DOCSLIB.ORG

09-063-01P Corn EA Combined 4-10-12

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
09-063-01P Corn EA Combined 4-10-12 Stine Seed Request (09-063-01p) for an Extension of a Determination of Nonregulated Status to HCEM485 OECD Unique Identifier: HCEM485 Draft Environmental Assessment June 2012 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ..........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Request for an extension of nonregulated status ........................................................1 1.1.2 Purpose of Product .....................................................................................................1 1.1.3 Coordinated Framework Review ...............................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Need for APHIS Action ................................................................................3 1.3 Public Involvement ...........................................................................................................4 2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..............................................................................................6 2.1 Agricultural Production of Corn .......................................................................................6 2.1.1 Acreage and Area of Corn Production .......................................................................6 2.1.2 Agronomic Practices ..................................................................................................9 2.1.3 Corn Seed Production ..............................................................................................18 2.1.4 Organic Corn Production .........................................................................................19 2.2 Physical Environment .....................................................................................................20 2.2.1 Soil Quality ..............................................................................................................20 2.2.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................................23 2.2.3 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................26 2.2.4 Climate Change ........................................................................................................28 2.3 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................29 2.3.1 Animal Communities ...............................................................................................29 2.3.2 Plants Communities .................................................................................................31 2.3.3 Gene Flow and Weediness .......................................................................................36 2.3.4 Microorganisms .......................................................................................................38 2.3.5 Biodiversity ..............................................................................................................40 2.4 Human Health .................................................................................................................43 2.5 Animal Feed ....................................................................................................................46 2.6 Socioeconomic ................................................................................................................48 2.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment ...........................................................................48 2.6.2 Trade Economic Environment .................................................................................52 3 ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................57 3.1 No Action Alternative: Continuation as a Regulated Article .........................................57 3.2 Preferred Alternative: Approve the Request for an Extension of a Determination of Nonregulated Status to Maize Line HCEM485 from Corn Event GA21 ....................................................................................................................57 3.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected from Further Consideration ...............................58 3.3.1 Prohibit Any Maize Line HCEM485 Corn from Being Released ...........................58 3.3.2 Isolation Distance between Maize Line HCEM485 and Non-GE Corn Production and Geographical Restrictions ..............................................................58 i 3.3.3 Requirement of Testing for Maize Line HCEM485 ................................................59 3.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................59 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...........................................................................62 4.1 Scope of Analysis ............................................................................................................62 4.2 Agricultural Production of Corn .....................................................................................63 4.2.1 Acreage and Area of Corn Production .....................................................................63 4.2.2 Agronomic Practices ................................................................................................63 4.2.3 Corn Seed Production ..............................................................................................65 4.2.4 Organic Corn Production .........................................................................................66 4.3 Physical Environment .....................................................................................................67 4.3.1 Soil Quality ..............................................................................................................67 4.3.2 Water Resources ......................................................................................................68 4.3.3 Air Quality ...............................................................................................................69 4.3.4 Climate Change ........................................................................................................71 4.4 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................72 4.4.1 Animal Communities ...............................................................................................72 4.4.2 Plants Communities .................................................................................................74 4.4.3 Gene Flow and Weediness .......................................................................................77 4.4.4 Microorganisms .......................................................................................................78 4.4.5 Biodiversity ..............................................................................................................80 4.5 Human Health .................................................................................................................83 4.5.1 No Action Alternative: Human Health ....................................................................83 4.5.2 Preferred Alternative: Human Health ......................................................................85 4.6 Animal Feed ....................................................................................................................86 4.6.1 No Action Alternative: Animal Feed .......................................................................86 4.6.2 Preferred Alternative: Animal Feed .........................................................................87 4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts...................................................................................................88 4.7.1 Domestic Economic Environment ...........................................................................88 4.7.2 Trade
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]
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [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]
  • A Landscape-Based Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability for All Native Hawaiian Plants
    Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDscape-bASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMatE CHANGE VULNEraBILITY FOR ALL NatIVE HAWAIIAN PLANts Lucas Fortini1,2, Jonathan Price3, James Jacobi2, Adam Vorsino4, Jeff Burgett1,4, Kevin Brinck5, Fred Amidon4, Steve Miller4, Sam `Ohukani`ohi`a Gon III6, Gregory Koob7, and Eben Paxton2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service —Ecological Services, Division of Climate Change and Strategic Habitat Management, Honolulu, HI 96850 5 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawai‘i National Park, HI 96718 6 The Nature Conservancy, Hawai‘i Chapter, Honolulu, HI 96817 7 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Hawaii/Pacific Islands Area State Office, Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawai‘i Cooperative Studies Unit University of Hawai‘i at Hilo 200 W. Kawili St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 933-0706 November 2013 This product was prepared under Cooperative Agreement CAG09AC00070 for the Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey. Technical Report HCSU-044 A LANDSCAPE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY FOR ALL NATIVE HAWAIIAN PLANTS LUCAS FORTINI1,2, JONATHAN PRICE3, JAMES JACOBI2, ADAM VORSINO4, JEFF BURGETT1,4, KEVIN BRINCK5, FRED AMIDON4, STEVE MILLER4, SAM ʽOHUKANIʽOHIʽA GON III 6, GREGORY KOOB7, AND EBEN PAXTON2 1 Pacific Islands Climate Change Cooperative, Honolulu, HI 96813 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center, Hawaiʽi National Park, HI 96718 3 Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Hawaiʽi at Hilo, Hilo, HI 96720 4 U.
    [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]
  • A Synopsis of the Genus Hoffmannseggia (Leguminosae)
    NUMBER 9 SIMPSON AND ULIBARRI: SYNOPSIS OF HOFFMANNSEGGIA 7 A SYNOPSIS OF THE GENUS HOFFMANNSEGGIA (LEGUMINOSAE) Beryl B. Simpson and Emilio A. Ulibarri Integrative Biology and Plant Resources Center, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA Instituto de Botanica Darwinion, IBODA-CONICET, C.C. 22 (Labarden 200), Bl642HYD San Isidro, Argentina Abstract: The genus Hoffmannseggia Cav., now recognized as a monophyletic group distinct from Caesalpinia and Pomaria, consists of 22 species and is amphitropically distributed between North and South America, with 11 species in arid and semi-arid areas of the southwestern USA and adjacent Mexico, and 12 species in southern South America. Recent publications have provided a revision of Hoffmannseggia for North America, a resolved phylogeny, and an analysis of the biogeography of the genus, but there is to date no treatment of all of the taxa. Here we present a key to the genus and its closest relatives, a key to all of the recognized taxa, typification, distributional data for each species, selected specimens examined for the South American taxa, and notes where appropriate. Keywords: Caesalpinia, Caesalpinieae, Hoffmannseggia, Fabaceae, Leguminosae. Resumen: El genero Hoffmannseggia, actualmente reconocido como un grupo mo­ nofiletico distinto de Caesalpinia y Pomaria dentro de Caesalpinieae, consiste en 22 especies con distribuci6n anfitropical en zonas semi-aridas y aridas de Norte y Su­ damerica. De ellas, 11 especies se encuentran en el sudoeste de U. S. A. y norte de Mexico; las otras 12 en America del Sur, creciendo en las zonas andinas y semide­ serticas del Peru, Bolivia, Chile y Argentina. Recientes publicaciones por uno de los autores (B.
    [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]
  • Astelia Waialealae
    Plants Pa‘iniu Astelia waialealae SPECIES STATUS: Federally Listed as Candidate Medeiros, © Smithsonian 2005 Genetic Safety Net Species IUCN Red List Ranking – Critically Endangered (CR D) Hawai‘i Natural Heritage Ranking‐ Critically Imperiled (G1) Endemism – Kaua‘i SPECIES INFORMATION: Astelia waialealae is a terrestrial rhizomatous perennial herb in the astelia family (Asteliaceae). Plants are short, from a bulbous caudex. Leaves silvery, 12‐20 cm long, and wooly pubescent. Scapes 10‐20 cm long. Racemes 3‐7 cm long. Tepals dark purple and densely pubescent. DISTRIBUTION: Astelia waialealae is endemic to the montane bogs on the central plateau of the island of Kaua‘i. Found only within the Alaka‘i Swamp, Sincock Bog, and Wai‘ale‘ale Summit areas. ABUNDANCE: Three subpopulations are known; with a total population of probably less than ten mature individuals in the Alaka‘i Swamp. The populations have shown a drastic decline over the past ten years. LOCATION AND CONDITION OF KEY HABITAT: Montane bogs located within wet forests in the cloud zone on the central plateau of the island of Kaua‘i. All three of the current occurrences are in Alaka‘i Swamp Wilderness Preserve. THREATS: In the past, most of the bogs have been heavily damaged by feral pigs; Competition with alien plants for light, space, and water; Fire; Small number of remaining individuals. CONSERVATION ACTIONS: The goals of conservation actions are not only to protect current populations, but also to establish further populations to reduce the risk of extinction. In addition to common statewide and island conservation actions, specific actions include: All remaining individuals are within small fenced, weeded, and monitored areas; Augment wild populations and establish new populations in safe harbors; Establish secure ex‐situ stocks with complete representation of remaining individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean
    ` NONTRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS REGULATORY GUIDE FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean Acknowledgements Several branches and many individuals of the U.S. Government contributed to the preparation and review of this guide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends special recognition to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Technical Services Project (LACTECH II) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which planned the document, managed its development, and provided overall technical direction. EPA wishes to thank Robert Kahn and Robert Bailey, LACTECH II Project Officers, who designed, promoted, and disseminated the contents of this guide; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for special assistance and collaboration; and all the U.S. Government branches cited herein. Initial funding for the preparation of this guide was provided by the Bureau for Latin America NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries iii and the Caribbean, USAID, to the LACTECH II Project. Additional funding for the editing, Spanish translation, and dissemination was provided by the AID/EPA Central American Project and the AID/EPA Mexico Project, both based at EPA. iv NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries Contents Page
    [Show full text]
  • News Release Pacific Islands External Affairs Office
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service News Release Pacific Islands External Affairs Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-511 Box 50187, Honolulu, HI 96850 Phone: 808 792-9530 Fax: 808 792-9583 For Release: March 10, 2010 PIEA-10-04 Contact: Ken Foote, 808 792 9535 or 282 9442 RO-10-34 48 Kaua‘i Species Protected Under Endangered Species Act 45 Plants, 2 Birds, 1 Insect Listed in Ecosystem-based Approach WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced a major step forward in conserving imperiled animals and ecosystems on the Hawaiian island of Kaua‘i, adding 48 species unique to the island to the federal list of threatened and endangered species. Salazar also announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act, is designating critical habitat on the island for 47 of these species. “Our action today reflects President Obama’s determination to base conservation decisions on the best available science and to move quickly to protect our nation’s wildlife and ecosystems when, like the fragile ecosystem of Kaua‘i, they are at risk,” said Salazar. The designation of critical habitat for the 47 species represents a significant step forward from the Service’s past efforts to designate critical habitat for threatened and endangered species in Hawai‘i. Previous critical habitat designations created an overlapping patchwork of habitat that did not maximize conservation efforts for these species and Hawai‘i’s natural communities. “The ecosystem-based approach that our scientists used to make this decision represents an efficient and innovative model for conserving imperiled species and their habitats,” said Salazar.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Monday, November 9, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:08 Nov 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR October 1, 2008, through September 30, for public inspection by appointment, 2009. during normal business hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status appropriate Regional Office listed below information that may be available for in under Request for Information in 50 CFR Part 17 the 249 candidate species identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0075; MO- this CNOR. information we receive will be available 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on at the Branch of Candidate this Candidate Notice of Review at any Conservation, Arlington, VA (see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. address above). and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Notice of Review That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Background Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Petitions; Annual Description of index.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Slender Rush-Pea (Hoffmannseggia Tenella): Conservation Through Management— a Case Study
    Slender Rush-pea (Hoffmannseggia tenella): Conservation through Management— A Case Study Ashley C. McCloughan Dr. Sandra Rideout-Hanzak Dr. David B. Wester Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Department of Animal, Rangelands and Wildlife Sciences Texas A&M University - Kingsville Slender rush-pea • Herbaceous perennial legume with a woody taproot (Fabaceae) • Leaves are alternate • Bipinnately compound with 5 to 7 leaflets • Stem is often reddish • Flowers are yellow-pink to orangish-red J.M. Poole et al. 2007. Rare plants of Texas Background • Remnant short-grass prairie sites – blackland clays – coarser texture and lighter colored than a clay • Often found with South Texas ambrosia (Ambrosia cheiranthifolia) • Endemic to Kleberg and Nueces counties Current status • Endangered (1985)— without critical habitat • Destruction of native Gulf-coastal prairies – Agricultural expansion – Invasive grasses • Kleberg bluestem (Dicanthium annulatum) • Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Known populations Recovery Plan (1988) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • “to develop and implement habitat management practices that will enhance the populations” • No peer-reviewed literature on experimental studies Study Area • St. James Cemetery • Bishop, TX (southern Nueces County) • 8 ha (20 ac) • Victoria Clay, 1 to 3 % slope • Adjacent to Carreta Creek • Jackie Poole (1985) • Largest population known to exist • Invaded by Kleberg bluestem and bufflegrass (Cenchrus ciliaris) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Objectives • Quantifying competitive effects between slender rush-pea and invasive grasses • Assess the effects of prescribed burning on slender rush-pea individuals – Rx fire has low cost and mimics natural occurrence – Effects on slender rush-pea have not been studied at all • Ecological neighborhood assessment Methodology • Treatments 1. weed-eat neighboring plants 2.
    [Show full text]