DOCSLIB.ORG

O O O N H N Cl F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
O O O N H N Cl F REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILTY DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS SCIENCE CHAPTER Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment For TAU-FLUVALINATE (CAS No.69409-94-5) IUPAC Name (RS)-α-Cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl N-(2-chloro-α,α,α-trifluoro-p-tolyl)-DL-valinate. CAS Name Cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl N-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-DL-valinate. N Cl O H N O O F F F Environmental Fate and Effects Division Team Members Pam Hurley, Toxicologist Mark Corbin, Senior Environmental Scientist Branch Chief Approval Dan Rieder Date of Approval Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary....................................................1 1.1 Nature of Chemical Stressor........................................1 1.2 Potential Risks to Non-target Organisms ..............................2 1.3 Conclusions - Exposure Characterization..............................6 1.4 Conclusions - Effects Characterization................................6 1.5 Uncertainties and Data Gaps........................................7 2 Problem Formulation..................................................10 2.1 Stressor Source and Distribution ...................................10 2.1.1 Source and Intensity.......................................10 2.1.2 Physical/Chemical/Fate and Transport Properties .................11 2.1.3 Pesticide Type, Class, and Mode of Action......................12 2.1.4 Overview of Pesticide Usage.................................13 2.2 Receptors .....................................................14 2.2.1 Aquatic Effects...........................................15 2.2.2 Terrestrial Effects.........................................16 2.2.3 Ecosystems at Risk .......................................16 2.3 Assessment Endpoints ...........................................17 2.4 Conceptual Model ..............................................18 2.4.1 Risk Hypotheses..........................................19 2.4.2 Diagram................................................19 2.5 Analysis Plan ..................................................22 2.5.1 Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps and Methods ..............23 2.5.2 Measures to Evaluate Risk Hypotheses and Conceptual Model.......23 2.5.2.1 Measures of Exposure..........................23 2.5.2.2 Measures of Effect.............................25 2.5.2.3 Measures of Ecosystem and Receptor Characteristics . 25 3 Analysis............................................................26 3.1 Use Characterization ............................................26 3.2 Exposure Characterization........................................30 3.2.1 Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization ...............30 3.2.2 Measures of Aquatic Exposure...............................37 3.2.2.1 Aquatic Exposure Modeling......................37 3.2.2.2 Equilibrium Partitioning and Concentration in the Sediment43 3.2.2.3 Aquatic Exposure Monitoring and Field Data.........46 3.2.3 Measures of Terrestrial Exposure.............................46 3.2.3.1 Terrestrial Exposure Modeling....................47 3.2.3.2 Residue Studies...............................48 3.3 Ecological Effects Characterization .................................48 3.3.1 Evaluation of Aquatic and Terrestrial Registrant-Submitted and Open Literature Ecotoxicity Studies................................49 3.3.2 Aquatic Animals..........................................54 3.3.2.1 Acute Effects.................................54 3.3.2.2 Chronic Effects ...............................56 3.3.2.3 Sublethal Effects ..............................57 3.3.2.4 Aquatic Field Studies...........................58 3.3.2.5 Degradates...................................58 3.3.3 Aquatic Plants............................................59 3.3.4 Terrestrial Animals........................................59 3.3.4.1 Acute Effects.................................59 3.3.4.2 Chronic Effects ...............................61 3.3.4.3 Sublethal Effects ..............................61 3.3.4.4 Field Studies .................................63 3.3.4.5 Degradates...................................63 3.3.5 Terrestrial Plants..........................................63 4 Risk Characterization....................................................64 4.1 Risk Estimation - Integration of Exposure and Effects Data ...............64 4.1.1 Non-target Aquatic Animals and Plants.........................65 4.1.2 Non-target Terrestrial Animals...............................71 4.1.3 Non-target Terrestrial and Semi-aquatic Plants...................79 4.2 Risk Description................................................79 4.2.1 Risks to Aquatic Organisms .................................79 4.2.1.1 Animals.....................................79 4.2.1.2 Plants ......................................85 4.2.2 Risks to Terrestrial Organisms ...............................85 4.2.2.1 Animals.....................................85 4.2.2.2 Plants.......................................92 4.2.3 Degradates ..............................................92 4.2.4 Review of Incident Data....................................93 4.2.5 Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species Concerns .....93 4.2.5.1 Action Area..................................93 4.2.5.2 Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk..............94 4.2.5.2.1 Discussion of Risk Quotients ...............94 4.2.5.2.2 Probit Dose Response Relationship ..........95 4.2.5.2.3 Data Related to Under-represented Taxa ......98 4.2.5.2.4 Implications of Sublethal Effects ............98 4.2.5.3 Indirect Effects Analysis .......................100 4.2.5.4 Critical Habitat ..............................102 4.2.5.5 Co-occurrence Analysis........................103 4.3 Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths and Data Gaps ...........................................................107 4.3.1 Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths and Data Gaps For All Taxa..................................................107 4.3.2 Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths and Data Gaps For Aquatic Species .........................................107 4.3.3 Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths and Data Gaps For Terrestrial Species........................................110 V. Literature Cited.....................................................115 Figures .................................................................116 List of Tables Table 1.1. Summary of Environmental Risk Conclusions for Aquatic Organisms and Plants for Tau-Fluvalinate .......................................................3 Table 1.2. Summary of Environmental Risk Conclusions for Terrestrial Organisms and Plants for Tau-Fluvalinate .......................................................5 Table 1.3 Summary of Major Uncertainties and Data Gaps in This Assessment .............9 Table 2.1 Taxonomic groups and test species evaluated for ecological effects in screening level risk assessments......................................................15 Table 2.2 Summary of assessment and measurement endpoints........................18 Table 3.1 Summary of Tau-fluvalinate Registered Use Information.....................27 Table 3.2 Summary of Environmental Chemistry and Fate Properties of Tau-fluvalinate.....35 Table 3.3 Tier II Concentrations of Tau-Fluvalinate in Surface Water PRZM/EXAMS Scenarios ..................................................................39 Table 3.4 PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters for Tau-fluvalinate for Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment .........................................................40 Table 3.5 Tier II Concentrations of Tau-fluvalinate in Surface Water PRZM/EXAMS Carrot Scenarios with 150 foot Buffer ...........................................42 Table 3.6 Tier II Concentrations of Tau-fluvalinate in Surface Water PRZM/EXAMS Scenarios with No Spray Drift...................................................43 Table 3.7 PRZM/EXAMS output for benthic pore water EECs (ug/L) based on Tau-fluvalinate use on several crops...................................................45 Table 3.8 Kenaga Values for Terrestrial Organism Food Items Estimated Using TREX (version 1.1) for Tau-fluvalinate ................................................47 Table 4.3 Freshwater Fish Chronic Ecotoxicity And RQ Values For Tau-Fluvalinate........67 Table 4.4 Estuarine/marine Fish Chronic Ecotoxicity And RQ Values For Tau-Fluvalinate . 68 Table 4.5 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute Ecotoxicity And RQ Values For Tau-Fluvalinate . 69 Table 4.6 Marine/Estuarine Invertebrate Acute Ecotoxicity (Mysid) and RQ Values For Tau- Fluvalinate..........................................................69 Table 4.7 Marine/Estuarine Invertebrate Acute Ecotoxicity (Mollusk) and RQ Values For Tau- Fluvalinate..........................................................70 Table 4.8 Freshwater Invertebrate Chronic Ecotoxicity And RQ Values For Tau-Fluvalinate ..................................................................70 Table 4.9. Avian Acute and Chronic Risk Quotients for Carrot and Ornamental Uses of Tau- Fluvalinate Based on a Bobwhite Quail Acute LC50 5627 ppm and Chronic NOAEC 900 ppm (Bobwhite Quail and Mallard Duck)...................................73 Table 4.10 Mammalian Acute Risk Quotients for Carrot and Ornamental Uses of Tau-Fluvalinate Based on a Rat Acute LD50 1402 mg/kg bw/day Using Upper Bound Kenaga Residues 73 Table 4.11 Mammalian Acute Risk Quotients for Carrot and Ornamental Uses of Tau-Fluvalinate Based on a Rat Acute LD50 1402 mg/kg bw/day Using Mean Kenaga Residues
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Delhi Sands Flowerloving Fly Survey Report 2010
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Monitoring Program Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Survey Report 2010 23 March 2011 Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Survey Report 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 SURVEY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................2 METHODS………… ....................................................................................................................................2 PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................2 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING...........................................................................................................3 STUDY SITE SELECTION AND TRANSECT PLACEMENT ..................................................................3 SURVEY METHODS........................................................................................................................5 DATA ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................................6 RESULTS…….. ............................................................................................................................................6 DISCUSSION….. ........................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • 805.921.0683 Cell: 805.415.9595 Em
    July 11, 2018 Mr. Tal Shoshan, CEO c/o T-Rose Investments, LLC 3880 E. Ebony Ontario, CA 91761 SUBJECT: Results of a Habitat Suitability Evaluation, 2.76-acre Site, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Shoshan: This letter report presents findings of a reconnaissance-level survey conducted to generally evaluate the suitability of a ±2.76-acre site to support the federally-listed endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis-DSFF). Introduction The subject 2.76-acre site is regionally located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Plate 1). More specifically, the site is located north of 4th Street, east of Hermosa Avenue, west of Center Avenue, and south of Trademark Street; Township 1 South, Range 7 West, Section 14 on the “Guasti” USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle map (Plate 2). Plate 3 provides an aerial photograph of the site. In order to meet the environmental documentation and review requirements, potentially occurring sensitive biological resources must be addressed to demonstrate the applicant’s conformance to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. As such, this report is intended to provide biological information to the applicant and reviewing agencies in support of the environmental review process. Selected Species Overview The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listed the DSFF as an endangered species on September 23, 1993. This species is only known to occur in association with Delhi sand deposits (FWS 1997), primarily on twelve disjunct sites within a radius of about eight miles in the cities of Colton, Rialto, and Fontana in southwestern San Bernardino and northwestern Riverside counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrated Flora of East Texas Illustrated Flora of East Texas
    ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS ILLUSTRATED FLORA OF EAST TEXAS IS PUBLISHED WITH THE SUPPORT OF: MAJOR BENEFACTORS: DAVID GIBSON AND WILL CRENSHAW DISCOVERY FUND U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, USDA FOREST SERVICE) TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SCOTT AND STUART GENTLING BENEFACTORS: NEW DOROTHEA L. LEONHARDT FOUNDATION (ANDREA C. HARKINS) TEMPLE-INLAND FOUNDATION SUMMERLEE FOUNDATION AMON G. CARTER FOUNDATION ROBERT J. O’KENNON PEG & BEN KEITH DORA & GORDON SYLVESTER DAVID & SUE NIVENS NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY OF TEXAS DAVID & MARGARET BAMBERGER GORDON MAY & KAREN WILLIAMSON JACOB & TERESE HERSHEY FOUNDATION INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT: AUSTIN COLLEGE BOTANICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF TEXAS SID RICHARDSON CAREER DEVELOPMENT FUND OF AUSTIN COLLEGE II OTHER CONTRIBUTORS: ALLDREDGE, LINDA & JACK HOLLEMAN, W.B. PETRUS, ELAINE J. BATTERBAE, SUSAN ROBERTS HOLT, JEAN & DUNCAN PRITCHETT, MARY H. BECK, NELL HUBER, MARY MAUD PRICE, DIANE BECKELMAN, SARA HUDSON, JIM & YONIE PRUESS, WARREN W. BENDER, LYNNE HULTMARK, GORDON & SARAH ROACH, ELIZABETH M. & ALLEN BIBB, NATHAN & BETTIE HUSTON, MELIA ROEBUCK, RICK & VICKI BOSWORTH, TONY JACOBS, BONNIE & LOUIS ROGNLIE, GLORIA & ERIC BOTTONE, LAURA BURKS JAMES, ROI & DEANNA ROUSH, LUCY BROWN, LARRY E. JEFFORDS, RUSSELL M. ROWE, BRIAN BRUSER, III, MR. & MRS. HENRY JOHN, SUE & PHIL ROZELL, JIMMY BURT, HELEN W. JONES, MARY LOU SANDLIN, MIKE CAMPBELL, KATHERINE & CHARLES KAHLE, GAIL SANDLIN, MR. & MRS. WILLIAM CARR, WILLIAM R. KARGES, JOANN SATTERWHITE, BEN CLARY, KAREN KEITH, ELIZABETH & ERIC SCHOENFELD, CARL COCHRAN, JOYCE LANEY, ELEANOR W. SCHULTZE, BETTY DAHLBERG, WALTER G. LAUGHLIN, DR. JAMES E. SCHULZE, PETER & HELEN DALLAS CHAPTER-NPSOT LECHE, BEVERLY SENNHAUSER, KELLY S. DAMEWOOD, LOGAN & ELEANOR LEWIS, PATRICIA SERLING, STEVEN DAMUTH, STEVEN LIGGIO, JOE SHANNON, LEILA HOUSEMAN DAVIS, ELLEN D.
    [Show full text]
  • Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Evaluation
    Appendix C Habitat Suitability Evaluation, Arborist Report, and Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Habitat Suitability Evaluation FONTANA FOOTHILLS COMMERCE CENTER DRAFT EIR Habitat Suitability Evaluation April 15, 2020 Chad Manista REDA Acquisitions, LLC 4450 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 100 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: Results of a Habitat Suitability Evaluation, ±33-acre Site, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California Dear Chad: This letter report presents findings of a reconnaissance-level survey conducted to generally evaluate the suitability of a 33-acre site to support special-status biological resources in support of the environmental review process. Introduction The study area is regionally located in San Bernardino County, California (Plate 1). Specifically, the project site is located in the City of Fontana (City), generally south of Santa Ana Avenue, east of Juniper Avenue, north of Jurupa Avenue, and west of Sierra Avenue. The site occurs on the “Fontana” USGS 7.5- minute topographic map (Plate 2). The site occurs on the "Fontana" 7.5-minute USGS Quadrangle Map, Township 1 South, Range 5 West, Section 30. Projects proposed in this area that contain potentially suitable habitat to support sensitive biological resources must demonstrate to reviewing agencies that potential project-related impacts to sensitive biological resources are adequately addressed and mitigated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended. Accordingly, results of this habitat suitability evaluation are intended to provide the applicant and resource agencies with preliminary biological information required for planning and permitting decisions concerning the proposed project. Due to the inherent limitations of unseasonal or habitat-based data, definitive conclusions regarding the actual presence or absence of certain sensitive biological resources cannot necessarily be made in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-2021 Long Range Objectives
    © 2016-RIVERSIDE-CORONA RCD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PHOTO BY KERWIN RUSSELL © 2010-RIVERSIDE-CORONA RCD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PHOTO BY ARLEE MONTALVO © 2016-RIVERSIDE-CORONA RCD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PHOTO BY KERWIN RUSSELL RIVERSIDE-CORONA RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESOURCECONSERVATION RIVERSIDE-CORONA 2016-2021 Objectives Long Range © 2016-RIVERSIDE-CORONA RCD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PHOTO BY ARLEE MONTALVO © 2016-RIVERSIDE-CORONA RCD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PHOTO BY ARLEE MONTALVO Plan willbedevelopedforeachyearbasedonthislongtermactionplan. Annual Work An within willbeusedtoplanfutureprojects,programming,anddistrictoperations. The objectivesprovided Riverside-Corona ResourceConservationDistrict(RCRCD)(District). This documentisanassessmentoftheresourcemanagementandoutreachneeds 2016-2021 Objectives Long Range ©© 2014-RIVERSIDE-CORONA RCD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PHOTO BY KERWIN RUSSELL Riverside-Corona ResourceConservationDistrict 2 3 Long Range Objectives 2016-2021 Contents About the RCRCD 5 Programs 9 Assist Land Users with Resource Planning and Management 10 Conserve Habitat Land and Species 11 Foster Stewardship through Education, Citizen Science and Outreach 20 Goals and Objectives 28 GOAL 1—Assist Land Users with Resource Planning and Management 29 GOAL 2—Conserve Habitat Land and Species 31 GOAL 3—Foster Stewardship through Education, Citizen Science, and Outreach 34 GOAL 4—Help Create Sustainable Communities and Partnerships 39 GOAL 5—Conduct Programs Efficiently 41 Land Uses 45 Native Habitats 45 Urban and Surburban Areas 46 Agriculture
    [Show full text]
  • Explorations in Ethnobiology: the Legacy of Amadeo Rea
    Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea Edited by Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea Edited by Marsha Quinlan and Dana Lepofsky Copyright 2013 ISBN-10: 0988733013 ISBN-13: 978-0-9887330-1-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2012956081 Society of Ethnobiology Department of Geography University of North Texas 1155 Union Circle #305279 Denton, TX 76203-5017 Cover photo: Amadeo Rea discussing bird taxonomy with Mountain Pima Griselda Coronado Galaviz of El Encinal, Sonora, Mexico, July 2001. Photograph by Dr. Robert L. Nagell, used with permission. Contents Preface to Explorations in Ethnobiology: The Legacy of Amadeo Rea . i Dana Lepofsky and Marsha Quinlan 1 . Diversity and its Destruction: Comments on the Chapters . .1 Amadeo M. Rea 2 . Amadeo M . Rea and Ethnobiology in Arizona: Biography of Influences and Early Contributions of a Pioneering Ethnobiologist . .11 R. Roy Johnson and Kenneth J. Kingsley 3 . Ten Principles of Ethnobiology: An Interview with Amadeo Rea . .44 Dana Lepofsky and Kevin Feeney 4 . What Shapes Cognition? Traditional Sciences and Modern International Science . .60 E.N. Anderson 5 . Pre-Columbian Agaves: Living Plants Linking an Ancient Past in Arizona . .101 Wendy C. Hodgson 6 . The Paleobiolinguistics of Domesticated Squash (Cucurbita spp .) . .132 Cecil H. Brown, Eike Luedeling, Søren Wichmann, and Patience Epps 7 . The Wild, the Domesticated, and the Coyote-Tainted: The Trickster and the Tricked in Hunter-Gatherer versus Farmer Folklore . .162 Gary Paul Nabhan 8 . “Dog” as Life-Form . .178 Eugene S. Hunn 9 . The Kasaga’yu: An Ethno-Ornithology of the Cattail-Eater Northern Paiute People of Western Nevada .
    [Show full text]
  • Geocarpon Between March 1 and Geocarpon June 1
    be surveyed for geocarpon between March 1 and Geocarpon June 1. Geocarpon minimum Managing geocarpon requires restoring the native glade natural community. Promote land Guidelines for Landowners management activities that reduce woody vegetation and reduce competition from invasive Using Conservation Practices plants. Areas adjacent to existing geocarpon sites should be managed in such a way as to prevent the Missouri Department of introduction of non-native species or possible Conservation degradation of the native plant community. Common name ▪ Geocarpon A survey of the project area should be conducted by Scientific name ▪ Geocarpon minimum a trained biologist between March and June in order State status ▪ Endangered to identify occurring populations of this species. Federal status ▪ Threatened Limit construction activities to deeper soil areas, away from sandstone outcrops. Ecology Geocarpon is a small succulent plant that grows to Consider the balance between adverse and about 1.5” tall. It is an annual that germinates in beneficial practices when determining the overall November and overwinters as a tiny rosette. Plants effect of a conservation practice. bloom the following spring from mid-March to early May, and die 4 to 6 weeks later, after seed set. As the fruits mature, the plant turns from green to a striking magenta or “red wine” color. Geocarpon grows on Channel sandstone glades and outcrops in shallow sandy depressions, where not crowded out by deeper-rooted plants. In Missouri, geocarpon is found in Cedar, Dade, Polk, Greene, Lawrence, Henry and St. Clair Counties. Geocarpon can also be found in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. Photo Credit: Missouri Department of Conservation Reasons for Decline Geocarpon is threatened by conversion of glade Beneficial Practices habitat to non-native species such as cool season Using prescribed fire to remove accumulated pasture grasses.
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Biological Assessment And
    PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAMMTIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION FOR THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE’S ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOREST RESERVE PROGRAM Written by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office and Natural Resources Conservation Service Arkansas State Office August 25, 2006 Introduction This represents the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) programmatic biological opinion (PBO) regarding the Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP) in Arkansas. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Service have jointly agreed to a streamlined consultation process whereby a biological assessment and biological opinion are jointly developed. Therefore, this document serves as the NRCS’ biological assessment and the Service’s biological opinion of the proposed HFRP and potential impacts to the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Geocarpon minimum (no common name), pondberry (Lindera melissifolia), pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), winged mapleleaf (Quadrula fragosa), and Ouachita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri) from activities associated with this program. The purpose of this PBA/PBO is to expedite consultations on proposed HFRP activities. This consultation document has been prepared pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (Act) (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1531 et seq.) and 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §402 of our interagency regulations governing section 7 of the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species nor destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Riverside County MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program Arthropod 2018 Pilot Study Protocol
    Arthropod 2018 Pilot Study Protocol Western Riverside County MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program Arthropod 2018 Pilot Study Protocol INTRODUCTION The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan covers two insect species, one of which is the federally endangered Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Delhi fly, Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis). To date, conservation of the species within the Plan Area has only occurred within the Jurupa Hills Core Area (Teledyne site); therefore, this site must be able to support a healthy population of the Delhi fly. We will collect data regarding the food resources of larval Delhi fly, a stage which may last two years or longer depending on availability of food, temperature, rainfall, and other environmental conditions (USFWS 1997). These data will be coupled with environmental data collected via an on-site HOBO weather station and vegetation surveys to infer the quality of the Delhi sand dunes at Teledyne (Hulton et al. 2013). This survey is designed to provide researchers with information that could be used to improve the Delhi fly’s habitat and resource availability. By randomly placing arthropod pitfall traps across the site, we can collect more specific data on co-occurring arthropod species than the Delhi sands flower-loving fly surveys can provide alone in order to meet the goals and objectives listed below. Goals and Objectives 1. Gather data regarding co-occurring arthropod species within Core Areas. a. Use the data to track the relative abundance and richness of the arthropod community, which the predacious Delhi fly larvae presumably utilize as a food resource (Ken Osborne, consultant, personal communication).
    [Show full text]
  • Forwarded Message
    Volume 11, Number 4 October-November-December 1997 Nancy R. Morin and Judith M. Unger, Co-editors FLORA OF NORTH AMERICA NEWS The Flora of North America office has moved from the basement of the Administration Building—our home for about nine years—to the first floor of the new Monsanto Center at the Missouri Botanical Garden. We have graduated from frosted basement windows, where we could only tell if it was cloudy or sunny, to a south-facing wall of nothing but windows, with blinds to keep out too much sunlight. Come visit us in our new home. All of our phone numbers and our fax number have remained the same. The P.O. Box number is the same (299) as well as the zip code of 63166-0299, but our street address for package deliveries is 4500 Shaw Blvd. with a zip code of 63110. * * * * * Dr. Gerald Bane Straley (1945-1997) On 11 December 1997, we lost a friend and colleague, Gerald B. Straley, following a long and courageous battle. His continual optimism during his illness was an inspiration to all who knew him. Gerald was a Regional Coordinator, member of the Editorial Committee, and author for the FNA project. Gerald grew up on the family farm in Virginia and this undoubtedly initiated his great interest in nature. He completed his B.Sc. degree in Ornamental Horticulture at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and then went to Ohio University to study for his M.Sc. in Botany. In 1976, he came to do his Ph.D. on Arnica at the University of British Columbia under the guidance of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Reprint Covers
    TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM Speleological Monographs, Number 7 Studies on the CAVE AND ENDOGEAN FAUNA of North America Part V Edited by James C. Cokendolpher and James R. Reddell TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM SPELEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS, NUMBER 7 STUDIES ON THE CAVE AND ENDOGEAN FAUNA OF NORTH AMERICA, PART V Edited by James C. Cokendolpher Invertebrate Zoology, Natural Science Research Laboratory Museum of Texas Tech University, 3301 4th Street Lubbock, Texas 79409 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] and James R. Reddell Texas Natural Science Center The University of Texas at Austin, PRC 176, 10100 Burnet Austin, Texas 78758 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] March 2009 TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM and the TEXAS NATURAL SCIENCE CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705 Copyright 2009 by the Texas Natural Science Center The University of Texas at Austin All rights rereserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including electronic storage and retrival systems, except by explict, prior written permission of the publisher Printed in the United States of America Cover, The first troglobitic weevil in North America, Lymantes Illustration by Nadine Dupérré Layout and design by James C. Cokendolpher Printed by the Texas Natural Science Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas PREFACE This is the fifth volume in a series devoted to the cavernicole and endogean fauna of the Americas. Previous volumes have been limited to North and Central America. Most of the species described herein are from Texas and Mexico, but one new troglophilic spider is from Colorado (U.S.A.) and a remarkable new eyeless endogean scorpion is described from Colombia, South America.
    [Show full text]