DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Foliar and Seed Treatment Uses of the New Fungicide Fluxapyroxad (BAS 700F)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Foliar and Seed Treatment Uses of the New Fungicide Fluxapyroxad (BAS 700F) Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Foliar and Seed Treatment Uses of the New Fungicide Fluxapyroxad (BAS 700F) Fluxapyroxad CAS 907204-31-3 PC Code 138009 5 March 2012 Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Catherine Aubee, Biologist Office of Pesticide Programs Chuck Peck, Environmental Fate Scientist Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) Environmental Risk Branch IV 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Reviewed by Mail Code 7507P Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Washington, DC 20460 Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor Marietta Echeverria, Branch Chief Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................5 2. Problem Formulation.........................................................................................................................................7 2.1. Nature of Chemical Stressor .....................................................................................................................7 2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution..............................................................................................................7 2.3. Receptors.....................................................................................................................................................8 2.4. Assessment Endpoints................................................................................................................................8 2.5. Conceptual Model ......................................................................................................................................8 2.5.1. Risk Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................8 2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram .........................................................................................................................9 2.6. Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................................12 2.6.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments ..............................................................................12 2.6.2. Identification of Data Gaps and Uncertainties .............................................................................12 2.6.3. Measures of Exposure .....................................................................................................................13 2.6.4. Measures of Effect...........................................................................................................................13 2.6.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects ..............................................................................................14 3. Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................14 3.1. Use Characterization ...............................................................................................................................14 3.2. Exposure Characterization......................................................................................................................15 3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport...............................................................................................15 3.2.2. Aquatic Exposure ............................................................................................................................18 3.2.3. Terrestrial Exposure .......................................................................................................................22 3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization........................................................................................................26 3.3.1. Ecotoxicity Data...............................................................................................................................26 3.3.1. Incident Reports ..............................................................................................................................42 4. Risk Characterization......................................................................................................................................42 4.1. Risk Estimation ........................................................................................................................................42 4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms..........................................................................................................................42 4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms.....................................................................................................................50 4.2. Risk Description and Conclusions ..........................................................................................................54 4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms..........................................................................................................................54 4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms.....................................................................................................................57 4.2.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................61 5. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern ..........................................................63 5.1. Action Area...............................................................................................................................................64 5.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk ..................................................................................................64 5.2.1. Probit Dose-Response Analysis ......................................................................................................66 5.2.2. Listed Species Occurrence with Proposed New Use of Fluxapyroxad........................................67 6. Additional Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths and Data Gaps...............71 7. References.........................................................................................................................................................73 Figure 2-1. Conceptual model for potential fluxapyroxad foliar treatment effects on aquatic organisms. .......10 Figure 2-2. Conceptual model for potential fluxapyroxad foliar treatment effects on terrestrial organisms. ..10 Figure 2-3. Conceptual model for potential fluxapyroxad seed treatment effects on aquatic organisms. .........11 Figure 2-4. Conceptual model for potential fluxapyroxad seed treatment effects on terrestrial organisms. ....11 Figure 3-1. Species sensitivity distribution for freshwater fish exposed to fluxapyroxad and its end-use products, based on registrant-submitted acute toxicity data.................................................................................27 Figure 4-1. Pome fruit peak EECs from spray drift only analysis. ......................................................................56 Figure 4-2. Corn, edible podded legume vegetables, oilseed crops (other), succulent shelled peas and beans, soybeans peak EECs from spray drift only analyses..............................................................................................56 -Page 2 of 150- Table 1.1. Potential effects to federally listed taxa associated with the proposed uses of fluxapyroxad. ............6 Table 3.1. Fluxapyroxad application rates and retreatment intervals for proposed uses...................................15 Table 3.2. Chemical properties and environmental fate parameters of fluxapyroxad. .......................................17 Table 3.3. Input parameters used in surface water exposure modeling (GENEEC). ..........................................18 Table 3.4. Input parameters used in ground water exposure modeling (SCIGROW). .......................................19 Table 3.5. Application scenarios and start dates for PRZM/EXAMS modeling..................................................20 Table 3.6. Tier I surface water EECs of fluxapyroxad (GENEEC). .....................................................................21 Table 3.7. EECs from spray drift only following fluxpyroxad applications (PRZM/EXAMS). .........................22 Table 3.8. Terrestrial EECs as food residues for animals exposed to fluxapyroxad as a result of the proposed foliar uses....................................................................................................................................................................24 Table 3.9. Terrestrial dose-based EECs for the range of seed treatment uses proposed for fluxapyroxad.......25 Table 3.10. EECs for non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on proposed uses of fluxapyroxad (TerrPlant). ................................................................................................................................................................26 Table 3.11. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to fluxapyroxad in the water column. ................................................................................29 Table 3.12. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to fluxapyroxad
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 144/Friday, July 30, 2021/Proposed
    40996 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 144 / Friday, July 30, 2021 / Proposed Rules Critical component/end Percentage of domestic Line item No. product content [List as necessary] the left side of the screen, under the the evaluation of the accuracy of the (End of clause) Document Type heading, check the current taxonomic interpretation. [FR Doc. 2021–15881 Filed 7–29–21; 8:45 am] Proposed Rule box to locate this Please include sufficient information BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P document. You may submit a comment with your submission (such as scientific by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ journal articles or other publications) to (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail allow us to verify any scientific or to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR commercial information you include. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0125, U.S. Fish and Please note that submissions merely Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 stating support for, or opposition to, the Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– action under consideration without 50 CFR Part 17 3803. providing supporting information, We request that you send comments although noted, will not be considered [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2020–0125; only by the methods described above. in making a determination, as section FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 212] We will post all comments on http:// 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that RIN 1018–BE41 www.regulations.gov. This generally determinations as to whether any means that we will post any personal species is an endangered or a threatened Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information you provide us (see species must be made ‘‘solely on the and Plants; Removing Adiantum Information Requested, below, for more basis of the best scientific and vivesii From the Federal List of information).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 2A. Recovery Plans 20100714
    Listed Species with Recovery Plans in the Appalachian LCC Area All listed species recovery plans may be found at http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/tess_public/TESSWebpageRecovery?sort=1 Common Name Scientific Name Plan Name Mammals Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus Appalachian Northern Flying Squirrels (2 spp.) squirrel coloratus Gray bat Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Ozark/Virginia Big-eared Bats (2 spp.) virginianus Birds Red‐cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, Second Revision Whooping crane Grus americana Whooping Crane Recovery Plan, Final Third Revision Reptiles Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Recovery Plan for the Bog Turtle, Northern Population Flattened musk turtle Sternotherus depressus Flattened Musk Turtle Amphibians Cheat Mountain salamander Plethodon nettingi Cheat Mountain Salamander Fishes Alabama cavefish Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni Alabama Cavefish Amber darter Percina antecella Conasauga Logperch/Amber Darter (2 spp.) Blackside dace Phoxinus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace Blue shiner Cyprinella caerulia Blue Shiner Bluemask darter Etheostoma spp Bluemask (=Jewel) Darter (Etheostoma (Doration) sp.) Recovery Plan Boulder darter Etheostoma wapiti Boulder Darter Cahaba shiner Notropis cahabae Cahaba Shiner Conasauga logperch Percina jenkinsi Conasauga Logperch/Amber Darter (2 spp.) Duskytail darter Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail Darter Common Name
    [Show full text]
  • Reporton the Rare Plants of Puerto Rico
    REPORTON THE RARE PLANTS OF PUERTO RICO tii:>. CENTER FOR PLANT CONSERVATION ~ Missouri Botanical Garden St. Louis, Missouri July 15, l' 992 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Center for Plant Conservation would like to acknowledge the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the W. Alton Jones Foundation for their generous support of the Center's work in the priority region of Puerto Rico. We would also like to thank all the participants in the task force meetings, without whose information this report would not be possible. Cover: Zanthoxy7um thomasianum is known from several sites in Puerto Rico and the U.S . Virgin Islands. It is a small shrub (2-3 meters) that grows on the banks of cliffs. Threats to this taxon include development, seed consumption by insects, and road erosion. The seeds are difficult to germinate, but Fairchild Tropical Garden in Miami has plants growing as part of the Center for Plant Conservation's .National Collection of Endangered Plants. (Drawing taken from USFWS 1987 Draft Recovery Plan.) REPORT ON THE RARE PLANTS OF PUERTO RICO TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements A. Summary 8. All Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands Species of Conservation Concern Explanation of Attached Lists C. Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands [A] and [8] species D. Blank Taxon Questionnaire E. Data Sources for Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands [A] and [B] species F. Pue~to Rico\Virgin Islands Task Force Invitees G. Reviewers of Puerto Rico\Virgin Islands [A] and [8] Species REPORT ON THE RARE PLANTS OF PUERTO RICO SUMMARY The Center for Plant Conservation (Center) has held two meetings of the Puerto Rlco\Virgin Islands Task Force in Puerto Rico.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2012 Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LIST OF THE RARE PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA 2012 Edition Edited by Laura E. Gadd, Botanist and John Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1601 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 www.ncnhp.org Table of Contents LIST FORMAT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 NORTH CAROLINA RARE PLANT LIST ......................................................................................................................... 10 NORTH CAROLINA PLANT WATCH LIST ..................................................................................................................... 71 Watch Category
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Expenditure Report (1998)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures Fiscal Year 1998 January 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii What is the purpose of this report? ....................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are reported?.......................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are not included?.................................................................................................... ii What are the expenditures reported for FY 1998?................................................................................ ii How does the 1998 expenditure report compare to other years? ......................................................... ii ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................................1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1 What does "Reasonably Identifiable Expenditures" mean? .........................................................1 What is not included in the report? ...............................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA-Pesticides; Dodine
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDESDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 044301 DP Barcode: D338148 Date: January 22, 2008 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Dodine Section 3 New Use on Peanuts and Bananas TO: Robert Westin, Product Manager Mary Waller, Team Leader Registration Division (7505P) FROM: Christopher J. Salice, P.h.D, Biologist Marietta Echeverria, Envronmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) REVIEWED BY: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the proposed label for the use of dodine (n-dodecylguanidine monoacetate; CAS 2439-10-3) and its end-use product SYLLIT® FL (39.6% dodine) fungicide on peanuts and bananas. The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of dodine on peanuts and bananas have the potential for direct adverse effects on listed and non-listed freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, listed and non-listed vascular and non-vascular plants, and listed and non-listed birds and mammals. Major data gaps are listed below. Without these data potential risk to the associated taxa can not be precluded: • Aquatic vascular plant toxicity data (850.4400) There is uncertainty regarding the potential chronic effects of dodine to saltwater invertebrates and fish since there are no toxicity data. Using acute-to-chronic ratios (ACR) from freshwater species to calculate chronic endpoints for the saltwater species, however, suggests that risks may be low.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final Environmental Document Project Name: Economic Development Grant – City of Fort Payne Project Number: 2014-27 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION OF A PAD-READY SITE AT FORT PAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK, CITY OF FORT PAYNE, ALABAMA DeKalb County, Alabama PREPARED BY: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY JULY 2014 For more information, please contact: Amy B. Henry, Manager NEPA Program and Valley Projects Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Phone: (865) 632-4045 Fax: (865) 632-3451 E-mail: [email protected] Page intentionally blank 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TVA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROPOSAL FOR PREPARATION OF A PAD- READY SITE AT FORT PAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK, CITY OF FORT PAYNE, ALABAMA DEKALB COUNTY, ALABAMA TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY JULY 2014 The Proposed Decision and Need The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to provide a grant to the Industrial Development Board of the City of Fort Payne (City) for the preparation of a 330,000 square feet (SF) (400 by 825 feet) earthen/gravel “pad ready” site and access road within a 39.6-acre parcel which has been zoned for “Light Industrial” activity. The “pad ready” site would be raised to an elevation of approximately 974 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL). The elevation of this “pad ready” site would eliminate the primary barrier to making the site eligible for industrial development. (see Attachment A). TVA contribution would be 50 percent of the estimated total cost. The primary purpose of this project is to prepare an industrial site in the Fort Payne Industrial Park in DeKalb County, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 44/Monday, March 9, 2009/Notices
    10064 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices Applicant: Copperhead Environmental (Rhus michauxii), bunched arrowhead March 24–26, 2009. The meeting is open Consulting, Inc., Paint Lick, (Sagittaria fasciculata), mountain sweet to the public. The meeting agenda will Kentucky, TE171516 pitcher-plant (Sarracenia jonesii), include reports from the Subcommittees The applicant requests amendment of largeflower skullcap (Scutellaria on Incentives, Legal, Science Tools & existing authorization to add authority montana), blue ridge goldenrod Procedures, and Synthesis, and to capture, handle, and release 31 (Solidago spithamaea), Virginia spirea discussion of the draft species of freshwater mussel for (Spiraea virginiana), Cooley’s Recommendations to the Secretary. presence surveys throughout the species meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi), and DATES: The meeting is scheduled for ranges in the eastern United States. running buffalo clover (Trifolium March 24–26, 2009, from 11 a.m. to stoloniferum) to develop and maintain Applicant: South Carolina Parks, 5:30 p.m. on March 24, 8 a.m. to 5:30 germ plasm and propagated specimens Recreation and Tourism, Columbia, p.m. on March 25, and 8 a.m. to 3:30 of plants collected from throughout South Carolina TE207117 p.m. on March 26. North Carolina, South Carolina, The applicant requests authorization ADDRESSES: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Rooms to harass, inspect nest cavities, and West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland. conduct other management activities 200 A & B, Arlington, VA 22203. For Applicant: International Carnivorous with the red-cockaded woodpecker more information, see ‘‘Meeting Plant Society, Pinole, California, (Picoides borealis) throughout South Location Information.’’ TE061005 Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Federally-Listed Wildlife Species
    Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs March 2014 Federally-Listed Wildlife Species Ten federally-endangered (E) or threatened (T) wildlife species are known to occur on or immediately adjacent to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (hereafter, the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs). These include four small mammals, two terrestrial invertebrates, three freshwater mussels, and one fish (Table 1). Additionally, two endangered species historically occurred on or adjacent to the Forest, but are considered extirpated, or absent, from North Carolina and are no longer tracked by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Table 1). Table 1. Federally-listed wildlife species known to occur or historically occurring on or immediately adjacent to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Small Mammals Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered squirrel Gray myotis Myotis grisescens Endangered Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Endangered virginianus Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Endangered* Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Terrestrial Invertebrates Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered noonday globe Patera clarki Nantahala Threatened Freshwater Mussels Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered Little-wing pearlymussel Pegius fabula Endangered Cumberland bean Villosa trabilis Endangered Spotfin chub Erimonax monachus Threatened Species Considered Extirpated From North Carolina American burying beetle Nicrophorous americanus Endangered Eastern cougar Puma concolor cougar Endangered *Pending final listing following the 12-month finding published in the Federal Register, October 2, 2013. Additionally, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is addressing petitions to federally list two aquatic species known to occur on or immediately adjacent to Nantahala and Pisgah NFs: eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis), a large aquatic salamander, and sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma species 2), a fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Theecological Systemsof Puerto Rico
    United States Department of Agriculture Guide to the Forest Service Ecological Systems International Institute of Tropical Forestry of Puerto Rico General Technical Report IITF-GTR-35 June 2009 Gary L. Miller and Ariel E. Lugo The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (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, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Gary L. Miller is a professor, University of North Carolina, Environmental Studies, One University Heights, Asheville, NC 28804-3299.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Vascular Plants
    !Yt q12'5 3. /3<L....:::5_____ ,--- _____ Y)Q.'f MUSEUM BULLETIN NO.4 -------------- Copy I NATIVE VASCULAR PLANTS Endangered, Threatened, Or Otherwise In Jeopardy In South Carolina By Douglas A. Rayner, Chairman And Other Members Of The South Carolina Advisory Committee On Endangered, Threatened And Rare Plants SOUTH CAROLINA MUSEUM COMMISSION S. C. STATE LIR7~'· '?Y rAPR 1 1 1995 STATE DOCU~ 41 ;::,·. l s NATIVE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR OTHERWISE IN JEOPARDY IN SOUTH CAROLINA by Douglas A. Rayner, Chairman and other members of the South Carolina Advisory Committee on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants March, 1979 Current membership of the S. C. Committee on Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants­ Subcommittee on Criteria: Ross C. Clark, Chairman (1977); Erskine College (taxonomy and ecology) Steven M. Jones, Clemson University (forest ecology) Richard D. Porcher, The Citadel (taxonomy) Douglas A. Rayner, S.C. Wildlife Department (taxonomy and ecology) Subcommittee on Listings: C. Leland Rodgers, Chairman (1977 listings); Furman University (taxonomy and ecology) Wade T. Batson, University of South Carolina, Columbia (taxonomy and ecology) Ross C. Clark, Erskine College (taxonomy and ecology) John E. Fairey, III, Clemson University (taxonomy) Joseph N. Pinson, Jr., University of South Carolina, Coastal Carolina College (taxonomy) Robert W. Powell, Jr., Converse College (taxonomy) Douglas A Rayner, Chairman (1979 listings) S. C. Wildlife Department (taxonomy and ecology) INTRODUCTION South Carolina's first list of rare vascular plants was produced as part of the 1976 S.C. En­ dangered Species Symposium by the S. C. Advisory Committee on Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants, 1977. The Symposium was a joint effort of The Citadel's Department of Biology and the S.
    [Show full text]