DOCSLIB.ORG

BASF Petition (19-317-01P)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BASF Petition (19-317-01P) BASF Petition (19-317-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Transgenic GMB151 Soybean Resistant to the Soybean Cyst Nematode and HPPD- inhibiting Herbicides OECD Unique Identifier: BCS-GM151-6 Draft Environmental Assessment June 2021 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale Park, MD 20737 In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... - V - LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... - VI - LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. - VII - 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................... - 1 - 2 SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................... - 5 - 3 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................. - 7 - 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................. - 23 - 4.1.1 Acreage and Regional Distribution of Soybean Production ............................... - 26 - 4.1.2 Agronomic Practices for Conventional Soybean Production ............................. - 26 - 4.1.3 Agronomic Practices for Organic Soybean Production ...................................... - 37 - 4.2.1 Soil Quality ......................................................................................................... - 38 - 4.2.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................. - 40 - 4.2.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... - 43 - 4.3.1 Animal Communities .......................................................................................... - 44 - 4.3.2 Plant Communities ............................................................................................. - 46 - 4.3.3 Gene Flow and Weediness ................................................................................. - 50 - 4.3.4 Microorganisms .................................................................................................. - 51 - i 4.3.5 Biodiversity ........................................................................................................ - 53 - 4.5.1 Public Health ...................................................................................................... - 54 - 4.5.2 Occupational Health and Worker Safety ............................................................ - 55 - 4.6.1 Domestic Economic Environment ...................................................................... - 56 - 4.6.2 International Trade Environment ........................................................................ - 57 - 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................. - 60 - 5.3.1 Locations and Acreage of Soybean Production: No Action Alternative ............ - 61 - 5.3.2 Locations and Acreage of Soybean Production: Preferred Alternative .............. - 61 - 5.3.3 Agronomic Practices: No Action Alternative ..................................................... - 62 - 5.3.4 Agronomic Practices: Preferred Alternative ....................................................... - 62 - 5.3.5 Soybean Seed Production: No Action Alternative ............................................. - 63 - 5.3.6 Soybean Seed Production: Preferred Alternative ............................................... - 63 - 5.3.7 Organic and Conventional Soybean Production: No Action Alternative ........... - 64 - 5.3.8 Organic and Conventional Soybean Production: Preferred Alternative ............. - 64 - 5.4.1 Soil Quality: No Action Alternative ................................................................... - 64 - 5.4.2 Soil Quality: Preferred Alternative ..................................................................... - 65 - 5.4.3 Water Resources: No Action Alternative ........................................................... - 65 - 5.4.4 Water Resources: Preferred Alternative ............................................................. - 66 - 5.4.5 Air Quality: No Action Alternative .................................................................... - 66 - 5.4.6 Air Quality: Preferred Alternative ...................................................................... - 67 - 5.5.1 Animal Communities: No Action Alternative .................................................... - 67 - 5.5.2 Animal Communities: Preferred Alternative ...................................................... - 67 - 5.5.3 Plant Communities: No Action Alternative ........................................................ - 68 - 5.5.4 Plant Communities: Preferred Action Alternative .............................................. - 68 - ii 5.5.5 Gene Flow and Weediness: No Action Alternative ............................................ - 69 - 5.5.6 Gene Flow and Weediness: Preferred Alternative ............................................. - 69 - 5.5.7 Microorganisms: No Action Alternative ............................................................ - 70 - 5.5.8 Microorganisms: Preferred Alternative .............................................................. - 70 - 5.5.9 Biodiversity: No Action Alternative ................................................................... - 71 - 5.5.10 Biodiversity: Preferred Alternative .................................................................... - 71 - 5.6.1 Animal Feed—No Action Alternative ................................................................ - 72 - 5.6.2 Animal Feed—Preferred Alternative .................................................................. - 73 - 5.7.1 Public Health: No Action Alternative ................................................................ - 73 - 5.7.2 Public Health: Preferred Alternative .................................................................. - 74 - 5.7.3 Worker Safety: No Action Alternative ............................................................... - 74 - 5.7.4 Worker Safety: Preferred Alternative ................................................................. - 75 - 5.8.1 Domestic Economic Environment: No Action Alternative ................................ - 76 - 5.8.2 Domestic Economic Environment: Preferred Alternative .................................. - 76 - 5.8.3 International Trade Economic Environment: No Action Alternative ................ - 76 - 5.8.4 International Trade Economic Environment: Preferred Alternative .................. - 77 - 6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................... - 78 - 7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................ - 85 - 7.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species and Critical Habitat ........................ - 88 - 6.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Animal Species and Critical Habitat ..................... - 89 - iii 8 CONSIDERATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, STANDARDS, AND TREATIES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................. - 94 - 8.1.1 National
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]
  • Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum
    Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum By Colorado Natural Heritage Program For The Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative June 2011 Colorado Wildlife Action Plan: Proposed Rare Plant Addendum Colorado Rare Plant Conservation Initiative Members David Anderson, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Rob Billerbeck, Colorado Natural Areas Program (CNAP) Leo P. Bruederle, University of Colorado Denver (UCD) Lynn Cleveland, Colorado Federation of Garden Clubs (CFGC) Carol Dawson, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Michelle DePrenger-Levin, Denver Botanic Gardens (DBG) Brian Elliott, Environmental Consulting Mo Ewing, Colorado Open Lands (COL) Tom Grant, Colorado State University (CSU) Jill Handwerk, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Tim Hogan, University of Colorado Herbarium (COLO) Steve Kettler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Andrew Kratz, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Sarada Krishnan, Colorado Native Plant Society (CoNPS), Denver Botanic Gardens Brian Kurzel, Colorado Natural Areas Program Eric Lane, Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) Paige Lewis, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Ellen Mayo, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitchell McGlaughlin, University of Northern Colorado (UNC) Jennifer Neale, Denver Botanic Gardens Betsy Neely, The Nature Conservancy Ann Oliver, The Nature Conservancy Steve Olson, U.S. Forest Service Susan Spackman Panjabi, Colorado Natural Heritage Program Jeff Peterson, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Josh Pollock, Center for Native Ecosystems (CNE) Nicola Ripley,
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Relationships and Historical Biogeography of Tribes and Genera in the Subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
    Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKBIJBiological Journal of the Linnean Society 0024-4066The Linnean Society of London, 2005? 2005 862 227251 Original Article PHYLOGENY OF NYMPHALINAE N. WAHLBERG ET AL Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2005, 86, 227–251. With 5 figures . Phylogenetic relationships and historical biogeography of tribes and genera in the subfamily Nymphalinae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) NIKLAS WAHLBERG1*, ANDREW V. Z. BROWER2 and SÖREN NYLIN1 1Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden 2Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331–2907, USA Received 10 January 2004; accepted for publication 12 November 2004 We infer for the first time the phylogenetic relationships of genera and tribes in the ecologically and evolutionarily well-studied subfamily Nymphalinae using DNA sequence data from three genes: 1450 bp of cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) (in the mitochondrial genome), 1077 bp of elongation factor 1-alpha (EF1-a) and 400–403 bp of wing- less (both in the nuclear genome). We explore the influence of each gene region on the support given to each node of the most parsimonious tree derived from a combined analysis of all three genes using Partitioned Bremer Support. We also explore the influence of assuming equal weights for all characters in the combined analysis by investigating the stability of clades to different transition/transversion weighting schemes. We find many strongly supported and stable clades in the Nymphalinae. We are also able to identify ‘rogue’
    [Show full text]
  • Hungerford's Crawling Water Beetle (Brychius Hungerfordi)
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle Brychius hungerfordi in Canada ENDANGERED 2011 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2011. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle Brychius hungerfordi in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. ix + 40 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Colin Jones for writing the status report on Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle (Brychius hungerfordi) in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Paul Catling, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Arthropods Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-953-3215 Fax: 819-994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur l’haliplide de Hungerford (Brychius hungerfordi) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle — Photo provided by S.A. Marshall, University of Guelph. ©Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. CW69-14/627-2011E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-18679-5 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – May 2011 Common name Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle Scientific name Brychius hungerfordi Status Endangered Reason for designation A probable early postglacial relict, this water beetle is endemic to the upper Great Lakes and is Endangered in the U.S.
    [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]
  • Invasive Aphids Attack Native Hawaiian Plants
    Biol Invasions DOI 10.1007/s10530-006-9045-1 INVASION NOTE Invasive aphids attack native Hawaiian plants Russell H. Messing Æ Michelle N. Tremblay Æ Edward B. Mondor Æ Robert G. Foottit Æ Keith S. Pike Received: 17 July 2006 / Accepted: 25 July 2006 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006 Abstract Invasive species have had devastating plants. To date, aphids have been observed impacts on the fauna and flora of the Hawaiian feeding and reproducing on 64 native Hawaiian Islands. While the negative effects of some inva- plants (16 indigenous species and 48 endemic sive species are obvious, other species are less species) in 32 families. As the majority of these visible, though no less important. Aphids (Ho- plants are endangered, invasive aphids may have moptera: Aphididae) are not native to Hawai’i profound impacts on the island flora. To help but have thoroughly invaded the Island chain, protect unique island ecosystems, we propose that largely as a result of anthropogenic influences. As border vigilance be enhanced to prevent the aphids cause both direct plant feeding damage incursion of new aphids, and that biological con- and transmit numerous pathogenic viruses, it is trol efforts be renewed to mitigate the impact of important to document aphid distributions and existing species. ranges throughout the archipelago. On the basis of an extensive survey of aphid diversity on the Keywords Aphid Æ Aphididae Æ Hawai’i Æ five largest Hawaiian Islands (Hawai’i, Kaua’i, Indigenous plants Æ Invasive species Æ Endemic O’ahu, Maui, and Moloka’i), we provide the first plants Æ Hawaiian Islands Æ Virus evidence that invasive aphids feed not just on agricultural crops, but also on native Hawaiian Introduction R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Time-Calibrated Phylogeny of the Butterfly Tribe Melitaeini
    UC Davis UC Davis Previously Published Works Title A time-calibrated phylogeny of the butterfly tribe Melitaeini. Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1h20r22z Journal Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 79(1) ISSN 1055-7903 Authors Long, Elizabeth C Thomson, Robert C Shapiro, Arthur M Publication Date 2014-10-01 DOI 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.06.010 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 79 (2014) 69–81 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev A time-calibrated phylogeny of the butterfly tribe Melitaeini ⇑ Elizabeth C. Long a, , Robert C. Thomson b, Arthur M. Shapiro a a Center for Population Biology and Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA b Department of Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA article info abstract Article history: The butterfly tribe Melitaeini [Nymphalidae] contains numerous species that have been the subjects of a Received 10 March 2014 wide range of biological studies. Despite numerous taxonomic revisions, many of the evolutionary Revised 22 May 2014 relationships within the tribe remain unresolved. Utilizing mitochondrial and nuclear gene regions, we Accepted 11 June 2014 produced a time-calibrated phylogenetic hypothesis for 222 exemplars comprising at least 178 different Available online 18 June 2014 species and 21 of the 22 described genera, making this the most complete phylogeny of the tribe to date. Our results suggest that four well-supported clades corresponding to the subtribes Euphydryina, Keywords: Chlosynina, Melitaeina, and Phyciodina exist within the tribe.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2009 an Analysis of Possible Risk To
    Project Title An Analysis of Possible Risk to Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Associated with Glyphosate Use in Alfalfa: A County-Level Analysis Authors Thomas Priester, Ph.D. Rick Kemman, M.S. Ashlea Rives Frank, M.Ent. Larry Turner, Ph.D. Bernalyn McGaughey David Howes, Ph.D. Jeffrey Giddings, Ph.D. Stephanie Dressel Data Requirements Pesticide Assessment Guidelines Subdivision E—Hazard Evaluation: Wildlife and Aquatic Organisms Guideline Number 70-1-SS: Special Studies—Effects on Endangered Species Date Completed August 22, 2007 Prepared by Compliance Services International 7501 Bridgeport Way West Lakewood, WA 98499-2423 (253) 473-9007 Sponsor Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. Saint Louis, MO 63167 Project Identification Compliance Services International Study 06711 Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 RD 1695 Volume 3 of 18 Page 1 of 258 Threatened & Endangered Plant Species Analysis CSI 06711 Glyphosate/Alfalfa Monsanto Study ID CS-2005-125 Page 2 of 258 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS The text below applies only to use of the data by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in connection with the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this study on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA §10(d)(1)(A), (B), or (C). We submit this material to the United States Environmental Protection Agency specifically under the requirements set forth in FIFRA as amended, and consent to the use and disclosure of this material by EPA strictly in accordance with FIFRA. By submitting this material to EPA in accordance with the method and format requirements contained in PR Notice 86-5, we reserve and do not waive any rights involving this material that are or can be claimed by the company notwithstanding this submission to EPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Kremmling Milkvetch Is of Economic Significance As an Indicator of Selenium and As a Astragalus Osterhoutii Potentially Toxic Plant in Rangelands (Brown and M.E
    Plant Guide are white and showy attracting a variety of KREMMLING pollinators. Primary pollinators include Apis mellifera, Bombus sp., and Osmia sp (Watrous and MILKVETCH Cane, 2011). Kremmling milkvetch is of economic significance as an indicator of selenium and as a Astragalus osterhoutii potentially toxic plant in rangelands (Brown and M.E. Jones Shrift, 1982). The plants have no known agricultural, Plant Symbol = ASOS economic, or other human uses known at this time. Contributed by: USDA NRCS Colorado Plant Status Materials Program The US Fish and Wildlife Service in (1988) cited the Kremmling milkvetch population size at approximately 25,000 to 50,000 individuals across 6 documented occurrences within its 15-mile range, predominately in Grand County, Colorado. Kremmling milkvetch, because of its limited range, small population size, and numerous threats, became listed as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act in 1989, with a recovery priority number of 5C, indicating a high degree of threat and low recovery potential, with conflict from development. A significant part of the known range and one population was lost when a new reservoir was filled on the Muddy Creek in 1995 (Center for Plant Conservation, 2011). Recently, a total estimated sum of 11,435 individuals were cited from 5 of the 6 documented occurrences, with one of the occurrences not observed in over 20 years (NatureServe, 2011). The NatureServe conservation status rank, an international effort which rank species on their “global” status, denotes Kremmling milkvetch as G1/S1- critically imperiled globally and statewide, because of its extreme rarity, makes it especially vulnerable to extinction.
    [Show full text]