
Carolina,
Pennsylvania,
Georgia,
Florida,
Kentucky,
California,
and
Oregon.

Table
1
presents
a
detailed
napropamide
use
characterization
based
on
maximum
labeled
use
rates.
A
number
of
labels
do
not
explicitly
limit
the
number
of
times
napropamide
can
be
applied
per
year
(
Table
1).
The
highest
labeled
application
rate
is
on
cranberries
(
15
lbs
ai/
A),
assuming
a
single
application
per
year.
Ornamental
and
shade
trees,
conifers,
herbaceous
vines
and
shrubs,
and
ground
cover
application
rates
are
potentially
at
least
12
lbs
ai/
A
total
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
with
a
90
day
interval
between
applications
implying
at
least
two
applications
per
year).
Maximum
label
rates
for
the
remaining
crops
range
from
2
lbs
ai/
A
to
8
lbs
ai/
A.
Maximum
label
rates
for
those
crops
where
a
majority
of
napropamide
is
used
(
tomatoes,
tobacco,
cranberries,
hot
peppers,
and
strawberries)
are
two
applications
per
year
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
(
total
8
lbs
ai/
A)
or
one
application
per
year
at
6
lbs
ai/
A.
Average
napropamide
use
rates
for
eleven
crops
(
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
cranberries,
grapes,
oranges,
pecans,
peppers,
strawberries,
tobacco,
tomatoes)
were
provided
by
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs'
(
OPP's)
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
BEAD)
and
are
presented
in
Table
2.
Average
application
rates
for
these
eleven
crops
range
from
1.0
lb
ai/
A
for
tobacco
to
5.3
lbs
ai/
A
for
cranberries.
10
Table
1.
Use
information
for
napropamide
­
maximum
labeled
use
rates
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

Nuts
Almond,
Pistachio
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Pecan
Filbert
Walnut
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Berries
and
Small
Fruit
Blackberry
Boysenberry
Loganberry
Raspberry
F1C
4
1
NA
4
B
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
Blueberry
DF
4
NS
NS
NS
B,
C,
SB
G
4
NS
NS
NS
B,
C,
SB
Strawberries
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Cranberries
G
9
1
NA
9
B
15
NS
NS
unknown
B
Currants
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Grapes
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Brassica
and
Leafy
Vegetables
Broccoli,
Brussels
Sprouts
Cabbage,
Cauliflower
Asparagus
DF
2
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB,
SI,
SPR
Citrus
Grapefruit
F1C
4
1
NA
4
B
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Lemon
Nectarine
Orange
Tangerine
Tangelo
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Stone
Fruit
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

11
Apricot
Cherry
Peach
Plum
Prune
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

12
Pome
Fruit
Apple
Pear
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Fruiting
Vegetables
Eggplant
F1C
2
1
NA
unknown
SI
DF
2
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
Pepper
Tomato
EC
2
1
NA
2
BT,
B,
SI,
ST
Other
Vegetables
Artichoke
Rhubarb
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
Tropical
Fruits
Fig
F1C
4
1
NA
4
B
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Kiwi
Fruit
Persimmon
Avacado
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Pomegranate
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Additional
Crops
Tobacco
F1C
2
1
NA
2
BT,
B,
SI,
ST
DF
2
1
NA
2
B
EC
2
1
NA
2
BT,
B,
SI,
ST
Sweet
Potato
DF
2
NS
NS
unknown
S,
B
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

13
Oil
Seed
Crops
Mint
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Olives
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Trees/
Ornamentals
Conifer
release
Shade
Trees/
Ornamental
Trees
G
6
NS
90
unknown
B
EC
6
1
NA
6
G,
BT,
SI,
DS
G
6
NS
90
unknown
BT,
B,
IR
Ground
cover
G
6
NS
90
unknown
BT,
B,
IR
EC
6
1
NA
6
B,
SI,
SPR
Herbaceous
plants/
woody
shrubs
/
vines
EC
6
1
NA
6
BT,
B,
DS,
SI
G
6
NS
90
unknown
BT,
B,
SI,
IR
lawns
&
turf
EC
6
1
NA
6
BT,
B,
DS,
SI,
SPR
G
6
NS
NS
unknown
BT,
B,
IR
potting
soil
EC
6
1
NA
6
BT,
B,
SI,
SPR
(
a)
App
=
Application
(
b)
No.
=
Number
(
c)
NA
=
not
applicable
(
d)
NS
=
not
specified
on
label
(
e)
Application
method
codes:
B
=
broadcast
C
=
chemigation
SB
=
soil
broadcast
ST
=
strip
treatment
BT
=
band
treatment
G
=
ground
SI
=
soil
incorporation
DS
=
directed
spray
IR
=
irrigation
incorporation
SPR
=
spray
14
Table
2.
Napropamide
average
use
rates
Crop
Average
use
rate
(
lbs
ai/
A
per
application)
Average
annual
number
of
applications
Almonds
3.2
1.0
Apples
3.0
2.0
Blueberries
2.0
1.0
Strawberries
2.6
1.0
Citrus
(
orange)
3.0
1.0
Cranberries
5.3
NA
Grapes
3.0
1.0
Pecans
4.0
3.0
Peppers
1.3
1.0
Tobacco
1.0
1.0
Tomatoes
1.6
1.0
Sources:
USDA
NASS,
EPA
proprietary
data,
NCFAP
Years:
1998­
2003
3.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
A
summary
of
fate
properties
for
napropamide
from
laboratory
studies
is
listed
in
Table
3.
Based
on
fate
properties,
as
demonstrated
in
laboratory
studies,
and
application
methods
(
i.
e.,
soil
incorporation),
it
is
expected
that
napropamide
applied
either
as
a
flowable
or
granular
formulation
will
be
persistent
in
the
terrestrial
environment
resulting
in
the
potential
for
napropamide
to
reach
the
aquatic
environment
by
runoff.
Additionally,
because
laboratory
dissipation
studies
demonstrate
a
half­
life
of
approximately
446
days
there
is
a
potential
for
napropamide
to
accumulate
in
the
soil
with
repeated
applications.
However,
field
dissipation
studies,
where
napropamide
was
soil
incorporated)
indicate
much
faster
dissipation
rates
on
the
order
of
17
to
24
days.
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
is
evident.
Although
napropamide
can
photodegrade
in
water,
this
route
of
dissipation
is
expected
to
be
impeded
when
soil
incorporation
occurs
at
time
of
application.
In
addition,
any
napropamide
that
reaches
surface
water
will
tend
to
partition
to
suspended
soils
and
sediment,
thereby
reducing
the
amount
available
to
undergo
photolysis.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
be
a
bioaccumulative
compound
of
concern
based
on
submitted
data.
The
major
terminal
degradate
in
terrestrial
environments
is
carbon
dioxide,
but
photodegradation
in
aquatic
systems
creates
isomers
of
the
parent
compound.
15
Table
3.
Summary
of
Fate
Properties
of
Napropamide
Property
Napropamide
Data
Physical
state
at
room
temperature
solid
Molecular
weight
271.36
Vapor
Pressure
at
20

C
(
millimeters
mercury;
mm
Hg)
1.7
x
10­
7
Henry's
Law
Constant
at
20

C
(
atm­
m3/
mol)
8.1
x
10­
10
Water
solubility
at
20

C
(
milligrams
per
liter;
mg/
l)
74
Hydrolysis
Stable
(
MRID
41863201)

Direct
Aqueous
Photolysis
(
half­
life,
minutes)
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide,
26
minutes
for
napropamide
plus
Isomers
I
and
II
(
MRIDs
41575301,
43175301)

Soil
Photolysis
(
half
life,
days)
Stable
(
MRID
41863202)

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
446
(
MRID
41105901)

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
51
(
a)

(
MRIDs
00163271,
92125017)

Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
Essentially
stable
(
MRID
42699701)

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
NO
DATA
Kd­
ads
/
Kd­
des
(
milliliters/
gram)
8.6/
480
(
loam)
5.1/
465
(
loamy
sand)
3.4/
1170
(
sandy
loam)
14.8/
674
(
silt
loam)
(
MRID
41575302)

Log
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
(
log
Kow)
3.4
Soil
Dissipation
(
half­
life,
days)
17
(
MS)
17­
24
(
CA)
(
MRIDs
43742401,
43742402)

Sediment
Dissipation
(
half­
life,
days)
NO
DATA
Aquatic
Dissipation
(
half­
life,
days)
NO
DATA
Fish
Accumulation
(
BCF);
concentration
in
tissue
to
exposure
concentration
in
water
32­
35
in
edible
tissues
90
%
depuration
by
7
days
(
MRID
92125019)
(
a)
Half­
life
is
highly
uncertain
due
to
poor
material
balance
at
90
days
(
60­
days
of
anaerobic
conditions).
16
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
Napropamide
is
expected
to
have
moderate
to
low
mobility
in
soil
based
upon
batch
equilibrium
studies
showing
K
ads
values
averaging
3.38
for
a
sandy
loam,
5.12
for
a
loamy
sand,
8.63
for
a
loamy
sand,
and
14.8
ml/
g
for
a
silt
loam
soil.
The
soil
K
oc
values
for
adsorption
were
1170,
465,
480,
and
674
ml/
g,
respectively.
Adsorption
of
napropamide
to
soil
increases
with
increasing
clay
content,
organic
carbon
content,
and
pH.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
volatilize
from
dry
soil
surfaces
based
upon
its
vapor
pressure
of
1.7
x
10­
7
mm
Hg.

Napropamide
does
photodegrade
on
soil
with
a
half­
life
of
28
days.
The
major
degradate
is
carbon
dioxide.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
napropamide
must
be
incorporated
into
the
soil
within
days
of
application
in
order
to
be
efficacious,
therefore,
photodegradation
on
soil
is
not
expected
to
be
a
major
route
of
dissipation.
Microbial
degradation
of
napropamide
in
soil
under
aerobic
laboratory
conditions
is
very
slow
with
an
estimated
half­
life
of
446
days.
This
suggests
that
the
chemical
may
accumulate
in
soil
with
repeated
applications.
However,
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
ranged
from
17
to
24
days,
dependent
on
application
method,
product
formulation,
and
soil
type.

b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
In
water,
napropamide
is
expected
to
adsorb
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment.
Napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9,
but
undergoes
rapid
direct
photolysis
in
water
with
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide.
Identified
degradates
were
Isomer
I
and
Isomer
II
(
propionamide).
The
two
isomers
also
degrade
rapidly,
as
the
total
residue
(
napropamide
plus
Isomers
I
and
II)
half­
life
in
the
photodegradation
in
water
study
was
only
26
minutes.
Because
of
light
attenuation,
aqueous
photolysis
will
be
an
important
pathway
only
in
shallow
clear
water
bodies.
Binding
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment
can
also
diminish
the
role
photolysis
plays
in
the
degradation
of
napropamide.
Neither
volatilization
from
water
nor
bioconcentration
are
expected
to
be
important
fate
processes
based
upon
this
compound's
estimated
Henry's
Law
constant
of
8.1
x10­
10
atm­
m3/
mole,
and
BCF
(
32
to
35
in
edible
fish
tissue).

B.
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected.
"
Two
criteria
are
used
to
select
the
appropriate
ecological
assessment
endpoints:
1)
identification
of
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk,
and
2)
the
operational
definition
of
assessment
endpoints
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
the
selection
of
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.
17
2.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
Ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
selected
assessment
endpoints.
The
typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risks
are
reduced
survival
and
reproductive
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species.
A
set
of
surrogate
species
is
used
to
provide
an
estimation
of
ecological
risk.
Ecological
relevance
and
sensitivity
are
essential
for
selecting
test
species
and
assessment
endpoints
that
are
scientifically
defensible.
Surrogate
taxa
include
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
In
the
absence
of
toxicity
data
on
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
it
is
assumed
that
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
are
approximately
as
sensitive
as
fish
to
the
potential
effects
of
a
pesticide.
Terrestrial
animals
used
as
test
species
include
birds
and
mammals.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
reptiles
and
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
are
approximately
as
sensitive
to
pesticide­
induced
effects
as
are
birds.
Potential
effects
to
benthic
organisms
may
also
be
evaluated
if
environmental
fate
data
indicate
that
the
assessed
chemical
may
partition
to
the
sediment
or
if
sediment
organisms
are
particularly
sensitive
species.
Direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
effects
are
considered
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals.
Although
these
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level,
they
provide
insight
about
risks
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
i.
e.,
populations
and
communities).
For
example,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survivorship
have
important
implications
for
both
population­
level
effects
as
well
as
habitat
carrying
capacity.
Indirect
effects
on
critical
habitat
are
only
considered
in
the
risk
characterization
for
the
potential
effects
on
endangered
species,
provided
that
the
risk
quotient
demonstrates
probable
risk.

The
screening
assessment
endpoint
for
plants
in
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
environments
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species
(
both
crop
and
non­
crop
species).
Endpoints
assessed
include
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
the
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
endpoints
may
not
address
all
plant
life
cycle
components,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
during
active
growth
may
impact
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.
Data
on
the
formulated
product
(
as
opposed
to
the
active
ingredient)
are
used
to
characterize
plant
exposure
effects.
If
the
maximum
exposure
rate
results
in
an
effect
level
that
is
less
than
25%
in
a
Tier
I
study,
low
risk
is
presumed
and
a
Tier
II
study
is
not
required.
However,
if
the
effect
level
is
less
than
25%
but
greater
than
5%
in
a
Tier
I
study,
potential
risk
may
still
occur
to
endangered
species
that
cannot
be
quantified.

The
assessment
endpoint
for
aquatic
plants
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measurement
endpoints
focus
on
algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements.

The
ecological
relevance
of
selecting
the
above­
mentioned
assessment
endpoints
is
three­
fold,
and
includes
the
following:
1)
complete
exposure
pathways
exist
for
the
receptors;
2)
the
receptors
are
potentially
sensitive
to
pesticides
in
the
affected
media
and
from
residues
on
plants,
seeds,
insects,
and
other
food
sources;
and
3)
the
receptors
could
inhabit
areas
where
pesticides
are
applied
or
where
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
could
impact
sites
containing
available
suitable
18
habitat.

2.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
for
Nonlisted
Species
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
pesticide
exposure.
Ecological
measurement
endpoints
for
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms
in
the
following
broad
groupings:

°
Birds
(
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail)
used
as
surrogate
taxa
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles
°
Mammals
(
laboratory
rat)
°
Freshwater
fish
(
bluegill
sunfish
and
rainbow
trout)
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians
°
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
water
flea
­
Daphnia
magna)
°
Estuarine/
marine
fish
(
sheepshead
minnow)
°
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp)
°
Terrestrial
plants
(
corn,
onion,
ryegrass,
wheat,
buckwheat,
cucumber,
soybean,
sunflower,
tomato,
and
turnip)
°
Algae
and
aquatic
plants
(
algae,
diatoms,
and
duckweed)

Within
each
of
these
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data,
as
the
data
sets
allow.
A
discussion
of
some
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measurement
endpoints
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
is
included
in
Section
III
of
this
document.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risk
associated
with
napropamide
exposure
is
provided
in
Tables
15­
17.

3.
Listed
Species
Measures
of
Effect
An
evaluation
of
the
potential
for
individual
effects
at
exposure
levels
equivalent
to
the
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
is
made
based
on
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate
and
dose­
response
relationship
established
for
the
effects
study
corresponding
to
each
taxonomic
group
for
which
the
LOCs
are
exceeded.
Proximity
of
endangered
species
habitats
to
areas
that
grow
target
crops
or
contain
target
weed
populations
are
also
evaluated.
19
Table
4.
Summary
of
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoints
1.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individual
birds
1a.
Mallard
duck
acute
oral
LD50
1b.
Bobwhite
quail
subacute
dietary
LD50
1c.
Mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEL
2.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individual
mammal
2a.
Laboratory
rat
acute
oral
LD50
2b.
Laboratory
rat
chronic
(
reproductive)
NOAEC
3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
Rainbow
trout
acute
LC50
3b.
Freshwater
fish
chronic
NOAEC
(
weight
&
length)
­
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
3c.
Water
flea
acute
EC50
3d.
Water
flea
chronic
NOAEC
(
offspring)
­
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
4b.
Estuarine/
marine
fish
chronic
NOAEC
&
LOAEC
­
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
4c.
Eastern
oyster
acute
EC50
4d.
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
chronic
NOAEC
&
LOAEC
­
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
5.
Perpetuation
of
individuals
and
populations
of
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species)
5a.
Monocot
and
dicot
seedling
emergence
EC25
5b.
Monocot
and
dicot
vegetative
vigor
EC25
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insects
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
­
NO
DATA
SUBMITTED
7.
Maintenance
and
growth
of
aquatic
plants
from
standing
crop
or
biomass
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
7a.
Algae
and
duckweed
acute
EC50
7b.
Algae
and
duckweed
NOAEC/
EC05
7a.
Algae
and
duckweed
EC50
and
NOAEC/
EC05
­
INCOMPLETE
DATA
SET
LD50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LOAEC
­
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LC50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population
EC50/
EC25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50%/
25%
of
the
test
population
20
C.
Conceptual
Model
A
conceptual
model
(
CM),
which
summarizes
graphically
the
results
of
the
problem
formulation
for
evaluating
risks
to
ecological
receptors
following
application
of
napropamide
to
an
agricultural
field
(
i.
e.,
orchards,
vineyards,
row
crops)
or
to
turf,
is
provided
in
Figure
2
for
flowable
napropamide
(
i.
e.,
dry­
flowable,
and
emulsifiable
concentrate)
applied
as
a
ground
spray
and
in
Figure
3
for
napropamide
applied
as
a
granular.
The
CMs
are
working
hypotheses
about
how
napropamide
is
likely
to
reach
(
i.
e.,
exposure
pathways)
and
affect
ecological
entities
(
i.
e.,
attribute
changes)
of
concern
on
and
adjacent
to
a
treated
agricultural
field.
In
order
for
a
pesticide
stressor
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
an
ecological
receptor
in
biologically
significant
concentrations.
The
CMs
outline
specifically
which
measures
of
exposure
(
e.
g.,
foliar
residue
levels,
water
column
concentrations),
ecological
receptors,
and
measures
of
effects
or
measurement
endpoints
will
be
used
to
estimate
risks
(
i.
e.,
estimate
the
effects
of
exposure
on
assessment
endpoints)
from
proposed
reregistration
uses
of
napropamide.
Narrative
descriptions
of
the
risk
hypotheses
are
provided
in
Section
II.
C.
1
for
flowable
napropamide
applied
as
a
ground
spray
and
Section
II.
C.
2
for
granular
napropamide
uses.

1.
Flowable
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Ground
Spray
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
Immediately
following
ground
spraying
without
soil
incorporation,
the
highest
napropamide
residue
levels
are
expected
to
be
located
in
the
soil
and
on
seeds
and
insects
on
the
soil
surface
for
a
treated
agriculture
site
and
foliage,
primarily
short
grasses,
of
treated
turf
sites.
For
application
to
an
agricultural
field,
surface
soil
and
seeds
and
insects
on
the
soil
surface
are
expected
to
contain
the
highest
residues
because
except
for
the
vines
in
vineyards
and
trees
in
orchards,
plant
material
such
as
grasses,
fruit,
and
foliage
are
expected
to
be
non­
existent
to
limited
on
agricultural
fields
at
the
time
of
napropamide
application
as
it
is
applied
to
bare
soil
as
a
pre­
emergence
herbicide.
However,
at
a
turf
site
much
of
the
applied
pesticide
may
be
intercepted
by
the
foliage
present
instead
of
reaching
soil
directly.
Later
watering­
in
either
by
irrigation
or
a
rain
event
is
expected
to
result
in
lower
residues
for
these
media
at
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites.
Napropamide
is
water
soluble,
such
that
residues
on
plants
and
insects
should
decrease
due
to
wash
off
and
residues
in
soil
decrease
with
dispersion
through
the
soil
column.
As
no
major
degradates
of
napropamide
have
been
observed
to
form
in
terrestrial
environments,
the
focus
of
the
assessment
for
these
media
is
on
the
parent,
napropamide.

Napropamide
may
reach
off­
field
terrestrial
or
riparian/
wetland
vegetation
environments
in
spray
drift
at
the
time
of
application.
Following
a
rain
event
napropamide
may
also
reach
off­
field
terrestrial
or
riparian/
wetland
vegetation
environments
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments
and
relatively
soluble
in
water.
Because
in
terrestrial
environments
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
and
no
major
degradates
form,
the
parent,
napropamide
is
the
focus
of
the
assessment
for
off­
field
terrestrial
environments.
21
Potential
emission
of
volatilized
napropamide
to
the
air
is
not
expected
to
be
a
significant
acute
short­
range
or
long­
range
dissipation
route
for
this
pesticide
because
of
its
low
volatility
in
combination
with
its
relatively
fast
photodegradation
potential.
On
Figure
1
the
dashed
outline
box
around
volatilization
signifies
that
this
source/
transport
pathway
is
not
considered
a
viable
significant
release
mechanism
for
flowable
napropamide
following
application
to
an
agricultural
field
or
turf
site.

Ecological
receptors
of
concern
identified
for
consideration
in
the
terrestrial
environment
include
primary
producers,
represented
by
both
upland
and
wetland/
riparian
vegetation,
and
secondary
and
tertiary
consumers,
both
vertebrates
and
invertebrates,
representing
common
ecological
functional
feeding
groups
(
i.
e.,
herbivores
and
insectivores).
Herbivores
as
used
here
include
animals
that
feed
on
foliage
(
stems
and
leaves),
seeds,
and/
or
fruit;
the
term
granivore
is
sometimes
used
to
identify
animals
that
feed
primarily
on
seeds.
Omnivores
(
i.
e.,
consumers
that
feed
on
a
mixed
diet
of
animals
and
plants)
are
also
potentially
exposed
but
are
not
specifically
included
in
the
receptor
list
for
a
screening
level
risk
assessment
because
exposure
concentrations
and
risk
levels
will
fall
between
the
exclusive
feeding
groups.
Food
chain
transfer
through
biomagnification
or
bioaccumulation
of
napropamide
to
higher
trophic
level
predators
(
e.
g.,
carnivores)
is
not
considered
as
a
viable
significant
exposure
pathway
for
napropamide
since
its
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
is
low,
and
is
expected
to
be
rapidly
metabolized
or
eliminated.

Based
on
the
above
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
flowable
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Terrestrial
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Flowable
Napropamide
Uses
°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
terrestrial
herbivore
and
insectivore
vertebrates
(
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians)
will
occur
if
napropamide
residues
on
seeds,
insects,
and
foliage
due
to
direct
deposition
or
spray
drift
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
survival.

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
upland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
upland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
concentrations
reach
levels
of
concern
for
vegetative
vigor.

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
riparian/
wetland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
22
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
riparian/
wetland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
concentrations
reach
levels
of
concern
for
vegetative
vigor.

b.
Aquatic
Environment
Napropamide
may
reach
aquatic
environments
in
spray
drift
downwind
of
a
field
being
treated.
Following
a
rain
event
napropamide
may
also
reach
aquatic
environments
from
areas
of
application
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments
and
relatively
soluble
in
water.
Because
in
terrestrial
environments
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
and
no
major
degradates
form,
napropamide
is
the
expected
form
to
be
present
in
runoff
and
soil
erosion.
Once
napropamide
reaches
the
aquatic
environment,
napropamide
is
expected
to
also
be
moderately
persistent.
While
laboratory
data
support
a
4.3
minute
half­
life
in
clear,
shallow,
irradiated
water,
surface
water
usually
has
dissolved
and
suspended
solids
and/
or
shading
that
slow
the
rate
of
degradation.

For
the
aquatic
ecosystem
ecological
receptors
include
all
aquatic
life
(
fish,
amphibians,
invertebrates,
plants)
and
those
terrestrial
animals
(
e.
g.,
birds
and
mammals)
that
consume
aquatic
organisms.

Based
on
the
above
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
flowable
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Aquatic
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Flowable
Napropamide
Uses
°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
aquatic
invertebrates
and
fish
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
mortality.

°
A
reduction
in
aquatic
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
algae
population
growth
or
macrophyte
population
growth.
23
2.
Granular
Applications
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
Immediately
following
granular
applications
without
soil
incorporation,
granules
are
expected
to
be
available
at
the
soil
surface
on
agriculture
sites
and
on
the
surface
of
the
turf
at
turf
sites.
Later
watering­
in
either
by
irrigation
or
a
rain
event
of
sufficient
size
is
expected
to
result
in
the
movement
of
napropamide
down
into
the
soil
column.

Receptors
of
concern
are
the
same
as
those
discussed
for
flowable
applications
of
napropamide
and
the
terrestrial
environment.

Based
on
the
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
granular
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Terrestrial
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Granular
Napropamide
Uses
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
birds
or
mammals
will
occur
if
granular
concentrations
of
napropamide
at
the
surface
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
mortality
from
ingestion.

A
reduction
in
the
number
of
upland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

A
reduction
in
the
number
of
riparian/
wetland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

b.
Aquatic
Environment
Following
a
rain
event
of
sufficient
size
napropamide
may
also
reach
aquatic
environments
from
areas
of
application
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments
and
relatively
soluble
in
water.
Because
in
terrestrial
environments
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
and
no
major
degradates
form,
napropamide
is
the
expected
form
to
be
present
in
runoff
and
soil
erosion.
Once
napropamide
reaches
the
aquatic
environment,
napropamide
is
expected
to
also
be
moderately
persistent.

Receptors
of
concern
are
the
same
as
those
discussed
for
flowable
applications
of
napropamide
and
the
aquatic
environment.
24
Based
on
the
above
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
flowable
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Aquatic
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Granular
Napropamide
Uses
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
aquatic
invertebrates
and
fish
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
mortality
from
gill
and
dermal
contact
or
reach
levels
of
concern
for
chronic
mortality,
reproduction,
or
growth
from
gill
and
dermal
contact.

A
reduction
in
aquatic
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
aquatic
plant
standing
crop
or
biomass.
25
Stressor
Napropamide
applied
as
ground
spray
to
an
agricultural
field
Source/
Transport
Pathways
Volatilization
/
Wind
Suspension
Direct
Deposition
Spray
Drift
Runoff/
Erosion
Leaching
(
Infiltration/
Percolation
Source/
Exposure
Media
Terrestrial
Food
Residues
(
foliage,

fruit,
insects
Upland
Foliage/
Soil
Riparian/

Wetland
Foliage/
Soil
Water
body
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Receptors
Attribute
Changes
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,

Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Individual
Animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Aquatic
Vertebrates
Aquatic
Plants
Wetland/

Riparian
Plants
Individual
Plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
vertebrates
and
invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Bioaccumulation
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Figure
3.
Ecological
Conceptual
Model
for
Screening­
Level
Risk
Assessment
of
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Ground
Spray
to
an
Agricultural
Field
or
Turf
Site
26
Stressor
Napropamide
applied
as
a
granular
to
an
agricultural
field
Source/
Transport
Pathways
Direct
Deposition
Runoff/
Erosion
Leaching
(
Infiltration/
Percolation
Source/
Exposure
Media
Upland
Soil
Upland
Soil
Riparian/

Wetland
Soil
Water
body
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Receptors
Attribute
Changes
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,

Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Individual
Animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Aquatic
Vertebrates
Aquatic
Plants
Wetland/

Riparian
Plants
Individual
Plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
vertebrates
and
invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Bioaccumulation
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Figure
4.
Ecological
Conceptual
Model
for
Screening­
Level
Risk
Assessment
of
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Granular
Broadcast
or
In­
Furrow
to
an
Agricultural
Field
or
Turf
Site
27
D.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Information
Gaps
The
following
uncertainties
and
information
gaps
were
identified
as
part
of
the
problem
formulation:

°
Data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

°
The
extent
of
photodegradation
in
surface
water
is
uncertain.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
4.3
minutes)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
In
contrast,
surface
water
in
the
natural
environment
usually
contains
suspended
solids,
significantly
reducing
sunlight
penetration
and
subsequent
napropamide
degradation.
Therefore,
EECs
in
surface
water
may
be
underestimated.

°
Currently,
EFED
cannot
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
organisms
because
chronic
toxicity
data
was
not
submitted
to
the
Agency.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
halflives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2>
51
days).

°
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

°
No
foliar
dissipation
studies
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Therefore,
EFED
must
use
the
default
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
to
determine
foliar
residues.

E.
Analysis
Plan
Ecological
risk
assessment
is
a
process
that
evaluates
the
likelihood
that
adverse
ecological
effects
may
occur
or
are
occurring
as
a
result
of
exposure
to
one
or
more
stressors
(
US
EPA,
1992).
This
risk
assessment
examines
the
ecological
risk
of
napropamide
use,
and
attempts
to
determine
at
what
level
napropamide
can
be
used
to
minimize
deleterious
effects
on
the
environment.
These
negative
effects
include
structural
and/
or
functional
characteristics
or
components
of
ecosystems.
In
order
to
estimate
the
ecological
risk
associated
with
28
napropamide
use,
use
information,
chemical
and
physical
properties,
fate/
transport
data,
and
toxicity
data
were
examined
for
all
of
the
napropamide
forms
and
application
methods.

1.
Specific
Considerations
a.
Napropamide
is
applied
in
both
liquid
and
granular
forms.
Therefore,
the
fate
properties
of
both
forms
must
be
considered
in
this
assessment
b.
Granular
napropamide
must
be
soil
incorporated
via
irrigation
or
mechanical
incorporation
following
application.

1.
Risk
to
terrestrial
animals
resulting
from
direct
exposure
to
napropamide
granules
through
ingestion
in
the
time­
period
between
application
and
soil
incorporation
must
be
considered
2.
Incorporation
depth
and
granular
dissolution
rate
must
be
considered
to
properly
assess
exposure
to
terrestrial
animals
c.
Napropamide
applied
as
a
liquid
must
be
soil
incorporated
either
through
a
rain
event
or
irrigation.

1.
Runoff
following
rain
events
or
irrigation
must
be
considered
as
an
exposure
route
for
aquatic
organisms
2.
Due
to
necessary
watering­
in
of
napropamide,
the
timing
of
irrigation
or
a
possible
rain
event
after
application
must
be
considered.

d.
Laboratory
studies
demonstrate
a
short
napropamide
half­
life
in
shallow,
clear,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
deep
water,
suspended
solids,
and
shading
may
increase
the
persistence
of
napropamide
in
surface
water
in
the
field.

e.
Napropamide
degradates
of
concern
include
naphthoxy
propionic
acid,
1­
naphthol,
and
isomers
I
and
II.

1.
Naphthoxy
propionic
acid
and
1­
naphthol
are
only
formed
in
minor
amounts
and
will
not
be
considered
in
half­
life
calculations.

2.
Isomers
I
and
II
occur
in
significant
quantities
as
a
result
of
aqueous
photolysis.
However,
both
degradates
have
short
half­
lives
in
the
aqueous
environment.
Additionally,
these
isomers
are
only
formed
in
significant
amounts
as
a
result
of
aqueous
photolysis
that
occurs
in
shallow,
clear,
well­
mixed
water.
True
environmental
conditions
will
most
likely
limit
the
formation
of
these
isomers,
and
therefore
they
will
no
be
considered
in
this
assessment.
29
f.
Napropamide
is
applied
to
numerous
crops,
and
representative
modeled
surface
water
crop
scenarios
will
address
the
geographical
distribution
of
specific
crops
in
the
U.
S.
and
the
associated
weather
extremes.

2.
Planned
Analyses
a.
Fate
and
Exposure
The
environmental
fate
data
indicate
that
napropamide
is
fairly
persistent
in
the
environment,
with
photolysis
being
the
only
major
degradation
pathway.
Exposure
will
be
examined
for
both
granular
and
liquid
forms,
and
napropamide
levels
will
be
estimated
on
foliar
residue,
in
surface
water,
and
on
the
soil
surface
(
from
granular
application
only).
In
addition,
exposure
resulting
from
spray
drift
will
be
assessed.
Maximum
labeled
application
rates
as
well
as
average
application
rates
will
be
examined.

1.
Initial
Considerations
Methods
used
to
determine
exposure
concentrations
of
a
pesticide
are
dependent
on
its
environmental
fate
and
physicochemical
properties,
the
application
method,
and
the
presence
of
reliable
monitoring
data
that
are
considered
representative
of
the
proposed
use
sites.
Initial
factors
considered
for
the
exposure
assessment
are
provided
in
Table
5
below.

Table
5.
Factors
that
may
affect
the
exposure
to
napropamide
Consideration
Napropamide­
specific
data
Conclusion
Monitoring
data
Monitoring
data
available
from
USGS
EECs
from
models
will
be
compared
to
monitored
values
Degradation
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life­­
446
days
Napropamide
can
be
persistent
in
the
environment
Isomer
I
and
Isomer
II
Some
exposure
to
these
may
occur
in
the
aquatic
environment
from
photodegradation
in
water
Bioconcentration
BCF
values
for
napropamide
are
low
(
32­
35X)
Bioconcentration
will
not
be
modeled
Application
method
Ground
spray,
granules,
and
chemigation
Spray
drift
and
runoff
need
to
be
considered
in
this
assessment
2.
Exposure
in
Terrestrial
Systems
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
organisms
are
considered
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
OPP
primarily
looks
at
the
residues
of
pesticides
on
food
items
and
assumes
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
30
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario
for
terrestrial
organisms.
For
napropamide
spray
applications
(
DF,
EC
forms),
estimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
wildlife
food
items
focuses
on
quantifying
possible
dietary
ingestion
on
residues
on
vegetative
matter
and
insects.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rate
(
Fletcher
et
al.,
1994).
The
first
tier
nomogram
uses
the
maximum
predicted
residues.
Subsequent
refinements
may
consider
mean
residues.
However,
maximum
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
fractions
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
from
mammalian
allometric
relationships
in
EPA's
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
In
all
screening­
level
assessments,
the
organisms
are
assumed
to
consume
100%
of
their
diet
as
one
food
type.

Additionally,
terrestrial
exposure
will
be
assessed
based
on
the
application
of
granular
napropamide.
Devrinol
®
10G
is
applied
to
numerous
field
crops,
and
there
is
potential
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
via
granule
ingestion.
This
exposure
is
highly
dependent
on
the
timing
and
method
of
napropamide
granule
incorporation,
which
can
occur
through
mechanical
incorporation
into
soil,
rainfall,
or
irrigation
techniques.
The
length
of
time
between
application
and
subsequent
incorporation
will
significantly
affect
exposure
scenarios.
Exposure
of
terrestrial
animals
(
birds
and
mammals)
will
be
assessed
using
the
LD
50/
ft2
index
(
Felthousen,
1977).
This
index
is
based
upon
the
assumption
that
ecological
effects
are
expected
to
occur
when
the
concentration
of
chemical
per
square
foot
of
habitat
is
equal
or
exceeds
the
LD
50
value
determined
in
laboratory
studies.

3.
Exposure
in
Aquatic
Systems
For
aquatic
organisms,
such
as
plants,
fish,
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
and
invertebrates,
OPP
generally
uses
computer
simulation
models
to
estimate
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient.
These
models
calculated
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
surface
water
using
environmental
fate
data.
Monitoring
data,
if
available,
may
also
be
used
to
determine
EECs
or
to
support
the
model's
calculations.
The
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
is
initially
used
to
calculate
highend
estimates
of
surface
water
concentrations
of
pesticides
in
a
generic
pond.
The
User's
Manual
and
PRZM­
EXAMS
Model
description
available
at
the
following
url
can
be
consulted
for
additional
information:
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm.

Although
there
are
over
50
registered
crop
uses
for
napropamide,
EFED
only
assessed
20
crop
use
scenarios
for
surface
water
exposure
because
they
represent
the
crops
and
geographical
areas
where
the
highest
use
rates
and
exposures
are
expected.
EFED
chose
to
model
twenty
scenarios:
almonds
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
citrus
in
Florida
(
2
application
rates),
citrus
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
berries
in
Oregon,
apples
in
Pennsylvania
(
2
application
rates),
apples
in
North
Carolina
(
2
application
rates),
pecans
in
Georgia
(
2
application
rates),
tomatoes
in
California,
peppers
in
Florida,
grapes
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
tobacco
in
North
Carolina,
turf
in
Pennsylvania,
and
cranberries
in
Michigan.
A
more
detailed
description
of
the
models
can
be
found
in
section
III.
No
EECs
are
generated
in
instances
where
no
toxicity
was
observed
at
concentrations
above
the
active
ingredient's
water
solubility
or
at
or
above
the
recommended
limit
concentration
for
a
particular
type
of
study.
31
b.
Toxicity
Aquatic
and
terrestrial
non­
target
toxicity
endpoints
(
animals
and
plants)
are
provided
by
the
acute
and,
where
appropriate,
chronic
toxicity
data.
These
toxicity
endpoints
are
compared
with
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
napropamide,
based
on
fate
properties,
chemical
type,
exposure
method,
etc.
For
this
assessment,
the
most
sensitive
toxicity
endpoints
for
each
surrogate
taxa
(
i.
e.,
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
aquatic
plants,
terrestrial
plants,
birds,
and
mammals)
will
be
used
in
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
calculation
with
various
exposure
values
(
see
above).

Endangered
species
analysis
will
be
performed
using
the
EFED
LOCATES
Endangered
Species
Database
to
determine
presence
of
endangered
or
threatened
species
in
counties
where
all
treated
crops
are
grown.
A
species
profile
analysis
will
be
performed
to
determine
whether
there
are
any
potential
risk
scenarios
to
endangered
species
in
those
identified
areas.

c.
Risk
Quotients
and
Levels
of
Concern
Risk
characterization
integrates
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
effects.
For
ecological
effects,
the
Agency
accomplishes
this
integration
using
the
quotient
risk
method.
Risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
acute
and
chronic
ecotoxicity
values.

RQ
=
EXPOSURE
/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Program's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
to
assess
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Calculation
of
an
RQ
that
exceeds
the
LOC
indicates
that
a
particular
pesticide
use
poses
a
presumed
risk
to
non­
target
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
categories
of
presumed
risk:
°
acute
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
beyond
restricted
use
classification
may
be
warranted
°
acute
restricted
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
°
acute
endangered
species
­
threatened
and
endangered
species
may
be
adversely
affected
°
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
The
ecotoxicity
values
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
endpoints
derived
from
required
laboratory
toxicity
studies.
Ecotoxicity
endpoints
derived
from
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:

°
LC
50
­
fish
and
birds
°
LD
50
­
birds
and
mammals
°
EC
50
­
aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates
32
°
EC
25
­
terrestrial
plants
The
NOAEC
(
No
Observable
Adverse
Effect
Concentration)
is
the
endpoint
used
to
assess
chronic
effects.
Table
6
gives
formulas
for
calculating
RQs
and
LOCs
for
various
risk
presumptions.

Table
6.
Formulas
for
RQ
calculations
and
LOC
used
for
risk
assessment
of
napropamide.

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Birds
and
Wild
Mammals
Acute
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2*
or
LD50/
day2
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Aquatic
Animals
Acute
Risk
EEC3/
LC50
or
EC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Terrestrial
and
Plants
Inhabiting
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
Acute
Risk
EEC4/
EC25
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Use
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC3/
EC50
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
*
mg/
ft2
1Abbreviation
for
Estimate
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
3
EEC
=
ppm
or
ppb
in
water
4
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
33
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
Napropamide
is
expected
to
have
moderate
to
low
mobility
in
soil
based
upon
batch
equilibrium
studies
showing
K
ads
values
averaging
3.38
for
a
sandy
loam,
5.12
for
a
loamy
sand,
8.63
for
a
loamy
sand,
and
14.8
ml/
g
for
a
silt
loam
soil.
The
K
oc
values
for
adsorption
were
1170,
465,
480,
and
674
ml/
g,
respectively.
Adsorption
of
napropamide
increases
with
increasing
clay
content,
organic
carbon
content,
and
pH.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
volatilize
from
dry
soil
surfaces
based
upon
its
vapor
pressure
of
1.7
x
10­
7
mmHg.

Napropamide
does
photodegrade
on
soil
with
a
half­
life
of
28
days.
The
major
degradate
is
carbon
dioxide.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
napropamide
must
be
incorporated
into
the
soil
in
order
to
be
efficacious,
therefore,
photodegradation
on
soil
is
not
expected
to
be
a
major
route
of
dissipation.
Microbial
degradation
of
napropamide
in
soil
under
aerobic
conditions
is
very
slow
with
an
estimated
half
life
of
446
days.
This
suggests
that
the
chemical
may
accumulate
in
soil
with
repeated
applications.
The
major
volatile
degradate
detected
was
CO
2,
which
increased
to
20
%
of
applied
by
360
days
(
end
of
study).
The
major
non­
volatile
detected
was
naphthoxy
propionic
acid
(
NPA),
which
increased
to
5.8
%
by
90
days
and
declined
to
1.5
%
of
applied
by
270
days.
Methyl
napropamide,
4­
nitro
napropamide
and
1,4­
naphthoquinone
were
also
identified
in
smaller
amounts.
Under
anaerobic
conditions,
a
half­
life
of
51
days
was
calculated;
however,
this
is
considered
highly
uncertain
due
to
poor
material
balance
at
60­
days
under
anaerobic
conditions.

Half­
lives
in
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
were:

17.4
days
for
Devrinol
®
50­
DF,
broadcast
applied
twice
as
a
spray
(
1­
month
interval)
on
a
bareground
plot
of
sandy
loam
soil
in
Mississippi,
and
17.0
and
23.9
days
for
Devrinol
®
10­
G,
broadcast
applied
once
on
a
bare
ground
plot
of
sandy
loam
soil
in
California
(
two
separate
studies).

Napropamide
was
not
detected
below
the
0­
to
6­
inch
depth,
indicating
little
potential
for
leaching.
The
degradates
alpha
naphthoxy
propionic
acid
(
NPA)
and
desethyl
napropamide
were
detected
in
these
studies
and,
like
parent
napropamide,
were
not
mobile.

The
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
are
much
shorter
than
what
would
be
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data.
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
34
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
In
water,
napropamide
is
expected
to
adsorb
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment.
Napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9,
but
undergoes
rapid
direct
photolysis
in
water
with
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes.
Identified
degradates
were
Isomer
One
and
Isomer
Two
(
propionamide),
which
comprised
20
and
27%,
respectively,
of
the
initial
radioactivity
at
10
minutes.
The
two
isomers
also
degrade
rapidly,
as
the
total
residue
half­
life
in
the
photodegradation
in
water
study
was
only
26
minutes.
The
third
degradate
identified
was
a
dimer,
which
comprised
9%
of
the
initial
radioactivity.
Because
of
light
attenuation,
aqueous
photolysis
will
be
an
important
pathway
only
in
shallow
clear
water
bodies.
Binding
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment
can
also
diminish
the
role
photolysis
plays
in
the
degradation
of
napropamide.

Napropamide
was
stable
in
an
anaerobic
flooded
soil
system,
comprising
82
%
of
the
applied
at
365
days.
Naphthoxy
propionic
acid
(
NPA)
was
the
only
identified
degradate,
and
only
reached
0.8
%
of
applied
by
271
days.
No
other
degradates
were
identified,
although
unidentified
radioactivity
comprised
up
to
10.3
%
of
the
applied
by
271
days.
Bound
residues
reached
a
maximum
of
13.1
%
by
90
days,
and
declined
to
9
%
by
365
days.
There
was
no
significant
volatilization
of
radioactivity.
At
the
time
of
application,
most
of
the
radioactivity
(~
60
%)
was
associated
with
the
water
phase.
By
day
365,
aqueous
residues
declined
to
24
%,
and
soil
residues
increased,
demonstrating
that
napropamide
partitions
to
soil
or
sediment.

Neither
volatilization
from
water
nor
bioconcentration
are
expected
to
be
important
fate
processes
based
upon
this
compound's
estimated
Henry's
Law
constant
of
8.1
x10­
10
atm­
m3/
mole,
and
BCF
(
35
in
edible
tissue),
respectively.

2.
Monitoring
Data
The
following
napropamide
monitoring
studies
were
consulted.

Groundwater
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
8
well
water
samples
from
5
counties
in
a
well
inventory
study
in
California
conducted
from
July
1,
1994
through
June
30,
1995.
California
EPA;
Sampling
for
pesticide
residues
in
California
Well
water.
1995
update
of
the
Well
Inventory
Data
Base.
CA
Environ
Prot
Agency.
Dept
Pest
Reg.
EH95­
06
(
1995)
peer
reviewed
Drinking
Water
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
finished
drinking
water
in
Florence,
Italy,
using
water
from
the
Arno
River,
surveyed
from
1992­
1995.
Griffini
O
et
al;
Bull
Environ
Contam
Toxicol
59:
202­
9
(
1997)
­
peer
reviewed
35
Surface
Water
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
stormwater
runoff
within
the
Sacramento
River
Basin,
California
during
a
storm
in
January
1994(
1).
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
Arno
River
water
samples
entering
the
drinking
water
treatment
plant
in
Florence,
Italy,
collected
from
1992
through
1995(
2).
In
a
study
conducted
from
April
1993
through
April
1994,
napropamide
was
detected
in
water
samples
from
two
tributary
streams
of
the
South
Platte
River,
a
small
agricultural
area
in
the
Lonetree
Creek
Basin
at
a
median
concentration
of
<
0.01
ug/
l,
but
not
detected
in
a
small
urban
area
in
the
Cherry
Creek
Basin
in
Colorado(
3).
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
ten
water
runoff
samples
from
nine
golf
courses
around
Singapore.
(
1)
Domagalski
J;
J
Amer
Water
Res
Assoc
32:
953­
64
(
1996)
(
2)
Griffini
O
et
al;
Bull
Environ
Contam
Toxicol
59:
202­
9
(
1997)
(
3)
Kimbrough
RA
et
al;
Environ
Sci
Technol
30:
908­
16
(
1996)
(
4)
Wan
HB
et
al;
Bull
Environ
Contam
Toxicol
56:
205­
9
(
1996)
all
peer
reviewed.

3.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
Napropamide
is
a
preemergent,
surface­
applied
herbicide
used
to
control
annual
grassy
and
broadleaf
weeds
on
a
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Napropamide
is
sold
in
emulsifiable
liquid,
flowable
concentrate,
dry
flowable,
and
granular
formulations,
and
is
applied
at
the
highest
concentations
to
tomatoes,
berries,
tobacco,
grapes,
cranberries,
peppers,
nuts,
pome
fruits,
and
citrus
crops,
as
well
as
turf,
trees,
and
ornamentals.

EFED
modeled
surface
water
exposure
using
the
Tier
II
model
PRZM­
EXAMS
for
most
labeled
terrestrial
crops,
and
a
modified
rice
model
for
cranberry
production.
Using
PRZM­
EXAMS,
EFED
modeled
a
variety
of
orchard,
vineyard,
and
vegetable
crops
for
which
scenarios
existed,
use
data
were
available,
maximum
application
rates
were
highest,
and
geographical
distribution
of
the
crops
were
covered.
Scenarios
existed
for
many
of
the
crops
either
directly
or
indirectly.
For
example,
scenarios
were
available
for
tomatoes,
tobacco,
pepper,
almonds,
grapes,
citrus,
berries,
and
apples.
Based
on
professional
judgement,
EFED
made
the
assumption
that
the
California
almond
scenario
represented
all
fruit
and
nut
crops
in
California.
Since
California
almonds
(
and
other
orchard
crops)
have
the
highest
application
rates
on
the
label,
this
approach
was
protective.

The
use
data
for
napropamide
from
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
(
NCFAP)
indicate
that
tomatoes,
tobacco,
cranberries,
peppers,
strawberries,
and
almonds
account
for
23.5,
20.7,
11.8,
15.3,
8.9,
and
4.8
%
of
applied
napropamide
in
the
U.
S
in
1997
(
http://
www.
ncfap.
org/
database/
national/
default.
asp
).
With
the
exception
of
strawberries
and
cranberries,
scenarios
were
available
in
PRZM­
EXAMS.
Even
though
strawberries
were
not
modeled,
the
other
scenarios
with
higher
application
rates
are
expected
to
produce
higher
aquatic
exposure.
36
The
modeled
surface
water
scenarios
addressed
the
geographical
distribution
of
specific
crops
in
the
U.
S.
and
the
associated
weather
extremes.
For
example,
citrus
was
modeled
both
in
California
and
Florida,
and
apples
were
modeled
in
North
Carolina
and
Pennsylvania.
Berries
(
e.
g.
blackberries
and
raspberries)
were
modeled
in
Oregon
(
Pacific
Northwest).
Pecans
were
modeled
in
Georgia,
which
created
the
highest
estimates
of
water
concentrations.
Generally
speaking,
higher
precipitation
values
create
the
need
for
higher
application
rates
due
to
increased
metabolism,
runoff,
and
leaching.

Napropamide
is
only
effective
in
preventing
seed
germination
and
must
be
incorporated
or
wetted­
in
to
achieve
contact
with
seed.
It
is
recommended
to
be
applied
in
late
fall
prior
to
germination
of
winter
weeds
and
in
early
spring
prior
to
germination
of
spring/
summer
weeds.
EFED
modeled
the
runoff
into
surface
water
using
either
the
fall
or
spring
application,
and
for
orchard
crops,
assumed
two
applications
7
days
apart.
EFED
also
modeled
using
an
assumption
of
no
incorporation.
These
assumptions
were
made
in
order
to
assess
upper­
bound
concentrations
should
there
be
a
runoff
event
shortly
after
application
and
before
incorporation.
For
model
inputs,
see
Table
7.

EFED
modeled
the
cranberry
use
of
napropamide
using
the
Interim
Rice
Model
(
Bradbury,
10/
29/
02)
modified
to
represent
cranberries.
This
model
predicts
the
environmental
aquatic
exposure
concentration
(
EEC)
of
napropamide
resulting
from
the
application
of
napropamide
to
a
cranberry
field.
Although
this
model
has
not
been
officially
approved
by
EFED,
its
use
for
assessing
aquatic
exposure
concentration
resulting
from
use
on
cranberries
is
Division
policy
at
this
time.

The
cranberry
model
assumes
that
napropamide
is
applied
as
a
preemergent
herbicide
to
a
cranberry
field,
and
that
the
field
is
flooded
0­
4
hours
after
application
(
See
Table
8
for
modeling
inputs).
The
model
calculates
the
surface
water
concentration
of
napropamide
over
time
in
the
flooded
field.
The
flood
water
in
cranberry
fields
is
typically
held
for
several
days
before
it
is
released
into
the
surrounding
freshwater
or
marine/
estuarine
habitats.

Inputs
for
PRZM­
EXAMS
and
cranberry
modeling
are
shown
in
Tables
7
and
8,
respectively.
The
resulting
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
from
PRZM­
EXAMS
are
presented
in
Table
9,
and
EECs
estimated
for
napropamide
use
on
cranberries
are
presented
in
Table
10.
37
Table
7.
Inputs
for
napropamide
ecological
effects
EECs
applied
using
ground
equipment
to
terrestrial
crops
(
PRZM­
EXAMS)

MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
Application
Rate
(
kg/
ha)

CA
Almonds
4.48
6.72
Based
on
BEAD
use
data
all
values
in
lbs
ai/
A
FL
Citrus
4.48
6.72
CA
Citrus
4.48
6.72
OR
Berry
4.48
OR
Apple
4.48
6.72
PA
Apple
4.48
6.72
NC
Apple
4.48
6.72
PA
Turf
4.48
6.72
CA
Tomato
4.48
FL
Pepper
4.48
CA
Grape
4.48
6.72
GA
Pecan
4.48
6.72
NC
Tobacco
2.24
Maximum
No.
of
Applications:
CA
almonds,
OR,
PA,
NC
apple,
CA
grape,
GA
pecan,
FL
and
CA
citrus,
CA
tomato
and
FL
pepper
at
6
lb
ai/
A
rates
and
OR
berry,
PA
turf,
NC
tobacco
1
Based
on
BEAD
use
data
Maximum
No.
of
Applications:
CA
almonds,
OR,
PA,
NC
apple,
CA
grape,
GA
pecan,
FL
and
CA
citrus,
CA
tomato
and
FL
pepper
at
4
lb
ai/
A
rates
2
MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
38
Interval
between
applications
7
days
for
all
crops
with
two
applications
assumed.
Application
interval
is
no
included
on
the
product
labels.

Application
Date(
s)
3/
1
FL
citrus
and
pepper,
GA
pecan
and
NC
tobacco
4/
1
NC
apple
and
PA
turf
11/
1
CA
almonds,
citrus,
tomato,
and
grape,
OR
berry
and
apple,
PA
apple
Application
method
Ground
per
labels
Molecular
Weight
271
g/
Mol
Vapor
pressure
1.7
x
10­
7
Torr
at
25
oC
Application
Efficiency
(
Drinking
Water)
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
for
Ground
Applications
All
non­
granular
uses
0.99
Granular
uses
(
turf)
1.00
Spray
Drift
(
Drinking
Water)
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
All
non­
granular
uses
0.01
Granular
uses
(
turf)
0.00
Kd
(
ml/
g)
8
Average
of
values
in
MRID
41575302
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolic
Halflife
(
days)
parent
1338
3X
446
day
half­
life
based
on
extractable
residues
in
MRID
41105901
Incorporation
depth
(
cm)
All
uses
0.5
Assumes
negligible
incorporation
Solubility
(
mg/
L)
740
74
mg/
L
at
20
oC
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolic
Half­
life
(
days)
Kbacw
in
EXAMS
0
No
data
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
Kbacs
in
EXAMS
0
Stable
MRID
42699701
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
0.018
26
minutes/
1440
minutes/
day
r2=
0.87,
F=
121,
p=
2.1
x
10­
9
41575301
Include
parent
+
Isomer
I
+
Isomer
II
39
1
Input
parameters
based
on
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
Table
8.
Inputs
for
Cranberry
Modeling
of
Napropamide
Use
Input
Value
Comment(
s)

Area
(
ha)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
sediment
interaction
(
cm)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
floodwater
(
m)
0.45
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Volume
=
4.551
*
106
L
Soil
bulk
density
(
g/
cm3)
1.3
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Mass
of
soil
=
130,000
kg/
ha
Organic
carbon
content
(%)
2
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Time
from
application
to
flooding
(
days)
90
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Length
of
flooding
(
days)
5
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Application
rate
(
kg/
ha)
16.8
Maximum
label
rate
for
cranberries
Half­
lives
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
10,704
446
days
MRID
41105901
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
21,408
446­
Day
aerobic
soil
metabolism
*
2
no
162­
4
data
available
Aqueous
photolysis
0.433
26
minutes/
60
minutes/
day
r2=
0.87,
F=
121,
p=
2.1
x
10­
9
41575301
Include
parent
+
Isomer
I
+
Isomer
II
Mobility
Koc
(
L/
Kg)
1,170
MRID
41575302
Lowest
non­
sand
Estimated
Kd=
23.4
L/
kg
40
Table
9.
Surface
water
EECs
for
napropamide
(
all
crops
excluding
cranberries)

EECs
(
µ
g/
L)

Scenario*
Peak
4­
day
21­
day
60­
day
90­
day
Annual
Mean
Overall
Mean
CA
Almonds
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
34.9
23.8
8.8
4.0
2.7
0.8
0.3
CA
Almonds
(
6lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
28.4
20.4
7.6
3.1
2.1
0.7
0.3
FL
Citrus
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
74.4
49.2
15.9
6.0
5.5
1.4
0.9
FL
Citrus
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
54.1
35.3
10.9
4.7
3.9
1.1
0.6
CA
Citrus
(
4lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
8.0
5.5
1.9
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.1
CA
Citrus
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
6.0
4.1
1.4
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.1
OR
Berry
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
15.6
11.8
6.4
2.8
1.8
0.5
0.3
PA
Apple
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
58.7
42.8
31.6
19.1
13.8
3.9
2.4
PA
Apple
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
45.1
30.7
22.6
13.2
9.6
2.8
1.7
NC
Apple
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
45.0
32.3
12.7
5.0
3.9
1.0
0.6
NC
Apple
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
36.7
24.4
9.0
3.9
2.7
0.7
0.4
PA
Turf
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
26.3
18.6
7.0
2.5
1.7
0.4
0.2
CA
Tomato
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
21.8
16.3
7.7
3.2
2.2
0.7
0.4
FL
Pepper
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
64.5
41.6
16.2
9.0
6.1
1.5
0.7
CA
Grape
(
4
lbs/
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
16.6
12.4
5.2
2.1
1.4
0.5
0.3
CA
Grape
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
11.8
8.5
3.8
1.5
1.0
0.4
0.2
EECs
(
µ
g/
L)

Scenario*
Peak
4­
day
21­
day
60­
day
90­
day
Annual
Mean
Overall
Mean
41
GA
Pecan
(
4
lbs/
ai/
A
x
2)
7d
interval
123.3
79.7
26.0
11.0
7.5
1.9
1.0
GA
Pecan
(
6
lbs/
ai/
A
x
1)
102.6
70.0
24.5
10.2
6.8
1.7
0.8
NC
Tobacco
(
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
9.1
6.4
2.1
1.0
0.7
0.2
0.1
FL
citrus
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
2"
incorporation
25.6
16.4
5.2
2.3
1.9
0.5
0.3
FL
citrus
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
2"
incorporation
35.4
22.9
7.7
3.0
2.7
0.7
0.4
GA
pecan
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1)
2"
incorporation
48.8
33.2
11.6
4.9
3.3
0.8
0.3
GA
pecan
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2)
2"
incorporation
33.8
23.6
10.3
5.1
3.4
0.9
0.5
*
All
scenarios
assume
negligible
incorporation
unless
otherwise
noted
Table
10.
EECs
in
cranberry
bog
for
napropamide
used
on
cranberries
at
maximum
rate
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)

Time
(
hours)
Maximum
EEC
(
ppb)

0
5.172
1
1.043
2
0.210
3
0.042
4
0.009
4.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
exposures
are
considered
as
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
as
well
as
reptiles.
For
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms,
such
as
birds
and
mammals,
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
application
method
for
napropamide
is
ground
application
only
(
ground
42
spray,
chemigation,
and
granular
broadcast).

a.
Granular
Applications
Napropamide
is
applied
to
numerous
crops
in
granular
form,
and
despite
recommended
soil
incorporation
methods,
could
pose
significant
risk
to
birds
and
mammals.
Birds
may
be
exposed
to
granular
pesticides
ingesting
granules
when
foraging
for
food
or
grit,
and
mammalian
species
may
be
exposed
to
granular
pesticides
by
ingesting
the
granules.
They
also
may
be
exposed
by
other
routes,
such
as
by
walking
on
exposed
granules
or
drinking
water
contaminated
by
granules.
The
number
of
lethal
doses
(
LD
50)
that
are
available
within
one
square
foot
immediately
after
application
(
LD
50/
ft2)
is
used
as
the
risk
quotient
for
granular
products.
Risk
quotients
are
calculated
for
three
separate
weight
classes
of
birds:
1000g
(
e.
g.
waterfowl),
80g
(
e.
g.
upland
gamebird),
and
20g
(
e.
g.
songbird).
Risk
quotients
are
also
calculated
for
three
separate
weight
classes
of
mammals:
1000g,
35g,
and
5g.
Chronic
risk
assessments
are
not
currently
performed
for
granular
pesticides
on
terrestrial
organisms.

b.
Spray
Applications
and
Residues
For
napropamide
spray
applications,
estimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
wildlife
food
items
focuses
on
quantifying
possible
dietary
ingestion
of
residues
on
vegetative
matter
and
insects.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rate.
The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
generated
from
a
spreadsheet­
based
model
(
ELL­
FATE)
that
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
Further
explanation
and
the
results
of
the
model
are
presented
in
Appendix
C.

The
terrestrial
exposure
assessment
is
based
on
the
methods
of
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).
Terrestrial
EECs
for
liquid
formulations
(
Table
9)
were
derived
for
representative
major
crops
using
current
application
rates
and
intervals
between
applications
where
applicable.

The
EECs
on
food
items
may
be
compared
directly
with
dietary
toxicity
data
or
converted
to
an
oral
dose,
as
is
the
case
for
small
mammals.
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
napropamide
uses
upper
bound
predicted
residues
as
the
measure
of
exposure.
The
predicted
maximum
residues
of
napropamide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
are
presented
in
Table
11.
For
mammals,
the
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
the
fraction
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
through
mammalian
allometric
relationships.
Maximum
and
average
EECs
were
based
on
label
use
data,
and
typical
rates
were
based
on
data
provided
in
the
USDA
National
Agriculture
Statistics
Service,
"
2002
Census
of
Agriculture,
Volume
1
Chapter
2:
US
State
Level
Data"
at
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
census/
census02/
volume1/
us/
index2.
htm.
43
Table
11.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
napropamide
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items.

Application
rate
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
EEC)
(
ppb)

Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
7d
interval)
1796
823
1010
112
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
1440
660
810
90
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
480
220
270
30
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1*
240
110
135
15
*
Average
napropamide
use
rate
on
tobacco
5.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
EFED
used
the
TERRPLANT
model
to
estimate
risk
to
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
areas
adjacent
to
the
treated
field
(
sheet
runoff),
wetland
areas
(
channelized
runoff),
and
from
spray
drift.

EFED
used
a
conservative
first
screen
to
estimate
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
This
screening
method
used
the
maximum
one­
application
rate
of
the
different
types
of
uses
(
orchards
and
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
row
crops
at
2
and
4
lbs
ai/
A),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
napropamide
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
(
tobacco).
The
labels
require
incorporation
by
either
wetting
in
or
by
mechanical
means,
but
EFED
modeled
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
assuming
incorporation
to
2
and
4
inches
of
depth
to
bracket
potential
exposure.
These
depths
are
specified
in
labels
as
being
minimum
depths
to
incorporate
applied
napropamide.
Inputs
for
the
TERRPLANT
model
are
listed
in
Table
12.

Table
12.
TERRPLANT
modeling
inputs
for
the
napropamide
plant
risk
quotient
calculations.

Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
6
lbs
ai/
A
6
lbs
ai/
A
4
lbs
ai/
A
4
lbs
ai/
A
2
lbs
ai/
A
2
lbs
ai/
A
1
lbs
ai/
A
1
lbs
ai/
A
Runoff
Value
(
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
if
chemical
solubility
<
10,
10­
100,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Minimum
Incorporation
Depth
(
inches)
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
Seed
Emerg
Monocot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Seed
Emerg
Dicot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lbs
a.
i./
acre)
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
44
Table
13.
Napropamide
terrestrial
plant
EECs
for
non­
target
vascular
plants
using
labeled
spray
application
rates.

Crop/
scenario
Application
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
Wetland
Area
Runoff
Spray
Drift
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)

6
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp.
0.36
3.06
0.06
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.12
0.65
0.06
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.09
0.36
0.06
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.48
2.10
0.30
4
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp.
0.24
2.04
0.04
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.08
0.43
0.04
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.06
0.24
0.04
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.3200
1.40
0.20
2
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.12
1.02
0.02
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.04
0.22
0.02
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.03
0.12
0.02
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.16
0.70
0.10
1
lbs
ai/
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.06
0.51
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.02
0.11
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.01
0.06
0.01
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.08
0.35
0.05
45
Table
14.
EECs
for
granular
napropamide
formulation
applications
Crop/
scenario
Application
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
Wetland
Area
Runoff
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)

6
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp.
0.30
3.00
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.06
0.59
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.03
0.30
4
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.20
2.00
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.04
0.39
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.02
0.20
2
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.10
1.00
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.02
0.20
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.01
0.10
1
lbs
ai/
acre
Ground
Unicorp.
0.05
0.50
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.01
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.005
0.05
B.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
1.
Evaluation
of
Aquatic
and
Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity
Studies
In
screening­
level
ecological
risk
assessments,
effects
characterization
describes
the
types
of
effects
a
pesticide
can
produce
in
an
organism
or
plant.
This
characterization
is
based
on
registrant­
submitted
studies
that
describe
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
In
addition,
other
sources
of
information,
including
reviews
of
the
open
literature
and
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS),
are
conducted
to
further
refine
the
characterization
of
potential
ecological
effects.

Appendix
E
summarizes
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
used
to
characterize
effects
for
this
risk
assessment.
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
birds,
mammals,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
46
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
Mammalian
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
or
New
Zealand
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

Napropamide
Toxicity
Categories
Napropamide
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
both
an
acute
oral
and
subacute
dietary
basis;
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis;
is
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish;
is
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates;
is
slightly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish;
and
is
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Tables
15
­
17
summarize
the
most
sensitive
ecological
toxicity
endpoints
for
aquatic
organisms,
terrestrial
organisms,
and
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants,
respectively.
Discussions
of
the
effects
of
napropamide
on
aquatic
and
terrestrial
taxonomic
groups
are
presented
below.

Table
15.
Summary
of
Napropamide
Acute
and
Chronic
Aquatic
Toxicity
Data
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
LC50
or
EC50
(
mg
ai/
L)
MRID
LOAEC/
LOAEC*
(
mg/
L)
MRID
Rainbow
Trout
Oncorhynchys
mykiss
6.4
115313
NO
DATA
NA
Water
Flea
Daphnia
magna
14.3
88064
57805
NO
DATA
NA
Sheepshead
Minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
14.0
416102­
06
NO
DATA
NA
Eastern
Oyster
Crassostrea
virginica
1.4
416671­
01
NO
DATA
NA
Mysid
Shrimp
Americamysis
bahia
4.2
416102­
07
NO
DATA
NA
*
No
chronic
toxicity
data
required
for
aquatic
organisms.
Acute
toxicity
tests
demonstrated
acute
toxicity
>
1mg/
L
(
40
CFR
72­
4)
47
Table
16.
Summary
of
Napropamide
Acute
and
Chronic
Terrestrial
Organism
Toxicity
Data
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
Oral
Toxicity
LD50
(
mg
ai/
kg)
MRID
Subacute
Dietary
LC50
(
mg
ai/
kg)
MRID
NOAEC
(
mg
ai/
kg)
MRID
Affected
Endpoint
s
Mallard
Duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
>
4640
2296521
>
5620
258393
113820
10002
79548
and
79555
NA2
Laboratory
Rat
Rattus
norvegicus
>
5000
2306021
NA
NA
303
40362902
growth
&
reproducti
on
1
Accession
number
2
The
effect
demonstrated
on
body
weight
was
deemed
not
related
to
the
toxicant
effects
of
napropamide.
This
is
because
the
effect
was
only
demonstrated
in
the
3000
ppm
males
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
study.
The
differences
observed
were
slight,
and
appeared
to
be
related
to
a
slightly
lighter
initial
body
weight
of
the
males
in
this
group.
Furthermore,
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
mean
body
weight
change
between
the
control
group
and
the
3000
ppm
treatment
group
at
any
time
during
the
course
of
the
study.
Therefore,
EFED
conclusion
is
that
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
in
the
study.
Therefore,
this
NOEAC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.
3mg
ai/
kg
diet
Table
17.
Summary
of
napropamide
most
sensitive
plant
toxicity
endpoints.

Species
Toxicity
EC25
/
EC05
NOAEC
(
ppm)
Affected
Endpoint
(
MRID)

Green
alga
Selenastrum
capricornutum
(
TGAI)
3.4
(
ppm)
NA
cell
density
(
416102­
10)

Terrestrial
plants
(
see
Appendix
E
for
a
list
of
species)
(
TEP)
2.1­
0.095
(
lbs
ai/
A)
<
0.017
Percent
emergence
and
dry
weight
2.
Use
of
Probit
Slope
Response
Relationship
The
Agency
uses
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
as
a
tool
for
providing
additional
information
on
the
listed
animal
species
acute
levels
of
concern
(
LOC).
The
acute
listed
species
LOCs
of
0.1
and
0.05
are
used
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals,
respectively.
As
part
of
the
risk
characterization,
an
interpretation
of
acute
LOCs
for
listed
species
is
discussed.
This
interpretation
is
presented
in
terms
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
(
i.
e.,
mortality
or
immobilization)
should
exposure
at
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
actually
occur
for
a
species
with
sensitivity
to
napropamide
on
par
with
the
acute
toxicity
endpoint
selected
for
RQ
calculation.
To
accomplish
this
interpretation,
the
Agency
uses
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship
available
from
the
toxicity
study
used
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
48
endpoints
for
each
taxonomic
group.
The
individual
effects
probability
associated
with
the
LOCs
is
based
on
the
mean
estimate
of
the
slope
and
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition
to
a
single
effects
probability
estimate
based
on
the
mean,
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
are
also
provided
to
account
for
variance
in
the
slope.
The
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
the
effects
probability
are
based
on
available
information
on
the
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
slope.
A
statement
regarding
the
confidence
in
the
applicability
of
the
assumed
probit
dose
response
relationship
for
predicting
individual
event
probabilities
is
also
included.
Studies
with
good
probit
fit
characteristics
(
i.
e.,
statistically
appropriate
for
the
data
set)
are
associated
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence.
Conversely,
a
low
degree
of
confidence
is
associated
with
data
from
studies
that
do
not
statistically
support
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition,
confidence
in
the
data
set
may
be
reduced
by
high
variance
in
the
slope
(
i.
e.,
large
95%
confidence
intervals),
despite
good
probit
fit
characteristics.

Individual
effect
probabilities
are
calculated
based
on
an
Excel
spreadsheet
tool
IECV1.1
(
Individual
Effect
Chance
Model
Version
1.1)
developed
by
Ed
Odenkirchen
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,
OPP,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
June
22,
2004).
The
model
allows
for
such
calculations
by
entering
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
and
the
95%
confidence
bounds
of
that
estimate)
as
the
slope
parameter
for
the
spreadsheet.
In
addition,
the
LOC
(
0.1
for
terrestrial
animals
and
0.05
for
aquatic
animals)
is
entered
as
the
desired
threshold.

3.
Incident
Data
Review
A
review
of
the
EIIS
database
for
ecological
incidents
involving
napropamide
was
completed.
There
were
two
reported
incidents.
The
first
incident
involved
adverse
effects
on
fish
(
incident
#
1000799­
04).
Napropamide
and
chlorpyrifos
residues
were
identified
in
soil
in
the
vicinity
of
a
fish
pond.
The
report
deemed
chlorpyrifos
as
a
more
probable
reason
for
the
incident
than
napropamide.
This
is
because
chlorpyrifos
is
very
highly
toxic
to
fish.
Napropamide
is
only
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
fish.
The
second
incident
report
involved
damage
to
seven
acres
of
planted
douglas
fir
trees.
The
report
determined
that
napropamide
was
unlikely
the
cause
of
the
damage
because
it
had
only
been
applied
once
to
the
area.
Additionally,
oryzalin,
which
was
used
in
the
vicinity
of
the
tree
damage,
was
determined
to
be
the
likely
candidate
because
its
label
specifically
warned
that
this
chemical
could
damage
Douglas
fir
trees.

IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Risk
characterization
is
the
integration
of
exposure
and
effects
characterization
to
determine
the
ecological
risk
from
the
use
of
napropamide
and
the
likelihood
of
effects
on
aquatic
life,
wildlife,
and
plants
based
on
varying
pesticide­
use
scenarios.
The
risk
characterization
provides
an
estimation
and
a
description
of
the
risk;
articulates
risk
assessment
assumptions,
limitations,
and
uncertainties;
synthesizes
an
overall
conclusion;
and
provides
the
risk
managers
with
information
to
make
regulatory
decisions.
49
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
napropamide
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
is
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
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
assess
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
directed
label
use
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.

1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Surface
water
concentrations
resulting
from
napropamide
application
to
selected
crops
were
predicted
with
the
Tier
II
models
PRZ
M­
EXAMS.
Twenty
scenarios
were
simulated:
almonds
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
citrus
in
Florida
(
2
application
rates),
citrus
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
berries
in
Oregon,
apples
in
Pennsylvania
(
2
application
rates),
apples
in
North
Carolina
(
2
application
rates),
pecans
in
Georgia
(
2
application
rates),
tomatoes
in
California,
peppers
in
Florida,
grapes
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
tobacco
in
North
Carolina,
turf
in
Pennsylvania,
and
cranberries
in
Michigan.

Aquatic
animals:
Peak
EECs
were
compared
to
acute
toxicity
endpoints
for
napropamide
to
derive
acute
RQs
for
fish
and
invertebrates
(
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine).
No
chronic
studies
were
required
for
aquatic
animals;
therefore,
no
chronic
RQ
values
could
be
calculated.

None
of
the
acute
fish
(
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine)
or
freshwater
invertebrate
RQs
calculated
for
napropamide
exceeded
any
LOC
values
(
endangered
species
LOC
=
0.05).
RQ
values
for
napropamide
are
summarized
in
Table
18.

Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
There
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
exposed
to
napropamide
resulting
from
application
to
Florida
citrus
and
Georgia
pecans
based
on
this
surrogate
data.

Endangered
species
RQ
values
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
mollusks)
exposed
to
napropamide
in
runoff
following
application
to
Florida
citrus
at
an
application
rate
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
a
7
day
interval
between
applications
(
RQ
=
0.053).
The
endangered
species
LOC
was
also
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
mollusks)
exposed
to
runoff
following
application
to
Georgia
pecans
at
both
application
rates
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
RQ
=
0.088
and
0.073).
There
were
no
exceedances
for
estuarine/
marine
crustaceans
for
any
modeled
scenarios.
50
Table
18.
Acute
risk
quotients
(
RQ)
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
animals
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
values
Freshwater
fish1
Estuarine/
Marin
e
fish
2
Freshwater
Invertebrates
3
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
oyster
4
shrimp
5
CA
Almond
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
34.9
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.025
0.008
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
28.4
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.020
0.007
FL
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
74.4
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.053
0.018
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
54.1
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.039
0.013
FL
Citrus
2"
incorp.
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
35.4
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.03
0.008
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
25.6
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.02
0.006
CA
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
8.0
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.002
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
6.0
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.001
OR
Berry
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
15.6
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.011
0.004
PA
Apple
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
58.7
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.042
0.014
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
45.1
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.032
0.011
NC
Apple
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
45.0
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.032
0.011
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
36.7
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.026
0.009
GA
Pecan
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
123.3
0.019
0.009
0.009
0.088
0.029
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
102.6
0.016
0.007
0.007
0.073
0.024
GA
Pecan
2"
incorp.
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
33.8
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.024
0.008
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
48.8
0.008
0.003
0.003
0.035
0.012
CA
Tomato
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
21.8
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.016
0.005
FL
Pepper
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
64.5
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.046
0.015
CA
Grape
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
16.6
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.012
0.004
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
11.8
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.003
NC
Tobacco
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
9.1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.002
PA
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
26.3
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.019
0.006
Exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
1Rainbow
Trout
LC50
=
6400
ppb
2Sheepshead
Minnow
LC50
=
14,000
ppb
3Daphnia
EC50
=
14,300
ppb
4
Eastern
Oyster
EC50
=
1400
ppb
5
Mysid
Shrimp
EC50
=
4200
ppb
51
Table
19.
RQ
calculations
based
on
EECs
in
cranberry
bog
for
napropamide
used
on
cranberries
at
maximum
rate
(
15
lbs.
ai/
A)
and
most
sensitive
aquatic
organism
toxicity
endpoints
Time
(
hours)
Maximum
(
ug/
L)
RQ
based
on
Freshwater
fish
LC50
of
6.4
ppm
RQ
based
on
Freshwater
invertebrate
LC50
of
14.3
ppm
RQ
based
on
Marine/
Estuarine
fish
LC50
of
14
ppm
RQ
based
on
Marine/
Estuarine
invertebrate
LC50
of
1.4
ppm
RQ
based
on
Plant
EC50
of
3.4
ppm
0
5.172
0.79
*
0.36
*
0.37
*
3.64
*
1.5
*

1
1.043
0.17
*
0.07
**
0.07
**
0.71
*
Below
LOC
of
1
2
0.210
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
0.15
Below
LOC
of
1
3
0.042
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
1
4
0.009
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
1
RQ
=
EEC/
LC50
or
EEC/
EC50
Exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
*
Exceed
Agency
level
of
concern
for
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
including
endangered
species.
**
Exceed
Agency
level
of
concern
for
risk
to
endangered
species
aquatic
organisms.
Note:
Table
18
demonstrates
that
the
concentration
of
napropamide
degrades
below
the
Agency
level
of
concern
for
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
within
3
hrs.
Therefore,
flood
water
released
into
the
surrounding
aquatic
habits
is
not
expected
to
pose
a
significant
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
in
these
habitats.

Aquatic
plants:
Peak
EECs
were
compared
to
the
acute
EC
50
toxicity
endpoint
for
green
alga
to
derive
acute
non­
endangered
species
RQs.

There
are
no
LOC
exceedances
for
aquatic
plants
based
on
numerous
napropamide
application
modeling
scenarios.

Table
20.
Acute
risk
quotients
(
RQ)
for
aquatic
plants
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Green
algae(
EC50
=
3400
ppb)

CA
Almond
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
34.9
0.010
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
28.4
0.008
FL
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
74.4
0.022
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
54.1
0.016
CA
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
8.0
0.002
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
6.0
0.002
OR
Berry
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
15.6
0.005
52
PA
Apple
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
58.7
0.017
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
45.1
0.013
NC
Apple
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
45.0
0.013
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
36.7
0.011
GA
Pecan
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
123.3
0.036
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
102.6
0.030
CA
Tomato
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
21.8
0.006
FL
Pepper
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
64.5
0.019
CA
Grape
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
16.6
0.005
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
11.8
0.003
NC
Tobacco
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
9.1
0.003
PA
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
26.3
0.008
RQ
=
EEC/
EC50
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
The
EEC
values
for
terrestrial
exposure
were
derived
from
the
Kenaga
nomograph,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.,
(
1994),
which
is
based
on
a
large
set
of
actual
field
residue
data.
Risk
quotients
are
calculated
using
the
most
sensitive
LC
50
and
NOAEC
for
birds,
LD
50
for
mammals
(
based
on
laboratory
rat
studies),
and
appropriate
EEC
values.

Birds:
No
acute
RQs
were
calculated
for
birds
exposed
to
napropamide
via
spray
or
granular
application
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC50
and
LD50
were
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
7200
ppm;
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
oral
test
was
4640
mg/
kg
).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
birds.
Therefore
the
maximum
avian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
1796
ppb)
(
See
ELL­
FATE
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
birds.

No
chronic
RQ
values
were
calculated
for
birds
because
decreased
body
weights
measured
in
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
were
deemed
unrelated
to
napropamide
exposure
(
See
Appendix
E,
Table
2).

Mammals:
No
acute
RQs
were
calculated
for
mammals
exposed
to
napropamide
via
spray
or
granular
application
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LD
50
was
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
5000
mg/
kg).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
mammals.
Therefore
the
maximum
53
mammalian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
See
ELL­
FATE
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
mammals.

Chronic
mammalian
RQ
values
exceeded
the
LOC
of
1.0
on
all
food
types
and
at
all
napropamide
maximum
application
rates.
Additionally,
chronic
mammalian
RQ
values
exceeded
the
LOC
on
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
at
the
lowest
average
napropamide
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
(
tobacco).
RQ
values
ranged
from
1.00
to
59.86.
Chronic
mammalian
RQ
values
are
summarized
in
Table
21.

Table
21.
Mammalian
chronic
RQ
values
for
napropamide
Application
rate
Mammalian
Chronic
Risk
Quotients1
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
7d
interval)
59.86
27.43
33.67
3.74
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
48.00
22.00
27.00
3.00
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
16.00
7.33
9.00
1.00
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1
8.00
3.67
4.50
0.50
1Rat
NOAEC
=
30
mg/
kg/
diet
2Lowest
average
use
rate
(
tobacco)
exceedances
indicated
in
bold
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
EFED
used
a
conservative
first
screen
to
estimate
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
This
screening
method
used
the
maximum
one­
application
rate
of
the
different
types
of
uses
(
orchards
and
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
row
crops
at
2
and
4
lbs
ai./
A),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
for
tobacco.
The
labels
require
incorporation
by
either
wetting
in
or
by
mechanical
means.
EFED
modeled
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
assuming
incorporation
to
2
and
4
inches
of
depth
to
bracket
potential
exposure.
These
depths
are
specified
in
labels
as
being
minimum
depths
to
incorporate
applied
napropamide.

EFED
used
the
TERRPLANT
model
to
estimate
risk
to
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
areas
adjacent
to
the
treated
field
(
sheet
runoff),
wetland
areas
(
channelized
runoff),
and
from
spray
drift.
For
the
highest
application
rates
(
2,
4,
and
6
lbs.
ai/
A),
potential
risk
was
predicted
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
monocot
and
dicot
plants
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands.
Also,
spray
drift
risk
to
dicot
plants
was
predicted
from
these
application
rates.
(
Table
22).

The
lowest
average
application
rate
of
1
lbs
ai/
A
pose
a
risk
to
primarily
endangered
species
inhabiting
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands.
The
only
nonendangered
plants
risk
is
to
species
inhabiting
adjacent
wetlands.
This
risk
is
only
posed
by
the
chemigation
application
method
and
granular
uses.
54
Table
22.
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)

App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
6
lbs
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
3.27
12.00
27.82
102.00
0.08
0.18
Dicot
2.27
40.91
19.32
347.73
0.10
3.10
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
1.08
3.97
5.91
21.69
0.08
0.18
Dicot
0.75
13.53
4.11
73.93
0.10
3.10
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.81
2.98
3.23
11.84
0.08
0.18
Dicot
0.57
10.17
2.24
40.37
0.10
3.10
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
4.36
16.0
19.09
70.0
0.38
0.91
Dicot
3.03
54.55
13.26
238.64
0.49
15.50
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.54
1.97
5.37
19.69
NA
NA
Dicot
0.37
6.71
3.73
67.11
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.27
0.98
2.68
9.84
NA
NA
Dicot
0.19
3.36
1.86
33.55
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
2.73
10.00
27.27
100.00
NA
NA
Dicot
1.89
34.09
18.94
340.91
NA
NA
4
lbs
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
2.18
8.00
18.55
68.00
0.05
0.12
Dicot
1.52
27.27
12.88
231.82
0.07
2.07
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.54
1.99
2.15
7.90
0.05
0.12
Dicot
0.38
6.78
1.50
26.91
0.07
2.07
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
2.91
10.67
12.73
46.67
0.25
0.61
Dicot
2.02
36.36
8.84
159.09
0.33
10.33
granular
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
1.82
6.67
18.18
66.67
NA
NA
Dicot
1.26
22.73
12.63
227.27
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.36
1.31
3.58
13.12
NA
NA
Dicot
0.25
4.47
2.49
44.74
NA
NA
App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
55
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.66
1.79
6.56
NA
NA
Dicot
0.12
2.24
1.24
22.37
NA
NA
2
lbs
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unicorp.
Monocot
1.09
4.00
9.27
34.00
0.03
0.06
Dicot
0.76
13.64
6.44
115.91
0.03
1.03
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.36
1.32
1.97
7.23
0.03
0.06
Dicot
0.25
4.51
1.37
24.64
0.03
1.03
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.27
0.99
1.08
3.95
0.03
0.06
Dicot
0.19
3.39
0.75
13.46
0.03
1.03
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
1.45
5.33
6.36
23.33
0.13
0.30
Dicot
1.01
18.18
4.42
79.55
0.16
5.17
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.66
1.79
6.56
NA
NA
Dicot
0.12
2.24
1.24
22.37
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.09
0.33
0.89
3.28
NA
NA
Dicot
0.06
1.12
0.62
11.18
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
0.91
3.33
9.09
33.33
NA
NA
Dicot
0.63
11.36
6.31
113.64
NA
NA
App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
56
1
lb
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp
Monocot
0.55
2.00
4.64
17.00
0.01
0.03
Dicot
0.38
6.82
3.22
57.95
0.02
0.052
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.66
0.99
3.61
0.01
0.03
Dicot
0.13
2.25
0.68
12.32
0.02
0.52
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.14
0.50
0.54
1.97
0.01
0.03
Dicot
0.09
1.70
0.37
6.73
0.02
0.52
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
0.73
2.67
3.18
11.67
0.06
0.15
Dicot
0.51
9.09
2.10
39.77
0.08
2.58
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.09
0.33
0.89
3.28
NA
NA
Dicot
0.06
1.12
0.62
11.18
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.04
0.16
0.45
1.64
NA
NA
Dicot
0.03
0.56
0.31
5.59
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
0.45
1.67
4.55
16.67
NA
NA
Dicot
0.32
5.68
3.16
56.82
NA
NA
exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
1RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC25
2RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
3RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC25
4RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
5RQ
=
Drift
EEC
/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
6RQ
=
DriftEEC
/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
57
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
1.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Summary
of
major
conclusions
°
No
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish,
freshwater
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish,
and
estuarine/
marine
crustaceans
at
all
napropamide
application
levels
and
in
all
evaluated
scenarios.

°
Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
There
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
exposed
to
napropamide
resulting
from
application
to
Florida
citrus
and
Georgia
pecans
based
on
this
surrogate
data.

°
Currently,
EFED
cannot
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
organisms
because
chronic
toxicity
data
was
not
submitted
to
the
Agency.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2>
51
days).

°
EFED
recognizes
that
there
are
no
federally
listed
endangered
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
However,
"
endangered"
species
acute
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
mollusks
for
napropamide
application
to
Florida
citrus
at
a
rate
of
4lbs
ai/
A
twice
a
year
(
7
day
interval
between
applications)
and
Georgia
pecans
at
both
application
rates
(
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1).

°
The
modeling
of
napropamide
used
in
cranberry
production
indicates
that
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
is
not
likely
to
be
significant.
This
is
primarily
because
the
maximum
napropamide
concentration
(
5172
ug/
L)
in
cranberry
field
flood
water
rapidly
degrades
(
within
3
hrs)
to
concentrations
below
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
acute
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
(
Table
5).
Thus,
because
flood
water
contaminated
with
napropamide
is
typically
held
in
a
cranberry
field
for
several
58
days,
the
napropamide
concentration
released
into
the
surrounding
aquatic
environment
is
not
expected
to
be
significant.

°
No
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
aquatic
plants
based
on
green
alga
toxicity
data.
Data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

With
the
exception
of
the
aforementioned
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
scenarios,
napropamide
use
does
not
pose
a
calculated
risk
to
aquatic
animals.

2.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
Summary
of
major
conclusions
°
Acute
RQ
values
for
birds
for
both
spray
and
granular
napropamide
applications
were
not
calculated
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC
50
and
LD
50
were
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
7200
ppm;
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
oral
test
was
4640
mg/
kg
).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
birds.
Therefore
the
maximum
avian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
1796
ppb)
(
See
ELL­
FATE
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
birds.

°
Chronic
RQ
values
for
birds
were
not
calculated
because
decreased
body
weights
measured
in
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
were
deemed
unrelated
to
napropamide
exposure.
The
effect
demonstrated
on
body
weight
was
deemed
not
related
to
the
toxicant
effects
of
napropamide.
This
is
because
the
effects
was
only
demonstrated
in
the
3000
ppm
males
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
study.
The
differences
observed
were
slight,
and
appeared
to
be
related
to
a
slightly
lighter
initial
body
weight
of
the
males
in
this
group.
Furthermore,
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
mean
body
weight
change
between
the
control
group
and
the
3000
ppm
treatment
group
at
any
time
during
the
course
of
the
study.
Therefore,
EFED
conclusion
is
that
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
in
the
study.
Therefore,
this
NOEAC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.

°
Acute
RQ
values
for
mammals
for
both
spray
and
granular
napropamide
applications
were
not
calculated
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LD
50
was
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
5000
mg/
kg).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
mammals.
Therefore
the
maximum
mammalian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
See
59
ELL­
FATE
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
mammals.

°
Chronic
risk
to
mammals
(
including
threatened
and
endangered
mammals)
is
possible
from
maximum
labeled
application
rates
of
napropamide
on
all
crops,
as
well
as
from
the
lowest
average
application
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
(
tobacco).

°
There
is
potential
risk
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
plants
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands
at
maximum
and
average
use
rates.

Discussion
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
There
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
exposed
to
napropamide
resulting
from
application
to
Florida
citrus
and
Georgia
pecans
based
on
this
surrogate
data.
The
models
used
to
calculate
environmental
concentrations
used
an
incorporation
value
of
0.5
inches,
which
models
negligible
incorporation
and
therefore
simulates
a
runoff
event
immediately
following
application.
However,
the
RQ
values
for
endangered
mollusks
do
not
exceed
the
LOC
if
incorporation
(
2
inches)
occurs.
Given
the
information
that
soil
incorporation
mitigates
risk
to
mollusks,
it
is
possible
that
a
geographically­
specific
label
(
for
CA
citrus
and
GA
pecan
crops)
could
be
used
to
lessen
the
risk
of
napropamide
use
to
endangered
mollusks.

Risk
to
Terrestrial
Plants
EFED
used
a
conservative
first
screen
to
estimate
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
This
screening
method
used
the
maximum
one­
application
rate
of
the
different
types
of
uses
(
orchards
and
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai./
A,
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
row
crops
at
2
and
4
lbs
ai/
A),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
use
rate
of
1
lb/
ai
A
(
tobacco).
The
labels
require
incorporation
by
either
wetting
in
or
by
mechanical
means,
but
EFED
modeled
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
assuming
incorporation
to
2
and
4
inches
of
depth
to
bracket
potential
exposure.
These
depths
are
specified
in
labels
as
being
minimum
depths
to
incorporate
applied
napropamide.

EFED
used
the
TERRPLANT
model
to
estimate
risk
to
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
areas
adjacent
to
the
treated
field
(
sheet
runoff),
wetland
areas
(
channelized
runoff),
and
from
spray
drift.
For
the
highest
application
rates
(
2,
4
and
6
lbs
ai/
A),
potential
risk
was
predicted
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
plants
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands
with
liquid
application.
Granular
applications
lead
to
apparent
risk
to
both
endangered
monocots
and
60
dicots
at
both
incorporation
depths
(
2
and
4
inches).
Spray
drift
poses
a
potential
risk
to
endangered
dicots
at
all
application
rates
(
Table
22).

The
lowest
average
application
rate
of
1
lbs
ai/
A
pose
a
risk
to
primarily
endangered
species
inhabiting
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands.
The
only
nonendangered
plants
risk
is
to
species
inhabiting
adjacent
wetlands.
This
risk
is
only
posed
by
the
chemigation
application
method
and
granular
uses
on
both
dicot
and
monocot
plants.

Risk
to
plants
from
runoff
will
vary
with
application
conditions
and
application
technique.
Application
of
a
pesticide
to
soil
followed
by
mechanical
incorporation
is
expected
to
reduce
risk
to
plants
relative
to
wetting­
in
because
the
pesticide
will
be
partially
buried
and
exposed
to
soil
where
it
can
sorb
prior
to
a
runoff.
However,
wetting
in
can
also
reduce
runoff
if
the
rate
of
rainfall/
irrigation
is
slow
enough
to
allow
infiltration
into
the
soil.
The
particular
method
of
incorporation
will
depend
on
whether
the
crop
allows
mechanical
incorporation
or
not.
The
roots
of
an
orchard
crop
may
be
damaged
by
mechanical
incorporation
and
watering­
in
may
be
the
predominant
method
of
incorporation.
The
soil
properties
also
affect
runoff.
If
a
sandy
soil
is
present,
applied
water
will
have
a
greater
tendency
to
go
into
the
soil
rather
than
run
off
the
irrigated
area,
as
would
be
expected
with
a
clay
soil.
If
a
field
is
sloped
instead
of
being
flat,
runoff
will
be
favored
over
infiltration
into
the
soil.

Risk
to
Mammals
EFED
has
determined
that
napropamide
may
pose
a
chronic
risk
to
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
small
insects,
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects
at
all
maximum
use
rates
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1;
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2;
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1
(
tobacco).
This
determination
is
based
on
the
premise
that
chronic
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceeded
the
Agency
Level
of
Concern
for
chronic
risk
to
mammals
including
endangered
species.
The
napropamide
mammalian
chronic
toxicity
study
demonstrated
that
napropamide
chronic
dietary
exposure
caused
chronic
loss
in
body
weight
for
parents
and
offspring.
This
indicates
that
napropamide
dietary
exposure
may
negatively
impair
mammalian
growth
and
development.
Mammals
may
be
exposed
to
napropamide
by
its
application
to
treated
areas,
where
they
feed
on
seeds,
insects,
and
plant
materials.
Such
application
may
contaminate
mammalian
food
materials.
Even
though
napropamide
is
required
to
be
incorporated
into
the
soil
upon
application,
mammalian
exposure
may
occur
because
some
mammals
may
dig
into
the
soil
as
they
forage
for
food
items.
Additionally,
napropamide
is
very
persistent
in
soil
(
aerobic
soil
metabolism
=
446
days;
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
=
17­
24
days).
This
persistence
in
soil
may
is
predicted
to
contribute
to
chronic
exposure
and
consequently
chronic
risk.

C.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
1.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
61
The
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
endangered
and
threatened
mammals
and
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
are
exceeded
for
the
use
of
napropamide.
Appendix
F
provides
a
count
of
endangered
and
threatened
species
for
each
crop
where
napropamide
is
used,
as
well
as
a
list
of
all
of
the
endangered
mammals
and
plants
potentially
at
risk.
The
Agency
also
recognizes
that
there
are
no
Federally
listed
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
or
mollusks.
However,
there
are
numerous
endangered
freshwater
mollusks
and
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
data
to
reflect
the
potential
effects
of
napropamide
use
on
endangered
freshwater
mollusks.

The
registrant
must
provide
information
on
the
proximity
of
Federally
listed
endangered
species
to
the
napropamide
usage
sites.
This
requirement
may
be
satisfied
in
one
of
three
ways:
1)
having
membership
in
the
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
(
Pesticide
Registration
Notice
2000­
2);
2)
citing
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
data;
or
3)
independently
producing
these
data,
provided
the
information
is
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
FIFRA
requirements.
The
information
will
be
used
by
the
OPP
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
develop
recommendations
to
avoid
adverse
effects
to
listed
species.

There
are
542
endangered
or
threatened
plant
species
in
states
that
grow
crops
where
napropamide
is
potentially
used.
These
species
are
largely
state­
specific,
with
California
and
Hawaii
containing
the
largest
number
of
endangered
plant
species.

There
are
62
endangered
or
threatened
mammal
species
in
states
that
grow
crops
where
napropamide
is
potentially
used.
Based
on
this
assessment,
these
species
could
potentially
be
at
risk
from
chronic
napropamide
exposure.
Several
species,
such
as
the
gray
bat,
Indiana
bat,
and
black­
footed
ferret
occur
in
numerous
states.

2.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
The
probit
slope
response
relationship
is
evaluated
to
calculate
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
corresponding
to
the
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
Probit
slope
analysis
is
not
performed
for
plant
species
or
chronic
risks.
Therefore,
no
probit
slope
analyses
were
done
in
this
assessment.

3.
Critical
Habitats
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
terrestrial
plants
and
mammals.
In
light
of
the
62
potential
for
indirect
effects,
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
is
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.
Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constituent
elements
that
fall
into,
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
the
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
does
not
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
is
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
terrestrial
plants
and
mammals.
This
list
should
serve
as
an
initial
step
in
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary
4.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
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,
creating
gaps
in
the
food
chain,
etc.

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
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.

Screening­
level
chronic
RQs
for
mammals
exceed
the
endangered
LOC;
therefore,
there
may
be
a
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects.
The
nature
of
the
chronic
toxicological
endpoint
can
not
be
considered
to
determine
if
a
rationale
for
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
effect"
determination
is
possible.
As
such,
Services­
provided
"
species
profiles",
and
further
evaluation
of
the
geographical
and
temporal
nature
of
the
exposure
are
all
that
can
be
considered
to
determine
if
a
rationale
for
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
effect"
determination
is
possible.
Indirect
effects
to
mammals
may
result
from
reduced
food
items
to
animals,
behavior
modifications
from
reduced
or
a
modified
habitat,
and
from
alterations
of
habitats.
Alterations
of
habitats
can
affect
the
reproductive
capacity
of
some
terrestrial
animals.

Screening­
level
acute
RQs
for
terrestrial
plants
are
above
the
non­
endangered
species
LOCs.
The
Agency
considers
this
to
be
indicative
of
a
potential
for
adverse
effects
to
those
listed
63
species
that
rely
either
on
a
specific
plant
species
(
plant
species
obligate)
or
multiple
plant
species
(
plant
dependent)
for
some
important
aspect
of
their
life
cycle.
The
Agency
may
determine
if
listed
organisms
for
which
plants
are
a
critical
component
of
their
resource
needs
are
within
the
pesticide
use
area.
This
is
accomplished
through
a
comparison
of
Service­
provided
"
species
profiles"
and
listed
species
location
data.
If
no
listed
organisms
that
are
either
plant
species
obligates
or
plant
dependent
reside
within
the
pesticide
use
area,
a
no
effect
determination
on
listed
species
is
made.
If
plant
species
obligate
or
dependent
organism
may
reside
within
the
pesticide
use
area,
the
Agency
may
consider
temporal
and
geographical
nature
of
exposure,
and
the
scope
of
the
effects
data,
to
determine
if
any
potential
effects
can
be
determined
to
not
likely
adversely
affect
a
plant
species
obligate
or
dependent
listed
organism.

D.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
For
screening
terrestrial
risk
assessments
for
listed
species,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
is
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
pesticide
at
a
rate
commensurate
with
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
Spray
drift
model
predictions
suggest
that
this
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
to
species
that
do
not
occupy
the
treated
filed.
For
screening
risk
assessment
purposes,
the
actual
habitat
requirements
of
any
particular
terrestrial
species
are
not
considered,
and
it
assumed
that
species
occupy,
exclusively
and
permanently,
the
treated
area
being
modeled.
This
assumption
leads
to
a
maximum
level
of
exposure
in
the
risk
characterization.

Terrestrial
EEC
are
based
on
peak
value
of
the
Kenaga
nomogram
as
modified
by
Fletcher.
The
residues
from
the
Kenaga
nomogram
are
measured
immediately
after
application.
The
peak
maximum
value
is
the
upper
limit
value
and
may
be
conservative.

b.
Routes
of
Exposure
Screening­
level
risk
assessments
for
spray
applications
of
pesticides
consider
dietary
exposure
alone.
Other
routes
of
exposure,
not
considered
in
this
assessment,
are
discussed
below:

°
Incidental
soil
ingestion
exposure
­
This
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
incidental
soil
ingestion.
Available
data
suggests
that
up
to
15%
of
the
diet
can
consist
of
incidentally
ingested
soil
depending
on
the
species
and
feeding
strategy
(
Beyer
et
al.,
1994).

°
Dermal
Exposure
­
The
screening
assessment
does
not
consider
dermal
exposure,
except
as
it
is
indirectly
included
in
calculations
of
RQs
based
on
lethal
doses
per
unit
of
pesticide
treated
area.
Dermal
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
direct
application
of
spray
to
terrestrial
wildlife
in
the
treated
area
or
64
within
the
drift
footprint,
(
2)
incidental
contact
with
contaminated
vegetation,
or
(
3)
contact
with
contaminated
water
or
soil.

°
Drinking
Water
Exposure
­
Drinking
water
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient
may
be
the
result
of
consumption
of
surface
water
or
consumption
of
the
pesticide
in
dew
or
other
water
on
the
surfaces
of
treated
vegetation.
For
pesticide
active
ingredients
with
a
potential
to
dissolve
in
runoff,
puddles
on
the
treated
field
may
contain
the
chemical.

c.
Residue
Levels
Selection
As
discussed
earlier
in
the
exposure
section
of
this
document,
the
Agency
relies
on
the
work
of
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
for
setting
the
assumed
pesticide
residues
in
wildlife
dietary
items.
The
Agency
believes
that
these
residue
assumptions
reflect
a
realistic
upper­
bound
residue
estimate,
although
the
degree
to
which
this
assumption
reflects
a
specific
percentile
estimate
is
difficult
to
quantify.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
field
measurement
efforts
used
to
develop
the
Fletcher
estimates
of
exposure
involve
highly
varied
sampling
techniques.
It
is
entirely
possible
that
much
of
these
data
reflect
residues
averaged
over
entire
above
ground
plants
in
the
case
of
grass
and
forage
sampling.
Depending
upon
a
specific
wildlife
species'
foraging
habits,
whole
aboveground
plant
samples
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
actual
exposure.

d.
Dietary
Intake
­
Difference
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
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
that
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
estimates,
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
weight
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
overestimate
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
matrix,
bird
assimilation
of
wild
diet
energy
ranges
from
23
­
80%,
and
mammal's
assimilation
ranges
from
41
­
85%
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
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
65
laboratory
testing.
In
the
screening
process,
exposure
may
be
underestimated
because
metabolic
rates
are
not
related
to
food
consumption.

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
a
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.
Additionally,
food
intake
may
decrease
due
to
pesticide
application
because
food
items
contaminated
with
pesticide
residues
may
be
unpalatable.

e.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
for
Non­
Target
Plants
Currently
the
model
for
predicting
the
exposure
to
non­
target
plants
adjacent
to
application
sites
and
also
to
low­
lying
wetlands
are
based
on
the
application
rate,
method
of
application
(
aerial
or
ground),
and
the
solubility
of
the
pesticide.
Several
transport
factors
are
not
incorporated
into
the
model.
The
exposure
prediction
may
be
underestimated
or
overestimated.
The
model
also
assumes1%
spray
drift
from
ground
application
(
napropamide
is
not
applied
aerially).

f.
Data
Gaps
°
No
foliar
dissipation
studies
were
supplied
by
the
registrant.
Therefore,
the
default
assumption
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
was
used
to
calculate
napropamide
residue
concentrations
on
terrestrial
food
items.

°
The
extent
of
photodegradation
in
surface
water
is
uncertain.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
In
contrast,
surface
water
in
the
natural
environment
usually
contains
suspended
solids,
significantly
reducing
sunlight
penetration
and
subsequent
napropamide
degradation.
Therefore,
EECs
in
surface
water
may
be
underestimated.
Additionally,
the
cranberry
bogs
model
indicated
very
reduced
napropamide
concentrations
within
3
hours.

°
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Aquatic
Species
66
a.
Uncertainties
in
PRZM­
EXAMS
Modeling
°
The
exact
timing
of
applications
in
different
parts
of
the
U.
S.
was
not
known,
so
EFED
assumed
two
sequential
applications
seven
days
apart
for
those
crops
with
two
applications.
This
assumption
likely
overestimates
exposure
on
these
crops.

°
Broadcast
applications
were
assumed
in
the
modeling,
which
may
be
inaccurate
for
many
crops.
In
many
vineyard
and
orchard
crops,
only
the
banded
area
under
the
treeline
are
typically
treated.
Other
areas
are
typically
grassed
in
or
plowed
and
may
not
be
sprayed
with
for
weed
control.
Vegetable
crops
may
only
be
treated
in
a
band
around
the
plant
roots,
and
mechanical
cultivation
is
likely
used
in
areas
between
rows.
Therefore,
EECs
may
be
overestimated
in
these
situations
because
lower
amounts
of
pesticide
are
applied
as
a
band,
and
non­
treated
plowed
or
grassed
areas
may
increase
infiltration
and
prevent
some
runoff
to
surface
water
bodies.
°
North
Carolina
was
used
as
a
surrogate
for
other
tobacco
producing
states
even
though
the
labels
do
not
allow
use
in
North
Carolina.
This
is
the
only
scenario
and
may
not
represent
runoff
potential
in
the
eastern
U.
S.,
which
extends
as
far
north
as
Massachusetts.

°
The
model
assumes
aqueous
photolysis
can
occur
throughout
the
water
column
in
a
surface
water
body.
This
assumption
is
expected
to
increase
the
degradation
rate
of
pesticides
prone
to
undergo
photodegradation
in
water.
For
napropamide,
this
assumption
may
lead
to
underestimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
water
because
of
suspended
sediment,
cloudy
days,
and
shading.

b.
Uncertainties
in
the
Cranberry
Model
°
The
model
assumes
aqueous
photolysis
can
occur
throughout
the
water
column
in
a
flooded
cranberry
bog.
This
assumption
is
expected
to
increase
the
degradation
rate
of
pesticides
prone
to
undergo
photodegradation
in
water.
For
napropamide,
this
assumption
may
lead
to
underestimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
water
because
of
shading
from
floating
cranberries,
any
weeds
present,
suspended
sediment,
cloudy
days,
and
the
cranberry
plants
themselves.

°
The
model
is
designed
to
account
for
only
first
order
degradation
rates
in
soil
and
water
environments.
The
inability
to
account
for
non­
first
order
degradation
kinetics
may
impact
prediction
potential
for
pesticides
with
biphasic
or
monad
type
(
initial
lag
phase)
of
kinetic
patterns.

°
The
model
does
not
directly
account
for
volatilization,
soil
photodegradation,
anaerobic
metabolism,
and
leaching
in
soil/
water
environments.
The
lack
of
consideration
for
several
routes
of
dissipation
can
lead
to
more
conservative
estimates
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
soil
and
water
for
most
pesticides.
However,
in
the
case
of
napropamide,
the
lack
of
consideration
of
these
processes
may
not
make
a
difference
67
because
of
limited
volatility
in
all
studies
and
essential
stability
in
the
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study.

°
Agronomic
factors
included
in
the
modeling
include
application
rate,
application
interval,
and
flooding
time.
Spray
drift,
tillage
practices,
plant
growth
phenology,
and
plant
residue
management
are
not
considered
in
the
model.
There
are
uncertainties
associated
with
the
impact
of
model
estimates
on
model
estimates.

°
Pesticides
in
bog
water
are
based
on
a
Kd
equilibrium
model
and
are
estimated
using
first­
order
degradation
kinetics.
This
assessment
process
assumes
that
pesticide
sorption
and
desorption
kinetics
do
not
limit
microbial
degradation
and
photodegradation.

°
Soil
bulk
density
is
assumed
to
be
constant
in
the
model.
Soil
bulk
density
is
know
to
alter
the
pore
volume
of
the
sediment
interaction
zone.
The
model
does
not
account
for
the
auto­
correlative
effects
of
soil
particle
size
distribution,
organic
matter
contends,
etc.
on
soil
bulk
density.
°
Cranberry
bogs
can
either
allow
flow­
through
to
surface
water
or
have
a
recirculating
water
system.
Either
way,
berms
or
levees
act
to
hold
water
in
the
field
because
cranberries
require
2
inches
of
water
per
week.
However,
exposure
in
a
closed
system
may
be
negligible
while
flow­
through
systems
may
create
more
aquatic
exposure.

3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
a.
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
data
for
fish
are
collected
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
instar
for
midges).
Similarly,
acute
dietary
testing
with
birds
is
also
performed
on
juveniles,
with
mallard
being
5­
10
days
old
and
quail
10­
14
days
old.

Testing
of
juveniles
may
overestimate
toxicity
at
older
age
classes
for
pesticidal
active
ingredients,
such
as
napropamide,
that
act
directly
because
younger
age
classes
may
not
have
the
enzymatic
systems
associated
with
detoxifying
xenobiotics.
The
screening
risk
assessment
has
no
current
provisions
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
screening
endpoint.

b.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
68
Although
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested,
it
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
selected
toxicity
endpoints
reflect
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
chemical.
In
the
case
of
listed
species,
there
is
uncertainty
regarding
the
relationship
of
the
listed
species'
sensitivity
and
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.

The
Agency
is
not
limited
to
a
base
set
of
surrogate
toxicity
information
in
establishing
risk
assessment
conclusions.
The
Agency
also
considers
toxicity
data
on
non­
standard
test
species
when
available.

c.
Data
Gaps
°
Currently,
EFED
cannot
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
organisms
because
chronic
toxicity
data
was
not
submitted
to
the
Agency.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
photolysis.
Laboratory
data
show
a
total
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism.

°
Data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

°
A
review
of
the
open
literature
from
the
ECOTOX
database
was
not
performed
for
napropamide.
Analysis
of
this
open
literature
data
may
allow
further
refinement
of
this
assessment.
A­
1
APPENDIX
A.
Environmental
Fate
Assessment
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for
Napropamide
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'
s
Study
Classification
161­
1
Hydrolysis
yes
41863201
acceptable
161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water
yes
41575301
43175301
acceptable
161­
3
Photodegradation
on
Soil
yes
41863202
acceptable
161­
4
Photodegradation
in
Air
not
required
162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
yes
41105901
acceptable
162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
yes
00163271
92125017
acceptable
162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
yes
42699701
162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
not
required1
163­
1
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
yes
41575302
43514401
acceptable
163­
2
Laboratory
Volatility
not
required
163­
3
Field
Volatility
not
required
164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
yes
43742401
43742402
acceptable
164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
not
required
164­
3
Forestry
Dissipation
not
required
165­
4
Accumulation
in
Fish
yes
39774
acceptable
165­
5
Accumulation­
aquatic
nontarget
not
required
166­
1
Ground
Water­
small
prospective
not
required
166­
2
Ground
Water­
small
retrospective
not
required
201­
1
Droplet
Size
Spectrum
reserved2
202­
1
Drift
Field
Evaluation
reserved2
1
A
method
validation
study
(
MRID
45074201)
was
incorrectly
submitted
as
a
162­
4
study.

2
United
Phosphorus
is
a
member
of
the
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
and
may
satisfy
the
201­
1
and
202­
1
data
requirements
through
the
Task
Force.
B­
1
APPENDIX
B.
AQUATIC
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
PRZM­
EXAMS
Table
B­
1.
Inputs
for
Drinking
Water
EECs
for
Napropamide
Applied
using
Ground
Equipment
to
Terrestrial
Crops
MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)

CA
Almonds
FL
Citrus
CA
Citrus
OR
Berry
OR
Apple
PA
Apple
NC
Apple
PA
Turf
CA
Tomato
FL
Pepper
CA
Grape
GA
Pecan
NC
Tobacco
4
6
4
6
4
6
4
4
6
4
6
4
6
6
4
4
4
6
4
6
2
Based
on
BEAD
use
data
lbs
ai/
A
Maximum
No.
of
Applications
CA
almonds,
OR,
PA,
NC
apple,
CA
grape,
GA
pecan,
FL
and
CA
citrus,
CA
tomato
and
FL
pepper
at
6
lb
ai/
A
rates
and
OR
berry,
PA
turf,
NC
tobacco
CA
almonds,
OR,
PA,
NC
apple,
CA
grape,
GA
pecan,
FL
and
CA
citrus,
CA
tomato
and
FL
pepper
at
4
lb
ai/
A
rates
1
2
Based
on
BEAD
use
data
lbs
ai/
A
Interval
between
applications
7
days
for
all
crops
with
two
applications
assumed
Application
Date(
s)
3/
1
4/
1
11/
1
FL
citrus
and
pepper,
GA
pecan
and
NC
tobacco
NC
apple
and
PA
turf
CA
almonds,
citrus,
tomato,
and
grape,
OR
berry
and
apple,
PA
apple
B­
2
Application
method
Ground
per
labels
Molecular
Weight
271
g/
Mol
Vapor
pressure
1.7
x
10­
7
Torr
at
25
oC
Application
Efficiency
(
Drinking
Water)
All
non­
granular
uses
Granular
uses
(
turf)
0.99
1.00
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
for
Ground
Applications
Spray
Drift
(
Drinking
Water)
All
non­
granular
uses
Granular
uses
(
turf)
0.01
0.00
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
Kd
(
ml/
g)
8
Average
of
values
in
MRID
41575302
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolic
Half­
life
(
days)
parent
1338
3X
446
day
half­
life
based
on
extractable
residues
in
MRID
41105901
Incorporation
depth
(
cm)
All
uses
0.5
Assumes
negligible
incorporation
CAM=

Solubility
(
mg/
L)
740
74
mg/
L
at
20
oC
x
10
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolic
Halflife
(
days)
Kbacw
in
EXAMS
0
No
data
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
Kbacs
in
EXAMS
0
Essentially
stable
MRID
42699701
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
0.018
26
minutes/
1440
minutes/
day
r2=
0.87,
F=
121,
p=
2.1
x
10­
9
41575301
Include
parent
+
Isomer
I
+
Isomer
II
1
Input
parameters
based
on
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
B­
3
California
almond
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
7
days
apart)

stored
as
caalmond.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAalmondIC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
15:
30:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
22
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
24.220
17.390
7.027
2.892
1.930
0.476
1962
3.536
2.523
0.886
0.618
0.415
0.128
1963
6.697
4.815
3.173
1.474
0.983
0.305
1964
19.070
13.480
4.316
2.041
1.384
0.491
1965
3.552
2.448
1.527
0.720
0.494
0.187
1966
12.380
8.641
4.346
2.407
1.605
0.413
1967
2.726
1.826
0.954
0.397
0.265
0.081
1968
3.696
2.574
1.584
0.600
0.400
0.158
1969
15.070
10.800
3.900
1.626
1.104
0.488
1970
48.580
37.410
14.870
5.914
3.947
1.114
1971
2.695
1.890
0.900
0.507
0.351
0.103
1972
13.350
9.556
5.646
2.270
1.514
0.390
1973
5.944
4.249
2.788
1.595
1.066
0.364
1974
5.226
3.625
1.249
0.834
0.567
0.149
1975
2.656
1.714
0.874
0.314
0.210
0.066
1976
2.726
1.825
0.954
0.346
0.230
0.057
1977
9.874
6.482
3.705
2.269
1.532
0.462
1978
7.468
5.146
2.867
1.141
0.768
0.361
1979
7.177
5.547
2.088
0.880
0.604
0.277
1980
5.818
4.849
2.127
0.867
0.581
0.233
1981
43.210
29.360
11.020
4.442
2.974
1.022
1982
30.950
21.820
8.842
4.124
2.761
0.832
1983
20.160
15.650
7.018
3.284
2.212
0.599
1984
2.815
1.963
1.242
0.465
0.310
0.112
1985
25.150
17.170
6.175
2.593
1.731
0.430
1986
2.590
1.607
0.799
0.286
0.191
0.088
1987
2.733
1.837
1.100
0.467
0.312
0.104
1988
3.141
2.191
1.188
0.725
0.485
0.140
1989
6.191
3.921
1.240
0.731
0.487
0.123
1990
35.290
24.060
7.933
2.833
1.895
0.526
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
48.580
37.410
14.870
5.914
3.947
1.114
0.065
43.210
29.360
11.020
4.442
2.974
1.022
0.097
35.290
24.060
8.842
4.124
2.761
0.832
0.129
30.950
21.820
7.933
3.284
2.212
0.599
0.161
25.150
17.390
7.027
2.892
1.930
0.526
0.194
24.220
17.170
7.018
2.833
1.895
0.491
0.226
20.160
15.650
6.175
2.593
1.731
0.488
0.258
19.070
13.480
5.646
2.407
1.605
0.476
0.290
15.070
10.800
4.346
2.270
1.532
0.462
0.323
13.350
9.556
4.316
2.269
1.514
0.430
0.355
12.380
8.641
3.900
2.041
1.384
0.413
0.387
9.874
6.482
3.705
1.626
1.104
0.390
0.419
7.468
5.547
3.173
1.595
1.066
0.364
B­
4
0.452
7.177
5.146
2.867
1.474
0.983
0.361
0.484
6.697
4.849
2.788
1.141
0.768
0.305
0.516
6.191
4.815
2.127
0.880
0.604
0.277
0.548
5.944
4.249
2.088
0.867
0.581
0.233
0.581
5.818
3.921
1.584
0.834
0.567
0.187
0.613
5.226
3.625
1.527
0.731
0.494
0.158
0.645
3.696
2.574
1.249
0.725
0.487
0.149
0.677
3.552
2.523
1.242
0.720
0.485
0.140
0.710
3.536
2.448
1.240
0.618
0.415
0.128
0.742
3.141
2.191
1.188
0.600
0.400
0.123
0.774
2.815
1.963
1.100
0.507
0.351
0.112
0.806
2.733
1.890
0.954
0.467
0.312
0.104
0.839
2.726
1.837
0.954
0.465
0.310
0.103
0.871
2.726
1.826
0.900
0.397
0.265
0.088
0.903
2.695
1.825
0.886
0.346
0.230
0.081
0.935
2.656
1.714
0.874
0.314
0.210
0.066
0.968
2.590
1.607
0.799
0.286
0.191
0.057
0.1
34.9
23.8
8.8
4.0
2.7
0.8
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
caalmond
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAalmondIC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atmm
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
ddmmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
B­
5
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

California
almond
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
caalm6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAalmond0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
08:
13:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
22
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
18.120
13.020
5.257
2.164
1.444
0.356
1962
9.401
7.400
3.177
1.172
0.793
0.281
1963
29.050
20.670
7.746
2.915
2.024
0.676
1964
14.760
10.650
3.729
1.460
1.005
0.467
1965
3.359
2.314
1.164
0.540
0.370
0.138
1966
8.424
5.880
3.414
1.953
1.303
0.340
1967
5.306
3.826
1.462
0.535
0.362
0.140
1968
5.627
3.920
1.626
0.599
0.400
0.195
1969
10.540
7.556
2.727
1.152
0.782
0.321
1970
28.570
22.010
8.747
3.688
2.461
0.704
1971
3.360
2.195
0.686
0.381
0.263
0.076
1972
8.726
6.237
3.724
1.565
1.054
0.284
1973
3.828
2.736
1.971
1.108
0.741
0.246
1974
3.795
2.632
0.907
0.613
0.417
0.110
1975
3.360
2.167
0.665
0.272
0.217
0.094
1976
3.359
2.249
0.730
0.260
0.173
0.071
1977
8.523
5.495
3.096
1.893
1.279
0.408
1978
5.533
3.814
2.213
0.891
0.600
0.277
1979
4.895
3.784
1.563
0.626
0.429
0.210
1980
3.907
3.249
1.427
0.650
0.440
0.175
1981
32.020
21.760
8.130
3.342
2.243
0.793
1982
22.980
16.210
6.563
3.088
2.067
0.628
1983
14.240
11.120
5.065
2.453
1.656
0.448
1984
3.360
2.342
0.945
0.346
0.231
0.084
1985
19.720
13.460
4.840
2.024
1.352
0.353
1986
3.360
2.083
0.606
0.317
0.223
0.092
1987
3.992
2.677
0.879
0.633
0.467
0.175
1988
3.359
2.342
0.813
0.547
0.366
0.113
1989
4.625
2.930
0.913
0.548
0.370
0.109
1990
26.440
18.020
5.943
2.369
1.585
0.448
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
32.020
22.010
8.747
3.688
2.461
0.793
B­
6
0.065
29.050
21.760
8.130
3.342
2.243
0.704
0.097
28.570
20.670
7.746
3.088
2.067
0.676
0.129
26.440
18.020
6.563
2.915
2.024
0.628
0.161
22.980
16.210
5.943
2.453
1.656
0.467
0.194
19.720
13.460
5.257
2.369
1.585
0.448
0.226
18.120
13.020
5.065
2.164
1.444
0.448
0.258
14.760
11.120
4.840
2.024
1.352
0.408
0.290
14.240
10.650
3.729
1.953
1.303
0.356
0.323
10.540
7.556
3.724
1.893
1.279
0.353
0.355
9.401
7.400
3.414
1.565
1.054
0.340
0.387
8.726
6.237
3.177
1.460
1.005
0.321
0.419
8.523
5.880
3.096
1.172
0.793
0.284
0.452
8.424
5.495
2.727
1.152
0.782
0.281
0.484
5.627
3.920
2.213
1.108
0.741
0.277
0.516
5.533
3.826
1.971
0.891
0.600
0.246
0.548
5.306
3.814
1.626
0.650
0.467
0.210
0.581
4.895
3.784
1.563
0.633
0.440
0.195
0.613
4.625
3.249
1.462
0.626
0.429
0.175
0.645
3.992
2.930
1.427
0.613
0.417
0.175
0.677
3.907
2.736
1.164
0.599
0.400
0.140
0.710
3.828
2.677
0.945
0.548
0.370
0.138
0.742
3.795
2.632
0.913
0.547
0.370
0.113
0.774
3.360
2.342
0.907
0.540
0.366
0.110
0.806
3.360
2.342
0.879
0.535
0.362
0.109
0.839
3.360
2.314
0.813
0.381
0.263
0.094
0.871
3.360
2.249
0.730
0.346
0.231
0.092
0.903
3.359
2.195
0.686
0.317
0.223
0.084
0.935
3.359
2.167
0.665
0.272
0.217
0.076
0.968
3.359
2.083
0.606
0.260
0.173
0.071
0.1
28.4
20.4
7.6
3.1
2.1
0.7
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
caalm6p
Metfile:
w23232.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
CAalmond0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
B­
7
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
Nov­
1
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Florida
citrus
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
7
days
apart)

stored
as
flcitrus.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLcitrusC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
15:
39:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
26.920
17.050
5.388
2.466
1.864
0.586
1962
22.880
16.490
8.410
3.443
2.346
0.648
1963
13.330
8.733
5.281
2.395
1.630
0.597
1964
55.350
36.140
10.900
5.966
4.206
1.214
1965
26.200
19.710
8.150
3.247
2.184
0.693
1966
38.540
26.750
9.431
3.976
2.799
0.856
1967
9.885
7.604
4.378
2.810
1.994
0.546
1968
27.970
18.980
6.408
3.224
2.368
0.673
1969
47.040
31.240
16.350
6.043
5.800
1.566
1970
23.320
15.530
7.106
3.365
2.891
0.796
1971
81.750
49.480
14.030
5.766
3.995
1.105
1972
21.880
14.570
4.677
2.258
1.862
0.606
1973
71.570
46.270
14.390
5.448
3.668
0.976
1974
30.880
20.300
7.699
3.753
2.520
0.987
1975
21.200
13.410
7.361
3.270
2.323
0.660
1976
66.310
43.610
14.110
5.557
3.908
1.040
1977
8.023
5.032
1.976
1.072
0.766
0.243
1978
9.878
7.384
2.883
1.418
1.536
0.437
1979
291.000
183.000
55.130
19.760
14.250
3.620
1980
20.710
12.990
4.991
2.812
2.323
0.636
1981
30.840
19.350
8.044
3.238
2.739
0.797
1982
12.270
10.080
4.746
2.115
1.800
0.612
1983
36.830
23.490
8.331
5.188
3.958
1.085
B­
8
1984
29.210
17.970
5.210
2.328
1.630
0.527
1985
38.700
26.800
9.331
3.789
2.555
0.887
1986
74.720
53.460
15.900
5.905
4.131
1.103
1987
61.580
44.610
15.670
8.017
5.680
1.442
1988
18.910
12.240
5.554
2.348
1.676
0.590
1989
21.600
13.710
5.040
1.984
1.335
0.400
1990
16.790
10.170
2.884
1.340
1.124
0.403
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
291.000
183.000
55.130
19.760
14.250
3.620
0.065
81.750
53.460
16.350
8.017
5.800
1.566
0.097
74.720
49.480
15.900
6.043
5.680
1.442
0.129
71.570
46.270
15.670
5.966
4.206
1.214
0.161
66.310
44.610
14.390
5.905
4.131
1.105
0.194
61.580
43.610
14.110
5.766
3.995
1.103
0.226
55.350
36.140
14.030
5.557
3.958
1.085
0.258
47.040
31.240
10.900
5.448
3.908
1.040
0.290
38.700
26.800
9.431
5.188
3.668
0.987
0.323
38.540
26.750
9.331
3.976
2.891
0.976
0.355
36.830
23.490
8.410
3.789
2.799
0.887
0.387
30.880
20.300
8.331
3.753
2.739
0.856
0.419
30.840
19.710
8.150
3.443
2.555
0.797
0.452
29.210
19.350
8.044
3.365
2.520
0.796
0.484
27.970
18.980
7.699
3.270
2.368
0.693
0.516
26.920
17.970
7.361
3.247
2.346
0.673
0.548
26.200
17.050
7.106
3.238
2.323
0.660
0.581
23.320
16.490
6.408
3.224
2.323
0.648
0.613
22.880
15.530
5.554
2.812
2.184
0.636
0.645
21.880
14.570
5.388
2.810
1.994
0.612
0.677
21.600
13.710
5.281
2.466
1.864
0.606
0.710
21.200
13.410
5.210
2.395
1.862
0.597
0.742
20.710
12.990
5.040
2.348
1.800
0.590
0.774
18.910
12.240
4.991
2.328
1.676
0.586
0.806
16.790
10.170
4.746
2.258
1.630
0.546
0.839
13.330
10.080
4.677
2.115
1.630
0.527
0.871
12.270
8.733
4.378
1.984
1.536
0.437
0.903
9.885
7.604
2.884
1.418
1.335
0.403
0.935
9.878
7.384
2.883
1.340
1.124
0.400
0.968
8.023
5.032
1.976
1.072
0.766
0.243
0.1
74.4
49.2
15.9
6.0
5.5
1.4
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.9
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flcitrus
Metfile:
w12842.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
FLcitrusC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
Variable
Value
Units
Comment
B­
9
n
Name
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Florida
citrus
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
flcit6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLcitrusC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
15:
39:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
19.760
12.510
3.962
1.845
1.395
0.438
1962
16.480
11.860
6.081
2.517
1.715
0.473
1963
9.846
6.278
3.337
1.501
1.020
0.429
1964
40.710
26.580
8.015
4.382
3.096
0.893
1965
16.030
12.080
4.965
1.959
1.316
0.495
1966
26.820
18.610
6.562
2.752
1.949
0.596
B­
10
1967
6.891
5.300
3.038
1.934
1.367
0.378
1968
19.740
13.400
4.522
2.257
1.660
0.474
1969
31.010
20.590
10.950
4.157
3.920
1.070
1970
15.730
10.480
5.954
2.693
2.116
0.578
1971
58.470
35.390
10.030
4.122
2.863
0.790
1972
13.760
9.167
2.942
1.417
1.171
0.408
1973
53.570
34.630
10.770
4.080
2.747
0.731
1974
23.120
15.200
5.764
2.810
1.886
0.739
1975
14.760
9.339
5.159
2.283
1.627
0.464
1976
42.130
27.700
8.954
3.497
2.464
0.677
1977
5.887
3.693
1.449
0.785
0.560
0.178
1978
6.456
4.542
2.359
0.947
1.127
0.315
1979
186.000
117.000
35.260
12.630
10.060
2.551
1980
13.440
8.434
3.250
2.225
1.771
0.475
1981
22.250
13.960
5.804
2.334
1.974
0.576
1982
15.350
9.676
3.294
1.572
1.438
0.466
1983
37.780
24.090
8.933
4.696
3.346
0.906
1984
21.860
13.450
3.899
1.742
1.220
0.395
1985
28.970
20.060
6.985
2.837
1.912
0.664
1986
54.180
38.790
11.510
4.304
3.011
0.803
1987
42.890
27.920
9.749
6.396
4.426
1.112
1988
28.360
17.620
6.327
2.529
1.758
0.539
1989
13.270
8.420
3.071
1.194
0.802
0.267
1990
12.570
7.612
2.159
1.003
0.842
0.301
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
186.000
117.000
35.260
12.630
10.060
2.551
0.065
58.470
38.790
11.510
6.396
4.426
1.112
0.097
54.180
35.390
10.950
4.696
3.920
1.070
0.129
53.570
34.630
10.770
4.382
3.346
0.906
0.161
42.890
27.920
10.030
4.304
3.096
0.893
0.194
42.130
27.700
9.749
4.157
3.011
0.803
0.226
40.710
26.580
8.954
4.122
2.863
0.790
0.258
37.780
24.090
8.933
4.080
2.747
0.739
0.290
31.010
20.590
8.015
3.497
2.464
0.731
0.323
28.970
20.060
6.985
2.837
2.116
0.677
0.355
28.360
18.610
6.562
2.810
1.974
0.664
0.387
26.820
17.620
6.327
2.752
1.949
0.596
0.419
23.120
15.200
6.081
2.693
1.912
0.578
0.452
22.250
13.960
5.954
2.529
1.886
0.576
0.484
21.860
13.450
5.804
2.517
1.771
0.539
0.516
19.760
13.400
5.764
2.334
1.758
0.495
0.548
19.740
12.510
5.159
2.283
1.715
0.475
0.581
16.480
12.080
4.965
2.257
1.660
0.474
0.613
16.030
11.860
4.522
2.225
1.627
0.473
0.645
15.730
10.480
3.962
1.959
1.438
0.466
0.677
15.350
9.676
3.899
1.934
1.395
0.464
0.710
14.760
9.339
3.337
1.845
1.367
0.438
0.742
13.760
9.167
3.294
1.742
1.316
0.429
0.774
13.440
8.434
3.250
1.572
1.220
0.408
0.806
13.270
8.420
3.071
1.501
1.171
0.395
0.839
12.570
7.612
3.038
1.417
1.127
0.378
0.871
9.846
6.278
2.942
1.194
1.020
0.315
0.903
6.891
5.300
2.359
1.003
0.842
0.301
0.935
6.456
4.542
2.159
0.947
0.802
0.267
B­
11
0.968
5.887
3.693
1.449
0.785
0.560
0.178
0.1
54.1
35.3
10.9
4.7
3.9
1.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.6
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flcit6p
Metfile:
w12842.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
FLcitrusC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

California
citrus
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
7
days
apart)
B­
12
stored
as
cacitrus.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
08:
14:
54
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
20
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.623
1.671
0.838
0.301
0.201
0.050
1962
8.711
6.194
3.242
1.195
0.799
0.249
1963
7.966
5.335
1.732
0.618
0.413
0.161
1964
2.673
1.741
0.893
0.322
0.215
0.053
1965
4.456
2.576
0.976
0.493
0.351
0.092
1966
2.775
1.969
0.917
0.581
0.388
0.160
1967
2.747
1.859
0.979
0.356
0.237
0.066
1968
2.751
1.865
0.983
0.358
0.239
0.059
1969
2.600
1.623
0.811
0.290
0.193
0.077
1970
2.703
1.783
0.843
0.358
0.239
0.092
1971
2.630
1.673
0.845
0.303
0.202
0.073
1972
2.778
2.000
1.101
0.405
0.270
0.079
1973
6.988
4.605
1.461
0.521
0.353
0.138
1974
4.018
2.769
0.944
0.638
0.480
0.140
1975
2.576
1.582
0.782
0.279
0.186
0.058
1976
2.674
1.744
0.895
0.322
0.215
0.053
1977
8.045
5.572
1.064
0.637
0.447
0.138
1978
62.750
49.420
17.740
6.537
4.454
1.158
1979
2.643
1.693
0.859
0.308
0.206
0.055
1980
2.593
1.612
0.803
0.287
0.191
0.054
1981
2.678
1.749
0.899
0.324
0.216
0.054
1982
2.780
1.910
1.017
0.544
0.363
0.092
1983
6.265
4.512
1.882
0.703
0.473
0.190
1984
2.720
1.816
0.947
0.347
0.231
0.059
1985
2.706
1.806
0.942
0.342
0.228
0.057
1986
2.605
1.631
0.816
0.292
0.195
0.049
1987
7.699
5.259
1.764
0.630
0.422
0.170
1988
2.678
1.749
0.899
0.324
0.216
0.054
1989
2.581
1.591
0.788
0.281
0.188
0.047
1990
2.586
1.600
0.795
0.284
0.189
0.047
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
62.750
49.420
17.740
6.537
4.454
1.158
0.065
8.711
6.194
3.242
1.195
0.799
0.249
0.097
8.045
5.572
1.882
0.703
0.480
0.190
0.129
7.966
5.335
1.764
0.638
0.473
0.170
0.161
7.699
5.259
1.732
0.637
0.447
0.161
0.194
6.988
4.605
1.461
0.630
0.422
0.160
0.226
6.265
4.512
1.101
0.618
0.413
0.140
0.258
4.456
2.769
1.064
0.581
0.388
0.138
0.290
4.018
2.576
1.017
0.544
0.363
0.138
0.323
2.780
2.000
0.983
0.521
0.353
0.092
0.355
2.778
1.969
0.979
0.493
0.351
0.092
0.387
2.775
1.910
0.976
0.405
0.270
0.092
0.419
2.751
1.865
0.947
0.358
0.239
0.079
0.452
2.747
1.859
0.944
0.358
0.239
0.077
B­
13
0.484
2.720
1.816
0.942
0.356
0.237
0.073
0.516
2.706
1.806
0.917
0.347
0.231
0.066
0.548
2.703
1.783
0.899
0.342
0.228
0.059
0.581
2.678
1.749
0.899
0.324
0.216
0.059
0.613
2.678
1.749
0.895
0.324
0.216
0.058
0.645
2.674
1.744
0.893
0.322
0.215
0.057
0.677
2.673
1.741
0.859
0.322
0.215
0.055
0.710
2.643
1.693
0.845
0.308
0.206
0.054
0.742
2.630
1.673
0.843
0.303
0.202
0.054
0.774
2.623
1.671
0.838
0.301
0.201
0.054
0.806
2.605
1.631
0.816
0.292
0.195
0.053
0.839
2.600
1.623
0.811
0.290
0.193
0.053
0.871
2.593
1.612
0.803
0.287
0.191
0.050
0.903
2.586
1.600
0.795
0.284
0.189
0.049
0.935
2.581
1.591
0.788
0.281
0.188
0.047
0.968
2.576
1.582
0.782
0.279
0.186
0.047
0.1
8.0
5.5
1.9
0.7
0.5
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cacitrus
Metfile:
w23155.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
B­
14
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

California
citrus
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
a)

stored
as
cacit6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
08:
14:
54
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
20
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
3.359
2.102
0.633
0.224
0.150
0.037
1962
6.520
4.636
2.427
0.894
0.598
0.186
1963
5.963
3.994
1.297
0.462
0.309
0.121
1964
3.359
2.188
0.681
0.242
0.161
0.040
1965
3.359
2.270
0.748
0.360
0.263
0.069
1966
3.359
2.213
0.700
0.430
0.287
0.119
1967
3.359
2.272
0.749
0.267
0.178
0.050
1968
3.359
2.276
0.753
0.269
0.179
0.044
1969
3.359
2.097
0.615
0.217
0.145
0.058
1970
3.359
2.133
0.641
0.268
0.179
0.068
1971
3.359
2.136
0.642
0.227
0.152
0.054
1972
3.359
2.305
0.842
0.303
0.202
0.059
1973
5.107
3.365
1.067
0.380
0.258
0.102
1974
3.360
2.140
0.687
0.471
0.355
0.103
1975
3.359
2.062
0.593
0.209
0.140
0.043
1976
3.359
2.190
0.682
0.242
0.161
0.040
1977
6.011
4.164
0.795
0.452
0.334
0.103
1978
46.930
36.960
13.270
4.889
3.331
0.866
1979
3.359
2.151
0.653
0.231
0.154
0.041
1980
3.359
2.087
0.609
0.215
0.144
0.040
1981
3.359
2.194
0.685
0.243
0.162
0.040
1982
3.359
2.307
0.781
0.408
0.272
0.069
1983
4.691
3.378
1.409
0.527
0.354
0.143
1984
3.359
2.242
0.724
0.260
0.174
0.044
1985
3.359
2.227
0.719
0.256
0.171
0.043
1986
3.359
2.102
0.619
0.219
0.146
0.036
1987
5.762
3.936
1.320
0.472
0.316
0.130
1988
3.359
2.194
0.685
0.243
0.162
0.040
1989
3.359
2.070
0.597
0.211
0.141
0.035
1990
3.359
2.077
0.602
0.213
0.142
0.035
Sorted
results
B­
15
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
46.930
36.960
13.270
4.889
3.331
0.866
0.065
6.520
4.636
2.427
0.894
0.598
0.186
0.097
6.011
4.164
1.409
0.527
0.355
0.143
0.129
5.963
3.994
1.320
0.472
0.354
0.130
0.161
5.762
3.936
1.297
0.471
0.334
0.121
0.194
5.107
3.378
1.067
0.462
0.316
0.119
0.226
4.691
3.365
0.842
0.452
0.309
0.103
0.258
3.360
2.307
0.795
0.430
0.287
0.103
0.290
3.359
2.305
0.781
0.408
0.272
0.102
0.323
3.359
2.276
0.753
0.380
0.263
0.069
0.355
3.359
2.272
0.749
0.360
0.258
0.069
0.387
3.359
2.270
0.748
0.303
0.202
0.068
0.419
3.359
2.242
0.724
0.269
0.179
0.059
0.452
3.359
2.227
0.719
0.268
0.179
0.058
0.484
3.359
2.213
0.700
0.267
0.178
0.054
0.516
3.359
2.194
0.687
0.260
0.174
0.050
0.548
3.359
2.194
0.685
0.256
0.171
0.044
0.581
3.359
2.190
0.685
0.243
0.162
0.044
0.613
3.359
2.188
0.682
0.243
0.162
0.043
0.645
3.359
2.151
0.681
0.242
0.161
0.043
0.677
3.359
2.140
0.653
0.242
0.161
0.041
0.710
3.359
2.136
0.642
0.231
0.154
0.040
0.742
3.359
2.133
0.641
0.227
0.152
0.040
0.774
3.359
2.102
0.633
0.224
0.150
0.040
0.806
3.359
2.102
0.619
0.219
0.146
0.040
0.839
3.359
2.097
0.615
0.217
0.145
0.040
0.871
3.359
2.087
0.609
0.215
0.144
0.037
0.903
3.359
2.077
0.602
0.213
0.142
0.036
0.935
3.359
2.070
0.597
0.211
0.141
0.035
0.968
3.359
2.062
0.593
0.209
0.140
0.035
0.1
6.0
4.1
1.4
0.5
0.4
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cacit6p
Metfile:
w23155.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
B­
16
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Oregon
Berry
(
1
app
of
4
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
orberry.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORberriesC.
txt
modified
Monday,
3
May
2004
at
11:
14:
18
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.416
1.775
0.866
0.752
0.506
0.125
1962
8.027
6.036
2.768
1.572
1.050
0.268
1963
3.940
2.998
2.217
0.932
0.622
0.165
1964
3.011
2.476
1.398
1.029
0.689
0.175
1965
9.072
6.919
4.134
1.860
1.252
0.316
1966
9.978
8.166
4.062
2.269
1.515
0.401
1967
6.406
5.343
2.699
1.243
0.831
0.216
1968
5.061
4.145
2.258
1.632
1.091
0.296
1969
23.500
17.080
6.616
3.648
2.442
0.611
1970
7.065
5.317
2.616
1.394
0.933
0.267
1971
2.599
1.992
1.222
0.821
0.549
0.145
1972
4.361
3.481
1.724
1.175
0.793
0.200
1973
11.410
9.097
6.426
2.760
1.841
0.476
1974
13.320
11.000
5.949
2.618
1.747
0.439
1975
8.116
6.047
2.807
1.573
1.050
0.273
1976
2.240
1.574
0.554
0.200
0.133
0.042
1977
8.362
6.770
3.454
1.765
1.180
0.299
1978
8.982
6.438
2.667
1.286
0.859
0.223
1979
4.090
3.433
1.996
1.121
0.750
0.245
B­
17
1980
9.234
7.197
3.863
2.190
1.470
0.372
1981
13.450
9.779
5.783
2.754
1.838
0.474
1982
6.775
4.869
2.798
1.513
1.011
0.263
1983
8.733
6.917
3.744
1.641
1.095
0.280
1984
25.330
19.330
9.340
3.750
2.501
0.621
1985
9.615
7.070
3.000
1.198
0.799
0.210
1986
6.658
4.949
2.955
1.324
0.884
0.225
1987
14.190
11.210
5.717
2.434
1.627
0.410
1988
4.089
3.193
1.697
1.022
0.683
0.186
1989
15.800
11.890
4.809
2.318
1.549
0.388
1990
11.200
8.417
3.836
1.757
1.172
0.354
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
25.330
19.330
9.340
3.750
2.501
0.621
0.065
23.500
17.080
6.616
3.648
2.442
0.611
0.097
15.800
11.890
6.426
2.760
1.841
0.476
0.129
14.190
11.210
5.949
2.754
1.838
0.474
0.161
13.450
11.000
5.783
2.618
1.747
0.439
0.194
13.320
9.779
5.717
2.434
1.627
0.410
0.226
11.410
9.097
4.809
2.318
1.549
0.401
0.258
11.200
8.417
4.134
2.269
1.515
0.388
0.290
9.978
8.166
4.062
2.190
1.470
0.372
0.323
9.615
7.197
3.863
1.860
1.252
0.354
0.355
9.234
7.070
3.836
1.765
1.180
0.316
0.387
9.072
6.919
3.744
1.757
1.172
0.299
0.419
8.982
6.917
3.454
1.641
1.095
0.296
0.452
8.733
6.770
3.000
1.632
1.091
0.280
0.484
8.362
6.438
2.955
1.573
1.050
0.273
0.516
8.116
6.047
2.807
1.572
1.050
0.268
0.548
8.027
6.036
2.798
1.513
1.011
0.267
0.581
7.065
5.343
2.768
1.394
0.933
0.263
0.613
6.775
5.317
2.699
1.324
0.884
0.245
0.645
6.658
4.949
2.667
1.286
0.859
0.225
0.677
6.406
4.869
2.616
1.243
0.831
0.223
0.710
5.061
4.145
2.258
1.198
0.799
0.216
0.742
4.361
3.481
2.217
1.175
0.793
0.210
0.774
4.090
3.433
1.996
1.121
0.750
0.200
0.806
4.089
3.193
1.724
1.029
0.689
0.186
0.839
3.940
2.998
1.697
1.022
0.683
0.175
0.871
3.011
2.476
1.398
0.932
0.622
0.165
0.903
2.599
1.992
1.222
0.821
0.549
0.145
0.935
2.416
1.775
0.866
0.752
0.506
0.125
0.968
2.240
1.574
0.554
0.200
0.133
0.042
0.1
15.6
11.8
6.4
2.8
1.8
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orberry
Metfile:
w24232.
d
B­
18
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORberriesC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Pennsylvania
Apple
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
7
days
apart)

stored
as
paapple.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
16.630
11.780
9.197
5.452
3.657
0.902
1962
21.050
18.770
18.400
17.480
12.540
3.899
1963
25.940
20.500
8.631
7.119
4.771
2.150
1964
22.340
20.960
20.840
18.740
13.580
3.924
1965
13.340
13.310
13.100
7.798
5.692
1.527
B­
19
1966
21.690
21.540
19.460
9.019
6.482
2.272
1967
17.090
17.000
16.630
12.410
9.151
2.789
1968
22.890
17.110
9.683
7.010
4.698
1.778
1969
20.180
20.070
19.560
7.908
5.694
2.689
1970
32.530
25.360
24.640
20.670
15.180
4.771
1971
34.240
25.060
13.600
7.088
5.207
2.302
1972
116.000
84.060
43.850
17.680
11.810
3.902
1973
16.710
12.020
8.296
5.701
4.194
1.732
1974
27.950
20.220
8.594
4.665
3.403
1.437
1975
20.430
14.460
7.676
3.901
2.684
1.099
1976
33.000
32.860
32.330
13.760
9.199
3.049
1977
41.890
41.760
33.330
31.700
23.600
7.566
1978
20.030
19.990
19.840
19.120
13.800
3.682
1979
20.800
20.690
19.990
16.710
12.000
3.148
1980
20.200
14.280
7.420
4.482
3.011
0.885
1981
9.213
6.526
5.543
4.218
2.892
0.811
1982
18.960
18.850
18.440
15.600
10.960
2.920
1983
21.210
21.100
19.670
10.300
6.888
1.949
1984
20.710
20.620
20.290
12.320
8.281
2.179
1985
58.560
42.940
19.670
11.500
7.689
2.052
1986
14.250
14.240
14.060
12.650
9.117
2.740
1987
11.860
8.377
3.500
1.992
1.330
0.620
1988
58.750
40.630
15.930
8.504
5.693
1.993
1989
7.618
5.384
2.025
1.203
0.999
0.349
1990
64.690
43.590
14.670
6.793
4.537
1.364
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
116.000
84.060
43.850
31.700
23.600
7.566
0.065
64.690
43.590
33.330
20.670
15.180
4.771
0.097
58.750
42.940
32.330
19.120
13.800
3.924
0.129
58.560
41.760
24.640
18.740
13.580
3.902
0.161
41.890
40.630
20.840
17.680
12.540
3.899
0.194
34.240
32.860
20.290
17.480
12.000
3.682
0.226
33.000
25.360
19.990
16.710
11.810
3.148
0.258
32.530
25.060
19.840
15.600
10.960
3.049
0.290
27.950
21.540
19.670
13.760
9.199
2.920
0.323
25.940
21.100
19.670
12.650
9.151
2.789
0.355
22.890
20.960
19.560
12.410
9.117
2.740
0.387
22.340
20.690
19.460
12.320
8.281
2.689
0.419
21.690
20.620
18.440
11.500
7.689
2.302
0.452
21.210
20.500
18.400
10.300
6.888
2.272
0.484
21.050
20.220
16.630
9.019
6.482
2.179
0.516
20.800
20.070
15.930
8.504
5.694
2.150
0.548
20.710
19.990
14.670
7.908
5.693
2.052
0.581
20.430
18.850
14.060
7.798
5.692
1.993
0.613
20.200
18.770
13.600
7.119
5.207
1.949
0.645
20.180
17.110
13.100
7.088
4.771
1.778
0.677
20.030
17.000
9.683
7.010
4.698
1.732
0.710
18.960
14.460
9.197
6.793
4.537
1.527
0.742
17.090
14.280
8.631
5.701
4.194
1.437
0.774
16.710
14.240
8.594
5.452
3.657
1.364
0.806
16.630
13.310
8.296
4.665
3.403
1.099
0.839
14.250
12.020
7.676
4.482
3.011
0.902
0.871
13.340
11.780
7.420
4.218
2.892
0.885
0.903
11.860
8.377
5.543
3.901
2.684
0.811
B­
20
0.935
9.213
6.526
3.500
1.992
1.330
0.620
0.968
7.618
5.384
2.025
1.203
0.999
0.349
0.1
58.7
42.8
31.6
19.1
13.8
3.9
Average
of
yearly
averages:
2.4
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paapple
Metfile:
w14737.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)
B­
21
Pennsylvania
apple
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
paapp6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
10.880
7.701
6.023
3.579
2.420
0.597
1962
31.570
22.090
12.100
11.480
8.225
2.852
1963
35.990
26.620
10.350
6.364
4.279
1.951
1964
16.610
12.310
12.240
11.110
8.073
2.417
1965
9.954
9.929
9.773
5.813
4.243
1.139
1966
16.240
16.120
14.560
6.751
4.852
1.668
1967
11.960
11.890
11.630
8.649
6.374
1.990
1968
15.350
11.460
6.496
4.838
3.261
1.208
1969
13.320
13.250
12.890
5.328
3.834
1.798
1970
20.850
16.650
16.170
13.590
9.970
3.181
1971
51.350
37.580
14.390
6.710
4.481
1.904
1972
76.130
55.160
29.140
11.770
7.862
2.737
1973
12.370
8.901
6.137
2.894
2.129
1.025
1974
19.810
14.320
6.087
3.434
2.504
1.043
1975
14.700
10.410
5.402
2.741
1.884
0.790
1976
23.880
23.770
23.350
9.922
6.649
2.224
1977
36.520
30.160
23.960
22.780
16.980
5.732
1978
13.780
13.770
13.770
13.300
9.615
2.582
1979
15.570
15.490
14.970
12.510
8.982
2.361
1980
14.760
10.430
5.415
3.254
2.204
0.638
1981
6.736
4.769
4.022
3.068
2.104
0.590
1982
13.190
13.110
12.830
10.860
7.632
2.096
1983
15.790
15.710
14.640
7.645
5.131
1.439
1984
15.420
15.350
15.100
9.168
6.164
1.620
1985
37.920
27.770
12.710
7.502
5.036
1.349
1986
8.669
8.659
8.562
7.735
5.569
1.719
1987
8.028
5.672
2.540
1.490
0.995
0.425
1988
40.950
28.300
11.050
5.847
3.933
1.410
1989
5.070
3.577
1.334
0.776
0.647
0.231
1990
45.610
30.720
10.260
4.862
3.247
0.981
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
76.130
55.160
29.140
22.780
16.980
5.732
0.065
51.350
37.580
23.960
13.590
9.970
3.181
0.097
45.610
30.720
23.350
13.300
9.615
2.852
0.129
40.950
30.160
16.170
12.510
8.982
2.737
0.161
37.920
28.300
15.100
11.770
8.225
2.582
0.194
36.520
27.770
14.970
11.480
8.073
2.417
0.226
35.990
26.620
14.640
11.110
7.862
2.361
0.258
31.570
23.770
14.560
10.860
7.632
2.224
0.290
23.880
22.090
14.390
9.922
6.649
2.096
0.323
20.850
16.650
13.770
9.168
6.374
1.990
B­
22
0.355
19.810
16.120
12.890
8.649
6.164
1.951
0.387
16.610
15.710
12.830
7.735
5.569
1.904
0.419
16.240
15.490
12.710
7.645
5.131
1.798
0.452
15.790
15.350
12.240
7.502
5.036
1.719
0.484
15.570
14.320
12.100
6.751
4.852
1.668
0.516
15.420
13.770
11.630
6.710
4.481
1.620
0.548
15.350
13.250
11.050
6.364
4.279
1.439
0.581
14.760
13.110
10.350
5.847
4.243
1.410
0.613
14.700
12.310
10.260
5.813
3.933
1.349
0.645
13.780
11.890
9.773
5.328
3.834
1.208
0.677
13.320
11.460
8.562
4.862
3.261
1.139
0.710
13.190
10.430
6.496
4.838
3.247
1.043
0.742
12.370
10.410
6.137
3.579
2.504
1.025
0.774
11.960
9.929
6.087
3.434
2.420
0.981
0.806
10.880
8.901
6.023
3.254
2.204
0.790
0.839
9.954
8.659
5.415
3.068
2.129
0.638
0.871
8.669
7.701
5.402
2.894
2.104
0.597
0.903
8.028
5.672
4.022
2.741
1.884
0.590
0.935
6.736
4.769
2.540
1.490
0.995
0.425
0.968
5.070
3.577
1.334
0.776
0.647
0.231
0.1
45.1
30.7
22.6
13.2
9.6
2.8
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.7
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paapp6p
Metfile:
w14737.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
B­
23
Drift
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

North
Carolina
Apple
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
7
days
apart)

stored
as
ncapple.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
11.090
7.391
2.686
1.641
1.331
0.350
1966
24.070
16.540
7.298
3.347
2.450
0.631
1967
15.500
10.680
5.916
2.889
2.128
0.582
1968
8.402
5.580
2.704
1.340
1.031
0.336
1969
15.580
10.340
4.468
2.026
1.459
0.427
1970
9.009
6.286
2.517
0.904
0.634
0.266
1971
5.951
4.020
2.004
1.364
1.086
0.310
1972
31.360
21.680
8.481
3.802
2.741
0.708
1973
60.350
41.180
15.910
8.615
6.130
1.549
1974
24.080
16.030
6.338
3.615
2.526
0.651
1975
22.280
18.250
9.734
4.040
2.903
0.734
1976
41.750
31.000
13.490
5.967
4.126
1.049
1977
25.290
16.920
6.209
2.517
1.837
0.524
1978
10.960
7.200
3.787
1.772
1.285
0.379
1979
13.480
9.867
6.188
3.085
2.148
0.542
1980
27.230
18.110
6.615
3.758
2.649
0.665
1981
22.660
15.100
6.814
2.757
2.049
0.514
1982
5.145
3.964
1.410
1.060
0.945
0.292
1983
16.650
11.610
5.440
2.609
1.843
0.473
1984
15.280
10.560
4.453
3.093
2.201
0.561
1985
10.580
7.348
2.573
1.113
0.797
0.309
1986
14.480
10.190
3.792
1.449
1.086
0.408
1987
52.720
35.190
12.380
4.613
3.764
0.960
1988
10.970
7.167
3.206
1.209
0.809
0.304
1989
21.740
14.470
5.307
2.587
1.980
0.501
1990
9.577
6.489
3.519
1.819
1.491
0.467
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
B­
24
0.037
60.350
41.180
15.910
8.615
6.130
1.549
0.074
52.720
35.190
13.490
5.967
4.126
1.049
0.111
41.750
31.000
12.380
4.613
3.764
0.960
0.148
31.360
21.680
9.734
4.040
2.903
0.734
0.185
27.230
18.250
8.481
3.802
2.741
0.708
0.222
25.290
18.110
7.298
3.758
2.649
0.665
0.259
24.080
16.920
6.814
3.615
2.526
0.651
0.296
24.070
16.540
6.615
3.347
2.450
0.631
0.333
22.660
16.030
6.338
3.093
2.201
0.582
0.370
22.280
15.100
6.209
3.085
2.148
0.561
0.407
21.740
14.470
6.188
2.889
2.128
0.542
0.444
16.650
11.610
5.916
2.757
2.049
0.524
0.481
15.580
10.680
5.440
2.609
1.980
0.514
0.519
15.500
10.560
5.307
2.587
1.843
0.501
0.556
15.280
10.340
4.468
2.517
1.837
0.473
0.593
14.480
10.190
4.453
2.026
1.491
0.467
0.630
13.480
9.867
3.792
1.819
1.459
0.427
0.667
11.090
7.391
3.787
1.772
1.331
0.408
0.704
10.970
7.348
3.519
1.641
1.285
0.379
0.741
10.960
7.200
3.206
1.449
1.086
0.350
0.778
10.580
7.167
2.704
1.364
1.086
0.336
0.815
9.577
6.489
2.686
1.340
1.031
0.310
0.852
9.009
6.286
2.573
1.209
0.945
0.309
0.889
8.402
5.580
2.517
1.113
0.809
0.304
0.926
5.951
4.020
2.004
1.060
0.797
0.292
0.963
5.145
3.964
1.410
0.904
0.634
0.266
0.1
45.0
32.3
12.7
5.0
3.9
1.0
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.6
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ncapple
Metfile:
w03812.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
B­
25
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

North
Carolina
Apple
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
ncapp6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
7.916
5.275
1.917
1.167
0.953
0.250
1966
17.510
12.030
5.305
2.441
1.785
0.459
1967
11.610
7.993
4.429
2.162
1.593
0.436
1968
5.118
3.399
1.659
0.800
0.714
0.221
1969
10.930
7.258
2.956
1.451
1.043
0.302
1970
13.510
9.427
3.077
1.099
0.753
0.248
1971
4.083
2.757
1.374
0.923
0.751
0.213
1972
22.540
15.590
6.095
2.718
1.968
0.508
1973
38.060
25.970
10.020
5.561
4.016
1.012
1974
36.120
24.050
8.428
3.698
2.524
0.637
1975
16.640
13.620
7.267
3.016
2.168
0.548
1976
31.230
23.190
10.090
4.463
3.087
0.785
1977
37.940
25.380
8.613
3.251
2.249
0.589
1978
8.181
5.375
2.829
1.327
0.962
0.284
1979
19.700
14.800
6.386
2.742
1.873
0.469
1980
19.890
13.230
4.789
2.803
1.976
0.496
1981
15.910
10.600
4.765
1.931
1.446
0.363
B­
26
1982
3.723
2.871
1.023
0.768
0.692
0.212
1983
24.990
16.660
7.383
3.001
2.057
0.518
1984
10.090
6.975
3.688
2.260
1.591
0.402
1985
6.413
4.456
1.700
0.686
0.491
0.226
1986
10.840
7.633
2.840
1.085
0.813
0.306
1987
33.760
22.530
7.913
2.943
2.438
0.620
1988
6.932
4.531
2.625
0.975
0.652
0.226
1989
13.240
8.816
3.237
1.541
1.236
0.311
1990
7.110
4.817
2.611
1.346
1.106
0.347
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037
38.060
25.970
10.090
5.561
4.016
1.012
0.074
37.940
25.380
10.020
4.463
3.087
0.785
0.111
36.120
24.050
8.613
3.698
2.524
0.637
0.148
33.760
23.190
8.428
3.251
2.438
0.620
0.185
31.230
22.530
7.913
3.016
2.249
0.589
0.222
24.990
16.660
7.383
3.001
2.168
0.548
0.259
22.540
15.590
7.267
2.943
2.057
0.518
0.296
19.890
14.800
6.386
2.803
1.976
0.508
0.333
19.700
13.620
6.095
2.742
1.968
0.496
0.370
17.510
13.230
5.305
2.718
1.873
0.469
0.407
16.640
12.030
4.789
2.441
1.785
0.459
0.444
15.910
10.600
4.765
2.260
1.593
0.436
0.481
13.510
9.427
4.429
2.162
1.591
0.402
0.519
13.240
8.816
3.688
1.931
1.446
0.363
0.556
11.610
7.993
3.237
1.541
1.236
0.347
0.593
10.930
7.633
3.077
1.451
1.106
0.311
0.630
10.840
7.258
2.956
1.346
1.043
0.306
0.667
10.090
6.975
2.840
1.327
0.962
0.302
0.704
8.181
5.375
2.829
1.167
0.953
0.284
0.741
7.916
5.275
2.625
1.099
0.813
0.250
0.778
7.110
4.817
2.611
1.085
0.753
0.248
0.815
6.932
4.531
1.917
0.975
0.751
0.226
0.852
6.413
4.456
1.700
0.923
0.714
0.226
0.889
5.118
3.399
1.659
0.800
0.692
0.221
0.926
4.083
2.871
1.374
0.768
0.652
0.213
0.963
3.723
2.757
1.023
0.686
0.491
0.212
0.1
36.7
24.4
9.0
3.9
2.7
0.7
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.4
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ncapp6p
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
B­
27
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Pennsylvania
Turf
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
patrf2.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
27:
02
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
9.113
6.487
2.688
1.111
0.744
0.185
1962
5.163
3.566
1.235
0.442
0.301
0.076
1963
3.359
2.292
0.767
0.274
0.183
0.046
1964
3.359
2.367
1.187
0.486
0.325
0.081
1965
3.359
2.365
0.836
0.300
0.201
0.050
1966
3.359
2.453
0.930
0.342
0.229
0.057
1967
3.359
2.339
0.811
0.466
0.321
0.080
1968
24.020
16.300
5.567
2.286
1.566
0.389
1969
3.360
2.313
0.809
0.299
0.204
0.053
1970
68.150
47.320
16.300
5.854
3.917
0.973
1971
3.360
2.291
0.766
0.401
0.276
0.074
1972
3.359
2.348
0.924
0.357
0.278
0.069
1973
9.190
7.534
3.187
1.155
0.773
0.192
1974
10.420
7.296
2.886
1.068
0.716
0.178
1975
26.450
18.420
6.596
2.383
1.596
0.397
B­
28
1976
19.400
13.090
4.303
1.535
1.028
0.255
1977
6.371
4.313
1.936
0.696
0.467
0.118
1978
3.876
2.768
0.998
0.630
0.431
0.108
1979
3.359
2.352
0.823
0.323
0.221
0.055
1980
3.359
2.352
0.825
0.326
0.218
0.054
1981
3.359
2.376
0.847
0.406
0.273
0.068
1982
3.359
2.394
0.799
0.302
0.211
0.053
1983
9.356
6.815
3.680
1.438
0.962
0.239
1984
26.290
18.750
7.082
2.649
1.773
0.440
1985
12.100
8.539
3.152
1.400
0.944
0.236
1986
19.320
14.190
5.000
2.083
1.397
0.349
1987
26.140
18.640
7.003
2.560
1.713
0.426
1988
3.360
2.367
0.838
0.521
0.362
0.091
1989
3.359
2.468
1.050
0.664
0.448
0.112
1990
3.359
2.612
0.979
0.447
0.325
0.081
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
68.150
47.320
16.300
5.854
3.917
0.973
0.065
26.450
18.750
7.082
2.649
1.773
0.440
0.097
26.290
18.640
7.003
2.560
1.713
0.426
0.129
26.140
18.420
6.596
2.383
1.596
0.397
0.161
24.020
16.300
5.567
2.286
1.566
0.389
0.194
19.400
14.190
5.000
2.083
1.397
0.349
0.226
19.320
13.090
4.303
1.535
1.028
0.255
0.258
12.100
8.539
3.680
1.438
0.962
0.239
0.290
10.420
7.534
3.187
1.400
0.944
0.236
0.323
9.356
7.296
3.152
1.155
0.773
0.192
0.355
9.190
6.815
2.886
1.111
0.744
0.185
0.387
9.113
6.487
2.688
1.068
0.716
0.178
0.419
6.371
4.313
1.936
0.696
0.467
0.118
0.452
5.163
3.566
1.235
0.664
0.448
0.112
0.484
3.876
2.768
1.187
0.630
0.431
0.108
0.516
3.360
2.612
1.050
0.521
0.362
0.091
0.548
3.360
2.468
0.998
0.486
0.325
0.081
0.581
3.360
2.453
0.979
0.466
0.325
0.081
0.613
3.359
2.394
0.930
0.447
0.321
0.080
0.645
3.359
2.376
0.924
0.442
0.301
0.076
0.677
3.359
2.367
0.847
0.406
0.278
0.074
0.710
3.359
2.367
0.838
0.401
0.276
0.069
0.742
3.359
2.365
0.836
0.357
0.273
0.068
0.774
3.359
2.352
0.825
0.342
0.229
0.057
0.806
3.359
2.352
0.823
0.326
0.221
0.055
0.839
3.359
2.348
0.811
0.323
0.218
0.054
0.871
3.359
2.339
0.809
0.302
0.211
0.053
0.903
3.359
2.313
0.799
0.300
0.204
0.053
0.935
3.359
2.292
0.767
0.299
0.201
0.050
0.968
3.359
2.291
0.766
0.274
0.183
0.046
0.1
26.3
18.6
7.0
2.5
1.7
0.4
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
B­
29
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
patrf2
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1336
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

California
tomato
(
1
app
of
4
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
catomato.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAtomato0C.
txt
modified
Tueday,
8
June
2004
at
11:
42:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
10.550
7.728
4.922
2.111
1.408
0.347
1962
15.070
12.250
5.057
2.015
1.359
0.365
1963
18.150
12.030
7.151
2.841
2.067
0.745
1964
6.189
4.278
2.166
1.083
0.804
0.208
1965
7.093
4.776
2.198
1.183
0.807
0.293
B­
30
1966
21.960
16.430
6.843
2.871
1.917
0.502
1967
4.816
3.286
1.438
0.778
0.520
0.251
1968
19.640
13.440
5.304
2.642
1.831
0.501
1969
15.140
12.520
9.381
3.750
2.528
0.706
1970
17.920
12.490
5.876
2.843
1.906
0.870
1971
6.418
4.420
1.796
0.794
0.552
0.180
1972
20.030
14.860
7.722
3.244
2.164
0.604
1973
5.281
3.860
0.978
0.848
0.591
0.245
1974
9.089
6.329
2.299
1.001
0.672
0.315
1975
3.173
2.124
0.694
0.262
0.191
0.084
1976
30.740
20.460
9.304
3.346
2.238
0.709
1977
19.800
14.000
6.245
2.306
1.560
0.469
1978
8.424
6.370
3.290
2.243
1.548
0.495
1979
4.592
3.513
1.912
0.899
0.610
0.223
1980
9.447
6.733
3.921
2.254
1.529
0.411
1981
14.980
10.560
4.818
1.880
1.289
0.370
1982
11.720
8.159
5.101
3.054
2.068
0.706
1983
12.590
9.771
5.809
2.480
1.697
0.659
1984
7.782
5.384
1.932
1.474
0.997
0.272
1985
9.539
7.387
3.353
1.817
1.224
0.336
1986
28.700
20.470
6.869
2.645
1.786
0.657
1987
9.542
7.328
2.961
1.279
0.928
0.297
1988
8.676
6.052
3.239
1.527
1.031
0.382
1989
2.240
1.385
0.573
0.282
0.304
0.133
1990
20.350
14.130
5.050
1.972
1.319
0.418
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
30.740
20.470
9.381
3.750
2.528
0.870
0.065
28.700
20.460
9.304
3.346
2.238
0.745
0.097
21.960
16.430
7.722
3.244
2.164
0.709
0.129
20.350
14.860
7.151
3.054
2.068
0.706
0.161
20.030
14.130
6.869
2.871
2.067
0.706
0.194
19.800
14.000
6.843
2.843
1.917
0.659
0.226
19.640
13.440
6.245
2.841
1.906
0.657
0.258
18.150
12.520
5.876
2.645
1.831
0.604
0.290
17.920
12.490
5.809
2.642
1.786
0.502
0.323
15.140
12.250
5.304
2.480
1.697
0.501
0.355
15.070
12.030
5.101
2.306
1.560
0.495
0.387
14.980
10.560
5.057
2.254
1.548
0.469
0.419
12.590
9.771
5.050
2.243
1.529
0.418
0.452
11.720
8.159
4.922
2.111
1.408
0.411
0.484
10.550
7.728
4.818
2.015
1.359
0.382
0.516
9.542
7.387
3.921
1.972
1.319
0.370
0.548
9.539
7.328
3.353
1.880
1.289
0.365
0.581
9.447
6.733
3.290
1.817
1.224
0.347
0.613
9.089
6.370
3.239
1.527
1.031
0.336
0.645
8.676
6.329
2.961
1.474
0.997
0.315
0.677
8.424
6.052
2.299
1.279
0.928
0.297
0.710
7.782
5.384
2.198
1.183
0.807
0.293
0.742
7.093
4.776
2.166
1.083
0.804
0.272
0.774
6.418
4.420
1.932
1.001
0.672
0.251
0.806
6.189
4.278
1.912
0.899
0.610
0.245
0.839
5.281
3.860
1.796
0.848
0.591
0.223
0.871
4.816
3.513
1.438
0.794
0.552
0.208
0.903
4.592
3.286
0.978
0.778
0.520
0.180
B­
31
0.935
3.173
2.124
0.694
0.282
0.304
0.133
0.968
2.240
1.385
0.573
0.262
0.191
0.084
0.1
21.8
16.3
7.7
3.2
2.2
0.7
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.4
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
catomato
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAtomato0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Florida
pepper
(
1
app
of
4
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
flpepper.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLpeppersC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
15:
41:
28
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
30
B­
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
29.510
21.370
9.368
3.581
2.745
0.736
1962
36.400
23.290
8.532
3.778
2.627
0.716
1963
46.650
32.160
10.070
3.668
2.472
0.645
1964
26.470
17.480
6.856
4.058
2.839
0.740
1965
17.610
11.720
7.475
3.165
2.165
0.566
1966
14.850
9.563
2.940
1.625
1.592
0.511
1967
26.030
16.440
5.156
2.196
2.372
0.672
1968
18.210
14.140
7.640
3.741
2.507
0.678
1969
27.330
18.560
6.906
3.354
2.741
0.715
1970
79.870
53.150
24.630
10.140
7.052
1.812
1971
34.170
22.060
6.562
3.394
2.391
0.634
1972
22.580
14.630
7.374
5.058
3.659
0.918
1973
11.850
7.674
2.915
2.047
1.771
0.527
1974
24.790
15.430
4.519
1.888
1.356
0.429
1975
13.690
9.025
3.558
1.721
1.183
0.319
1976
12.540
7.884
3.365
1.959
1.791
0.497
1977
66.080
42.580
16.320
7.805
5.286
1.344
1978
10.060
6.513
2.391
1.556
1.164
0.362
1979
117.000
74.990
23.490
9.181
6.175
1.562
1980
32.840
20.850
6.265
2.573
2.398
0.656
1981
10.140
6.301
2.826
1.468
1.133
0.379
1982
49.920
32.340
14.710
9.539
6.537
1.627
1983
11.900
7.518
2.606
1.435
1.308
0.379
1984
38.680
23.710
9.998
4.588
3.606
0.937
1985
40.900
25.510
7.501
4.003
2.967
0.803
1986
20.430
13.000
5.497
2.402
1.638
0.497
1987
42.960
28.390
11.100
4.731
3.438
0.872
1988
21.570
13.470
5.579
3.405
2.948
0.852
1989
35.140
23.880
7.231
2.982
2.037
0.552
1990
15.410
9.900
3.538
1.513
1.133
0.325
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
117.000
74.990
24.630
10.140
7.052
1.812
0.065
79.870
53.150
23.490
9.539
6.537
1.627
0.097
66.080
42.580
16.320
9.181
6.175
1.562
0.129
49.920
32.340
14.710
7.805
5.286
1.344
0.161
46.650
32.160
11.100
5.058
3.659
0.937
0.194
42.960
28.390
10.070
4.731
3.606
0.918
0.226
40.900
25.510
9.998
4.588
3.438
0.872
0.258
38.680
23.880
9.368
4.058
2.967
0.852
0.290
36.400
23.710
8.532
4.003
2.948
0.803
0.323
35.140
23.290
7.640
3.778
2.839
0.740
0.355
34.170
22.060
7.501
3.741
2.745
0.736
0.387
32.840
21.370
7.475
3.668
2.741
0.716
0.419
29.510
20.850
7.374
3.581
2.627
0.715
0.452
27.330
18.560
7.231
3.405
2.507
0.678
0.484
26.470
17.480
6.906
3.394
2.472
0.672
0.516
26.030
16.440
6.856
3.354
2.398
0.656
0.548
24.790
15.430
6.562
3.165
2.391
0.645
0.581
22.580
14.630
6.265
2.982
2.372
0.634
0.613
21.570
14.140
5.579
2.573
2.165
0.566
0.645
20.430
13.470
5.497
2.402
2.037
0.552
B­
33
0.677
18.210
13.000
5.156
2.196
1.791
0.527
0.710
17.610
11.720
4.519
2.047
1.771
0.511
0.742
15.410
9.900
3.558
1.959
1.638
0.497
0.774
14.850
9.563
3.538
1.888
1.592
0.497
0.806
13.690
9.025
3.365
1.721
1.356
0.429
0.839
12.540
7.884
2.940
1.625
1.308
0.379
0.871
11.900
7.674
2.915
1.556
1.183
0.379
0.903
11.850
7.518
2.826
1.513
1.164
0.362
0.935
10.140
6.513
2.606
1.468
1.133
0.325
0.968
10.060
6.301
2.391
1.435
1.133
0.319
0.1
64.5
41.6
16.2
9.0
6.1
1.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.7
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flpepper
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLpeppersC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
B­
34
entire
run)

California
grape
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
cagrape.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
08:
13:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
4.294
3.145
1.420
0.881
0.588
0.145
1962
9.372
7.445
2.812
1.011
0.679
0.218
1963
11.540
7.650
3.475
1.307
0.891
0.324
1964
3.246
2.312
1.509
0.588
0.418
0.104
1965
3.285
2.134
1.275
0.532
0.361
0.136
1966
16.130
11.810
4.714
2.023
1.351
0.340
1967
2.765
1.886
1.044
0.398
0.266
0.137
1968
8.684
5.941
2.709
1.292
0.876
0.216
1969
16.610
12.420
9.157
3.705
2.486
0.666
1970
13.670
9.395
4.100
1.668
1.124
0.528
1971
2.812
1.937
0.866
0.549
0.379
0.105
1972
14.620
10.420
5.248
2.102
1.401
0.362
1973
2.897
2.118
0.968
0.494
0.345
0.136
1974
3.411
2.667
1.127
0.546
0.365
0.160
1975
2.644
1.675
0.864
0.313
0.209
0.055
1976
19.640
13.070
5.162
1.851
1.238
0.424
1977
16.050
11.350
4.596
1.882
1.277
0.334
1978
6.096
4.421
1.922
1.423
1.009
0.342
1979
2.663
1.726
1.011
0.383
0.255
0.097
1980
6.393
4.556
2.154
1.352
0.919
0.276
1981
9.772
6.889
2.511
0.946
0.644
0.219
1982
9.116
6.326
2.169
1.826
1.242
0.450
1983
10.880
8.104
4.549
1.868
1.273
0.442
1984
3.622
2.507
1.194
0.875
0.586
0.146
1985
2.931
2.328
1.262
0.630
0.421
0.109
1986
26.160
18.660
6.118
2.394
1.618
0.503
1987
4.547
3.218
1.373
0.544
0.370
0.151
1988
3.060
2.135
1.067
0.679
0.457
0.133
1989
2.586
1.599
0.794
0.284
0.200
0.069
1990
13.570
9.067
3.159
1.126
0.753
0.264
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
26.160
18.660
9.157
3.705
2.486
0.666
0.065
19.640
13.070
6.118
2.394
1.618
0.528
0.097
16.610
12.420
5.248
2.102
1.401
0.503
0.129
16.130
11.810
5.162
2.023
1.351
0.450
0.161
16.050
11.350
4.714
1.882
1.277
0.442
0.194
14.620
10.420
4.596
1.868
1.273
0.424
0.226
13.670
9.395
4.549
1.851
1.242
0.362
0.258
13.570
9.067
4.100
1.826
1.238
0.342
0.290
11.540
8.104
3.475
1.668
1.124
0.340
0.323
10.880
7.650
3.159
1.423
1.009
0.334
0.355
9.772
7.445
2.812
1.352
0.919
0.324
B­
35
0.387
9.372
6.889
2.709
1.307
0.891
0.276
0.419
9.116
6.326
2.511
1.292
0.876
0.264
0.452
8.684
5.941
2.169
1.126
0.753
0.219
0.484
6.393
4.556
2.154
1.011
0.679
0.218
0.516
6.096
4.421
1.922
0.946
0.644
0.216
0.548
4.547
3.218
1.509
0.881
0.588
0.160
0.581
4.294
3.145
1.420
0.875
0.586
0.151
0.613
3.622
2.667
1.373
0.679
0.457
0.146
0.645
3.411
2.507
1.275
0.630
0.421
0.145
0.677
3.285
2.328
1.262
0.588
0.418
0.137
0.710
3.246
2.312
1.194
0.549
0.379
0.136
0.742
3.060
2.135
1.127
0.546
0.370
0.136
0.774
2.931
2.134
1.067
0.544
0.365
0.133
0.806
2.897
2.118
1.044
0.532
0.361
0.109
0.839
2.812
1.937
1.011
0.494
0.345
0.105
0.871
2.765
1.886
0.968
0.398
0.266
0.104
0.903
2.663
1.726
0.866
0.383
0.255
0.097
0.935
2.644
1.675
0.864
0.313
0.209
0.069
0.968
2.586
1.599
0.794
0.284
0.200
0.055
0.1
16.6
12.4
5.2
2.1
1.4
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cagrape
Metfile:
w93193.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
B­
36
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

California
grape
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
cagrap6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
08:
13:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
3.359
2.352
1.051
0.656
0.438
0.108
1962
7.015
5.572
2.104
0.757
0.508
0.163
1963
8.640
5.728
2.602
0.978
0.667
0.249
1964
4.047
2.664
1.121
0.428
0.304
0.076
1965
3.359
2.261
0.969
0.398
0.270
0.100
1966
11.620
8.509
3.396
1.468
0.980
0.247
1967
3.360
2.291
0.799
0.299
0.199
0.100
1968
11.750
8.037
2.987
1.288
0.870
0.215
1969
11.080
8.287
6.187
2.495
1.675
0.453
1970
9.423
6.477
2.827
1.149
0.774
0.373
1971
3.359
2.159
0.659
0.410
0.283
0.078
1972
9.979
7.111
3.627
1.503
1.002
0.260
1973
3.359
2.261
0.741
0.370
0.258
0.099
1974
3.491
2.268
0.842
0.409
0.273
0.119
1975
3.444
2.181
0.661
0.235
0.157
0.041
1976
14.700
9.785
3.865
1.386
0.927
0.318
1977
11.800
8.343
3.379
1.375
0.942
0.246
1978
4.482
3.251
1.413
1.044
0.740
0.252
1979
3.359
2.177
0.765
0.286
0.191
0.073
1980
4.661
3.322
1.571
0.984
0.669
0.202
1981
7.291
5.140
1.873
0.706
0.481
0.163
1982
6.821
4.734
1.581
1.367
0.930
0.337
1983
8.143
6.066
3.405
1.398
0.953
0.330
1984
3.359
2.323
0.796
0.654
0.438
0.109
1985
3.361
2.279
0.962
0.472
0.316
0.082
1986
19.580
13.970
4.580
1.776
1.212
0.376
1987
3.404
2.409
1.027
0.407
0.277
0.113
1988
3.359
2.163
0.797
0.508
0.342
0.099
1989
3.359
2.077
0.602
0.221
0.150
0.052
1990
10.160
6.786
2.364
0.843
0.564
0.198
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
19.580
13.970
6.187
2.495
1.675
0.453
B­
37
0.065
14.700
9.785
4.580
1.776
1.212
0.376
0.097
11.800
8.509
3.865
1.503
1.002
0.373
0.129
11.750
8.343
3.627
1.468
0.980
0.337
0.161
11.620
8.287
3.405
1.398
0.953
0.330
0.194
11.080
8.037
3.396
1.386
0.942
0.318
0.226
10.160
7.111
3.379
1.375
0.930
0.260
0.258
9.979
6.786
2.987
1.367
0.927
0.252
0.290
9.423
6.477
2.827
1.288
0.870
0.249
0.323
8.640
6.066
2.602
1.149
0.774
0.247
0.355
8.143
5.728
2.364
1.044
0.740
0.246
0.387
7.291
5.572
2.104
0.984
0.669
0.215
0.419
7.015
5.140
1.873
0.978
0.667
0.202
0.452
6.821
4.734
1.581
0.843
0.564
0.198
0.484
4.661
3.322
1.571
0.757
0.508
0.163
0.516
4.482
3.251
1.413
0.706
0.481
0.163
0.548
4.047
2.664
1.121
0.656
0.438
0.119
0.581
3.491
2.409
1.051
0.654
0.438
0.113
0.613
3.444
2.352
1.027
0.508
0.342
0.109
0.645
3.404
2.323
0.969
0.472
0.316
0.108
0.677
3.361
2.291
0.962
0.428
0.304
0.100
0.710
3.360
2.279
0.842
0.410
0.283
0.100
0.742
3.359
2.268
0.799
0.409
0.277
0.099
0.774
3.359
2.261
0.797
0.407
0.273
0.099
0.806
3.359
2.261
0.796
0.398
0.270
0.082
0.839
3.359
2.181
0.765
0.370
0.258
0.078
0.871
3.359
2.177
0.741
0.299
0.199
0.076
0.903
3.359
2.163
0.661
0.286
0.191
0.073
0.935
3.359
2.159
0.659
0.235
0.157
0.052
0.968
3.359
2.077
0.602
0.221
0.150
0.041
0.1
11.8
8.5
3.8
1.5
1.0
0.4
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cagrap6p
Metfile:
w93193.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
B­
38
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Georgia
pecan
(
2
apps
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
7
days
apart)

stored
as
gapecan.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
GAPecansC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
22
April
2003
at
06:
57:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
12.060
7.650
3.036
1.517
1.035
0.264
1962
127.000
81.710
24.360
10.750
7.197
1.820
1963
10.300
6.733
2.926
1.135
0.951
0.278
1964
28.530
18.800
6.334
3.281
2.538
0.695
1965
36.350
26.130
10.340
5.088
3.576
0.969
1966
32.800
21.060
7.037
2.675
2.522
0.756
1967
17.140
10.870
3.501
2.104
1.568
0.441
1968
14.020
8.958
3.170
1.322
1.119
0.296
1969
51.130
35.530
17.140
6.932
4.666
1.167
1970
158.000
107.000
37.720
16.010
10.740
2.690
1971
6.614
4.251
1.992
0.943
0.676
0.186
1972
56.740
36.000
11.020
6.023
4.649
1.243
1973
41.250
33.650
15.640
8.901
5.983
1.488
1974
19.560
13.040
6.753
3.357
2.490
0.628
1975
88.060
58.130
19.970
10.970
7.480
1.868
1976
21.830
14.690
7.194
3.525
2.668
0.677
1977
26.640
18.760
10.250
4.355
3.093
0.843
1978
72.150
50.190
17.910
6.845
4.603
1.157
1979
23.900
15.990
9.096
4.467
3.317
0.830
1980
158.000
108.000
40.090
15.290
10.250
2.541
1981
51.390
35.790
13.030
5.527
3.735
0.956
1982
28.720
19.320
8.000
3.922
2.683
0.807
1983
89.760
61.910
26.180
10.900
7.330
1.826
1984
41.340
26.800
15.890
8.228
5.586
1.396
1985
28.630
18.130
6.360
2.623
1.764
0.590
B­
39
1986
20.690
13.420
4.961
1.943
1.324
0.510
1987
33.930
23.720
13.820
5.548
4.218
1.072
1988
53.760
38.730
12.680
5.506
3.730
0.932
1989
23.770
17.450
6.167
3.042
2.214
0.570
1990
26.350
16.500
5.923
3.073
2.199
0.594
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
158.000
108.000
40.090
16.010
10.740
2.690
0.065
158.000
107.000
37.720
15.290
10.250
2.541
0.097
127.000
81.710
26.180
10.970
7.480
1.868
0.129
89.760
61.910
24.360
10.900
7.330
1.826
0.161
88.060
58.130
19.970
10.750
7.197
1.820
0.194
72.150
50.190
17.910
8.901
5.983
1.488
0.226
56.740
38.730
17.140
8.228
5.586
1.396
0.258
53.760
36.000
15.890
6.932
4.666
1.243
0.290
51.390
35.790
15.640
6.845
4.649
1.167
0.323
51.130
35.530
13.820
6.023
4.603
1.157
0.355
41.340
33.650
13.030
5.548
4.218
1.072
0.387
41.250
26.800
12.680
5.527
3.735
0.969
0.419
36.350
26.130
11.020
5.506
3.730
0.956
0.452
33.930
23.720
10.340
5.088
3.576
0.932
0.484
32.800
21.060
10.250
4.467
3.317
0.843
0.516
28.720
19.320
9.096
4.355
3.093
0.830
0.548
28.630
18.800
8.000
3.922
2.683
0.807
0.581
28.530
18.760
7.194
3.525
2.668
0.756
0.613
26.640
18.130
7.037
3.357
2.538
0.695
0.645
26.350
17.450
6.753
3.281
2.522
0.677
0.677
23.900
16.500
6.360
3.073
2.490
0.628
0.710
23.770
15.990
6.334
3.042
2.214
0.594
0.742
21.830
14.690
6.167
2.675
2.199
0.590
0.774
20.690
13.420
5.923
2.623
1.764
0.570
0.806
19.560
13.040
4.961
2.104
1.568
0.510
0.839
17.140
10.870
3.501
1.943
1.324
0.441
0.871
14.020
8.958
3.170
1.517
1.119
0.296
0.903
12.060
7.650
3.036
1.322
1.035
0.278
0.935
10.300
6.733
2.926
1.135
0.951
0.264
0.968
6.614
4.251
1.992
0.943
0.676
0.186
0.1
123.3
79.7
26.0
11.0
7.5
1.9
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.0
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
gapecan
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
B­
40
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atmm
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

Georgia
pecans
(
1
app
of
6
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
gapcan6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
GAPecansC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
22
April
2003
at
06:
57:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
8.461
5.367
2.110
1.118
0.762
0.194
1962
80.330
51.680
15.410
7.318
4.899
1.235
1963
6.570
4.296
2.312
0.881
0.714
0.203
1964
18.100
11.920
4.020
2.083
1.776
0.478
1965
54.530
39.190
14.150
5.648
3.846
0.980
1966
49.190
31.580
9.917
3.642
2.852
0.777
1967
12.220
7.747
2.499
1.502
1.117
0.316
1968
9.564
6.110
2.308
0.914
0.808
0.213
1969
31.770
22.100
13.650
5.440
3.655
0.912
1970
105.000
71.280
25.190
10.820
7.251
1.813
1971
4.334
2.785
1.172
0.655
0.467
0.127
B­
41
1972
36.750
23.320
7.142
3.883
3.384
0.891
1973
26.090
20.430
9.473
6.121
4.111
1.022
1974
14.640
9.759
5.051
2.512
1.864
0.470
1975
57.960
38.260
13.120
7.239
4.928
1.229
1976
16.320
10.980
5.156
2.639
1.998
0.507
1977
39.970
26.770
11.400
4.475
3.028
0.798
1978
48.270
33.500
13.690
5.188
3.483
0.872
1979
16.460
11.020
6.298
3.039
2.293
0.574
1980
108.000
73.630
27.270
10.490
7.027
1.740
1981
77.100
53.690
17.870
6.848
4.601
1.155
1982
16.670
11.210
4.637
2.775
1.887
0.537
1983
135.000
91.500
31.730
12.060
8.081
2.011
1984
41.660
26.920
9.014
6.152
4.152
1.034
1985
20.370
12.910
4.532
1.892
1.271
0.423
1986
14.630
9.488
3.502
1.371
0.933
0.362
1987
22.160
15.280
8.959
3.823
2.868
0.726
1988
80.660
58.100
18.310
6.959
4.679
1.163
1989
16.230
11.910
4.210
2.102
1.525
0.391
1990
19.300
12.090
4.344
2.210
1.624
0.438
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
135.000
91.500
31.730
12.060
8.081
2.011
0.065
108.000
73.630
27.270
10.820
7.251
1.813
0.097
105.000
71.280
25.190
10.490
7.027
1.740
0.129
80.660
58.100
18.310
7.318
4.928
1.235
0.161
80.330
53.690
17.870
7.239
4.899
1.229
0.194
77.100
51.680
15.410
6.959
4.679
1.163
0.226
57.960
39.190
14.150
6.848
4.601
1.155
0.258
54.530
38.260
13.690
6.152
4.152
1.034
0.290
49.190
33.500
13.650
6.121
4.111
1.022
0.323
48.270
31.580
13.120
5.648
3.846
0.980
0.355
41.660
26.920
11.400
5.440
3.655
0.912
0.387
39.970
26.770
9.917
5.188
3.483
0.891
0.419
36.750
23.320
9.473
4.475
3.384
0.872
0.452
31.770
22.100
9.014
3.883
3.028
0.798
0.484
26.090
20.430
8.959
3.823
2.868
0.777
0.516
22.160
15.280
7.142
3.642
2.852
0.726
0.548
20.370
12.910
6.298
3.039
2.293
0.574
0.581
19.300
12.090
5.156
2.775
1.998
0.537
0.613
18.100
11.920
5.051
2.639
1.887
0.507
0.645
16.670
11.910
4.637
2.512
1.864
0.478
0.677
16.460
11.210
4.532
2.210
1.776
0.470
0.710
16.320
11.020
4.344
2.102
1.624
0.438
0.742
16.230
10.980
4.210
2.083
1.525
0.423
0.774
14.640
9.759
4.020
1.892
1.271
0.391
0.806
14.630
9.488
3.502
1.502
1.117
0.362
0.839
12.220
7.747
2.499
1.371
0.933
0.316
0.871
9.564
6.110
2.312
1.118
0.808
0.213
0.903
8.461
5.367
2.308
0.914
0.762
0.203
0.935
6.570
4.296
2.110
0.881
0.714
0.194
0.968
4.334
2.785
1.172
0.655
0.467
0.127
0.1
102.6
70.0
24.5
10.2
6.8
1.7
Average
of
yearly
0.8
B­
42
averages:

Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
gapcan6p
Metfile:
w93805.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

North
Carolina
tobacco
(
1
app
of
2
lbs
ai/
A)

stored
as
nctobacc.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCtobaccoC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
13:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
15:
33:
30
B­
43
Metfile:
w13722.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
08:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
4.929
3.458
1.440
0.606
0.424
0.108
1962
1.865
1.247
0.537
0.361
0.242
0.067
1963
1.320
0.862
0.575
0.224
0.209
0.059
1964
4.169
2.851
1.003
0.487
0.328
0.092
1965
3.427
2.326
1.151
0.462
0.316
0.119
1966
5.063
3.205
1.066
0.393
0.337
0.101
1967
2.055
1.386
0.509
0.211
0.202
0.066
1968
1.273
0.858
0.421
0.257
0.183
0.053
1969
1.812
1.170
0.606
0.275
0.195
0.057
1970
1.120
0.771
0.281
0.197
0.139
0.043
1971
8.210
5.417
1.795
0.723
0.515
0.134
1972
1.691
1.183
0.538
0.250
0.215
0.066
1973
3.108
2.198
0.888
0.619
0.457
0.122
1974
1.253
0.838
0.317
0.208
0.206
0.053
1975
12.120
9.098
3.407
1.299
0.870
0.222
1976
1.127
0.762
0.488
0.197
0.177
0.053
1977
3.503
2.329
1.184
0.506
0.347
0.091
1978
6.604
4.373
1.463
0.950
0.735
0.185
1979
2.199
1.433
0.803
0.381
0.263
0.072
1980
4.364
2.989
1.347
0.560
0.388
0.108
1981
1.120
0.722
0.222
0.117
0.094
0.038
1982
4.117
2.782
1.113
0.435
0.299
0.088
1983
16.570
11.220
3.753
1.739
1.173
0.292
1984
3.256
2.147
0.774
0.477
0.329
0.089
1985
1.471
0.979
0.333
0.156
0.144
0.053
1986
5.444
3.515
1.214
0.483
0.373
0.104
1987
3.445
2.674
0.911
0.422
0.291
0.081
1988
1.395
0.924
0.295
0.179
0.141
0.038
1989
8.049
5.535
1.946
1.016
0.701
0.176
1990
9.169
6.538
2.162
0.861
0.624
0.158
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
16.570
11.220
3.753
1.739
1.173
0.292
0.065
12.120
9.098
3.407
1.299
0.870
0.222
0.097
9.169
6.538
2.162
1.016
0.735
0.185
0.129
8.210
5.535
1.946
0.950
0.701
0.176
0.161
8.049
5.417
1.795
0.861
0.624
0.158
0.194
6.604
4.373
1.463
0.723
0.515
0.134
0.226
5.444
3.515
1.440
0.619
0.457
0.122
0.258
5.063
3.458
1.347
0.606
0.424
0.119
0.290
4.929
3.205
1.214
0.560
0.388
0.108
0.323
4.364
2.989
1.184
0.506
0.373
0.108
0.355
4.169
2.851
1.151
0.487
0.347
0.104
0.387
4.117
2.782
1.113
0.483
0.337
0.101
0.419
3.503
2.674
1.066
0.477
0.329
0.092
0.452
3.445
2.329
1.003
0.462
0.328
0.091
0.484
3.427
2.326
0.911
0.435
0.316
0.089
0.516
3.256
2.198
0.888
0.422
0.299
0.088
0.548
3.108
2.147
0.803
0.393
0.291
0.081
0.581
2.199
1.433
0.774
0.381
0.263
0.072
0.613
2.055
1.386
0.606
0.361
0.242
0.067
B­
44
0.645
1.865
1.247
0.575
0.275
0.215
0.066
0.677
1.812
1.183
0.538
0.257
0.209
0.066
0.710
1.691
1.170
0.537
0.250
0.206
0.059
0.742
1.471
0.979
0.509
0.224
0.202
0.057
0.774
1.395
0.924
0.488
0.211
0.195
0.053
0.806
1.320
0.862
0.421
0.208
0.183
0.053
0.839
1.273
0.858
0.333
0.197
0.177
0.053
0.871
1.253
0.838
0.317
0.197
0.144
0.053
0.903
1.127
0.771
0.295
0.179
0.141
0.043
0.935
1.120
0.762
0.281
0.156
0.139
0.038
0.968
1.120
0.722
0.222
0.117
0.094
0.038
0.1
9.1
6.4
2.1
1.0
0.7
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
nctobacc
Metfile:
w13722.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCtobaccoC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
4.00E­
06
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.018
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
B­
45
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CRANBERRY
MODEL
EFED
modeled
the
Cranberry
use
of
napropamide
using
the
Interim
Rice
Model
(
Bradbury,
10/
29/
02)
that
was
modified
to
represent
cranberries.
This
is
a
modeling
approach
that
has
not
been
officially
approved
at
this
time.
EFED
assumed
the
maximum
application
rate
in
cranberries
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)
and
attempted
to
bracket
the
potential
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
by
assuming
that
no
runoff
exists
in
the
assumed
90
days
from
application
until
harvest
by
flooding
(
lower
bound)
and
by
assuming
that
all
of
a
2­
inch
rain
runs
off
the
field
immediately
after
flooding
(
upper
bound).
Because
cranberries
are
only
grown
in
northern
states,
EECs
at
different
times
(
hours)
from
the
modeling
were
compared
to
acute
toxicity
values
for
the
rainbow
trout
(
northern
fish,
LC
50=
6.4
mg/
L)
and
the
mysid
shrimp
(
LC50=
4.2
mg/
L).
Table
B.
2
contains
the
inputs
for
Cranberry
modeling.

The
modeling
of
napropamide
used
in
cranberry
production
indicates
that
because
of
napropamide's
rapid
degradation
in
water
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
is
not
likely
to
be
significant.
Napropamide
concentrations
in
the
cranberry
bog
started
at
2217­
5172
ug/
L
immediately
after
establishment
of
full
flood
and
declined
rapidly
to
<
1
ug/
L
by
5­
6
hours
after
full
flood.
The
lower
bound
of
exposure
is
below
the
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
LOC=
0.05)
for
both
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
by
two
hours
after
flooding.
The
upper
bound
of
exposure
goes
below
the
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
LOC=
0.05)
for
aquatic
invertebrates
by
three
hours
after
flooding
for
the
mysid
shrip
and
two
hours
for
rainbow
trout.
Table
B.
3
below
contains
the
EECs
from
cranberry
modeling.

B­
2.
Inputs
and
Model
Outputs
for
Cranberry
Modeling
of
Napropamide
Use
Input
Value
Comment(
s)

Area
(
ha)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
sediment
interaction
(
cm)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
floodwater
(
m)
0.45
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Volume
=
4.551
*
106
L
Soil
bulk
density
(
g/
cm3)
1.3
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Mass
of
soil
=
130,000
kg/
ha
Organic
carbon
content
(%)
2
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Time
from
application
to
flooding
(
days)
90
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Length
of
flooding
(
days)
5
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Application
rate
(
kg/
ha)
16.8
Maximum
label
rate
for
cranberries
Half­
lives
(
hours)

Aerobic
soil
metabolism
10,704
446
days
MRID
41105901
B­
46
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
21,408
446­
Day
aerobic
soil
metabolism
*
2
no
162­
4
data
available
Aqueous
photolysis
0.433
26
minutes/
60
minutes/
day
r2=
0.87,
F=
121,
p=
2.1
x
10­
9
41575301
Include
parent
+
Isomer
I
+
Isomer
II
Mobility
Koc
(
L/
Kg)
1,170
MRID
41575302
Lowest
non­
sand
Estimated
Kd=
23.4
L/
kg
Table
B­
3.
EECs
in
cranberry
bog
for
napropamide
used
in
Cranberries
at
maximum
rate
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)

Time
(
hours)
Lower
bound
(
ug/
L)
Upper
bound
(
ug/
L)

0
2,213
5,172
1
446
1,043
2
30
210
3
18
42
4
4
9
5
0.7
2
6
0.1
0.3
7
0.03
0.01
C­
1
APPENDIX
C.
ELLFATE
MODEL
RUNS
ELL­
Fate
Version
1.4
April
7,2004
Developed
by
Laurence
Libelo.
February,
1999
Updated
by
John
Ravenscroft,
April
2004
This
spreadsheet
based
model
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
It
uses
the
same
principle
as
the
batch
code
models
FATE
and
TERR
EEC
for
calculating
terrestrial
estimates
exposure
(
TEEC)
concentrations
on
plant
surfaces
following
application.

A
first
order
decay
assumption
is
used
to
determine
the
concentration
at
each
day
after
initial
application
based
on
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
decay
is
calculated
by
from
the
first
order
rate
equation:

CT
=
Cie­
kT
or
in
log
form:

ln
(
CT/
Ci)
=
kT
Where
CT
=
concentration
at
time
T
=
day
zero.
Ci
=
concentration,
in
parts
per
million
(
PPM)
present
initially
(
on
day
zero)
on
the
surfaces.

Ci
is
calculated
based
on
the
Kanaga
nomogram
(
Hoerger
and
Kenaga,
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
(
1994).
For
maximum
concentration
the
application
rate,
in
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre,
is
multiplied
by
240
for
Short
Grass,
110
for
Tall
Grass,
and
135
for
Broad
leafed
plants/
small
insects
and
15
for
fruits/
pods/
lg
insects.
Additional
applications
are
converted
from
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
to
PPM
on
the
plant
surface
and
the
additional
mass
added
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application.

k
=
If
the
foliar
dissipation
data
submitted
to
EFED
are
found
scientifically
valid
and
statistically
robust
for
a
specific
pesticide,
the
90%
upper
confidence
limit
of
the
mean
half­
lives
should
be
used.
When
scientifically
valid,
statistically
robust
data
are
not
available
TETT
recommends
the
using
a
default
half­
life
value
of
35
days.
The
use
of
the
35
day
half­
life
is
based
on
the
highest
reported
value
value
(
36.9
days)
reported
by
Willis
and
McDowell
(
Pesticide
persistence
on
foliage,
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol,
100:
23­
73,
1987).

T
=
time,
in
days,
since
the
start
of
the
simulation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0.
The
simulation
is
designed
to
run
for
365
days.
C­
2
The
program
calculates
concentration
on
each
type
of
surface
on
a
daily
interval
for
one
year.
The
maximum
concentration
during
the
year
and
the
average
concentration
during
the
first
56
days
are
calculated.
The
inputs
used
to
calculate
the
amount
of
the
chemical
present
are
in
highlighted
in
yellow
on
the
spread
sheet.
Outputs
are
in
blue.
The
inputs
required
are:

Application
Rate:
The
maximum
label
application
rate
(
in
pounds
ai/
acre)
Half­
life:
The
degradation
half­
life
for
the
dominate
process(
in
days)
Frequency
of
Application:
The
interval
between
repeated
applications,
from
the
label
(
in
days)
Maximum
#
Application
per
year:
From
the
label
The
calculated
concentrations
are
used
to
calculate
Avian
and
Mammalian
RQ
values.
The
maximum
calculated
concentration
is
divided
by
user
input
values
of
Chronic
No
Observable
Adverse
Effects
Level
and
acute
LC50
to
give
RQs
for
each
type
of
plant
surface.

The
rat
LC
50
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
mammalian
LD
50
by
0.05
(
to
correct
for
actual
food
consumption).
For
15g,
35g
and
1000
g
mammals
the
RQ
values
are
calculated
by
dividing
the
maximum
concentration
for
each
surface
by
the
LD
50
or
NOAEL
corrected
for
consumption
(
0.95,
0.66
and
.15
body
wt.
for
herbivores
and
insectivores
and
0.21,
0.15
and
0.03
body
wt.
for
granivores)
The
number
of
days
that
the
input
value
of
Chronic
No
Observable
Adverse
Effects
Level
and
acute
LC50
are
exceeded
in
the
first
56
days
is
calculated
by
comparing
the
input
value
to
the
calculated
concentration.

A
graph
of
concentration
on
each
plant
surface
vs
time
is
plotted
and
a
"
level
of
concern"
line
can
be
added
at
a
user
specified
level.

The
maximum
single
application
which
can
be
applied
and
not
exceed
the
toxicity
input
values
if
calculated
by
dividing
the
input
value
by
the
Kenaga
maximum
concentration
for
Short
Grass
(
240).

This
version
of
ELL­
Fate
(
v1.4)
incorporates
the
ability
to
calculate
EECs
and
RQs
for
maximum
and
mean
residues.
Mean
residues
are
calculated
exactly
as
the
maximum
residues
are,
except
the
corresponding
Kenaga
values
are:
85
for
Short
Grass,
36
for
Tall
Grass,
and
45
for
Broad
leafed
plants/
small
insects
and
7
for
fruits/
pods/
lg
insects.
C­
3
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Use
Formulation
Inputs
Application
Rate
6
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
1440.00
878.75
Tall
Grass
660.00
402.76
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
810.00
494.30
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
90.00
54.92
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
56
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
#
VALUE!
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
0.000
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!

Tall
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
#
VALUE!

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.13
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d)
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
diet)
30
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
48.00
Tall
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
22.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
27.00
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
3.00
Seeds
(
granivore)
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!

Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
C­
4
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Use
Formulation
Inputs
Application
Rate
4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
7
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
1795.73
1128.78
Tall
Grass
823.04
517.36
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
1010.10
634.94
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
112.23
70.55
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
56
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
#
VALUE!
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
0.000
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!

Tall
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
#
VALUE!

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.13
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d)
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
diet)
30
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
59.86
Tall
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
27.43
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
33.67
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
3.74
Seeds
(
granivore)
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!

Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Level
of
Concern
193.00
(
ppm)
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
C­
5
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Use
Formulation
Inputs
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Frequency
of
Application
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Outputs
Maximum
56
day
Average
Concentration
Concentration
(
PPM)
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
480.00
292.92
Tall
Grass
220.00
134.25
#
days
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
270.00
164.77
Exceeded
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
30.00
18.31
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Avian
Acute
LC50
(
ppm)
0
Chronic
NOAEC
(
ppm)
56
Max
Single
Application
which
does
NOT
exceed
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Avian
Acute
#
VALUE!
(
Max.
res.
mult.
apps.)
Avian
Chronic
0.000
(
lb
a.
i.)
Short
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!

Tall
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
#
days
Mammalian
Acute
#
VALUE!

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
Exceeded
Mammalian
Chronic
0.13
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
on
short
grass
(
in
first
56)

Mammalian
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw/
d)
0
Rat
Calculated
LC50
(
ppm)
Chronic
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg
diet)
30
56
Rat
Calculated
NOAEL
(
ppm)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Rat
Acute
Rat
Chronic
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Acute
RQ
Dietary
Dietary
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
(
mult.
apps)
RQ
RQ
Short
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
16.00
Tall
Grass
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
7.33
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
9.00
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
1.00
Seeds
(
granivore)
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
VALUE!
#
DIV/
0!
Terresterial
Application
Residues
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Days
Concentration
(
PPM)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
l
g
insects
D­
1
APPENDIX
D.
TERRPLANT
MODELS
Exposure
to
Terrestrial
Plants
including
Wetlands
(
August
8,
2001;
version
1.0)

Terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
(
wetland)
areas
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
from
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift.
Semi­
aquatic
areas
are
low­
lying
wet
areas
that
may
dry
up
at
times
throughout
the
year.

EFED's
runoff
scenario
is
(
1)
based
on
a
pesticide's
water
solubility
and
the
amount
of
pesticide
present
on
the
soil
surface
and
its
top
one
inch,
(
2)
characterized
as
"
sheet
runoff"
(
one
treated
acre
to
an
adjacent
acre)
for
dry
areas,

(
3)
characterized
as
"
channel
runoff"
(
10
acres
to
a
distant
low­
lying
acre)
for
semi­
aquatic
or
wetland
areas,
and
(
4)
based
on
percent
runoff
values
of
0.01,
0.02,
and
0.05
for
water
solubilities
of
<
10,
10­
100,
and
<
100
ppm,
respectively.

EFED's
Spray
Drift
scenario
is
assumed
as:
(
1)
1%
for
ground
application,
and
(
2)
5%
for
aerial,
airblast,
forced
air,
and
spray
chemigation
applications.
The
spray
drift
ratio
used
here
is
in
agreement
with
the
policy
procedures
at
the
time
the
worksheet
was
designed.

Currently,
1)
this
worksheet
is
designed
to
derive
the
plant
exposure
concentrations
from
a
single,
maximum
application
rate
only.
2)
For
pesticide
applications
with
incorporation
of
depth
of
less
than
1
inch,
the
total
loading
EECs
derived
for
the
incorporation
method
will
be
same
as
the
unincorporated
method.

To
calculate
RQ
values
for
Non­
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants:

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

Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Areas
Adjacent
to
Treatment
Site:
Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
Endangered
Terrestrial
Plants
Inhabiting
Semiaquatic
Areas
Near
Treatment
Site:
Emergence
RQ
=
Total
Loading
to
Semiaquatic
Area
or
EEC/
Seedling
Emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
Drift
RQ
=
Drift
EEC/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
D­
2
To
calculate
EECs
for
terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
in
areas
adjacent
to
treatment
sites
Un­
incorporated
Ground
Application
(
Non­
granular):
Sheet
Runoff
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.01
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Incorporated
Ground
Application
with
Drift
(
Non­
granular):
Sheet
Runoff
=
[
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)/
Incorporation
Depth
(
inch)]
x
Runoff
Value
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.01
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Un­
incorporated
Ground
Application
(
Granular):
Sheet
Runoff
=
EEC
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
Incorporated
Ground
Application
without
Drift
(
Granular):
Sheet
Runoff
=
EEC
=
[
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)/
Incorportion
Depth
(
inch)]
x
Runoff
Value
Aerial/
Airblast/
Spray
Chemigation
Applications:
Sheet
Runoff
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
x
Application
Efficiency
of
0.6
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.05
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Runoff
Value
=
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
when
the
solubility
of
the
chemical
is
<
10
ppm,
10­
100
ppm,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively
Incorporation
Depth:
Use
the
minimum
incorporation
depth
reported
on
the
label.
D­
3
Table
(
D­
1).
Seedling
Emergence
Study
based
on
most
sensitive
endpoint
dryweight
(
most
sensitive
species
are
highlighted
in
RED)

Plant
EC05
(
lbs.
ai/
acre)
EC
25
(
lbs.
ai/
acre)
EC50
(
lbs.
ai/
acre)

Glycine
max
(
dicot)
0.8448
1.848
3.256
Beta
vulgaris
(
dicot)
0.000001848
0.00352
0.6688
Brassica
naous
(
dicot)
2.112
3.784
5.632
Ipomes
hederacea
(
dicot)
NA
NA
NA
Abutilon
theophrasti
(
dicot)
0.0088
0.1584
1.232
Xanthium
strumarium
(
dicot)
0.1056
1.056
5.368
Zea
mays
(
monocot)
1.584
3.256
5.368
Triticum
arvense
(
monocot)
0.01408
0.44
4.752
Avena
fatua
(
monocot)
0.02904
0.1144
0.2992
Cyperus
rotundus
(
monocot)
0.04048
0.3344
1.408
Post
Emergence
based
on
the
most
sensitive
endpoint
dry
weight
(
most
sensitive
species
are
highlighted)

Plant
EC05
(
lbs
ai/
acre)
EC25
EC50
(
lbs
ai/
acre
Glycine
max
(
dicot)
0.00000176
3872
12320000000
Beta
vulgaris
(
dicot)
0.000000132
5.46E+
2
2.64E+
09
Brassica
naous
(
dicot)
0.00003256
123200
5.544E+
11
Ipomes
hederacea
(
dicot)
NA
NA
NA
Abutilon
theophrasti
(
dicot)
0.01936
0.6072
6.6
Xanthium
strumarium
(
dicot)
1.144
2.728
5.016
Zea
mays
(
monocot)
0.3784
1.056
2.024
Triticum
avense
(
monocot)
0.3168
0.8184
1.584
Avena
fatua
(
monocot)
0.3344
0.8008
1.496
Cyperus
rotundus
(
monocot)
0.2992
1.32
3.696
E­
1
APPENDIX
E.
SUMMARY
OF
ECOTOXICITY
DATA
Ecological
Effects
Data
Requirements
for
Napropamide
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'
s
Study
Classification
71­
1
Avian
Oral
LD50
yes
MRID
79548
and
79555
core
71­
2
Avian
Dietary
LC50
yes
435067­
01
core
49497
supplemental
25893
core
39775
and
49497
invalid
258393
and
113820
core
416102­
03
core
25894
supplemental
125894
and
113819
core
Accession
093519
supplemental
Accession
supplemental
093519
Stauffer
Chem.
Comp.
core
71­
4
Avian
Reproduction
yes
420813­
01
420277­
01
core
72­
1
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
yes
39772
Invalid
39772
Invalid
39773
and
118002
Invalid
416102­
04
Core
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
E­
2
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Stauffer
Chemical
Core
115313
Core
115313
and
25895
Supplemental
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
39771
and
49496
Supplemental
39771
and
49496
Supplemental
72686
Supplemental
72­
2
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
LC50
yes
88064
and
57805
core
416102­
05
core
72­
3(
a)
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
LC50
yes
416102­
06
core
72­
3(
b)
Estuarine/
Marine
Mollusk
EC50
yes
416671­
01
core
65360
invalid
72­
3(
c)
Estuarine/
Marine
Shrimp
EC50
yes
416102­
07
core
Acc.
No
229228
Invalid
Acc.
No
229228
Invalid
72­
4(
a)
Freshwater
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
no
Not
submitted
Not
submitted
72­
4(
b)
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
no
Not
submitted
Not
submitted
72­
5
Freshwater
Fish
Full
Life­
Cycle
no
Not
submitted
Not
submitted
123­
1(
a)
Seedling
Emergence
yes
416102­
09
core
123­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
yes
416102­
09
core
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
partially
416102­
10
core
E­
3
144­
1
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
LD50
yes
Not
submitted
Not
submitted
141­
2
Honey
Bee
Residue
on
Foliage
not
required
NA
NA
E­
4
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
CHARACTERIZATION
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Since
the
LD
50
values
are
>
2000
mg/
kg
(
Table
1),
Napropamide
is
classified
as
practically
nontoxic
to
upland
game
bird
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.

Table
1.
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Avian
Species.

Species
%
ai
LD
50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Study
Classification
Mallard
Duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
94.6
4640
Practically
non­
toxic
79548
and
79555
Core
1Core
(
study
satisfies
guideline).
Supplemental
(
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline)

Avian
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
Since
the
LC
50
values
are
>
5000
ppm
(
Table
2),
Napropamide
is
classified
as
practically
nontoxic
to
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.

Table
2.
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Northern
Bobwhite
Quail
and
Mallard
Ducks.

Species
%
AI
8­
Day
LC
50
(
ppm)
1
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
94.9
>
2250
Practically
non­
toxic
435067­
01
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
97.8
>
5600
Practically
non­
toxic
49497
Supplemental
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
87
>
5620
Practically
non­
toxic
25893
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
97.8
>
56000
Practically
non­
toxic
39775
and
49497
Invalid
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
97.8
>
5620
Practically
non­
toxic
258393
and
113820
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
95.2
>
5620
Practically
non­
toxic
416102­
03
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.8
>
10,000
Practically
non­
toxic
25894
Supplemental
1
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.8
>
3000
Practically
non­
toxic
25894
and
113819
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
50
>
32000
Practically
non­
toxic
79548
Supplemental
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
97.8
>
56000
Practically
non­
toxic
79555
Supplemental
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.8
>
7200
Practically
non­
toxic
Stauffer
Chem.
Comp.
Core
E­
5
E­
6
Avian
Chronic
Species/
Study
Type
%
ai
Test
Type
Toxicity
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg)
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.
Classification
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
95.2
Reproduction
3000
NA
1
420813­
01
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
95.2
Reproduction
10002
Reduced
Body
Weight2
420277­
01
Core
1
No
endpoints
were
significantly
effected.
The
NOAEC
occurred
at
the
highest
concentration
tested.
Therefore,
this
NOEAC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.
2
The
effect
demonstrated
on
body
weight
was
deemed
not
related
to
the
toxicant
effects
of
napropamide.
This
is
because
the
effects
was
only
demonstrated
in
the
3000
ppm
males
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
study.
The
differences
observed
were
slight,
and
appeared
to
be
related
to
a
slightly
lighter
initial
body
weight
of
the
males
in
this
group.
Furthermore,
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
mean
body
weight
change
between
the
control
group
and
the
3000
ppm
treatment
group
at
any
time
during
the
course
of
the
study.
Therefore,
EFED
conclusion
is
that
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
in
the
study.
Therefore,
this
NOEAC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.

Mammal,
acute
and
chronic
Based
on
the
available
data
(
Table
3),
Napropamide
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis
with
an
LD
50
of
rat.

Table
3.
Mammalian
toxicity
data
for
rats
exposed
to
Napropamide.

Species/
Study
Type
%
ai
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.
or
Acc.
#
Classification
Rat
acute
oral
Tech.
>
5000
mg/
kg
(
LD50)
Mortality
MRID
40362902
Core
Multi
generation
Reproduction
and
Fertility
Study
Tech.
100
ppm
(
LOEL)
30
ppm
(
NOAEL)
Decreased
body
weight
MRID
92125069
Core
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Since
the
TGAI
LC
50
for
freshwater
fish
ranges
from
29
to
6.4
ppm,
the
TGAI
of
Napropamide
is
categorized
as
moderately
to
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis
(
Table
4).
E­
7
Table
4.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Freshwater
Fish.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID,
Acc.
No.,
or
Reference
Study
Classification
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
98.5
29
Slightly
Toxic
39772
MRID
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
50
13.3
Slightly
Toxic
39772
MRID
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.8
12.6
(
144
hr.)
Slightly
Toxic
39773
and
118002
MRID
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
98.5
12
Slightly
Toxic
416102­
04
MRID
Core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
95.2
18
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
50
(
R­
7465
Devrinol
Technical)
13.5
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.5
30
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.8
18
(
24hr)
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.8
12.2
(
144
hr
LC50)
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
9.4
Moderately
Toxic
Stauffer
Chemical
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
6.4
Moderately
Toxic
115313
MRID
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
Tech.
13.4
Slightly
Toxic
115313
and
25895
MRID
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
50
(
R­
7465
Devrinol
Technical)
10.7
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
16.6
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Table
4.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Freshwater
Fish.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID,
Acc.
No.,
or
Reference
Study
Classification
E­
8
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
18.1
Slightly
Toxic
39771
and
49496
MRIDs
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
50
10.1
Slightly
Toxic
39771
and
49496
MRIDs
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
Tech.
9.3
Moderately
Toxic
72686
MRID
Supplemental
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Napropamide
is
slightly
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna.
Results
indicate
that
Napropamide
is
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates
(
Table
5).

Table
5.
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
48­
hour
EC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
94.6
14.3
Slightly
MRID
88064
and
57805
Core
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
Tech.
24.7
Slightly
MRID
416102­
05
Core
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Aquatic
Animals
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
fish
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
Napropamide
because
the
use
may
be
associated
with
estaurine
or
marine
habitats.
The
preferred
test
species
is
sheepshead
minnow.
The
LC
50
value
indicates
that
Napropamide
is
slightly
toxic
on
an
acute
basis
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
6).

Table
6.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sheepshead
minnow
95.2
14
Slightly
Toxic
MRID
416102­
06
Core
E­
9
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
Napropamide
because
the
use
site
may
be
associated
with
estaurine
or
marine
habitat.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mysid
shrimp
and
eastern
oyster.
The
EC
50
value
for
Napropamide
indicates
that
the
TGAI
is
moderately
toxic
on
an
acute
basis
to
estuarine/
marine
eastern
oyster
(
Table
9).
The
LC
50
value
for
Napropamide
indicates
that
the
TGAI
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
moderately
toxic
on
an
acute
basis
to
the
mysid
shrimp.

Table
7.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
EC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Eastern
Oyster
Tech.
1.4
Moderately
Toxic
MRID
416671­
01
Core
Mysidopis
bahia
Tech.
4.2
Moderately
Toxic
MRID
416102­
07
Core
Easter
Oyster
larvae
97.4
Not
Obtained
NA
65360
Invalid
Pink
Shrimp
97.4
18
Slightly
Toxic
65360
Invalid
Fiddler
Crab
97.4
>
100
Practically
non­
toxic
65360
Invalid
Toxicity
to
Non­
Target
Plants
Terrestrial
Plants
Tier
II
phytotoxicity
tests
measured
the
response
of
plants
to
Napropamide,
relative
to
a
control,
and
five
or
more
test
concentrations.
Results
from
the
Tier
II
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical/
TEP
material
are
reported
in
Table
10.
E­
10
Table
8.
Terrestrial
Non­
Target
Plant
Toxicity
Data
(
Tier
II)
for
Napropamide.

Type
of
Test
Most
sensitive
species
EC
25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC05
(
lb
ai/
a)
Parameter
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Seedling
Germination
NC1
NC
NC
NC
416102­
09
Invalid
Seedling
Emergence
Avena
fatua
(
Monocot
species)
0.1144
0.029
Dry
weight
416102­
09
Core
Seedling
Emergence
Beta
vulgaris
(
Dicot)
0.00352
0.000001848
Dryweight
416102­
09
Core
Vegetative
Avena
fatua
(
Monocot)
0.8008
0.3344
Dry
weight
416102­
09
Core
Vegetative
Beta
vulgaris
(
Dicot)
546
0.000000132
Dry
weight
416102­
09
Core
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
plant
testing
is
required
for
Napropamide
because
aerial
application
and
outdoor
non­
residential
aquatic
use
will
expose
non­
target
aquatic
plants
to
Napropamide.
EFED
only
has
aquatic
plant
toxicity
data
for
Selenastrum
capricornutum,
however,
data
were
not
submitted
for
the
following
algal
and
aquatic
plants
species:
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom,
usually
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
potential
adverse
effects
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

Table
9.
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
EC50/
EC05
(
ppm)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Selenastrum
capricornumtum
45
3.4
416102­
10
Core
F­
1
APPENDIX
F.
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
Table
F­
1:
Number
of
endangered
plant
and
mammal
species
by
state
for
each
crop
group
Crop
Group
Stat
e
#
of
endangered
plants
#
of
endangered
mammals
Nuts
AL
17
4
AZ
11
8
AR
1
1
CA
165
21
FL
20
7
GA
14
2
ID
0
3
KS
2
2
KY
2
2
LA
1
2
MD
0
1
MS
2
1
MO
5
2
NE
1
0
NV
7
0
NM
8
5
NC
9
4
OH
0
1
OK
2
3
OR
8
1
SC
18
3
TN
9
4
TX
19
3
UT
4
1
VA
3
2
WA
3
4
Berries
Berries
(
cont)
AL
16
4
AZ
7
4
AR
2
3
CA
169
21
CO
4
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
2
FL
39
8
GA
15
4
ID
3
3
IL
6
1
IN
0
2
IA
4
1
KS
2
2
KY
3
2
LA
1
1
ME
3
2
MD
6
3
MA
3
2
MI
6
2
MN
4
1
MS
1
1
MO
6
2
MT
2
2
NE
1
0
NV
7
0
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
NM
6
1
NY
6
2
NC
25
6
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
9
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
17
3
SD
1
0
TN
12
4
TX
13
3
UT
14
2
VT
2
1
VA
11
6
WA
4
4
WV
5
4
WI
6
1
Brassica
AL
4
2
AZ
3
2
AR
2
2
CA
155
21
CO
4
2
CT
2
2
DE
1
1
FL
27
5
GA
4
1
HI
134
2
IL
4
1
IN
1
2
IA
4
1
KS
0
1
KY
3
2
LA
1
1
ME
3
2
MD
5
3
MA
2
2
MI
5
2
MN
3
1
MS
0
1
MO
4
2
MT
1
2
Crop
Group
Stat
e
#
of
endangered
plants
#
of
endangered
mammals
F­
2
NE
1
0
NH
1
1
NJ
5
2
NM
4
1
NY
6
2
NC
21
6
OH
4
1
OK
0
1
OR
7
1
PA
2
2
RI
1
1
SC
10
3
TN
6
2
Crop
Group
Stat
e
#
of
endangered
plants
#
of
endangered
mammals
Brassica
(
cont)
TX
8
3
VT
2
1
VA
5
3
WA
2
3
WV
1
1
WI
6
0
Citrus
AL
3
1
AZ
4
3
CA
155
20
CT
0
1
FL
42
6
HI
134
2
MD
2
2
MA
1
1
MI
2
0
NJ
2
1
NY
0
2
NC
0
2
OH
0
1
OR
7
0
PA
1
2
TX
3
2
VA
0
1
WA
2
3
Stone
Fruits
AL
16
4
AZ
11
8
AR
4
3
CA
165
21
CO
6
2
CT
2
2
DE
1
2
FL
23
3
GA
12
2
ID
3
3
IL
4
2
IN
0
2
IA
3
1
KS
2
2
KY
4
2
LA
1
2
ME
0
1
MD
5
3
MA
3
1
MI
6
1
MN
0
1
MS
1
1
MO
7
2
MT
2
2
NV
7
0
NH
1
1
NJ
5
2
NM
10
2
NY
6
2
NC
22
5
OH
4
1
OK
2
3
OR
10
1
PA
2
2
RI
1
2
SC
18
1
SD
1
0
TN
15
4
TX
13
3
UT
18
2
VT
1
0
VA
11
5
WA
6
4
Crop
Group
Stat
e
#
of
endangered
plants
#
of
endangered
mammals
F­
3
WV
4
2
WI
4
0
Pome
Fruits
AL
17
4
AZ
15
8
AR
1
3
CA
176
22
CO
7
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
1
FL
10
4
GA
14
2
ID
3
3
IL
6
2
IN
1
2
IA
5
1
KS
2
2
KY
9
3
LA
1
1
ME
1
2
MD
5
3
MA
3
1
MI
7
2
MN
4
1
MS
1
1
MO
7
2
MT
2
2
NE
1
0
NV
8
0
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
NM
13
2
NY
6
2
NC
22
5
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
13
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
17
1
SD
1
0
TN
19
4
TX
10
2
SC
17
1
SD
1
0
TN
19
4
TX
10
2
UT
23
2
VT
2
1
VA
12
6
WA
6
4
WV
5
5
WI
6
1
WY
0
3
Crop
Group
Stat
e
#
of
endangered
plants
#
of
endangered
mammals
Fruiting
Vegetables
AL
13
4
AZ
8
6
AR
2
3
CA
168
21
CO
6
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
2
FL
39
7
GA
11
2
HI
134
2
ID
2
3
IL
6
2
IN
1
2
IA
5
1
KS
2
1
KY
7
2
LA
2
1
ME
3
2
MD
6
3
MA
3
2
MI
6
2
MN
2
1
MS
0
1
MO
6
2
MT
1
2
NE
1
1
NV
7
0
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
NM
11
5
NY
6
2
NC
24
5
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
7
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
15
3
SD
1
0
TN
13
4
F­
4
TX
10
3
UT
11
2
VT
2
1
VA
9
6
WA
4
4
WV
3
1
WI
6
1
Tropical
Fruits
AL
2
2
AZ
3
2
CA
159
21
FL
20
5
GA
1
1
HI
134
2
LA
1
1
MS
0
1
NC
0
1
OR
3
1
SC
0
1
TX
7
3
VA
0
1
WA
0
2
Misc.
Crops
AL
6
3
AR
1
0
CA
63
9
CT
1
1
FL
8
4
GA
5
3
HI
134
2
IN
1
2
KS
2
0
KY
10
3
LA
0
1
ME
1
1
MD
2
3
MA
1
1
MI
3
0
MS
1
1
MO
3
2
NJ
4
2
NY
2
2
NC
27
6
OH
1
1
OR
1
0
PA
2
2
SC
14
1
TN
15
4
TX
0
1
VA
7
6
WA
0
2
WV
1
1
WI
3
0
Oil
Seed
Crops
CA
103
17
IN
1
1
MT
1
2
OR
4
0
WA
0
3
WI
2
0
Trees/
Ornamentals
AL
16
4
AZ
13
8
AR
1
3
CA
174
22
CO
8
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
2
FL
49
8
GA
16
4
HI
134
2
ID
1
4
IL
8
2
IN
2
2
IA
6
1
KS
2
2
KY
5
3
LA
1
1
ME
3
2
MD
5
3
MA
3
2
MI
7
2
MN
4
1
MS
1
1
MO
7
2
MT
2
2
NE
2
1
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
NM
12
1
NY
6
2
NC
26
6
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
11
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
18
3
SD
1
1
TN
16
4
TX
11
3
UT
20
2
VT
2
1
VA
12
6
WA
6
4
WV
5
3
WI
6
1
WY
2
4
Nuts
(
almond,
pistachio,
pecan,
filbert,
walnut)
F­
5
Berries/
small
fruit
(
blackberry,
boysenberry,
loganberry,
raspberry,
blueberry,
strawberry,
cranberry,
currant,
grape)
Brassica
and
leafy
vegetables
(
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
asparagus)
Citrus
(
grapefruit,
lemon,
nectarine,
orange,
tangerine,
tangelo)
Stone
fruit
(
apricot,
cherry,
peach,
plum,
prune)
Pome
fruit
(
apple,
pear)
Fruiting
vegetables
(
eggplant,
pepper,
tomato)
Tropical
fruit
(
fig,
kiwi
fruit,
persimmon,
avacado,
pomegranate)
Additional
crops
(
artichoke,
rhubarb,
tobacco,
sweet
potato)
Oil
seed
crops
(
mint,
olive)
Trees/
ornamentals
(
conifer,
shade
tree,
ornamental
tree,
ground
cover,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs,
vines,
lawns,
turf,
potting
soil)
F­
6
Table
F­
2.
List
of
endangered
plant
species
potentially
at
risk
from
napropamide
use
SPECIES
NAME
STATE
(
S)
ACHYRANTHES
MUTICA
(
NCN)
HI
ADOBE
SUNBURST,
SAN
JOAQUIN
CA
A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
DIPETALUM
VAR.
TOMENTOSUM)
HI
A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
HIENSE)
HI
AGAVE,
AZ
AZ
'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
BREVIFLORUM)
HI
'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
PELTATUM)
HI
'
AKOKO
(
EUPHORBIA
HAELEELEANA)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
HAUPUENSIS)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
KNUDSENII)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
PALLIDA)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
QUADRANGULARIS)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
ZAHLBRUCKNERI)
HI
ALLOCARYA,
CALISTOGA
CA
ALOPECURUS,
SONOMA
CA
ALSINIDENDRON
VISCOSUM
(
NCN)
HI
AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
NY,
NC
AMBROSIA,
SAN
DIEGO
CA
AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TX
TX
Amole,
Camatta
Canyon
CA
AMOLE,
PURPLE
CA
AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
AL,
GA,
SC
'
ANUNU
(
SICYOS
ALBA)
HI
ARROWHEAD,
BUNCHED
NC,
SC
ASPLENIUM
FRAGILE
VAR.
INSULARE
(
NCN)
HI
ASTER,
DECURRENT
FALSE
IL,
MO
ASTER,
DEL
MAR
SAND
CA
ASTER,
FL
GOLDEN
FL
ASTER,
RUTH'S
GOLDEN
TN
AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
HOSAKAE)
HI
AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
LAURIFOLIUM)
HI
AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
LONGIFOLIUM)
HI
AVENS,
SPREADING
NC,
TN
'
AWIWI
(
CENTAURIUM
SEBAEOIDES)
HI
'
AWIWI
(
HEDYOTIS
COOKIANA)
HI
AYENIA,
TX
TX
BACCHARIS,
ENCINITAS
CA
BARBARA'S
BUTTONS,
MOHR'S
AL,
GA
BARBERRY,
ISLAND
CA
BARBERRY,
NEVIN'S
CA
BEAKED­
RUSH,
KNIESKERN'S
NJ
BEARGRASS,
BRITTON'S
FL
BEAR­
POPPY,
DWARF
UT
F­
7
BEDSTRAW,
EL
DORADO
CA
BEDSTRAW,
ISLAND
CA
BELLFLOWER,
BROOKSVILLE
FL
BIRCH,
VA
ROUND­
LEAF
VA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PALMATE­
BRACTED
CA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PENNELL'S
CA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
SALT
MARSH
CA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
SOFT
CA
BIRDS­
IN­
A­
NEST,
WHITE
FL
BITTERCRESS,
SMALL­
ANTHERED
NC,
VA
BLADDERPOD,
KODACHROME
UT
BLADDERPOD,
LYRATE
AL
BLADDERPOD,
MO
AR,
MO
BLADDERPOD,
SAN
BERNARDINO
MOUNTAINS
CA
BLADDERPOD,
SPRING
CREEK
TN
BLADDERPOD,
WHITE
TX
BLADDERPOD,
ZAPATA
TX
BLAZING
STAR,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
BLAZING
STAR,
HELLER'S
NC
BLAZING
STAR,
SCRUB
FL
BLUECURLS,
HIDDEN
LAKE
CA
BLUEGRASS,
HIAN
HI
BLUEGRASS,
MANN'S
(
POA
MANNII)
HI
BLUEGRASS,
NAPA
CA
BLUEGRASS,
SAN
BERNARDINO
CA
BLUE­
STAR,
KEARNEY'S
AZ
BLUET,
ROAN
MOUNTAIN
NC,
TN
BONAMIA
MENZIESII
(
NCN)
HI
BONAMIA,
FL
FL
BRODIAEA,
CHINESE
CAMP
CA
BRODIAEA,
THREAD­
LEAVED
CA
BROOM,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
BUCKWHEAT,
CUSHENBURY
CA
BUCKWHEAT,
IONE
(
IRISH
HILL)
CA
BUCKWHEAT,
SCRUB
FL
BUCKWHEAT,
SOUTHERN
MOUNTAIN
WILD
CA
BULRUSH,
NORTHEASTERN
(=
BARBED
BRISTLE)
MD,
MA,
PA,
VT,
VA,
WV
BUSH­
CLOVER,
PRAIRIE
IL,
IA,
MN,
WI
BUSH­
MALLOW,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
BUSHMALLOW,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
BUTTERCUP,
AUTUMN
UT
BUTTERFLY
PLANT,
CO
CO
BUTTERWEED,
LAYNE'S
CA
BUTTERWORT,
GODFREY'S
FL
BUTTON­
CELERY,
SAN
DIEGO
CA
CACTUS,
AZ
HEDGEHOG
AZ
CACTUS,
BAKERSFIELD
CA
CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
TX
F­
8
CACTUS,
BRADY
PINCUSHION
AZ
CACTUS,
COCHISE
PINCUSHION
AZ
CACTUS,
KNOWLTON
CO,
NM
CACTUS,
KUENZLER
HEDGEHOG
NM
CACTUS,
LEE
PINCUSHION
NM
CACTUS,
MESA
VERDE
CO,
NM
CACTUS,
NICHOL'S
TURK'S
HEAD
AZ
CACTUS,
PEEBLES
NAVAJO
AZ
CACTUS,
PIMA
PINEAPPLE
AZ
CACTUS,
SAN
RAFAEL
UT
CACTUS,
SILER
PINCUSHION
AZ,
UT
CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
NM,
TX
CACTUS,
STAR
TX
CACTUS,
TOBUSCH
FISHHOOK
TX
CACTUS,
UINTA
BASIN
HOOKLESS
CO,
UT
CACTUS,
WINKLER
UT
CACTUS,
WRIGHT
FISHHOOK
UT
CAMPION,
FRINGED
FL,
GA
CATCHFLY,
SPALDING'S
ID.
MT,
OR,
WA
CEANOTHUS,
COYOTE
CA
CEANOTHUS,
PINE
HILL
CA
CEANOTHUS,
VAIL
LAKE
CA
CENTAURY,
SPRING­
LOVING
CA,
NV
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
FL,
NJ,
NC,
SC
CHAMAESYCE
HALEMANUI
HI
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
KECK'S
CA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
KENWOOD
MARSH
CA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
NELSON'S
OR,
WA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
PEDATE
CA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
WENATCHEE
MOUNTAINS
WA
CLADONIA,
FL
PERFORATE
FL
CLARKIA,
PISMO
CA
CLARKIA,
PRESIDIO
CA
CLARKIA,
SPRINGVILLE
CA
CLARKIA,
VINE
HILL
CA
CLIFFROSE,
AZ
AZ
CLOVER,
MONTEREY
CA
CLOVER,
RUNNING
BUFFALO
IN,
KY,
MO,
OH,
WV
CLOVER,
SHOWY
INDIAN
CA
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
NC,
SC,
VA
CONEFLOWER,
TN
PURPLE
TN
COYOTE­
THISTLE,
LOCH
LOMOND
CA
CROWN­
BEARD,
BIG­
LEAVED
CA
CROWNSCALE,
SAN
JACINTO
VALLEY
CA
CYANEA
UNDULATA
(
NCN)
HI
CYCLADENIA,
JONES
AZ,
UT
CYPRESS,
GOWEN
CA
CYPRESS,
SANTA
CRUZ
CA
F­
9
DAISY,
LAKESIDE
IL,
OH
DAISY,
MAGUIRE
UT
DAISY,
PARISH'S
CA
DAISY,
WILLAMETTE
OR
DAWN­
FLOWER,
TX
PRAIRIE
(=
TX
BITTERWEED
TX
DELISSEA
RHYTODISPERMA
(
NCN)
HI
DIELLIA
ERECTA
(
NCN)
HI
DIELLIA
PALLIDA
(
NCN)
HI
DOCK,
CHIRICAHUA
AZ,
NM
DOGWEED,
ASHY
TX
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
GA,
MD,
NC,
SC
DUBAUTIA
LATIFOLIA
HI
DUBAUTIA
PAUCIFLORULA
HI
DUDLEYA,
CONEJO
CA
DUDLEYA,
MARCESCENT
CA
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
CLARA
VALLEY
CA
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
MONICA
MOUNTAINS
CA
DUDLEYA,
VERITY'S
CA
DWARF­
FLAX,
MARIN
CA
EVENING­
PRIMROSE,
ANTIOCH
DUNES
CA
EVENING­
PRIMROSE,
EUREKA
VALLEY
CA
EVENING­
PRIMROSE,
SAN
BENITO
CA
FERN,
AL
STREAK­
SORUS
AL
FERN,
AMERICAN
HART'S­
TONGUE
AL,
MI,
NY,
TN
FERN,
PENDANT
KIHI
(
ADENOPHORUS
PERIENS)
HI
FIDDLENECK,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
CA
FLANNELBUSH,
MEXICAN
CA
FLANNELBUSH,
PINE
HILL
CA
FLEABANE,
ZUNI
AZ,
NM
FOUR­
O'CLOCK,
MACFARLANE'S
ID,
OR
FRINGE
TREE,
PYGMY
FL
FRINGEPOD,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
FRITILLARY,
GENTNER'S
OR
GEOCARPON
MINIMUM
AR,
LA,,
MO
GERARDIA,
SANDPLAIN
CT,
MD,
MA,
NY,
RI
GILIA,
HOFFMANN'S
SLENDER­
FLOWERED
CA
GILIA,
MONTEREY
CA
GOLDEN
SUNBURST,
HARTWEG'S
CA
GOLDENROD,
BLUE
RIDGE
NC
GOLDENROD,
BLUE
RIDGE
TN
GOLDENROD,
HOUGHTON'S
MI
GOLDENROD,
SHORT'S
KY
GOLDENROD,
WHITE­
HAIRED
KY
GOLDFIELDS,
BURKE'S
CA
GOLDFIELDS,
CONTRA
COSTA
CA
GOOSEBERRY,
MICCOSUKEE
(
FL)
FL
GOUANIA
MEYENII
(
NCN)
HI
F­
10
GOURD,
OKEECHOBEE
FL
GRASS,
CA
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
COLUSA
CA
GRASS,
EUREKA
DUNE
CA
GRASS,
HAIRY
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SACRAMENTO
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
VALLEY
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SLENDER
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SOLANO
CA
GRASS,
TN
YELLOW­
EYED
AL,
GA,
TN
GROUND­
PLUM,
GUTHRIE'S
TN
GROUNDSEL,
SAN
FRANCISCO
PEAKS
AZ
GUMPLANT,
ASH
MEADOWS
CA,
NV
HAHA
(
CYANEA
ASARIFOLIA)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
COPELANDII
SSP.
COPELANDII)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
HAMATIFLORA
SSP.
CARLSONII)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
PLATYPHYLLA)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
RECTA)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
REMYI)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
SHIPMANII)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
STICTOPHYLLA)
HI
HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
GIFFARDII)
HI
HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
LIMAHULIENSIS)
HI
HALA
PEPE
(
PLEOMELE
HIENSIS)
HI
HAPLOSTACHYS
HAPLOSTACHYA
(
NCN)
HI
HAREBELLS,
AVON
PARK
FL
HARPERELLA
AL,
AR,
MD,
NC,
SC,
WV
HAU
KAUHIWI
(
HIBISCADELPHUS
WOODI)
HI
HAU
KUAHIWI
(
HIBISCADELPHUS
DISTANS)
HI
HEARTLEAF,
DWARF­
FLOWERED
NC,
SC
HEATHER,
MOUNTAIN
GOLDEN
NC
HEAU
(
EXOCARPOS
LUTEOLUS)
HI
HEDYOTIS
ST.­
JOHNII
(
NCN)
HI
HESPEROMANNIA
LYDGATEI
(
NCN)
HI
HIBISCUS,
CLAY'S
HI
HILO
ISCHAEMUM
(
ISCHAEMUM
BYRONE)
HI
HOLEI
(
OCHROSIA
KILAUEAENSIS)
HI
HOWELLIA,
WATER
ID,
MT,
WA
HYPERICUM,
HIGHLANDS
SCRUB
FL
ILIAU
(
WILKESIA
HOBDYI)
HI
IPOMOPSIS,
HOLY
GHOST
NM
IRIS,
DWARF
LAKE
MI,
WI
IRISETTE,
WHITE
NC,
SC
IVESIA,
ASH
MEADOWS
CA
IVESIA,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
JACQUEMONTIA,
BEACH
FL
JEWELFLOWER,
CA
CA
JEWELFLOWER,
TIBURON
CA
F­
11
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
MD,
NJ,
NC,
VA
KAMAKAHALA
(
LABORDIA
LYDGATEI)
HI
KAMAKAHALA
(
LABORDIA
TINIFOLIA
VAR.
WAHIAWAEN
HI
KAUILA
(
COLUBRINA
OPPOSITIFOLIA)
HI
KAULU
(
PTERALYXIA
KAUAIENSIS)
HI
KIO'ELE
(
HEDYOTIS
CORIACEA)
HI
KIPONAPONA
(
PHYLLOSTEGIA
RACEMOSA)
HI
KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
DRYNARIOIDES)
HI
KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
KAUAIENSIS)
HI
KOKI'O
KE'OKE'O
(
HIBISCUS
WAIMEAE
SSP.
HANNER
HI
KOLEA
(
MYRSINE
LINEARIFOLIA)
HI
KO'OLOA'ULA
(
ABUTILON
MENZIESII)
HI
KUAWAWAENOHU
(
ALSINIDENDRON
LYCHNOIDES)
HI
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
CANELO
HILLS
AZ
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
NAVASOTA
TX
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
UTE
CO,
NV,
UT
LARKSPUR,
BAKER'S
CA
LARKSPUR,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
LARKSPUR,
YELLOW
CA
LAU'EHU
(
PANICUM
NIIHAUENSE)
HI
LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
HAWAIENSIS)
HI
LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
PRINCEPS)
HI
LAULIHILIHI
(
SCHIEDEA
STELLARIOIDES)
HI
LAYIA,
BEACH
CA
LEAD­
PLANT,
CRENULATE
FL
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
AL
AL
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
MOREFIELD'S
AL
LESSINGIA,
SAN
FRANCISCO
CA
LICHEN,
ROCK
GNOME
NC,
TN
LILY,
MN
TROUT
MN
LILY,
PITKIN
MARSH
CA
LILY,
WESTERN
CA,
OR
LIPOCHAETA
VENOSA
(
NCN)
HI
LIVEFOREVER,
LAGUNA
BEACH
CA
LIVEFOREVER,
SANTA
BARBARA
ISLAND
CA
LOBELIA
NIIHAUENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
LOCOWEED,
FASSETT'S
WI
LOMATIUM,
BRADSHAW'S
OR
LOMATIUM,
COOK'S
OR
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
NC,
SC
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
AFFINIS)
HI
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
NAPALIENSIS)
HI
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
SCHATTAUERI)
HI
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
VISCOSA)
HI
LOUSEWORT,
FURBISH
ME
LUPINE,
CLOVER
CA
F­
12
LUPINE,
KINCAID'S
OR,
WA
LUPINE,
NIPOMO
MESA
CA
LUPINE,
SCRUB
FL
LYSIMACHIA
FILIFOLIA
(
NCN)
HI
MAHOE
(
ALECTRYON
MACROCOCCUS)
HI
MAKOU
(
PEUCEDANUM
SANDWICENSE)
HI
MALACOTHRIX,
ISLAND
CA
MALACOTHRIX,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
MALLOW,
KERN
CA
MALLOW,
PETER'S
MOUNTAIN
VA
MANIOC,
WALKER'S
TX
MANZANITA,
DEL
MAR
CA
MANZANITA,
IONE
CA
MANZANITA,
MORRO
CA
MANZANITA,
PALLID
CA
MANZANITA,
SAN
BRUNO
MOUNTAIN
CA
MANZANITA,
SANTA
ROSA
ISLAND
CA
MA'O
HAU
HELE
(
HIBISCUS
BRACKENRIDGEI)
HI
MA'OLI'OLI
(
SCHIEDEA
APOKREMNOS)
HI
MAPELE
(
CYRTANDRA
CYANEOIDES)
HI
MARISCUS
FAURIEI
(
NCN)
HI
MARISCUS
PENNATIFORMIS
(
NCN)
HI
MEADOWFOAM,
BUTTE
COUNTY
CA
MEADOWFOAM,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
WOOLY
OR
MEADOWFOAM,
SEBASTOPOL
CA
MEADOWRUE,
COOLEY'S
FL,
NC
MEHAMEHAME
(
FLUEGGEA
NEOWAWRAEA)
HI
MILKPEA,
SMALL'S
FL
MILK­
VETCH,
APPLEGATE'S
OR
MILK­
VETCH,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
MILK­
VETCH,
BRAUNTON'S
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
CLARA
HUNT'S
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
COACHELLA
VALLEY
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
COASTAL
DUNES
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
CUSHENBURY
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
DESERET
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
FISH
SLOUGH
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
HELIOTROPE
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
HOLMGREN
AZ,
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
JESUP'S
NH,
VT
MILK­
VETCH,
LANE
MOUNTAIN
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
MANCOS
CO,
NM
MILK­
VETCH,
PIERSON'S
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
SENTRY
AZ
MILK­
VETCH,
SHIVWITS
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
TRIPLE­
RIBBED
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
VENTURA
MARSH
CA
MILKWEED,
MEAD'S
IL,
IA,
KS,
MO
F­
13
MILKWEED,
WELSH'S
AZ.
UT
MINT,
GARRETT'S
FL
MINT,
LAKELA'S
FL
MINT,
LONGSPURRED
FL
MINT,
OTAY
MESA
CA
MINT,
SAN
DIEGO
MESA
CA
MINT,
SCRUB
FL
MONARDELLA,
WILLOWY
CA
MONKEY­
FLOWER,
MI
MI
MONKSHOOD,
NORTHERN
WILD
IA,
NY,
OH,
WI
MORNING­
GLORY,
STEBBINS
CA
MOUNTAINBALM,
INDIAN
KNOB
CA
MOUNTAIN­
MAHOGANY,
CATALINA
ISLAND
CA
MUNROIDENDRON
RACEMOSUM
(
NCN)
HI
MUSTARD,
CARTER'S
FL
MUSTARD,
SLENDER­
PETALED
CA
NANI
WAI'ALE'ALE
(
VIOLA
KAUAENSIS
VAR.
WAHIAW
HI
NAVARRETIA,
FEW­
FLOWERED
CA
NAVARRETIA,
MANY­
FLOWERED
CA
NAVARRETIA,
SPREADING
CA
NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
FAURIEI)
HI
NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
MICRANTHA)
HI
NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
WAIMEAENSIS)
HI
NERAUDIA
OVATA
(
NCN)
HI
NERAUDIA
SERICEA
(
NCN)
HI
NITERWORT,
AMARGOSA
CA
NITERWORT,
AMARGOSA
NV
NOHOANU
(
GERANIUM
MULTIFLORUM)
HI
'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
RIVULARIS)
HI
'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
UNDULATA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
DREPANOMORPHA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
LINDSEYANA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PELEANA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PYRULARIA)
HI
'
OHAI
(
SESBANIA
TOMENTOSA)
HI
'
OLULU
(
BRIGHAMIA
INSIGNIS)
HI
ONION,
MUNZ'S
CA
ORCHID,
EASTERN
PRAIRIE
FRINGED
IL,
IA,
ME,
MI,
OH,
OK,
VA,
WI
OWL'S­
CLOVER,
FLESHY
CA
OXYTHECA,
CUSHENBURY
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
ASH­
GREY
INDIAN
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
GOLDEN
WA
PAINTBRUSH,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
INDIAN
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
SOFT­
LEAVED
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
TIBURON
CA
PAWPAW,
BEAUTIFUL
FL
PAWPAW,
FOUR­
PETAL
FL
F­
14
PAWPAW,
RUGEL'S
FL
PENNY­
CRESS,
KNEELAND
PRAIRIE
CA
PENNYROYAL,
TODSEN'S
NM
PENSTEMON,
BLOWOUT
NE
PENTACHAETA,
LYON'S
CA
PENTACHAETA,
WHITE­
RAYED
CA
PEPPER­
GRASS,
KODACHROME
UT
PEPPERGRASS,
SLICK
SPOT
ID
PHACELIA,
CLAY
UT
PHACELIA,
ISLAND
CA
PHLOX,
TX
TRAILING
TX
PHLOX,
YREKA
CA
PHYLLOSTEGIA
KNUDSENII
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
VELUTINA
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
WAIMEAE
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
WARSHAUERI
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
WAWRANA
(
NCN)
HI
PINK,
SWAMP
DE,
GA,
MD,
NJ,
NC,
SC,
VA
PINKROOT,
GENTIAN
FL
PIPERIA,
YADON'S
CA
PITCHER­
PLANT,
AL
CANEBRAKE
AL
PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
AL,
GA,
NC
PITCHER­
PLANT,
MOUNTAIN
SWEET
NC,
SC
PLATANTHERA
HOLOCHILA
(
NCN)
HI
PLUM,
SCRUB
FL
POA
SIPHONOGLOSSA
(
NCN)
HI
PO'E
(
PORTULACA
SCLEROCARPA)
HI
POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
CT,
DE,
GA,
IL,
ME,
MA,
MI,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
NC,
PA,
RI,
SC,
TN,
VA
POLYGALA,
LEWTON'S
FL
POLYGALA,
TINY
FL
POLYGONUM,
SCOTT'S
VALLEY
CA
PONDBERRY
AR,
GA,
MS,
MO,
NC,
SC
PONDWEED,
LITTLE
AGUJA
CREEK
TX
POPCORNFLOWER,
ROUGH
OR
POPOLO
'
AIAKEAKUA
(
SOLANUM
SANDWICENSE)
HI
POPOLO
KU
MAI
(
SOLANUM
INCOMPLETUM)
HI
POPPY,
SACRAMENTO
PRICKLY
NM
POPPY­
MALLOW,
TX
TX
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
AL,
IL,
KY,
NC,
TN
POTENTILLA,
HICKMAN'S
CA
PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
AL,
IL,
TN
PRICKLY­
APPLE,
FRAGRANT
FL
PRIMROSE,
MAGUIRE
UT
PUSSYPAWS,
MARIPOSA
CA
PU'UKA'A
(
CYPERUS
TRACHYSANTHOS)
HI
QUILLWORT,
BLACK­
SPORED
GA,
SC
QUILLWORT,
LOUISIANA
AL,
LA
F­
15
QUILLWORT,
MAT­
FORMING
GA
RATTLEWEED,
HAIRY
GA
REED­
MUSTARD,
BARNEBY
UT
REED­
MUSTARD,
CLAY
UT
REED­
MUSTARD,
SHRUBBY
UT
REMYA
KAUAIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
REMYA
MONTGOMERYI
(
NCN)
HI
RHODODENDRON,
CHAPMAN
FL
RIDGE­
CRESS
(=
PEPPER­
CRESS),
BARNEBY
UT
ROCK­
CRESS,
HOFFMANN'S
CA
ROCK­
CRESS,
LARGE
(=
BRAUN'S)
KY,
TN
ROCK­
CRESS,
MCDONALD'S
CA
ROCK­
CRESS,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
ROCK­
CRESS,
SHALE
BARREN
VA,
WV
ROCK­
CRESS,
SMALL
KY
ROSEMARY,
CUMBERLAND
KY,
TN
ROSEMARY,
ETONIA
FL
ROSEMARY,
SHORT­
LEAVED
FL
ROSEROOT,
LEEDY'S
MN,
NY
RUSH­
PEA,
SLENDER
TX
RUSH­
ROSE,
ISLAND
CA
SANDLACE
FL
SAND­
VERBENA,
LARGE­
FRUITED
TX
SANDWORT,
BEAR
VALLEY
CA
SANDWORT,
CUMBERLAND
KY,
TN
SANDWORT,
MARSH
CA
SCHIEDEA
HELLERI
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
KAUAIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
MEMBRANACEA
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
NUTTALLII
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
SPERGULINA
VAR.
LEIOPODA
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
SPERGULINA
VAR.
SPERGULINA
(
NCN)
HI
SEA­
BLITE,
CA
CA
SEAGRASS,
JOHNSON'S
FL
SEDGE,
GOLDEN
NC
SEDGE,
NAVAJO
AZ,
UT
SEDGE,
WHITE
CA
SILENE
HIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
SILENE
LANCEOLATA
(
NCN)
HI
SILVERSWORD,
KA'U
(
ARGYROXIPHIUM
KAUENSE)
HI
SILVERSWORD,
MAUNA
KEA
('
AHINAHINA)
HI
SKULLCAP,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
GA,
TN
SNAKEROOT
FL
SNEEZEWEED,
VA
MO,
VA
SNOWBELLS,
TX
TX
SPERMOLEPIS
HIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
SPIDERLING,
MATHIS
TX
SPINEFLOWER,
BEN
LOMOND
CA
F­
16
SPINEFLOWER,
HOWELL'S
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
MONTEREY
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
ORCUTT'S
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
ROBUST
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
SCOTTS
VALLEY
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
SLENDER­
HORNED
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
SONOMA
CA
SPIRAEA,
VA
GA,
KY,
NC,
TN,
VA,
WV
SPURGE,
DELTOID
FL
SPURGE,
GARBER'S
FL
SPURGE,
HOOVER'S
CA
SPURGE,
TELEPHUS
FL
STENOGYNE
ANGUSTIFOLIA
(
NCN)
HI
STENOGYNE
CAMPANULATA
(
NCN)
HI
STICKSEED,
SHOWY
WA
STICKYSEED,
BAKER'S
CA
STONECROP,
LAKE
COUNTY
CA
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
GA,
NC,
VA
SUNFLOWER,
EGGERT'S
AL,
KY,
TN
SUNFLOWER,
PECOS
NM,
TX
SUNFLOWER,
SAN
MATEO
WOOLLY
CA
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
NC,
SC
SUNRAY,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
TARAXACUM,
CA
CA
TARPLANT,
GAVIOTA
CA
TARPLANT,
OTAY
CA
TARPLANT,
SANTA
CRUZ
CA
TETRAMOLOPIUM
ARENARIUM
(
NCN)
HI
THELYPODY,
HOWELL'S
SPECTACULAR
OR
THISTLE,
CHORRO
CREEK
BOG
CA
THISTLE,
FOUNTAIN
CA
THISTLE,
LA
GRACIOSA
CA
THISTLE,
PITCHER'S
IN,
MI,
WI
THISTLE,
SACRAMENTO
MOUNTAINS
NM
THISTLE,
SUISUN
CA
THORNMINT,
SAN
DIEGO
CA
THORNMINT,
SAN
MATEO
CA
TORREYA,
FL
FL.
GA
TOWNSENDIA,
LAST
CHANCE
UT
TRILLIUM,
PERSISTENT
GA,
SC
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
AL,
GA,
SC
TUCTORIA,
GREEN'S
CA
UHIUHI
(
CAESALPINIA
KAVAIENSIS)
HI
UMBEL,
HUACHUCA
WATER
AZ
VERVAIN,
CA
CA
VETCH,
HIAN
(
VICIA
MENZIESII)
HI
VIGNA
O­
WAHUENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
VIOLA
HELENAE
(
NCN)
HI
F­
17
WAHINE
NOHO
KULA
(
ISODENDRION
PYRIFOLIUM)
HI
WALLFLOWER,
BEN
LOMOND
CA
WALLFLOWER,
CONTRA
COSTA
CA
WALLFLOWER,
MENZIE'S
CA
WAREA,
WIDE­
LEAF
FL
WATERCRESS,
GAMBEL'S
CA
WATER­
PLANTAIN,
KRAL'S
AL,
GA
WATER­
WILLOW,
COOLEY'S
FL
WAWAE'IOLE
(
PHLEGMARIURUS
(=
HUPERZIA)
MANNII)
HI
WAWAE'IOLE
(
PHLEGMARIURUS
(=
LYCOPODIUM)
NUTAN
HI
WHITLOW­
WORT,
PAPERY
FL
WILD­
BUCKWHEAT,
CLAY­
LOVING
CO
WILD­
BUCKWHEAT,
GYPSUM
NM
WILD­
RICE,
TX
TX
WINGS,
PIGEON
FL
WIRE­
LETTUCE,
MALHEUR
OR
WIREWEED
FL
WOODLAND­
STAR,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
WOOLLY­
STAR,
SANTA
ANA
RIVER
CA
WOOLLY­
THREADS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
CA
XYLOSMA
CRENATUM
(
NCN)
HI
YERBA
SANTA,
LOMPOC
CA
ZIZIPHUS,
FL
FL
F­
18
Table
F­
3.
List
of
endangered
mammalian
species
potentially
at
risk
from
napropamide
use
SPECIES
NAME
STATE(
S)
BAT,
GRAY
AL,
AR,
FL,
GA,
IL,
IN,
KS,
KY,
MO,
OK,
TN,
VA,
WV
BAT,
HIAN
HOARY
HI
BAT,
INDIANA
AL,
AR,
CT,
FL,
GA,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KY,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MO,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
NC,
OH,
OK,
PA,
RI,
TN,
VT,
VA,
WV
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
LONG­
NOSED
AZ,
NM
BAT,
MEXICAN
LONG­
NOSED
NM
BAT,
OZARK
BIG­
EARED
AR,
OK
BAT,
VA
BIG­
EARED
GA,
KY,
NC,
VA,
WV
BEAR,
AMERICAN
BLACK
LA
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
ID,
MT,
WA,
WY
BEAR,
LA
BLACK
LA,
MS,
TX
CARIBOU,
WOODLAND
ID
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
OR,
WA
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
CO,
KS,
MT,
NE,
NM,
SD,
UT,
WY
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
CA
FOX,
SAN
MIGUEL
ISLAND
CA
FOX,
SANTA
CATALINA
ISLAND
CA
FOX,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
FOX,
SANTA
ROSA
ISLAND
CA
JAGUAR
AZ,
NM
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
TX
Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
AZ
KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
MORRO
BAY
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
SAN
BERNARDINO
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
STEPHENS'
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
TIPTON
CA
LYNX,
CANADA
ME
MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FL)
FL,
GA
MOUNTAIN
BEAVER,
POINT
ARENA
CA
MOUSE,
AL
BEACH
AL
MOUSE,
ANASTASIA
ISLAND
BEACH
FL
MOUSE,
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
BEACH
FL
MOUSE,
PACIFIC
POCKET
CA
MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
AL,
FL
MOUSE,
PREBLE'S
MEADOW
JUMPING
CO
MOUSE,
SALT
MARSH
HARVEST
CA
MOUSE,
SOUTHEASTERN
BEACH
FL
OCELOT
AZ,
TX
OTTER,
SOUTHERN
SEA
CA
PANTHER,
FL
FL
PRAIRIE
DOG,
UT
UT
F­
19
PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
AZ
RABBIT,
PYGMY
WA
RABBIT,
RIPARIAN
BRUSH
CA
SEAL,
GUADALUPE
FUR
CA
SEAL,
HIAN
MONK
HI
SHEEP,
PENINSULAR
BIGHORN
CA
SHEEP,
SIERRA
NEVADA
BIGHORN
CA
SHREW,
BUENA
VISTA
CA
SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
NC,
TN,
WV
SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
DE,
MD,
PA,
VA
SQUIRREL,
MOUNT
GRAHAM
RED
AZ
SQUIRREL,
NORTHERN
ID
GROUND
ID
SQUIRREL,
VA
NORTHERN
FLYING
VA,
WV
VOLE,
AMARGOSA
CA
VOLE,
FL
SALT
MARSH
FL
VOLE,
HUALAPAI
MEXICAN
AZ
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
CT,
DE,
FL,
ME,
MD,
MA,
NJ,
NY,
NC,
RI,
SC,
VA
WOLF,
GRAY
AZ,
ID,
MI,
MN,
MT,
NM,
WA,
WI,
WY
WOLF,
RED
NC,
SC,
TN
WOODRAT,
RIPARIAN
CA
F­
20
APPENDIX
G.
EXPLANATION
OF
LEVEL
OF
CONCERN
(
LOC)
AND
PROBIT
SLOPE
Use
of
the
Probit
Dose
Response
Relationship
to
Provide
Information
on
the
Endangered
Species
Levels
of
Concern
Introduction
The
document
entitled
Overview
of
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA
2004,
the
Overview
Document)
discusses
methods
for
providing
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
with
additional
information
regarding
the
listed
animal
species
acute
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
This
document
provides
(
1)
the
background
information
on
how
agreements
were
reached
between
the
services
and
USEPA
for
methods
to
provide
additional
LOC
information,
and
(
2)
a
discussion
of
issues
concerning
those
methods
and
their
resolution.
Risk
Assessors
within
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
should
use
the
Overview
Document
as
well
as
the
following
information
as
guidance
for
using
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
as
a
tool
for
providing
additional
information
on
the
listed
species
LOCs
Effective
immediately,
all
screening­
level
risk
assessments
(
REDS,
Section
3'
s,
Section
18'
s,
etc.)
using
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
methods
will
incorporate
this
analysis,
regardless
of
whether
listed
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
or
not.

Background
on
Discussion
of
LOCs
with
USFWS
and
NMFS
Over
the
course
of
negotiations
with
the
USFWS
and
NMFS,
one
topic
of
discussion
centered
on
the
risk
quotient
values
established
as
screening
thresholds
for
consideration
of
direct
toxic
effects
on
listed
species
(
i.
e.,
the
acute
listed
species
LOCs
of
0.1
and
0.05
used
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals,
respectively).
The
Agency
provided
the
Services
with
the
mathematical
interpretations
of
these
LOC
values,
which
was
documented
in
the
background
information
supplied
to
the
Services
and
is
included
in
the
Overview
Document
CD
distributed
to
all
employees
in
EFED.
In
short,
the
interpretation
of
the
LOCs
was
discussed
in
terms
of
best
estimates
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
(
mortality
or
immobilization)
should
exposure
at
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
actually
occur
for
a
species
with
sensitivity
to
the
pesticide
on
par
with
the
toxicity
endpoint
selected
for
RQ
calculation.

The
mathematics
were
based
on
a
long­
held
assumption
of
a
probit
dose­
response
relationship
for
acute
toxicity
endpoints.
The
listed
species
LOCs
or
the
fraction
(
0.05
or
0.1)
of
the
dose
estimated
to
produce
50%
mortality
were
used
to
interpolate
from
a
probit
dose
response
curve
to
estimate
the
associated
ECx,
LDx,
or
LCx.
These
values
were
then
used
to
estimate
the
chance
of
an
individual
event.

Two
issues
were
identified
over
the
course
of
discussions
with
the
Services
in
regard
to
the
Agency's
presentations
of
the
math
and
the
interpretation
of
the
LOCs.
First
was
the
issue
that
the
chance
of
F­
21
individual
event
was
highly
dependant
upon
the
assumed
shape
and
slope
of
the
dose­
response
relationship.
Second
was
that
the
Services
were
unwilling
to
present
a
generic
threshold
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event,
below
which
the
Services
would
not
have
a
concern
for
listed
species
impacts
The
services
indicated
that
the
baseline
conditions
of
a
species
and
it's
biology
would
dictate
species­
specific
concerns
for
tolerated
effects.
Further
discussion
on
the
confidence
of
extreme
value
extrapolations
for
probit
dose
response
did
not
achieve
an
agreement
between
all
parties
on
what
the
lower
limit
of
cutoff
in
reporting
extreme
events
should
be
for
interpretation
of
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
Even
consideration
of
using
the
most
intolerant
listed
species
within
taxonomic
groups
as
a
screening
basis
for
other
more
tolerant
listed
species
was
not
accepted
as
a
viable
strategy
for
establishing
generic
effects
thresholds
for
listed
species.

Consequently,
it
was
accepted
by
all
parties
that
the
Agency
would
provide
in
its
risk
assessments
an
interpretation
of
the
listed
species
LOCs
in
terms
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
effect
should
organisms
be
exposed
to
a
media
concentration
or
dose
corresponding
to
1/
10
or
1/
20
of
the
LC
50,
LD
50,
or
EC
50
used
as
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
endpoint
for
a
particular
animal
taxonomic
group.
To
accomplish
this
interpretation,
the
Agency
would
use
(
1)
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship
available
from
the
toxicity
study
used
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
endpoints
for
each
animal
taxonomic
group;
(
2)
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship;
(
3)
a
mean
estimate
of
slope
consistent
with
current
Agency
statistical
procedures;
and
(
4)
a
lower
limit
to
the
estimate
of
individual
effect
chance
based
on
what
could
be
calculated
by
Excel
spreadsheet
"
Normdist"
function.

Issues
with
the
LOC
Interpretation
Method
and
Their
Resolution
Discussion
within
the
Agency
has
identified
three
issues
with
regard
to
the
calculation
of
the
chance
of
individual
event
corresponding
to
the
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
The
largest
issue
is
the
extrapolation
to
extremely
low
probability
events,
referring
to
the
very
large
confidence
intervals
surrounding
such
estimates.
A
secondary
issue,
but
still
very
important,
is
the
extent
to
which
probit
dose
response
slopes
can
be
calculated
for
existing
studies
(
i.
e.,
the
fitting
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
to
available
data).
The
third
issue
is
how
to
proceed
when
information
is
unavailable
to
estimate
a
slope.
The
following
guidance
information
will
address
these
issues:

Extrapolation
to
Extremely
Low
Probability
Events
The
nature
of
this
issue
centers
on
the
fact
that
slope
estimates
are
accompanied
by
a
corresponding
variance
in
the
slope
term.
This
variance
in
the
slope
term
and
to
some
extent
the
variance
in
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate,
can
result
in
wide
variations
of
effects
probabilities
at
the
upper
and
lower
tails
of
the
dose
range.
While
the
Agency
has
agreed
to
present
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
LOCs
based
on
the
mean
estimate
of
slope,
it
is
evident
that
expression
of
this
single
estimate
of
the
corresponding
effects
probability
would
suggest
that
the
Agency
has
inordinately
high
confidence
in
this
estimate,
when
in
fact
there
is
likely
considerable
variability
in
the
estimate.
Consequently,
for
the
short
term,
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
estimate
of
effects
probability
be
calculated
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
and
listed
species
LOC
and
available
information
on
the
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
slope
estimate
be
used
to
calculate
an
upper
and
lower
estimate
of
the
effects
probability.
It
is
important
to
F­
22
note
that
interpretation
of
these
results
is
not
required
under
agreement
with
the
Services.
The
Services
have
requested
that
the
results
be
made
available
in
the
screening
assessment
reports.
It
is
recommended
that
reporting
minimally
include
the
following
discussion:

"
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
(
enter
slope
here),
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
(
0.1
or
0.05)
the
acute
toxic
endpoint
for
(
enter
appropriate
animal
taxonomic
group)
is
(
enter
value).
It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
To
explore
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
values
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
enter
the
95
percent
confidence
interval
for
the
slope)
were
used
to
calculate
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
These
values
are
(
enter
the
upper
and
lower
estimates)."

For
the
present
time,
the
Excel
spreadsheet
tool
IECV1.1
will
allow
for
such
calculations
by
entering
in
the
mean
slope
estimate
and
the
95
percent
confidence
bounds
of
that
estimate
as
the
slope
parameter
for
the
spreadsheet.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
model
output
can
go
as
low
as
10
E­
16
in
estimating
the
event
probability.
This
cut­
off
is
a
limit
in
the
Excel
spreadsheet
environment
and
is
not
to
be
interpreted
as
an
agreed
upon
lower
bound
threshold
for
concern
for
individual
effects
in
any
given
listed
species.

EFED
will
continue
to
work
on
establishing
subsequent
approaches
to
account
for
both
the
variance
in
the
slope
and
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate
when
establishing
this
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
effects
estimates
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOCs.

Probit
Slopes
for
Existing
Studies
Slope
information
may
or
may
not
be
estimated
for
a
given
study
upon
which
RQs
were
calculated.
When
the
available
data
evaluation
records
(
DERs)
or
study
reports
provide
the
slope
information
(
i.
e.,
mean
slope
estimate,
p­
value
of
estimate,
and
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
estimate)
,
it
should
be
used
as
reported
once
these
reported
values
have
been
carefully
reviewed
to
ensure
their
accuracy.
However,
there
are
likely
to
be
situations
where
slope
information
is
not
provided
in
the
DERs.
For
such
situations,
the
raw
data
from
the
study
must
be
entered
into
and
analyzed
by
the
EFED
current
statistical
package
for
acute
effects
studies.
See
the
EFED
Statistical
Workgroup
for
assistance
with
accessing
these
software.
Probit
slope
information
will
be
used
from
these
analyses.
However,
there
a
re
two
distinctions
that
must
be
made
in
the
reporting
of
these
results
for
listed
species
evaluation.
First,
studies
with
good
probit
fit
characteristics
can
be
used
as
reported
accompanied
with
a
statement
that
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
was
statistically
appropriate
for
the
data
set.
Alternatively,
if
the
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
was
shown
to
be
statistically
unsupported,
the
slope
estimates
are
still
used
in
the
listed
species
LOC
interpretation
(
remember
we
have
in
our
policy
assumed
probit
dose
response
when
LOCs
were
established),
but
the
statistical
rejection
criteria
must
be
presented
along
with
a
statement
:
F­
23
"
Although
the
Agency
has
assumed
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
in
establishing
the
listed
species
LOCs,
the
available
data
for
the
toxicity
study
generating
RQs
for
this
taxonomic
group
do
not
statistically
support
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
(
enter
the
p­
value
from
the
statistical
package)
and
so
the
confidence
in
estimated
event
probabilities
based
on
this
dose
response
relationship
and
the
listed
species
LOC
is
low."

EFED
will
continue
to
work
on
the
development
of
statistical
tools
to
explore
alternative
dose
response
relationships
in
situations
where
the
assumption
of
probit
dose
response
relationship
is
not
upheld
by
available
data.

How
to
Proceed
When
Information
is
Unavailable
to
Estimate
a
Slope
State
in
the
assessment
that
information
is
unavailable
to
estimate
a
slope
from
the
available
toxicity
study
and
the
reason
why
re­
analysis
of
raw
data
is
not
possible.
Then
state
that
a
event
probability
was
calculated
for
the
listed
species
LOC
based
on
a
default
slope
assumption
of
4.5
as
per
original
Agency
assumptions
of
typical
slope
cited
in
Urban
and
Cook
(
1986).

References
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA).
2004.
Overview
of
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Washington,
DC.

Urban
D.
J.
and
N.
J.
Cook.
1986.
Hazard
Evaluation
Division
Standard
Evaluation
Procedure
Ecological
Risk
Assessment.
EPA
540/
9­
85­
001.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Washington,
DC.