DOCSLIB.ORG

Verdeca 011718 Draft Hi Yield Soy Bean EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Verdeca 011718 Draft Hi Yield Soy Bean EA Verdeca Petition (17-223-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium OECD Unique Identifier: IND-00410-5 Final Environmental Assessment May 2019 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 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. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... - iv - LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... - v - LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................... - vi - 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................... - 1 - 1.1.1 Coordinated Framework for Regulating Biotechnology ........................... - 2 - 1.1.2 Purpose and Need for Aphis Action ........................................................ - 3 - 1.2.1 Public Involvement for Petition 17-223-01p ............................................. - 3 - 1.2.2 Public Involvement for the Draft PPRA and Draft EA for Petition 17- 223-01p Soybean .................................................................................... - 4 - 2 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. - 6 - 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. - 19 - 3.1.1 Acreage and Regional Distribution of Soybean Production ................... - 22 - 3.1.2 Agronomic Practices for Soybean Production ....................................... - 23 - 3.1.3 Soybean Seed Production ..................................................................... - 33 - 3.1.4 Organic Soybean Production ................................................................ - 34 - 3.2.1 Soil Quality ............................................................................................ - 35 - 3.2.2 Water Resources ................................................................................... - 38 - 3.2.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................. - 40 - 3.3.1 Animal Communities ............................................................................. - 42 - 3.3.2 Plant Communities ................................................................................ - 43 - i 3.3.3 Gene Flow and Weediness ................................................................... - 47 - 3.3.4 Microorganisms ..................................................................................... - 48 - 3.3.5 Biodiversity ............................................................................................ - 50 - 3.5.1 Public Health ......................................................................................... - 51 - 3.5.2 Occupational Health and Worker Safety ............................................... - 53 - 3.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment .......................................................... - 54 - 3.6.2 International Trade Economic Environment .......................................... - 56 - 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................. - 60 - 4.3.1 Acreage and Regional Distribution (Locations) of Soybean Production ............................................................................................. - 61 - 4.3.2 Agronomic Practices ............................................................................. - 63 - 4.3.3 Soybean Seed Production ..................................................................... - 64 - 4.3.4 Organic and Non-GE Soybean Production ............................................ - 65 - 4.4.1 Soil Quality ............................................................................................ - 66 - 4.4.2 Water Resources ................................................................................... - 67 - 4.4.3 Air Quality .............................................................................................. - 68 - 4.5.1 Animal Communities ............................................................................. - 69 - 4.5.2 Plant Communities ................................................................................ - 70 - 4.5.3 Gene Flow and Weediness ................................................................... - 71 - 4.5.4 Microorganisms ..................................................................................... - 73 - 4.5.5 Biodiversity ............................................................................................ - 74 - 4.6.1 Animal Feed—No Action Alternative ..................................................... - 75 - 4.6.2 Animal Feed—Preferred Alternative ...................................................... - 75 - 4.7.1 Public Health ......................................................................................... - 76 - 4.7.2 Worker Safety........................................................................................ - 78 - 4.8.1 Domestic Economic Environment .......................................................... - 79 - ii 4.8.2 International Trade Economic Environment .......................................... - 80 - 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................... - 82 - 6 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................ - 90 - 6.1.1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Critical Habitat........... - 92 - 6.1.2 Threatened and Endangered Animal Species ....................................... - 93 - 7 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................ - 97 - 7.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ........................................... - 97 - 7.1.2 Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Air Act .............. - 97 - 7.1.3 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 As Amended ......... - 97 - 8 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................... - 104 - 9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. - 106 - APPENDIX A: Threatened or EndangeredSpecies in States Where Soybeans Are GROWN iii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Soybean Planted Acres by County for Selected States. ................................................... - 20 - Figure 2. U. S. Soybean Acreage: 1997-2017...................................................................................... - 21 - Figure 3. U.S. Soybean Yield: 1987-2017. ........................................................................................... - 22 - Figure 4. Schematic Diagram of the Development of Herbicide Resistance. .................................. - 44 - Figure 5. Soybean Planted Acreage in Major U.S. Production States in 2017. ................................ - 54 - Figure 6. Estimated Soybean Crop Value by U.S. Region in 2011. ................................................... - 55 - Figure 7. Value of U.S. Soybean Exports and Percent Increase: 2015 and 2016. ........................... - 57 - Figure 8. U.S. Soybean Export Volume and Percent Exported: 1980-2015. ..................................... - 58 - Figure 9. U.S. Soybean Export Volume and Percent of Global Market: 1980-2015. ........................ - 58 - iv LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Summary of Potential Impacts and Consequences of Alternatives. .................................... - 7 - Table 2. GE Soybean Varieties as a Percentage of the Total U.S. Soybean Crop. .......................... - 23 - Table 3. Nutrient Removal Rates for Commonly Grown U.S. Grain Crops. ..................................... - 27 - Table 4. Insecticides Most Commonly Applied to Soybean Acreage in 2017. ................................. - 29 - Table 5. Five-most Used Herbicides to Treat U.S. Soybean Acreage in 2017. ................................ - 31 - Table 6. Examples of Estimated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Flower Essential Oil of Dalea Mutisii Kunth (Fabaceae) from Ecuador: Chemical, Enantioselective, and Olfactometric Analyses
    plants Article The Flower Essential Oil of Dalea mutisii Kunth (Fabaceae) from Ecuador: Chemical, Enantioselective, and Olfactometric Analyses Gianluca Gilardoni 1,* , Mayra Montalván 1, Mariana Ortiz 1, Diego Vinueza 2 and José Vinicio Montesinos 1 1 Departamento de Química y Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja 1101608, Ecuador; [email protected] (M.M.), [email protected] (M.O.), [email protected] (J.V.M.) 2 Facultad de Ciencias, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo, Lope de Armendariz, Riobamba 060106, Ecuador; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] Received: 9 September 2020; Accepted: 8 October 2020; Published: 21 October 2020 Abstract: An essential oil was distilled with 0.25% yield from fresh flowers of Dalea mutisii Kunth, a native species mainly growing in the Andean region of Ecuador. A total of 50 compounds were identified, and most of them were quantified. The chemical composition was characterized by the prevalence of monoterpene hydrocarbons (>90%). Major components were α-pinene (42.9%), β-pinene (15.1%), β-phellandrene (12.6%), myrcene (6.7%), and (Z)-β-ocimene (5.4%). The essential oil was then submitted to enantioselective analysis, with a 2,3-diethyl-6-tert-butyldimethylsilyl-β-cyclodextrin-based capillary column. An enantiomeric excess was measured for (1R,5R)-(+)-α-pinene (91.6%), (1R,5R)-(+)-β-pinene (15.2%), (R)-( )-α-phellandrene − (4.8%), and (R)-( )-β-phellandrene (88.8%), whereas (R)-(+)-limonene was enantiomerically pure. − A gas chromatography–olfactometry (GC–O) analysis was additionally carried out on this pleasantly fragrant essential oil, following an aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) approach.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM Scientific Name: Dalea carthagenensis floridana Common Name: Florida prairie-clover Lead region: Region 4 (Southeast Region) Information current as of: 03/26/2013 Status/Action ___ Funding provided for a proposed rule. Assessment not updated. ___ Species Assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of the endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to the Candidate status. ___ New Candidate _X_ Continuing Candidate ___ Candidate Removal ___ Taxon is more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status ___ Taxon not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species ___ Range is no longer a U.S. territory ___ Insufficient information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to support listing ___ Taxon mistakenly included in past notice of review ___ Taxon does not meet the definition of "species" ___ Taxon believed to be extinct ___ Conservation efforts have removed or reduced threats ___ More abundant than believed, diminished threats, or threats eliminated. Petition Information ___ Non-Petitioned _X_ Petitioned - Date petition received: 05/11/2004 90-Day Positive:05/11/2005 12 Month Positive:05/11/2005 Did the
    [Show full text]
  • UPS-QT14380.Pdf
    UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA SALESIANA SEDE QUITO CARRERA: INGENIERÍA EN BIOTECNOLOGÍA DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES Trabajo de titulación previo a la obtención del título de: INGENIERA EN BIOTECNOLOGÍA DE LOS RECURSOS NATURALES TEMA: Evaluación de la actividad antimicrobiana y antiinflamatoria de flavonoides presentes en las flores de Dalea coerulea (L.f.) Schinz & Thell AUTOR: MARÍA ALEJANDRA DE LA CRUZ MORA NATHALIA JAZMIN ULLOA CURIZACA TUTOR: PACO FERNANDO NORIEGA RIVERA Quito, febrero del 2020 Quito, febrero del 2020 Cesión de derechos de autor Nosotros, María Alejandra De la Cruz Mora y Natalia Jazmin Ulloa Curizaca, con documento de identificación N° 1003233689 y 1722367586, manifestamos nuestra voluntad y cedemos a la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana la titularidad sobre los derechos patrimoniales en virtud de que somos autoras del trabajo de titulación intitulado: “Evaluación de la actividad antimicrobiana y antiinflamatoria de flavonoides presentes en las flores de Dalea coerulea (L.f.) Schinz & Thell”, mismo que ha sido desarrollado para optar por el título de: Ingeniera en Biotecnología de los Recursos Naturales, en la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, quedando la Universidad facultada para ejercer plenamente los derechos cedidos anteriormente. En aplicación a lo determinado en la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, en condición de autoras nos reservamos los derechos morales de la obra antes citada. En concordancia, suscribimos este documento en el momento que hacemos entrega del trabajo final en digital a la Biblioteca de la Universidad
    [Show full text]
  • Annex A, Draft EAA Storage Reservoir BA
    Annex A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act & ESA Compliance ANNEX A FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT & ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE Post Authorization Change Report March 2018 Annex A Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act & ESA Compliance This page intentionally left blank. Post Authorization Change Report March 2018 Annex A Biological Assessment Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description ................................................................................................2 1.2 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ...............................................................5 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................5 2 LISTED SPECIES REVIEW ....................................................................................7 2.1 Protected Species Observed ..................................................................................7 2.1.1 A-1 and A-2 Parcels and A-2 Expansion Area Project Site ......................7 2.1.2 Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) 2 and 3/4 .......................................9 2.1.3 Water Conservation Areas ........................................................................9 2.1.4 Downstream Changes in Water Levels .....................................................9 3 FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS ......................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 194 October 6, 2011 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Texas Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Fawnsfoot as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06OCP2.SGM 06OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary additional mussels from eastern Texas, Mowad, Texas State Administrator, U.S. the Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service (see amphichaenus) and Salina mucket (P. ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512–927– metnecktayi), were also included in this 50 CFR Part 17 3557; or by facsimile at 512–927–3592. petition. The petition incorporated all If you use a telecommunications device analyses, references, and documentation [FWS–R2–ES–2011–0079; MO 92210–0–0008 for the deaf (TDD), please call the provided by NatureServe in its online B2] Federal Information Relay Service database at http://www.natureserve.org/ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. into the petition. Included in and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NatureServe was supporting information regarding the species’ Petition To List Texas Fatmucket, Background Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, taxonomy and ecology, historical and Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 current distribution, present status, and Fawnsfoot as Threatened or U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis Powellii I
    Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii I. Lea, 1852) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office Conway, Arkansas 5-YEAR REVIEW Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii I. Lea, 1852) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete review Public notice of the initiation of this 5-year review was given in the Federal Register on September 8, 2006 (71 FR 53127-53129) and a 60 day comment period was opened. During the comment period, we did not receive any additional information about Arkansas fatmucket (Lampsilis powelllii) other than specific information from biologists familiar with the species. This review was completed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Arkansas Field Office. Arkansas fatmucket only occurs in the state of Arkansas. Literature and documents on file at the Arkansas Field Office were used for this review. All recommendations resulting from this review are a result of thoroughly reviewing the best available information on the Arkansas fatmucket and the reviewer’s expertise as one of the leading authorities on this species. Comments and suggestions regarding the review were received from Arkansas Field Office supervisors and peer reviews from outside the Service (see Appendix A). No part of the review was contracted to an outside party. B. Reviewers Lead Region – Southeast Region: Nikki Lamp, (404) 679-7118 Lead Field Office – Conway, Arkansas: Chris Davidson, (501) 513-4481 C. Background 1. Federal Register Notice initiating this review: September 8, 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of 14 Southeastern Species. (71 FR 53127) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Job Number 012318 Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 3 The Environmental Division reviewed the referenced project and has determined it falls within the definition of the Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion as defined by the ARDOT/FHWA Memorandum of Agreement on the processing of Categorical Exclusions. The following information is included for your review and, if acceptable, approval as the environmental documentation for this project. The proposed project would replace two bridges on Highway 7 over the Middle Fork of the Saline River in Garland County (Site 1) and Dry Run Creek in Perry County (Site 2), both within the boundary of the Ouachita National Forest. Total length of the project is approximately 0.5 mile. A project location map is enclosed. The existing roadway consists of two 11’ wide paved travel lanes with 2’ wide gravel shoulders at Site 1 and 2’ wide paved shoulders at Site 2. Existing right of way width averages 132’. Proposed improvements retain the two 11’ wide paved travel lanes, but increase the shoulder width to 6’ (2’ paved). The average proposed right of way width will be 187’ at Site 1 and 132’ at Site 2. Approximately 2.3 acres of additional permanent easement and 0.5 acre of temporary construction easement will be required for this project. To maintain traffic during construction, the Middle Fork Saline River bridge (Site 1) will be replaced using a temporary detour located 60’ east (downstream) of the existing bridge while the new bridge is constructed on the existing alignment. The Dry Run Creek bridge (Site 2) will be replaced approximately 80’ east (upstream) of the existing bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History and Population Biology of the State Special Concern Ouachita Creekshell, Villosa Arkansasensis (I
    Final Report Life History and Population Biology of the State Special Concern Ouachita Creekshell, Villosa arkansasensis (I. Lea 1862) Principal Investigator: Alan D. Christian, Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599. State University, AR 72467; mailto:[email protected]; Phone: (870)-972-3296; Fax: (870) -972-2638 Co-Principal Investigators: Jerry L. Farris, Ph.D., Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599. State University, AR 72467. John L. Harris, Ph. D., Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P. O. Box 599, State University, AR 72467; [email protected] ; Phone: (501) 569-2282 Graduate Student Researcher Sara E. Seagraves, Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599. State University, AR 72467 Submitted to: William R. Posey II Malacologist / Commercial Fisheries Biologist Arkansas Game and Fish Commission P.O. Box 6740 Perrytown, AR 71801 11 February 2007 Villosa arkansasensis Report This is the final report to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on the Life History and Population Biology of the state special concern Ouachita creekshell, Villosa arkansasensis (Lea 1862). The information within this report belongs to both the principle investigators and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and should not be used in publication without the consent of both parties. The purpose of this research is to: 1. Initiate studies of the status of the Ouachita creekshell mussel (Villosa arkansasensis) within its known range to include its relative abundance, population demographics, and habitat use; 2. Identify the suitable host fish for the Ouachita creekshell mussel (Villosa arkansasensis) to include timing of reproduction and identification of host fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Pollution Is Linked to US Listed Species Declines
    Overview Articles Nitrogen Pollution Is Linked to US Listed Species Declines DANIEL L. HERNÁNDEZ, DENA M. VALLANO, ERIKA S. ZAVALETA, ZDRAVKA TZANKOVA, JAE R. PASARI, STUART WEISS, PAUL C. SELMANTS, AND CORINNE MOROZUMI Downloaded from Nitrogen (N) pollution is increasingly recognized as a threat to biodiversity. However, our understanding of how N is affecting vulnerable species across taxa and broad spatial scales is limited. We surveyed approximately 1400 species in the continental United States listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA) to assess the extent of recognized N-pollution effects on biodiversity in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. We found 78 federally listed species recognized as affected by N pollution. To illustrate the complexity of tracing N impacts on listed species, we describe an interdisciplinary case study that addressed the threat of N pollution to California Bay http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/ Area serpentine grasslands. We demonstrate that N pollution has affected threatened species via multiple pathways and argue that existing legal and policy regulations can be applied to address the biodiversity consequences of N pollution in conjunction with scientific evidence tracing N impact pathways. Keywords: biodiversity, endangered species, eutrophication, nitrogen deposition iodiversity loss is a major environmental challenge, 1979, and 1982; the CAA was passed in 1963, with subse- Bwith a growing number of recognized drivers that quent amendments passed
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas' Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species
    Arkansas’ Federally Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) – Gray bats have long, glossy, light to dark brown fur, distinguishing them from other bat species. Gray bats inhabit caves year round. In the winter they hibernate in deep vertical caves found in the karst region of the southeastern US. During the summer they roost in caves near rivers so they have access to prey. They eat flying aquatic and terrestrial insects. They do not inhabit barns and houses. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis ) – The Indiana bat is a small relative of the gray bat. Their fur is dark-brown to black. They occur in the Ozark, Boston, and Ouachita Mountain region of Arkansas. Indiana bats hibernate in large numbers in only a few caves, making them vulnerable to disturbance. Females may roost in groups up to 100 bats or more, during the summer, under the loose bark of trees. They forage along the forest edge, preying on flying insects. They can eat up to half their body weight in insects each night. Cave and forest habitat destruction and modification were the primary threats that led to this species endangered status. Hibernating bats are dying in record numbers due to a new wildlife health crisis called white-nose syndrome. The affliction was first documented in New York during the winter of 2006-2007 and is rapidly spreading across the eastern US and afflicting numerous bat species, including the Indiana bat. It has not been documented in Arkansas yet, but could affect our bat populations within a couple of years. To learn more about white-nose syndrome go to http://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/esday.html Ozark Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) – The Ozark big-eared bat is a medium sized bat, with reddish fur, very large ears, and a prominent snout.
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No
    <PRORULE> DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0065] [MO 92210-0-0008-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of revised 12month finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service/USFWS), announce a revised 12month finding on a petition to list the upper Missouri River Distinct Population Segment (Missouri River DPS) of Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of all available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling as endangered or threatened is warranted. However, listing the upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling is currently precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12month finding, we will add the upper Missouri River DPS of Arctic grayling to our candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list this DPS as our priorities allow. We will make any determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed listing rule. In the interim, we will address the status of this DPS through our annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR). DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on [insert date of Federal Register publication]. ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2009-0065.
    [Show full text]