DOCSLIB.ORG

For Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium 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
  • 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]
  • 2020 Mississippi Bird EA
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage and Threats of Damage Caused by Birds in the State of Mississippi Prepared by United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In Cooperation with: The Tennessee Valley Authority January 2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlife is an important public resource that can provide economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits to many people. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. When people experience damage caused by wildlife or when wildlife threatens to cause damage, people may seek assistance from other entities. The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program is the lead federal agency responsible for managing conflicts between people and wildlife. Therefore, people experiencing damage or threats of damage associated with wildlife could seek assistance from WS. In Mississippi, WS has and continues to receive requests for assistance to reduce and prevent damage associated with several bird species. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. Therefore, if WS provided assistance by conducting activities to manage damage caused by bird species, those activities would be a federal action requiring compliance with the NEPA. The NEPA requires federal agencies to have available
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell
    Vol. 77 Wednesday, No. 196 October 10, 2012 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Alabama Pearlshell, Round Ebonyshell, Southern Kidneyshell, and Choctaw Bean, and Threatened Species Status for the Tapered Pigtoe, Narrow Pigtoe, Southern Sandshell, and Fuzzy Pigtoe, and Designation of Critical Habitat; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:07 Oct 09, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10OCR2.SGM 10OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61664 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 10, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wildlife Service, Panama City Field available after taking into consideration Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama the economic impact, impact on Fish and Wildlife Service City, FL 32405; telephone 850–769– national security, and any other relevant 0552; facsimile 850–763–2177. impact of specifying any particular area 50 CFR Part 17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don as critical habitat. In total, [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2011–0050; Imm, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and approximately 2,404 kilometers (km) 4500030113] Wildlife Service, Panama City Field (1,494 miles (mi.)) of stream and river Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama channels in nine units in Bay, Escambia, RIN 1018–AW92 City, FL 32405; telephone 850–769– Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 0552; facsimile 850–763–2177. If you Walton, and Washington Counties, and Plants; Determination of use a telecommunications device for the Florida; and Barbour, Bullock, Butler, Endangered Species Status for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Crenshaw, Alabama Pearlshell, Round Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Listed Species of Mississippi - 2018
    MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISTED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI - 2018 - GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL STATE SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS ANIMALIA BIVALVIA UNIONOIDA UNIONIDAE ACTINONAIAS LIGAMENTINA MUCKET G5 S1 LE CYCLONAIAS TUBERCULATA PURPLE WARTYBACK G5 S1 LE ELLIPTIO ARCTATA DELICATE SPIKE G2G3Q S1 LE EPIOBLASMA BREVIDENS CUMBERLANDIAN COMBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE EPIOBLASMA PENITA SOUTHERN COMBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE EPIOBLASMA TRIQUETRA SNUFFBOX G3 S1 LE LE EURYNIA DILATATA SPIKE G5 S1 LE HAMIOTA PEROVALIS ORANGE-NACRE MUCKET G2 S1 LT LE MEDIONIDUS ACUTISSIMUS ALABAMA MOCCASINSHELL G2 S1 LT LE PLETHOBASUS CYPHYUS SHEEPNOSE G3 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA CURTUM BLACK CLUBSHELL GH SX LE LE PLEUROBEMA DECISUM SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL G2 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA MARSHALLI FLAT PIGTOE GX SX LE LE PLEUROBEMA OVIFORME TENNESSEE CLUBSHELL G2G3 SX LE PLEUROBEMA PEROVATUM OVATE CLUBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA RUBRUM PYRAMID PIGTOE G2G3 S2 LE PLEUROBEMA TAITIANUM HEAVY PIGTOE G1 SX LE LE PLEURONAIA DOLABELLOIDES SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL G2 S1 LE LE POTAMILUS CAPAX FAT POCKETBOOK G2 S1 LE LE POTAMILUS INFLATUS INFLATED HEELSPLITTER G1G2Q SH LT LE PTYCHOBRANCHUS FASCIOLARIS KIDNEYSHELL G4G5 S1 LE THELIDERMA CYLINDRICA CYLINDRICA RABBITSFOOT G3G4T3 S1 LT LE THELIDERMA METANEVRA MONKEYFACE G4 SX LE THELIDERMA STAPES STIRRUPSHELL GH SX LE LE MALACOSTRACA DECAPODA CAMBARIDAE CREASERINUS GORDONI CAMP SHELBY BURROWING CRAWFISH G1 S1 LE INSECTA COLEOPTERA SILPHIDAE NICROPHORUS AMERICANUS AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE G2G3 SX LE LE LEPIDOPTERA NYMPHALIDAE NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII MITCHELL’S SATYR G2T2 S1 LE LE 24 September 2018 Page | 1 Page | 1 Cite the list as: Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, 2018. Listed Species of Mississippi. Museum of Natural Science, Mississippi Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Kentaro Inoue Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy ______________________________________ David J. Berg, Director ______________________________________ Bruce J. Cochrane, Reader ______________________________________ Thomas O. Crist, Reader ______________________________________ Brian Keane, Reader ______________________________________ Richard C. Moore, Graduate School Representative ABSTRACT A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO CONSERVATION BIOLOGY: FROM POPULATION GENETICS TO EXTINCTION RISK ASSESSMENT FOR TWO SPECIES OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS by Kentaro Inoue Species conservation is an enormously complex task, which includes identification of phenomena that affect the loss, maintenance, and restoration of biodiversity and advocate for sustaining evolutionary processes that promote all levels of biological organization. Endangered species conservation requires a comprehensive approach to evaluate the conservation status of a given species, develop optimal recovery plans, and establish quantitative recovery criteria, in order to remove the necessity of protection. In my dissertation, I demonstrate such a comprehensive approach for evaluating the conservation status of two imperiled freshwater mussel species: Cumberlandia monodonta and Popenaias popeii, and providing guidance for development of species recovery plans. I characterized novel microsatellite markers for the species in order to assess population genetic diversity
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Reclassification and Species Boundaries in the Rediscovered
    Conserv Genet (2016) 17:279–292 DOI 10.1007/s10592-015-0780-7 RESEARCH ARTICLE Generic reclassification and species boundaries in the rediscovered freshwater mussel ‘Quadrula’ mitchelli (Simpson in Dall, 1896) 1,2 1 3 John M. Pfeiffer III • Nathan A. Johnson • Charles R. Randklev • 4 2 Robert G. Howells • James D. Williams Received: 9 March 2015 / Accepted: 13 September 2015 / Published online: 26 September 2015 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015 Abstract The Central Texas endemic freshwater mussel, genetic isolation within F. mitchelli, we do not advocate for Quadrula mitchelli (Simpson in Dall, 1896), had been species-level status of the two clades as they are presumed extinct until relict populations were recently allopatrically distributed and no morphological, behavioral, rediscovered. To help guide ongoing and future conserva- or ecological characters are known to distinguish them. tion efforts focused on Q. mitchelli we set out to resolve These results are discussed in the context of the system- several uncertainties regarding its evolutionary history, atics, distribution, and conservation of F. mitchelli. specifically its unknown generic position and untested species boundaries. We designed a molecular matrix con- Keywords Unionidae Á Species rediscovery Á Species sisting of two loci (cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and delimitation Á Bayesian phylogenetics and internal transcribed spacer I) and 57 terminal taxa to test phylogeography Á Fusconaia the generic position of Q. mitchelli using Bayesian infer- ence and maximum likelihood phylogenetic reconstruction. We also employed two Bayesian species validation meth- Introduction ods to test five a priori species models (i.e. hypotheses of species delimitation).
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Atlantic-Appalachian Region Endangered Species Act Update February 4, 2020
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Atlantic-Appalachian Region Endangered Species Act Update February 4, 2020 White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) (All States) White-nose syndrome has been confirmed in 33 states and 7 Canadian provinces. Additionally, the disease-causing fungus has been detected or is suspected to be present in Mississippi, Texas, Wyoming, North Dakota and California without confirmation of disease. The disease has been confirmed in at least 12 species of North American hibernating bats. The most recent addition to this list is the fringed myotis, a western species that has been exposed to the fungus since at least 2017. WNS Grants: o The FWS is reviewing ~40 submissions to the WNS Challenge which is seeking creative solutions to permanently disarm or weaken the fungus that causes white-nose syndrome. Total prize money available is $100,000. The WNS Challenge complements other efforts to fight white-nose syndrome. o The FWS is preparing to post notice for the WNS Grants to States and Tribes for 2020 in the coming months on www.Grants.gov. These funds are awarded to support states and tribes in implementing conservation actions for bats, fulfilling information needs of management entities, and implementing the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat). FWS is coordinating closely with USGS, Fort Collins Science Center to advance the goals and efforts of NABat. This coordination includes actions of an internal working group comprised of personnel working in Ecological Services, National Wildlife Refuges, and Science Applications, as well as facilitating bat monitoring efforts of non- FWS partners. FWS and NABat will achieve objectives using a combination of acoustic monitoring and counting of bats at summer and winter roosts across their ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Meso-Mammal Cave Use and North American Porcupine
    MESO-MAMMAL CAVE USE AND NORTH AMERICAN PORCUPINE HABITAT USE IN CENTRAL TEXAS A Dissertation by ANDREA ELISA MONTALVO Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Roel R. Lopez Committee Members, Nova J. Silvy Susan M. Cooper Rusty A. Feagin Head of Department, Michael P. Masser May 2017 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Copyright 2017 Andrea Elisa Montalvo ABSTRACT Meso-mammals are frequent cave visitors whose role in cave ecology is poorly understood. Understanding meso-mammal cave use is essential because caves are often managed for United States federally endangered, cave-obligate arthropods. My objectives for this study were to quantify annual meso-mammal cave visitation, determine behaviors of meso-mammals while in the caves, to develop multinomial regression to determine which variables best differentiate caves use by each species, and to determine how North American porcupines incorporate caves into their home range and habitat use. North American porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) were the most common cave visitor (64%), followed by raccoons (Procyon lotor; 14%) and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana; 10%). These results are noteworthy because central Texas caves were historically associated with raccoons and the additional nutrient inputs of North American porcupines could facilitate replacement of cave-obligate species by more competitive, or predatory, terrestrial species. Videos recorded in cave passages showed North American porcupines used caves for denning and grooming, while Virginia opossums used caves for feeding. The strongest multinomial model showed that, compared to North American porcupine, raccoons and Virginia opossums had greater odds of using caves with gates (2.36, 4.10, respectively) and pit entrances (6.11, 2.23, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Correlations Between Biotic Indices, Water Quality, And
    CURRENT STATUS OF ENDEMIC MUSSELS IN THE LOWER OCMULGEE AND ALTAMAHA RIVERS Jason M. Wisniewski, Greg Krakow, and Brett Albanese AUTHORS: Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Natural Heritage Program, Social Circle, GA 30025 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2005 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 25-27, 2005, at the University of Georgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. The Altamaha River Basin is well known to stable. As a result, the current status of the endemic among malacologists for its high percentage (ca. 40%) of mussels of the lower Altamaha River system was reviewed. endemic mussels. While little historical data exists to This review will provide information to policy makers and quantify changes in mussel abundance, many biologists regulatory agencies for developing conservation strategies believe that some species are declining. We assembled a that may affect the persistence and habitat quality of large database of mussel occurrence records from imperiled mussels. surveys conducted since 1967 and used this data to assess the current status of endemic mussels in the lower Ocmulgee and Altamaha rivers. The percentage of sites BACKGROUND occupied and the ranges of the Altamaha arcmussel, Altamaha spinymussel, and inflated floater have declined The Altamaha River Basin is the largest basin in Georgia over the past 10 years. The remaining endemic mussel (36,976 km2). Major tributaries in the basin include: the species occupy a large percentage of sites and appear to Ocmulgee, Oconee, and Ohoopee rivers (Figure 1). be stable. We recommend the development of a long- Although historic collections date back to the 1830’s, most term monitoring program for Altamaha basin endemic major surveys have been conducted since the late 1960's mussels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 11-2011 The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska Ellet Hoke Midwest Malacology, Inc., [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Hoke, Ellet, "The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) of Nebraska" (2011). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 2. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. The Freshwater Mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida) Of Nebraska Ellet Hoke Midwest Malacology, Inc. Correspondence: Ellet Hoke, 1878 Ridgeview Circle Drive, Manchester, MO 63021 [email protected] 636-391-9459 This paper reports the results of the first statewide survey of the freshwater mussels of Nebraska. Survey goals were: (1) to document current distributions through collection of recent shells; (2) to document former distributions through collection of relict shells and examination of museum collections; (3) to identify changes in distribution; (4) to identify the primary natural and anthropomorphic factors impacting unionids; and (5) to develop a model to explain the documented distributions. The survey confirmed 30 unionid species and the exotic Corbicula fluminea for the state, and museum vouchers documented one additional unionid species. Analysis of museum records and an extensive literature search coupled with research in adjacent states identified 13 additional unionid species with known distributions near the Nebraska border.
    [Show full text]