DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposal to Permit the Field Release of Genetically Engineered Diamondback Moth in New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposal to Permit the Field Release of Genetically Engineered Diamondback Moth in New York United States Department of Agriculture Proposal to permit the Marketing and field release of Regulatory Programs genetically engineered Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service diamondback moth in New York Environmental Assessment, December 2016 Proposal to permit the field release of genetically engineered diamondback moth in New York Environmental Assessment December 2016 Agency Contact: Cindy Eck Biotechnology and Regulatory Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... VI LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ VI ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ VII 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1 2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 2 2.1 Regulatory Authority............................................................................................ 2 2.2 Regulated Organisms ........................................................................................... 2 2.3 APHIS Response to a Permit Application for a Field Release ............................ 3 2.4 Description and Purpose of the Research ............................................................. 3 2.5 Coordinated Framework Review and Regulatory Review ................................... 6 2.5.1 USDA-APHIS ............................................................................................... 6 2.5.2 FDA............................................................................................................... 7 2.5.3 EPA ............................................................................................................... 7 2.6 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. 8 2.7 Issues Considered ................................................................................................. 9 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................ 10 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 10 3.2 EA Action Area .................................................................................................. 11 3.3 Resource Areas ................................................................................................... 15 3.4 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 15 3.4.1 Soil Resources ............................................................................................. 15 3.4.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................... 16 3.4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 17 3.4.4 Climate Change ........................................................................................... 17 3.5 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 18 3.5.1 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 18 3.5.2 Plant Communities ...................................................................................... 19 3.5.3 Biological Diversity .................................................................................... 20 3.6 Human Health Environment............................................................................... 20 iii 3.6.1 Farmworker Health ..................................................................................... 20 3.6.2 Health of the General Public ....................................................................... 22 4 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 23 4.1 No Action Alternative – Deny the Permit .......................................................... 23 4.2 Preferred Alternative – Issue the APHIS Permit ................................................ 23 4.2.1 Standard and Supplemental Permit Conditions .......................................... 24 4.3 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 32 5 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................ 38 5.1 Scope of the Analysis ......................................................................................... 38 5.2 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 39 5.2.1 No Action Alternative: Soil Resources, Water resources, Air Quality, and Climate Change. ......................................................................................... 39 5.2.2 Preferred Alternative: Soil Resources, Water Resources, Air Quality, and Climate Change .......................................................................................... 44 5.3 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 45 5.3.1 No Action Alternative: Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Biological Diversity ..................................................................................................... 45 5.3.2 Preferred Alternative: Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Biological Diversity .................................................................................................................... 52 5.4 Human Health Environment............................................................................... 58 5.4.1 No Action Alternative: Farmworker Health and Health of the General Public .................................................................................................................... 58 5.4.2 Preferred Alternative: Farmworker Health and Health of the General Public .................................................................................................................... 61 6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 62 7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................. 63 8 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................. 69 8.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications................................................... 69 8.2 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ...................... 70 8.3 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas .................................. 70 8.4 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as Amended .................... 71 9 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................. 72 iv 10 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 73 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Diamondback moth reproductive cycle in the absence/presence of the female autocidal trait. .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Action area of this Environmental Assessment. .............................................................. 14 Figure 3. Diamondback moth adult (A), larvae (B), and damage on a cruciferous crop from diamondback moth larvae. ............................................................................................................... 19 LIST
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Cruciferae) – Mustard Family
    BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) – MUSTARD FAMILY Plant: herbs mostly, annual to perennial, sometimes shrubs; sap sometimes peppery Stem: Root: Leaves: mostly simple but sometimes pinnately divided; alternate, rarely opposite or whorled; no stipules Flowers: mostly perfect, mostly regular (actinomorphic); 4 sepals, 4 petals often forming a cross; 6 stamens with usually 2 outer ones shorter than the inner 4; ovary superior, mostly 2 fused carpels, 1 to many ovules, 1 pistil Fruit: seed pods, often used in classification, many are slender and long (Silique), some broad (Silicle) – see morphology slide Other: a large family, many garden plants such as turnip, radish, and cabbage, also some spices; often termed the Cruciferae family; Dicotyledons Group Genera: 350+ genera; 40+ locally WARNING – family descriptions are only a layman’s guide and should not be used as definitive Flower Morphology in the Brassicaceae (Mustard Family) - flower with 4 sepals, 4 petals (often like a cross, sometimes split or lobed), commonly small, often white or yellow, distinctive fruiting structures often important for ID 2 types of fruiting pods: in addition, fruits may be circular, flattened or angled in cross-section Silicle - (usually <2.5x long as wide), 2-valved with septum (replum) Silique - (usually >2.5x long as wide), 2- valved with septum (replum) Flowers, Many Genera BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) – MUSTARD FAMILY Sanddune [Western] Wallflower; Erysimum capitatum (Douglas ex Hook.) Greene var. capitatum Wormseed Wallflower [Mustard]; Erysimum cheiranthoides L. (Introduced) Spreading Wallflower [Treacle Mustard]; Erysimum repandum L. (Introduced) Dame’s Rocket [Dame’s Violet]; Hesperis matronalis L. (Introduced) Purple [Violet] Rocket; Iodanthus pinnatifidus (Michx.) Steud. Michaux's Gladecress; Leavenworthia uniflora (Michx.) Britton [Cow; Field] Cress [Peppergrass]; Lepidium campestre L.) Ait.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts
    The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: The Vascular Plants of Massachusetts: A County Checklist • First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Somers Bruce Sorrie and Paul Connolly, Bryan Cullina, Melissa Dow Revision • First A County Checklist Plants of Massachusetts: Vascular The A County Checklist First Revision Melissa Dow Cullina, Bryan Connolly, Bruce Sorrie and Paul Somers Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP), part of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, is one of the programs forming the Natural Heritage network. NHESP is responsible for the conservation and protection of hundreds of species that are not hunted, fished, trapped, or commercially harvested in the state. The Program's highest priority is protecting the 176 species of vertebrate and invertebrate animals and 259 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Massachusetts. Endangered species conservation in Massachusetts depends on you! A major source of funding for the protection of rare and endangered species comes from voluntary donations on state income tax forms. Contributions go to the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund, which provides a portion of the operating budget for the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. NHESP protects rare species through biological inventory,
    [Show full text]
  • Arachnids (Excluding Acarina and Pseudoscorpionida) of the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge, Oklahoma
    OCCASIONAL PAPERS THE MUSEUM TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY NUMBER 67 5 SEPTEMBER 1980 ARACHNIDS (EXCLUDING ACARINA AND PSEUDOSCORPIONIDA) OF THE WICHITA MOUNTAINS WILDLIFE REFUGE, OKLAHOMA JAMES C. COKENDOLPHER AND FRANK D. BRYCE The Wichita Mountains are located in eastern Greer, southern Kiowa, and northwestern Comanche counties in Oklahoma. Since their formation more than 300 million years ago, these rugged mountains have been fragmented and weathered, until today the highest peak (Mount Pinchot) stands only 756 meters above sea level (Tyler, 1977). The mountains are composed predominantly of granite and gabbro. Forests of oak, elm, and walnut border most waterways, while at elevations from 153 to 427 meters prair­ ies are the predominant vegetation type. A more detailed sum­ mary of the climatic and biotic features of the Wichitas has been presented by Blair and Hubbell (1938). A large tract of land in the eastern range of the Wichita Moun­ tains (now northeastern Comanche County) was set aside as the Wichita National Forest by President McKinley during 1901. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt created a game preserve on those lands managed by the Forest Service. Since 1935, this pre­ serve has been known as the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Numerous papers on Oklahoma spiders have been published (Bailey and Chada, 1968; Bailey et al., 1968; Banks et al, 1932; Branson, 1958, 1959, 1966, 1968; Branson and Drew, 1972; Gro- thaus, 1968; Harrel, 1962, 1965; Horner, 1975; Rogers and Horner, 1977), but only a single, comprehensive work (Banks et al., 1932) exists covering all arachnid orders in the state. Further additions and annotations to the arachnid fauna of Oklahoma can be found 2 OCCASIONAL PAPERS MUSEUM TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY in recent revisionary studies.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phylogenetic Study of the Mediterranean Genus Hormathophylla (Cruciferae: Alysseae) Based on Nuclear and Plastid Sequences
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Plant evolution in alkaline magnesium-rich soils: A phylogenetic study of the Mediterranean genus Hormathophylla (Cruciferae: Alysseae) based on nuclear and plastid sequences Esteban Salmero n-SaÂnchez 1,2*, Javier Fuertes-Aguilar3, Stanislav SÏ paniel4,5, Francisco a1111111111 ID Javier PeÂrez-GarcõÂa1, Encarna Merlo1, Juan Antonio Garrido-Becerra1, Juan Mota1 a1111111111 a1111111111 1 Departamento de BiologõÂa y GeologõÂa, CEI.MAR and CECOUAL, Universidad de AlmerõÂa, AlmerõÂa, Spain, a1111111111 2 Departamento de BotaÂnica, Unidad de ConservacioÂn Vegetal, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain, a1111111111 3 Real JardõÂn BotaÂnico, CSIC, Madrid, Spain, 4 Institute of Botany, Plant Science and Biodiversity Centre, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 5 Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic * [email protected] OPEN ACCESS Citation: SalmeroÂn-SaÂnchez E, Fuertes-Aguilar J, Abstract SÏpaniel S, PeÂrez-GarcõÂa FJ, Merlo E, Garrido- Becerra JA, et al. (2018) Plant evolution in alkaline Habitats with alkaline edaphic substrates are often associated with plant speciation and magnesium-rich soils: A phylogenetic study of the diversification. The tribe Alysseae, in the family Brassicaceae, epitomizes this evolutionary Mediterranean genus Hormathophylla (Cruciferae: Alysseae) based on nuclear and plastid sequences. trend. In this lineage, some genera, like Hormathophylla, can serve as a good case for test- PLoS ONE 13(12): e0208307. https://doi.org/ ing the evolutionary framework. This genus is centered in the western Mediterranean. It 10.1371/journal.pone.0208307 grows on different substrates, but mostly on alkaline soils. It has been suggested that diver- Editor: Dong Hoon Shin, Seoul National University sification in many lineages of the tribe Alysseae and in the genus Hormathophylla is linked College of Medicine, REPUBLIC OF KOREA to a tolerance for high levels of Mg+2 in xeric environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesostigmata No
    16 (1) · 2016 Christian, A. & K. Franke Mesostigmata No. 27 ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 – 41 Acarological literature .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Publications 2016 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Publications 2015 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Publications, additions 2014 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Publications, additions 2013 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Publications, additions 2012 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Publications, additions 2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Field Botany
    10/8/2020 Disclaimer All information contained within this presentation / video and all information on www.KnowYourWellness.org including recommendations of diet and supplements, is for informational purposes only. This information is not intended to be used in place of a visit, call, consultation, or advice of your physician or other medical professionals. Should you have any healthcare-related questions, please call or see your physician or other healthcare provider promptly. Never disregard medical advice or delay in seeking medical advice because of something you have read or heard on www.KnowYourWellness.org. Additionally, the information from www.KnowYourWellness.org does not constitute or create a doctor-patient, therapist-patient, or other healthcare professional relationship between you or our Institute, Faculty, Board, Coaches or Adjunct Professors. All information and statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Purpose of this module: 1. How to understand the Brassicacea (Cruciferae) or Mustard Family What you will learn: 1. This family of plants has over 3700 species that have substantial economic value. 2. These species have been bread over millennia for life sustaining food crops 3. Surprisingly, many common foods world wide fit into these species. An Introduction to Field Botany With Steven Horne, RH(AHG) © 2020, www.KnowYourWellness.org 1 10/8/2020 Lesson Six: Mustard Family © 2020, www.KnowYourWellness.org Part One: Family Characteristics Brassicacea (Cruciferae) • The Mustard family consists of about 3,700 species of medium-sized and economically important flowering plants known informally as mustard flowers or crucifers • The importance of this family for food crops has led to its selective breeding throughout history.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonial Garden Plants
    COLONIAL GARD~J~ PLANTS I Flowers Before 1700 The following plants are listed according to the names most commonly used during the colonial period. The botanical name follows for accurate identification. The common name was listed first because many of the people using these lists will have access to or be familiar with that name rather than the botanical name. The botanical names are according to Bailey’s Hortus Second and The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture (3, 4). They are not the botanical names used during the colonial period for many of them have changed drastically. We have been very cautious concerning the interpretation of names to see that accuracy is maintained. By using several references spanning almost two hundred years (1, 3, 32, 35) we were able to interpret accurately the names of certain plants. For example, in the earliest works (32, 35), Lark’s Heel is used for Larkspur, also Delphinium. Then in later works the name Larkspur appears with the former in parenthesis. Similarly, the name "Emanies" appears frequently in the earliest books. Finally, one of them (35) lists the name Anemones as a synonym. Some of the names are amusing: "Issop" for Hyssop, "Pum- pions" for Pumpkins, "Mushmillions" for Muskmellons, "Isquou- terquashes" for Squashes, "Cowslips" for Primroses, "Daffadown dillies" for Daffodils. Other names are confusing. Bachelors Button was the name used for Gomphrena globosa, not for Centaurea cyanis as we use it today. Similarly, in the earliest literature, "Marygold" was used for Calendula. Later we begin to see "Pot Marygold" and "Calen- dula" for Calendula, and "Marygold" is reserved for Marigolds.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado
    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Peggy Lyon and Julia Hanson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 December 2005 Cover: Imperiled (G1 and G2) plants of the San Juan Public Lands, top left to bottom right: Lesquerella pruinosa, Draba graminea, Cryptantha gypsophila, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Astragalus naturitensis, Physaria pulvinata, Ipomopsis polyantha, Townsendia glabella, Townsendia rothrockii. Executive Summary This survey was a continuation of several years of rare plant survey on San Juan Public Lands. Funding for the project was provided by San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management. Previous rare plant surveys on San Juan Public Lands by CNHP were conducted in conjunction with county wide surveys of La Plata, Archuleta, San Juan and San Miguel counties, with partial funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO); and in 2004, public lands only in Dolores and Montezuma counties, funded entirely by the San Juan Public Lands. Funding for 2005 was again provided by San Juan Public Lands. The primary emphases for field work in 2005 were: 1. revisit and update information on rare plant occurrences of agency sensitive species in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database that were last observed prior to 2000, in order to have the most current information available for informing the revision of the Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Public Lands (BLM and San Juan National Forest); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List For: Engelmann Woods NA 174 Species
    Species List for: Engelmann Woods NA 174 Species Franklin County Date Participants Location NA List NA Nomination List List made by Maupin and Kurz, 9/9/80, and 4/21/93 WGNSS Lists Webster Groves Nature Study Society Fieldtrip Participants WGNSS Vascular Plant List maintained by Steve Turner Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer negundo var. undetermined box elder Sapindaceae 1 0 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae 8 5 Adiantum pedatum var. pedatum northern maidenhair fern Pteridaceae Fern/Ally 6 1 Agastache nepetoides yellow giant hyssop Lamiaceae 4 3 Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 3 Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 -1 Amelanchier arborea var. arborea downy serviceberry Rosaceae 6 3 Antennaria parlinii var. undetermined (A. plantaginifolia) plainleaf pussytoes Asteraceae/Gnaphalieae 5 5 Aplectrum hyemale putty root Orchidaceae 8 1 Aquilegia canadensis columbine Ranunculaceae 6 1 Arisaema triphyllum ssp. triphyllum (A. atrorubens) Jack-in-the-pulpit Araceae 6 -2 Aristolochia serpentaria Virginia snakeroot Aristolochiaceae 6 5 Arnoglossum atriplicifolium (Cacalia atriplicifolia) pale Indian plantain Asteraceae/Senecioneae 4 5 Arnoglossum reniforme (Cacalia muhlenbergii) great Indian plantain Asteraceae/Senecioneae 8 5 Asarum canadense wild ginger Aristolochiaceae 6 5 Asclepias quadrifolia whorled milkweed Asclepiadaceae 6 5 Asimina triloba pawpaw Annonaceae 5 0 Asplenium rhizophyllum (Camptosorus) walking fern Aspleniaceae Fern/Ally 7 5 Asplenium trichomanes ssp. trichomanes maidenhair spleenwort Aspleniaceae Fern/Ally 9 5 Srank: SU Grank: G? * Barbarea vulgaris yellow rocket Brassicaceae 0 0 Blephilia hirsuta var.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List For: Valley View Glades NA 418 Species
    Species List for: Valley View Glades NA 418 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location NA List NA Nomination and subsequent visits Jefferson County Glade Complex NA List from Gass, Wallace, Priddy, Chmielniak, T. Smith, Ladd & Glore, Bogler, MPF Hikes 9/24/80, 10/2/80, 7/10/85, 8/8/86, 6/2/87, 1986, and 5/92 WGNSS Lists Webster Groves Nature Study Society Fieldtrip Jefferson County Glade Complex Participants WGNSS Vascular Plant List maintained by Steve Turner Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Aesculus glabra var. undetermined Ohio buckeye Sapindaceae 5 -1 Agalinis skinneriana (Gerardia) midwestern gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Allium canadense var. mobilense wild garlic Liliaceae 7 5 Allium canadense var. undetermined wild garlic Liliaceae 2 3 Allium cernuum wild onion Liliaceae 8 5 Allium stellatum wild onion Liliaceae 6 5 * Allium vineale field garlic Liliaceae 0 3 Ambrosia artemisiifolia common ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 3 Ambrosia bidentata lanceleaf ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 4 Ambrosia trifida giant ragweed Asteraceae/Heliantheae 0 -1 Amelanchier arborea var. arborea downy serviceberry Rosaceae 6 3 Amorpha canescens lead plant Fabaceae/Faboideae 8 5 Amphicarpaea bracteata hog peanut Fabaceae/Faboideae 4 0 Andropogon gerardii var.
    [Show full text]
  • Species List For: Labarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey
    Species List for: LaBarque Creek CA 750 Species Jefferson County Date Participants Location 4/19/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/15/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey 5/16/2006 Nels Holmberg, George Yatskievych, and Rex Plant Survey Hill 5/22/2006 Nels Holmberg and WGNSS Botany Group Plant Survey 5/6/2006 Nels Holmberg Plant Survey Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg, John Atwood and Others LaBarque Creek Watershed - Bryophytes Bryophte List compiled by Nels Holmberg Multiple Visits Nels Holmberg and Many WGNSS and MONPS LaBarque Creek Watershed - Vascular Plants visits from 2005 to 2016 Vascular Plant List compiled by Nels Holmberg Species Name (Synonym) Common Name Family COFC COFW Acalypha monococca (A. gracilescens var. monococca) one-seeded mercury Euphorbiaceae 3 5 Acalypha rhomboidea rhombic copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 1 3 Acalypha virginica Virginia copperleaf Euphorbiaceae 2 3 Acer negundo var. undetermined box elder Sapindaceae 1 0 Acer rubrum var. undetermined red maple Sapindaceae 5 0 Acer saccharinum silver maple Sapindaceae 2 -3 Acer saccharum var. undetermined sugar maple Sapindaceae 5 3 Achillea millefolium yarrow Asteraceae/Anthemideae 1 3 Actaea pachypoda white baneberry Ranunculaceae 8 5 Adiantum pedatum var. pedatum northern maidenhair fern Pteridaceae Fern/Ally 6 1 Agalinis gattingeri (Gerardia) rough-stemmed gerardia Orobanchaceae 7 5 Agalinis tenuifolia (Gerardia, A. tenuifolia var. common gerardia Orobanchaceae 4 -3 macrophylla) Ageratina altissima var. altissima (Eupatorium rugosum) white snakeroot Asteraceae/Eupatorieae 2 3 Agrimonia parviflora swamp agrimony Rosaceae 5 -1 Agrimonia pubescens downy agrimony Rosaceae 4 5 Agrimonia rostellata woodland agrimony Rosaceae 4 3 Agrostis elliottiana awned bent grass Poaceae/Aveneae 3 5 * Agrostis gigantea redtop Poaceae/Aveneae 0 -3 Agrostis perennans upland bent Poaceae/Aveneae 3 1 Allium canadense var.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Exotic Plant Species Occurring in Aztec Ruins National Monument
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Inventory of Exotic Plant Species Occurring in Aztec Ruins National Monument Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR—2010/300 ON THE COVER Common salsify (Tragopogon dubius) was one of the most widespread exotic plant species found in the monument during this inventory. Photograph by: Safiya Jetha Inventory of Exotic Plant Species Occurring in Aztec Ruins National Monument Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR—2010/300 Julie E. Korb Biology Department Fort Lewis College 1000 Rim Drive Durango, CO 81301 March 2010 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural re- source topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientif- ically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]