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 Regulatory field release of Programs genetically engineered Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service diamondback moth in New York Environmental Assessment, May 2014 Proposal to permit the field release of genetically engineered diamondback moth in New York Environmental Assessment May 2014 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 .................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Resource Areas ................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 13 3.4.1 Soil Resources ............................................................................................. 13 3.4.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................... 14 3.4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................. 15 3.4.4 Climate Change ........................................................................................... 15 3.5 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 16 3.5.1 Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 16 3.5.2 Plant Communities ...................................................................................... 17 3.5.3 Biological Diversity .................................................................................... 18 3.6 Human Health Environment............................................................................... 18 iii 3.6.1 Farmworker Health ..................................................................................... 18 3.6.2 Health of the General Public ....................................................................... 19 4 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................... 21 4.1 No Action Alternative – Deny the Permit .......................................................... 21 4.2 Preferred Alternative – Issue the APHIS Permit ................................................ 21 4.3 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................... 22 5 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................ 26 5.1 Scope of the Analysis ......................................................................................... 26 5.2 Physical Environment ........................................................................................ 27 5.2.1 No Action Alternative: Soil Resources, Water resources, Air Quality, and Climate Change. ......................................................................................... 27 5.2.2 Preferred Alternative: Soil Resources, Water Resources, Air Quality, and Climate Change .......................................................................................... 32 5.3 Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 33 5.3.1 No Action Alternative: Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Biological Diversity ..................................................................................................... 33 5.3.2 Preferred Alternative: Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Biological Diversity .................................................................................................................... 41 5.4 Human Health Environment............................................................................... 47 5.4.1 No Action Alternative: Farmworker Health and Health of the General Public .................................................................................................................... 47 5.4.2 Preferred Alternative: Farmworker Health and Health of the General Public .................................................................................................................... 49 6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 51 7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................. 52 8 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................. 58 8.1 Executive Orders with Domestic Implications................................................... 58 8.2 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ...................... 59 8.3 Impacts on Unique Characteristics of Geographic Areas .................................. 59 8.4 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as Amended .................... 60 9 LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................. 61 10 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 62 iv 11 APPENDIX A – APPLICANT’S TECHNICAL REPORT ..................................... 72 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. .............................................................. 12 Figure 3. Diamondback moth adult (A), larvae (B), and damage on a cruciferous crop from diamondback moth larvae. ............................................................................................................... 17 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diptera: Syrphidae
    This is a repository copy of The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae).. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/80035/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Penney, HD, Hassall, C orcid.org/0000-0002-3510-0728, Skevington, JH et al. (2 more authors) (2014) The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae). The American Naturalist, 183 (2). pp. 281-289. ISSN 0003-0147 https://doi.org/10.1086/674612 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The relationship between morphological and behavioral mimicry in hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)1 Heather D. Penney, Christopher Hassall, Jeffrey H. Skevington, Brent Lamborn & Thomas N. Sherratt Abstract Palatable (Batesian) mimics of unprofitable models could use behavioral mimicry to compensate for the ease with which they can be visually discriminated, or to augment an already close morphological resemblance.
    [Show full text]
  • (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]
  • Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) Matthew Immelg Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Revision and Reclassification of the Genera of Phalacridae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) Matthew immelG Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Gimmel, Matthew, "Revision and Reclassification of the Genera of Phalacridae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea)" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2857. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2857 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. REVISION AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE GENERA OF PHALACRIDAE (COLEOPTERA: CUCUJOIDEA) A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Entomology by Matthew Gimmel B.S., Oklahoma State University, 2005 August 2011 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the following individuals for accommodating and assisting me at their respective institutions: Roger Booth and Max Barclay (BMNH), Azadeh Taghavian (MNHN), Phil Perkins (MCZ), Warren Steiner (USNM), Joe McHugh (UGCA), Ed Riley (TAMU), Mike Thomas and Paul Skelley (FSCA), Mike Ivie (MTEC/MAIC/WIBF), Richard Brown and Terry Schiefer (MEM), Andy Cline (CDFA), Fran Keller and Steve Heydon (UCDC), Cheryl Barr (EMEC), Norm Penny and Jere Schweikert (CAS), Mike Caterino (SBMN), Michael Wall (SDMC), Don Arnold (OSEC), Zack Falin (SEMC), Arwin Provonsha (PURC), Cate Lemann and Adam Slipinski (ANIC), and Harold Labrique (MHNL).
    [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]
  • Hoverfly Newsletter No
    Dipterists Forum Hoverfly Newsletter Number 48 Spring 2010 ISSN 1358-5029 I am grateful to everyone who submitted articles and photographs for this issue in a timely manner. The closing date more or less coincided with the publication of the second volume of the new Swedish hoverfly book. Nigel Jones, who had already submitted his review of volume 1, rapidly provided a further one for the second volume. In order to avoid delay I have kept the reviews separate rather than attempting to merge them. Articles and illustrations (including colour images) for the next newsletter are always welcome. Copy for Hoverfly Newsletter No. 49 (which is expected to be issued with the Autumn 2010 Dipterists Forum Bulletin) should be sent to me: David Iliff Green Willows, Station Road, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos, GL52 9HN, (telephone 01242 674398), email:[email protected], to reach me by 20 May 2010. Please note the earlier than usual date which has been changed to fit in with the new bulletin closing dates. although we have not been able to attain the levels Hoverfly Recording Scheme reached in the 1980s. update December 2009 There have been a few notable changes as some of the old Stuart Ball guard such as Eileen Thorpe and Austin Brackenbury 255 Eastfield Road, Peterborough, PE1 4BH, [email protected] have reduced their activity and a number of newcomers Roger Morris have arrived. For example, there is now much more active 7 Vine Street, Stamford, Lincolnshire, PE9 1QE, recording in Shropshire (Nigel Jones), Northamptonshire [email protected] (John Showers), Worcestershire (Harry Green et al.) and This has been quite a remarkable year for a variety of Bedfordshire (John O’Sullivan).
    [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]
  • Syrphidae of Southern Illinois: Diversity, Floral Associations, and Preliminary Assessment of Their Efficacy As Pollinators
    Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e57331 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.8.e57331 Research Article Syrphidae of Southern Illinois: Diversity, floral associations, and preliminary assessment of their efficacy as pollinators Jacob L Chisausky‡, Nathan M Soley§,‡, Leila Kassim ‡, Casey J Bryan‡, Gil Felipe Gonçalves Miranda|, Karla L Gage ¶,‡, Sedonia D Sipes‡ ‡ Southern Illinois University Carbondale, School of Biological Sciences, Carbondale, IL, United States of America § Iowa State University, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Ames, IA, United States of America | Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Canada ¶ Southern Illinois University Carbondale, College of Agricultural Sciences, Carbondale, IL, United States of America Corresponding author: Jacob L Chisausky ([email protected]) Academic editor: Torsten Dikow Received: 06 Aug 2020 | Accepted: 23 Sep 2020 | Published: 29 Oct 2020 Citation: Chisausky JL, Soley NM, Kassim L, Bryan CJ, Miranda GFG, Gage KL, Sipes SD (2020) Syrphidae of Southern Illinois: Diversity, floral associations, and preliminary assessment of their efficacy as pollinators. Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e57331. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e57331 Abstract Syrphid flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) are a cosmopolitan group of flower-visiting insects, though their diversity and importance as pollinators is understudied and often unappreciated. Data on 1,477 Syrphid occurrences and floral associations from three years of pollinator collection (2017-2019) in the Southern Illinois region of Illinois, United States, are here compiled and analyzed. We collected 69 species in 36 genera off of the flowers of 157 plant species. While a richness of 69 species is greater than most other families of flower-visiting insects in our region, a species accumulation curve and regional species pool estimators suggest that at least 33 species are yet uncollected.
    [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]
  • *Wagner Et Al. --Intro
    NUMBER 60, 58 pages 15 September 1999 BISHOP MUSEUM OCCASIONAL PAPERS HAWAIIAN VASCULAR PLANTS AT RISK: 1999 WARREN L. WAGNER, MARIE M. BRUEGMANN, DERRAL M. HERBST, AND JOEL Q.C. LAU BISHOP MUSEUM PRESS HONOLULU Printed on recycled paper Cover illustration: Lobelia gloria-montis Rock, an endemic lobeliad from Maui. [From Wagner et al., 1990, Manual of flowering plants of Hawai‘i, pl. 57.] A SPECIAL PUBLICATION OF THE RECORDS OF THE HAWAII BIOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR 1998 Research publications of Bishop Museum are issued irregularly in the RESEARCH following active series: • Bishop Museum Occasional Papers. A series of short papers PUBLICATIONS OF describing original research in the natural and cultural sciences. Publications containing larger, monographic works are issued in BISHOP MUSEUM four areas: • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Anthropology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Botany • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Entomology • Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology Numbering by volume of Occasional Papers ceased with volume 31. Each Occasional Paper now has its own individual number starting with Number 32. Each paper is separately paginated. The Museum also publishes Bishop Museum Technical Reports, a series containing information relative to scholarly research and collections activities. Issue is authorized by the Museum’s Scientific Publications Committee, but manuscripts do not necessarily receive peer review and are not intended as formal publications. Institutions and individuals may subscribe to any of the above or pur- chase separate publications from Bishop Museum Press, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA. Phone: (808) 848-4135; fax: (808) 841-8968; email: [email protected]. Institutional libraries interested in exchanging publications should write to: Library Exchange Program, Bishop Museum Library, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817-0916, USA; fax: (808) 848-4133; email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring Within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘I: Synthesis Report
    Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Prepared by Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Surveying for Terrestrial Arthropods (Insects and Relatives) Occurring within the Kahului Airport Environs, Maui, Hawai‘i: Synthesis Report Francis G. Howarth, David J. Preston, and Richard Pyle Hawaii Biological Survey Bishop Museum Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817 USA Prepared for EKNA Services Inc. 615 Pi‘ikoi Street, Suite 300 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96814 and State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Airports Division Bishop Museum Technical Report 58 Honolulu, Hawaii January 2012 Bishop Museum Press 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, Hawai‘i Copyright 2012 Bishop Museum All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America ISSN 1085-455X Contribution No. 2012 001 to the Hawaii Biological Survey COVER Adult male Hawaiian long-horned wood-borer, Plagithmysus kahului, on its host plant Chenopodium oahuense. This species is endemic to lowland Maui and was discovered during the arthropod surveys. Photograph by Forest and Kim Starr, Makawao, Maui. Used with permission. Hawaii Biological Report on Monitoring Arthropods within Kahului Airport Environs, Synthesis TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents …………….......................................................……………...........……………..…..….i. Executive Summary …….....................................................…………………...........……………..…..….1 Introduction ..................................................................………………………...........……………..…..….4
    [Show full text]
  • BIOLOGICAL OPINION of the U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE for ROUTINE MILITARY TRAINING and TRANSFORMATION of the 2Nd BRIGADE 25Th INFANTRY DIVISION (Light)
    BIOLOGICAL OPINION of the U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE for ROUTINE MILITARY TRAINING and TRANSFORMATION of the 2nd BRIGADE 25th INFANTRY DIVISION (Light) U.S. ARMY INSTALLATIONS ISLAND of OAHU October 23, 2003 (1-2-2003-F-04) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1 CONSULTATION HISTORY .................................................. 2 BIOLOGICAL OPINION Description of the Proposed Action ............................................ 6 Dillingham Military Reservation ............................................... 11 Kahuku Training Area ..................................................... 15 Kawailoa Training Area .................................................... 20 Makua Military Reservation ................................................. 24 Schofield Barracks East Range ............................................... 25 Schofield Barracks Military Reservation ........................................ 29 South Range Acquisition Area ............................................... 35 Other Proposed SBCT Training Action Locations ................................. 36 Wildland Fire Management Plan Overview ...................................... 37 Stabilization Overview ..................................................... 38 Conservation Measures .................................................... 42 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE - PLANTS Abutilon sandwicense ..................................................... 52 Alectryon macrococcus ..................................................
    [Show full text]